PDA

View Full Version : 12 vs. 14 inch...



cobalt
21-Nov-2006, 15:35
Hi.
Just acquired a 14 inch Ektar, and let go a 300mm Fuji W. I find the focal lenth difference significant. Am I just a loon, or what? Then again, I just prefer the Ektars for some reason. Now I am thinking of buying yet another...this time a 12 inch. Anybody own and use both a 12 and 14? Or am I the only one who seems to think the 2 inch diff in focal length matters...?

Ole Tjugen
21-Nov-2006, 15:59
You are not crazy. I own and use a bewildering number of lenses, including (but not limited to) 65, 80, 90, 105, 120, 121, 135, 150, 160, 165, 180, 205, 210, 240, 270, 300 and 355mm. They are all different.

Or maybe it's just that I'm even crazier?

Christopher Perez
21-Nov-2006, 16:03
You may not be any crazier than the rest of us. :)

Yes, I too have found a vast difference between 300mm and 360mm on 8x10. Yet, I carry either a 360/240 lens combo, or just the 8x10 with a 300. Strange, isn't it?

John Kasaian
21-Nov-2006, 16:18
Guilty! I have a 14" Commercial Ektar and a 12" Dagor. I love 'em both. I could probably do quite nicely with one or the other but darn it, I wouldn't want to part with either lens! IMHO with vintage glass it is nice to have a back up lens is a similar focal length--you never know when one of your shutters will need to go in for a cla

Cheers!

Oren Grad
21-Nov-2006, 17:36
I'm with Ole. In use on 8x10, a 240 feels distinctly different from a 270, which feels distinctly different from a 300, which feels distinctly different from a 360, which feels...

Steve Hamley
21-Nov-2006, 18:21
I'm with Ole and oren, and Like John, I have a 14" Commercial Ektar and a 12" Dagor. I don't think the focal lengths are interchangeable, nor do I think a 10-3/4" (270mm) is interchangeable with a 12" lens.

Steve

Dave_B
21-Nov-2006, 20:05
No matter how bad your affliction, others have it worse. I use 65, 75, 90, 105, 120, 121, 135, 150, 180, 200, 210, 240, 270, 300, 360, 450, 500, 600 and 800 mm lenses. There are times when each one seems to be perfect and the ones around it are too long or too short. You have started down a path from which there is no escape. The good news is that your estate will be able to recover most of the money you have invested in your lenses when you have gone to meet your maker. Your spouse will suffer but your children will benefit.
Cheers,
Dave B.

Dan Fromm
22-Nov-2006, 04:25
Dave, Ole, thanks (?) for the inspiring news.

Here I am, happily carrying and shooting 38, 47, 65, 80, 4", 127, 135, 150, 180, 210, 240, 10.16", 300, 360, 420, and 480; with a squishy decision to leave the 44, 58, 3", 95, 105, 120, 130, 138, 160, 8", 12", and 450 at home; and semi-convinced that there are no gaps between focal lengths that need to be filled. Yes, the 38 doesn't cover 2x3 and ought to be replaced or supplemented by one that will. And there you two are, suggesting that I would benefit from having still more focal lengths. You may be right, but you're evil tempters. Any recommendations?

With my Nikon kit, I make do with 24, 55, 105, 200, 400, and 700. Carrying it makes me feel slightly deprived.

Dave, on a slightly different topic, I'm not sure that after I've died my rejoicing widow will be able to realize much on much of my gear. I don't think its safe to invest in camera gear with the hope of breaking even, let alone making money, over the long term. Buy low, sell high as soon as possible, i.e., quick arbitrage, can sometimes still be done, but buy and hold looks very iffy.

Cheers,

Dan

Struan Gray
22-Nov-2006, 06:56
I'm not sure if I am a fox or a hedgehog, or simply incapable of buying rationally, but I have three 240 mm lenses, as well as a 210 and a 270. Then there's the 12", the 360 mm, the 420, the 440, the two 18" and the 480. Not much below 150 though, unless you count the four 5" Wray anastigmats. Or the 5" Ross. Or the 135 Lustrar. Or the 128, the 121 and the 90. Somewhere in there is a 7" Aero-Ektar too. Lets hope my two 150s make me doubly normal.

Ole Tjugen
22-Nov-2006, 07:19
I think that at the moment I have only two 240mm lenses. But four 210mm, four (or is it six?) 150mm, two 90mm, two 120mm and two 121mm, two 270, four 300, four 180mm, and... There's only one 500mm f:5.5 though, and one 640mm f:7. Carrying either one is enough.

Struan Gray
22-Nov-2006, 07:33
I feel better now.

