Hello LF Forum,
Just a short update to my original post. I ran some tests with the lens, and I am really amazed at the results. While the fastest I can manage is 2 seconds with my lens cap shutter and hand, this is something that works well for the moment. Checked on one old shutter already, but after what Arne mentioned on sync posts I think that will work better; though no need to rush that. Next thing is for me to get a filter adapter set-up for this lens, then some more tests. Anyway, thanks for all the help.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
Last edited by Gordon Moat; 12-Feb-2007 at 23:03. Reason: grammar
So I dug my Zeiss Tessar Jena 6.3 f out No 277606 in a Dial Set Compur and looked at it.
Yikes, the front element is screwed in to a brass adapter that is screwed into the shutter. I would guess it has been remounted in the shutter. So I take everything back about prewar Zeiss lenses being in Dial Set Compurs. Not this one. But is does cover a 8X10. Kirk
Have you ever made any tests with it? I'm asking as it seems I have the same one. I've tried it on a 4x5 and it works, as it projects on the gg without vignetting, but my film back has an issue and i haven't been able to make further tests to determine the actual sharpness on film.
Thanks.
You are grasping at straws. You've been told, and not just by me, that illuminate doesn't mean cover and that 105/4.5 Tessars don't cover 4x5.
I appreciate that you want a cheap wide angle lens that will cover 4x5 and allow movements. A 105/4.5 Tessar won't do what you want. Accept reality and go forward.
I'm sorry but I sense a bit of irritation in the way you wrote. If I hadn't seen "covers 4x5" and also "with room to spare" by Erie patsellis I wouldn't have bothered asking again. If you see my original post regarding this I asked whether it works on 4x5 or if it useless.
So far I have been receiving different replies and the only thing that they agree with is probably the lack of sharpness. And by the way I have moved on as I have ordered a lens.
I would generally say though that keeping a cool head is very important when trying to help someone that knows less than you. You can imagine yourself first starting with photography in general.
Thanks though for all the help you have offered.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh, dear, that must have stung a little.
There's a reason why no one who responded to your question about a w/a lens (I think you asked about 90 mm) for 4x5 suggested a Tessar. We use 127 mm Tessar types that just barely cover 4x5. Shorter ones don't.
We've had discussions about whether to purge badly incorrect or misleading posts. It won't happen. Until it does, i.e., for ever and then some, please please be skeptical about everything you read on the internet, including on this forum.
If there were hope that beginners would start at the beginning by reading this site's FAQs I'd write one "Apparently good ideas that just don't work." One of them is that lenses with focal lengths shorter than normal for 4x5 are all wide angle lenses for 4x5. People keep asking about, for example, 75 mm lenses extracted from oscilloscope camera. Cheap, cheerful, won't cover 4x5. People keep asking about lenses for from Polaroid gelcams and such and MP-4 lenses. Cheap, cheerful, won't cover 4x5. And they keep asking about ~ 100 mm triplets and Tessar types harvested from 6x9 folders. Sing the refrain again.
We all want really inexpensive w/a lenses for 4x5 and larger formats. Every once in a while one of us finds a grossly underpriced w/a lens for 4x5 or a larger format. Not often, though. In general, the world isn't providing them. I wish it were so.
Bookmarks