PDA

View Full Version : Are my lenses still considered as "good"?



Chris623
17-Dec-2008, 21:36
I have a mint, excellent ++ 4x5 Deardorff Special Deluxe that I purchased around 1973, I think. I have three lenses for it. Actually, the first isn't one I use on the Deardorff, but I need to know if these lenses are still considered good lenses, or are they just acceptable?

They are:

(1) 65mm f-8 Super Angulon (marked TECHNICA in red) in very good condition

(2) 90mm f-8 Super Angulon with a Copol #0 Shutter with Time and Bulb in exc++ condition,

(3) 210mm f-5.6 Symmar-S with a Copol #1 Shutter with Time and Bulb in exc++ condition.

The last two have a switch marked X-M......and to be totally honest, I can't remember for the life of me the purpose of those switches. Are these considered good lenses?

Greg Lockrey
17-Dec-2008, 21:44
X-M are for electronic flash and bulb flash in that order. Your lenses are still considered very good albeit of older technology coating wise.

Bill_1856
17-Dec-2008, 21:44
All three are still excellent. X=strobe, M=flashbulb.

Glenn Thoreson
17-Dec-2008, 21:46
They are all excellent lenses. The switch is for flash synchronization. X=electronic flash. M=medium peak flash bulbs.

Chris623
17-Dec-2008, 21:50
:o :o :o :o Oops! That's embarrassing! Never used flash or strobe with my view camera.............guess that's why I didn't remember what the switch was for!

Thanks.

paul08
17-Dec-2008, 21:55
They are fine lenses. Glad you decided to keep the camera. Make some pictures!

Chris623
17-Dec-2008, 22:27
All I want for Christmas is a digital back for it! :D

Vaughn
17-Dec-2008, 22:40
If you do happen to use a flash -- make sure the lever is set on "X"...or else you will get no exposure on the film (unless it is a long exposure). The "M" setting delays the firing of the shutter just long enough for the old flash bulbs to reach full strength. By the time the shutter would open on the "M" setting, a electronic flash would have flashed and died out.

Very good lenses...any lacking in modern multi-coatings can be compensated for by using a lens hood/shade.

Vaughn

Chris623
17-Dec-2008, 22:43
Thanks, Vaughn, I don't know why I'd ever use artificial lighting, so the switch is of no use to me.

As far as the coatings, go, I always used a bellows type lens-hood with my view camera, but thanks for the tip.

Vaughn
17-Dec-2008, 23:30
...I don't know why I'd ever use artificial lighting, so the switch is of no use to me...

Whenever I hear myself say "I never...", I stop and ask myself, "Why not?" For example, one of the things I use to say was "I never have people in my photos." Asking "Why not?" led to an on-going series of my boys in the landscape.

You just never know! Vaughn

The Boys, Yosemite National Park
Zone Vi 8x10, Fuji W 300/5.6
Scanned 8x10 platinum/palladium print

Three Snags, Three Boys, 2008
Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park
Scanned 8x10 platinum/palladium print

Chris623
18-Dec-2008, 07:14
"Never say never" is, and always has been, one of those very arguable quotes. I shot LF for approximately 10 years and never released the shutter in a situation where I felt the need for artificial lighting. And, since my only subject with LF has been landscape, I highly doubt I'd ever use it in the future. Therefore, let me rephrase my comment. Based on my past behavior, and lack of desire to change it in the future, I'll never use artificial lighting with LF. :D

And to set the record straight, I never intended to "hi-jack" my own thread........the purpose of which was to find out if my good 'ol lenses were still considered good in this day and age. ;)

Frank Petronio
18-Dec-2008, 07:14
If you like measuring lines per millimeter or have an exacting workflow with the best of everything possible or if you compare 30x40 inch prints made with 35 year old lenses to 30x40 inch prints made with the latest state of the art lenses (which are probably just as state as the art as 1995 since I doubt much $ is being spent on LF lens design these days) then no, they suck.

Send them to me ;-)

Simply go to a good photo gallery and look at the work of a good large format photographer from that same time period or earlier. If that looks good to you then be assured you have as good or better lenses than they did.

Chris623
18-Dec-2008, 07:20
Great answer, Frank, great answer!:D :D :D :D

Steven Barall
18-Dec-2008, 07:46
Those lenses really suck. In the spirit of the holidays however, I will give you $75 for the three of them. Good luck.

Chris623
18-Dec-2008, 07:57
"Lens lust".................ain't it great? I never expected anyone to lust after mine! :D

mrladewig
18-Dec-2008, 09:54
I have a 65 f8 Super Angulon from the same time period as yours, though mine is not a Linhoff. Mine covers the 4X5 frame, but is not very sharp in the corners and has quite strong falloff. I prefer the 75/8 Super Angulon from that period because it is sharper to the corners and the falloff is less noticable.

Ken Lee
18-Dec-2008, 10:08
Asking "Why not?" led to an on-going series of my boys in the landscape.

In a few years, when kids look a little different, those photos will be even better. In 50 years, they will call you a visionary.


http://lyndenpioneermuseum.com/img/educational-logging.jpg

Chris623
18-Dec-2008, 10:08
Hmmmmm, mrladewig! I've never had a problem with mine. The color prints I've sold from it have been printed as large as 24"x60" and have been greatly admired by the purchasers. I personally think they are extremely sharp. I didn't print them myself, so I can't speak to the fall-off.....................maybe my custom printer took care of that in processing.

Vaughn
18-Dec-2008, 14:17
In a few years, when kids look a little different, those photos will be even better. In 50 years, they will call you a visionary.

There is a good reason I don't let my boys play with axes and 12' cross-cut saws!:p

venchka
18-Dec-2008, 15:06
Vaughn,

Adding the boys makes perfect sense and gives a feeling of scale.