Jim Galli
22-Nov-2006, 07:45
You are not crazy. I own and use a bewildering number of lenses, including (but not limited to) 65, 80, 90, 105, 120, 121, 135, 150, 160, 165, 180, 205, 210, 240, 270, 300 and 355mm. They are all different.

Or maybe it's just that I'm even crazier?


Ole, Don't you just hate it when you grab the 120 and get everything all set up just to find out what you really needed was the damned 121!!? Happens to me all the time.

If you only have 1-12" and 1-14" you are modest and conservative. Not to worry.

Ole Tjugen
22-Nov-2006, 07:59
Jim - I have a 300mm, a 12" and a 305mm. As well as a 14", a 355mm and a 360mm.

The 120mm lenses are a Heliar and a Meyer Weitwinkel-Aristostigmat; the 121mm's are a Leitmeyr Weitwinkelanastigmat and a Schneider Super-Angulon. Four very different lenses, and they all have their different strengths and weaknesses. Except for the focal length, the only thing they all have in common is that they cover 9x12cm - the Heliar struggles a bit with 4x5" at larger f-stops than f:32.

Shen45
22-Nov-2006, 15:02
Ole, Don't you just hate it when you grab the 120 and get everything all set up just to find out what you really needed was the damned 121!!? Happens to me all the time.

If you only have 1-12" and 1-14" you are modest and conservative. Not to worry.

The more I read these posts, the more depressed and deprived I feel :) For some unknown reason I want a 14" Ektar. Anyone want to sell one to Australia?

And I'm serious about the Ektar.


Steve

Dan Fromm
22-Nov-2006, 15:25
Steve, if you don't have "see lens, buy lens" syndrome, don't feel deprived. I still have the brochure that came with my first Nikon, a Nikkormat FTN bought new in 1970. Very useful introduction to photography for absolute beginners. Contains a discussion of which lenses, in which 0.5 * normal, normal, 2 * normal, 4* normal, ... was recommended highly.

Not knowing better I followed Nikon's advice and until I went up to 2x3 didn't feel any need to deviate from it. Don't misunderstand. I'm happy with the lenses I shoot and on a long trip will use each one at least a few times. But I'm not convinced that I'm much better off than I'd be with 0.5 * normal, normal, ...

Cheers,

Dan

Struan Gray
22-Nov-2006, 15:40
The lenses I actually carry are normal/1.6; normal; normal*1.6; normal*1.6*1.7. Reason being that 1.6 is about the ratio where cropping a shot from the next lens down gets annoyingly close to having taken MF instead of LF.

Oren Grad
22-Nov-2006, 15:54
Owning and carrying are two different matters entirely. I own lots of different focal lengths, mostly because I like to play with lots of different formats. But when I go out to take pictures, I usually carry only one lens, occasionally two.

"Normal" for me is usually whatever is closest to seven-eighths of the format diagonal. Sometimes I'll add a second lens that's shorter or longer, or I'll go out with only the shorter or longer lens if I have a special purpose in mind or if I just feel like seeing things differently for a change.

1.6x would be a huge leap for me. What I key on is not how much is included in the picture from a given vantage point, but what the foreground/background relationships feel like when you compose to fill the frame. By that standard, even a 15% change in focal length results in a tool with distinctly different properties IMO.

Struan Gray
23-Nov-2006, 01:31
Using a screwdriver as a chisel is not optimal or even safe, but when the rats are gnawing at your legs and the cold oily water is rising ever faster and the dial on the pressure guage is bending past the stop pin way over at the end of the red zone, it is perhaps time to lay aside ones principles and have at that wooden door with the only tool to hand.

Happens to me all the time.

Brian Ellis
24-Nov-2006, 09:59
I feel better now.

John Sexton owned only one lens - a 210 - for a long time. Still feel better?

neil poulsen
24-Nov-2006, 10:59
I have a 75mm, 90mm, 121mm, 150mm, 180mm, 240mm, 250mm, a 300mm, and a 355mm. The 240mm and 300mm will soon depart, and I'm not including three lightweight lenses I got for just 6x9. The 300mm fills a hole, but as a f5.6, it's too big. Maybe I can get a Nikon 300mm M, someday.

As to the lenses I'd like to add, they include a 45mm, a 58mm, a 105 SW to fill a severe gap between the 90mm and the 121mm, and a 450mm. (And, maybe a Nikon 300mm M, someday.)

Struan Gray
24-Nov-2006, 14:14
John Sexton owned only one lens - a 210 - for a long time.

I read that as saying that he had a high churn rate on the others :-)

Oren Grad
24-Nov-2006, 16:11
John Sexton owned only one lens - a 210 - for a long time. Still feel better?

And it wasn't even the same one. Long-time eBay large format section lurkers may remember the auction a few years back of Sexton's early-type 210 Nikkor-W. ;)