PDA

View Full Version : Why 2 1/4 format is more practical for me.



tom thomas
17-Nov-2008, 18:19
When I sat my Ikoflex 2 1/4 TLR down next to the Wollensak Veritar 14 inch lens, I realized why 2 1/4 format became popular. What a monster this Veritar with Alphax shutter is and I don't own a pickup.

Tom Thomas

Glenn Thoreson
17-Nov-2008, 20:07
Yes, there is something to be said for smaller formats. Big cameras can't always do what you want. That lens is HUGE! :D

Turner Reich
17-Nov-2008, 20:33
It's called freedom.

C. D. Keth
17-Nov-2008, 21:52
Nice illustration. It's very true that LF isn't for everyone or for every purpose. To be fair, though, that lens is on the BIG side of big.:D

Jim Galli
17-Nov-2008, 23:18
I've got the opposite problem. I have a natty little Minolta Autocord TLR. It's light as a feather around my neck and I've taken it on trips where LF and ULF would be out of the question. The problem is I never develop the film. I've got 5 rolls laying on the bathroom counter and 2 or 3 more out in the garage in a junk drawer. And when I do finally develop it, I never make the prints. Hearts not in it I guess.

Daniel_Buck
17-Nov-2008, 23:23
I've got the opposite problem. I have a natty little Minolta Autocord TLR. It's light as a feather around my neck and I've taken it on trips where LF and ULF would be out of the question. The problem is I never develop the film. I've got 5 rolls laying on the bathroom counter and 2 or 3 more out in the garage in a junk drawer. And when I do finally develop it, I never make the prints. Hearts not in it I guess.
Agreed. As much as I like the portability of my 6x9 range finder, roll film to me is not enjoyable to deal with. I would rather take my digital instead of roll film.

Jim Galli
17-Nov-2008, 23:26
Agreed. As much as I like the portability of my 6x9 range finder, roll film to me is not enjoyable to deal with. I would rather take my digital instead of roll film.

oops. Daniel, I know you didn't mean to drop the D bomb. :p

Jim Galli
17-Nov-2008, 23:28
oops. Daniel, I know you didn't mean to drop the D bomb. :p

Nevermind, this is LFForum. It's OK.

Daniel_Buck
17-Nov-2008, 23:33
Nevermind, this is LFForum. It's OK.

:D

C. D. Keth
17-Nov-2008, 23:46
oops. Daniel, I know you didn't mean to drop the D bomb. :p

He got all upset and forgot himself.;)

Bill_1856
18-Nov-2008, 01:43
"Large Format" is a state of mind, not a film size.

ljsegil
18-Nov-2008, 03:52
Largely true.
LJS

Walter Calahan
18-Nov-2008, 05:27
Clearly that lens is too big for you.

Please give it to me.

Grin.

Turner Reich
18-Nov-2008, 05:39
Could be worse, it could be Minox.

cobalt
18-Nov-2008, 06:30
My experience as of late has been the opposite of Jim's. I find that I go out with a Hasselblad and an 8x10... and end up far more excited about what I've done with the Blad. I still have two 5x7 negatives I exposed yesterday sitting in the van... I developed 3-4 rolls of 120 yesterday. Now that I see how well the Blad images hold up when enlarged to 16x20, larger formats are beginning to lose a bit of their collective mystique...

Nick_3536
18-Nov-2008, 09:28
Most of my LF lenses are smaller then most of my MF lenses.

We will leave the #3 Vitax out of the discussion [16"?]

Toyon
18-Nov-2008, 09:32
When I sat my Ikoflex 2 1/4 TLR down next to the Wollensak Veritar 14 inch lens, I realized why 2 1/4 format became popular. What a monster this Veritar with Alphax shutter is and I don't own a pickup.

Tom Thomas

Poppycock! The Veritar is one of the lightest LF lenses for its size. It has only 3 skinny elements and a lightweight aluminum barrel and shutter.

tom thomas
18-Nov-2008, 15:00
Guess your right, it is a light lens if 1.48 Kilo (3.3 lbs) is light for a LF lens. That's with it mounted on skinny little back plate. I just weighed it on my wife's kitchen scale.

Had I weighed it on her bathroom scale, it probably would have been less than a Kilo. Oh oh, I'll get in trouble at home for that one. Oh well, I weigh on it too so better not joke about it too much.

I was just reading about this lens at cameraeccentric in the information section. The Wollensac Veritar portrait lens about 1950 or so. Touted as an improved and updated replacement for the Verito. Obviously MUCH bigger than the Verito. Five sliding incremental stops between F6 and F8 to fine tune softness was mentioned as a special feature too. Depth of field only sharpens behind the subject when the aperture is closed down as well.

Does anyone have one of these lenses? I would be curious to see some photos that were taken by one. I haven't found much on this lens by surfing the net.

I stuck my "five-fingered" (avoiding the big D-word) camera down it's throat to take a photo of its shutter blades and got this in return. You can actually count nine fingers. Odd though, the perfect shutter blades look like one is missing. It's not. Here's what I mean.

Tom Thomas
Cro Magnon was the first "digital" photographer.

Brian Bullen
18-Nov-2008, 21:30
I've got the opposite problem. I have a natty little Minolta Autocord TLR. It's light as a feather around my neck and I've taken it on trips where LF and ULF would be out of the question. The problem is I never develop the film. I've got 5 rolls laying on the bathroom counter and 2 or 3 more out in the garage in a junk drawer. And when I do finally develop it, I never make the prints. Hearts not in it I guess.

I'm the same way. 10 rolls of 120 sitting around waiting to be developed. I built a 6x15cm panoramic camera, loaded it with film and it's sitting on the desk waiting to go outside. I'm starting to feel that way about the 4x5 too.

redrockcoulee
18-Nov-2008, 21:44
So far this week have developed about 20 rolls of 120 and still have 16 more to go although one roll is my wife's. The digital images from our trip have mostly been renamed and that is all and might be quite some time before get around to that.

redrockcoulee
19-Nov-2008, 09:59
I do have access to a 500mm lens for a Hasselblad and never even tried it on a camera as it looks a bit unwieldly. Perhaps I should borrow it and set it next to my 90mm Angulon 6.8 which is about the same size as the lens cap for the 500mm :). Actually the only lenses I own that may be smaller than the Angulon are those for my Pentax 110 system or the pinholes.

tom thomas
19-Nov-2008, 11:00
Just to give you an idea of what redrock is talking about, here is the Veritar with two Pentax 110 lenses alongside.

The larger Pentax lens is a 1:2.8, 18mm, the smaller is a 1:2.8, 24 mm. The Veritar is a 356 mm.

Which lens is easier to lose in your pocket?

tom thomas