cyberjunkie
18-Feb-2011, 15:01
Some time ago i had the chance to purchase two Sironar 360mm lens cells.
I decided to give them a try, because the price was good, and i had a spare Compur No.3.
I took for granted that the lens was a Sironar-N (i saw the engraving in the outside of the lens, so i thught it was a recent one). When i got the cells in my hand, i discovered that it was NOT a Sironar-N, just a convertible Sironar, the previous version. Lesson learned, older Rodenstock lenses don't have the engravings in the inner side, like the Schneiders!
Fortunately the lens has no signs of separations (as many of them do), the glass is perfect, and it fits, as was supposed to do, in a No.3 shutter.
Now i have to make a new diaphragm scale for the lens; if one of the forum members has the same lens, please post a picture of the scale. Better than via PM, so it will be available for future reference, just in case somebody will have the same problem in the future.
I found a used Brother printer, that prints on stickers (many colors and many sizes), so i have the chance to redo the scale, as close as possible to the original.
Thanks in advance
Just a small question that probably does not deserve a dedicate thread:
if you had to choose a cheap "standard" lens for 4x5" and 5x7", which one would you choose, a convertible Symmar or a Computar Symmetrigon?
Both can be found at reasonable prices, and the latter was (is?) available as new old stock (cells only, you had to provide the shutter).
I am considering to sell the convertible Symmars (150mm and 210mm), and replace them with two Symmetrigons, that don't have the convenience of the second focal, but are of recent design, multicoated, sold with lens shade, and weight a lot less than the Symmars. What's your opinion?
have fun
CJ
I decided to give them a try, because the price was good, and i had a spare Compur No.3.
I took for granted that the lens was a Sironar-N (i saw the engraving in the outside of the lens, so i thught it was a recent one). When i got the cells in my hand, i discovered that it was NOT a Sironar-N, just a convertible Sironar, the previous version. Lesson learned, older Rodenstock lenses don't have the engravings in the inner side, like the Schneiders!
Fortunately the lens has no signs of separations (as many of them do), the glass is perfect, and it fits, as was supposed to do, in a No.3 shutter.
Now i have to make a new diaphragm scale for the lens; if one of the forum members has the same lens, please post a picture of the scale. Better than via PM, so it will be available for future reference, just in case somebody will have the same problem in the future.
I found a used Brother printer, that prints on stickers (many colors and many sizes), so i have the chance to redo the scale, as close as possible to the original.
Thanks in advance
Just a small question that probably does not deserve a dedicate thread:
if you had to choose a cheap "standard" lens for 4x5" and 5x7", which one would you choose, a convertible Symmar or a Computar Symmetrigon?
Both can be found at reasonable prices, and the latter was (is?) available as new old stock (cells only, you had to provide the shutter).
I am considering to sell the convertible Symmars (150mm and 210mm), and replace them with two Symmetrigons, that don't have the convenience of the second focal, but are of recent design, multicoated, sold with lens shade, and weight a lot less than the Symmars. What's your opinion?
have fun
CJ