 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / November 2003Hartblei shift lens
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/hartblei45.shtml I've posted a couple of times how well their lenses work, looks like I'm not the only one who thinks so?  SignatureStacey > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/hartblei45.shtml > > I've posted a couple of times how well their lenses work, looks like I'm not > the only one who thinks so? Looks very interesting. I'd try one if it fit a camera I had. Say, old business - what of that bet that my 'magic' 3" lens has no discernable fall off on 4x5? Did you _get it_ yet? >> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/hartblei45.shtml >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Say, old business - what of that bet that my 'magic' 3" lens has no > discernable fall off on 4x5? Did you _get it_ yet? Didn't someone over in the large format group explain that to you? :-) I'm not going down that road again, why not make a new post with that claim on the LF forum and see what kind of responce you get? SignatureStacey > > Say, old business - what of that bet that my 'magic' 3" lens has no > > discernable fall off on 4x5? Did you _get it_ yet? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm not going down that road again, why not make a new post with that claim > on the LF forum and see what kind of responce you get? I did, Stacey, and I pointed them and you, to a diagram and photo of the lens in question. It remains this: The rear element is _larger_ than the area of film it has to cover, so how in the world can you imagine that it has significant light fall-off? Or do you turn a blind eye to clear evidence? > I did, Stacey, and I pointed them and you, to a diagram and photo of the > lens in question. It remains this: The rear element is _larger_ than the > area of film it has to cover, so how in the world can you imagine that it > has significant light fall-off? As someone else pointed out who has studied lens design, it is about the angle the light has to move not the size of the lens elements that determines the amount of fall-off. Do you think the air between the lens and the film causes the fall off? The larger elements can give a larger f-stop for focusing or more coverage but doesn't change the laws of physics. I could use a 35mm rodenstock grandagon or a 35mm zuiko on 35mm film and BOTH would have the same amount of fall-off. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=8 8703&is=USA This lens has a rear element that is 60mm on 6X9 yet they recomend "for critical work" to use a center filter. You'd think if they could make a "magic" lens that had no light fall off, they'd make it by now wouldn't you? Given what some of these lenses sell for, I'd think some people would pay for -the perfect lens- and they would make it, if for no other reason for the bragging rights! Another example: a 90mm super angulon has MUCH larger lens elements than their angulon but both have the SAME amount of fall off. Personally I don't think the fall off detracts from the image but it is there, it's just many people choose to ignore it and/or claim it isn't there. SignatureStacey > As someone else pointed out who has studied lens design, it is about the > angle the light has to move not the size of the lens elements that > determines the amount of fall-off. Do you think the air between the lens > and the film causes the fall off? You are speaking of Brian Caldwel. Yes he knows his stuff, and technically there is fall-off, but if you cannot measure it in terms that effect the film in our LF universe, it doesn't matter. You are falling back into fantasy. Outcomes really do matter. There is no light fall-off with this lens. Did you even look at it? > This lens has a rear element that is 60mm on 6X9 yet they recomend "for > critical work" to use a center filter. You'd think if they could make a > "magic" lens that had no light fall off, they'd make it by now wouldn't > you? They did. And I have four of them. There is no discernable light fall-off. > Given what some of these lenses sell for, I'd think some people would > pay for -the perfect lens- and they would make it, if for no other reason > for the bragging rights! They did make it. If you were resourceful or lucky, you could have had one. Yes, they cost close to $80,000 each. Most people wouldn't use it even if it were cheap for a number of reasons: no perspective control possible, it is so large that most wimps couldn't schlep it a hundred feet, there is no camera made for it, and machining the shutter adds about another cool $1,500 (or more) to the price. It exists. So there you are. You learned something. What makes you think you have seen it all, know it all? Open your eyes and be prepared to learn something in your short life. > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/hartblei45.shtml > > I've posted a couple of times how well their lenses work, looks like I'm not > the only one who thinks so? Thanks for that link. That's the first page I've seen that provides the kind of support for what you've been saying that I require to believe it (i.e. some actual images)<g>. There is a minor error on that page, though: Mamiya does make a shift (but not tilt) lens for the Mamiya 645. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > There is a minor error on that page, though: Mamiya does make a shift (but > not tilt) lens for the Mamiya 645. What is the focal length? SignatureStacey > > There is a minor error on that page, though: Mamiya does make a shift (but > > not tilt) lens for the Mamiya 645. > > What is the focal length? It's a 50/4.0. (It's big: exactly the same size and weight as the 150/2.8) Street price in Japan should be about US$1,000 (new), which is about what it goes for used at KEH. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> > There is a minor error on that page, though: Mamiya does make a shift > (but [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Street price in Japan should be about US$1,000 (new), which is about what > it goes for used at KEH. Thanks, sounds like an interesting lens at a reasonable price. BTW both shift lenses I own (a 35mm zuiko for my OM and a 55mm arsat for my P-6) are both fairly large/heavy lenses. SignatureStacey Recently, David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> posted: >> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/hartblei45.shtml >> >> I've posted a couple of times how well their lenses work, looks like >> I'm not the only one who thinks so? It's hard to tell from those images. Was it the lens, digital back, or working in Photoshop that gave them the "flat" textures? > Thanks for that link. That's the first page I've seen that provides > the kind of support for what you've been saying that I require to > believe it (i.e. some actual images)<g>. > > There is a minor error on that page, though: Mamiya does make a shift > (but not tilt) lens for the Mamiya 645. An error of a similar sort, Rollei still offers the Schneider shift / tilt Super Angulon. Undoubtedly for a tad more than the Hartblei... Neil > An error of a similar sort, Rollei still offers the Schneider shift / tilt > Super Angulon. Undoubtedly for a tad more than the Hartblei... Yep a 55mm $8000 lens which almost no one can warrent the expence of. Kinda like the zeiss fisheye? SignatureStacey > > An error of a similar sort, Rollei still offers the Schneider shift / tilt > > Super Angulon. Undoubtedly for a tad more than the Hartblei... > > Yep a 55mm $8000 lens which almost no one can warrent the expence of. Kinda > like the zeiss fisheye? This same (alas too expensive) Schneider PCS Super Angulon lens was on offer for the (humble, and very inexpensive) Exakta 66. Now there's a match... ;-) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.