AdClem
23-Jul-2020, 05:42
I posted this earlier, over at APUG, but would really appreciate any insight that could be shared here:
I hope this doesn't seem like one of those 'which lens is best' threads. I know the answer to that: the difference may be evident in theory, but negligible in practice; more is attributable to other factors, not least the care and skill of the photographer, etc.
However,:o, is the extra coverage of the 75° ‘L’ version of this lens superfluous on a Linhof Master Technika, as the earlier 72° ‘MC’ exceeds the extent of the camera’s movements anyway? Or could a combination of movements like shift plus swing, say, stretch it too far? I have read that the extra ‘circle’ is more of illumination rather than sharpness anyway but, presumably, the extent of sharpness is nevertheless greater. I should add that I have a Sinar P2, too, which will test the limitations of any lens.
In many ways, this is the more important question: on a Linhof 'Select' Apo-Symmar lens, with the signature engraved on the outside rim of the rear lens, ought it to be on the front too? If it isn't, does that suggest a composite lens that has been assembled from the front of one lens, and the rear of another? I know that this might require pretty arcane knowledge, but I am trying to decide on the authenticity of a particular lens, and I know that this is one of the corners of the internet where someone is most likely to know.
Many thanks.
Adam.
I hope this doesn't seem like one of those 'which lens is best' threads. I know the answer to that: the difference may be evident in theory, but negligible in practice; more is attributable to other factors, not least the care and skill of the photographer, etc.
However,:o, is the extra coverage of the 75° ‘L’ version of this lens superfluous on a Linhof Master Technika, as the earlier 72° ‘MC’ exceeds the extent of the camera’s movements anyway? Or could a combination of movements like shift plus swing, say, stretch it too far? I have read that the extra ‘circle’ is more of illumination rather than sharpness anyway but, presumably, the extent of sharpness is nevertheless greater. I should add that I have a Sinar P2, too, which will test the limitations of any lens.
In many ways, this is the more important question: on a Linhof 'Select' Apo-Symmar lens, with the signature engraved on the outside rim of the rear lens, ought it to be on the front too? If it isn't, does that suggest a composite lens that has been assembled from the front of one lens, and the rear of another? I know that this might require pretty arcane knowledge, but I am trying to decide on the authenticity of a particular lens, and I know that this is one of the corners of the internet where someone is most likely to know.
Many thanks.
Adam.