| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jnanian
Joined: 22 Jan 2002
Posts: 21
Location: near providence, ri
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2002 2:21 am Post subject: |
 |
|
will this lens cover a 4x5 negative?
thanks!
-john |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Les
Joined: 09 May 2001
Posts: 2682
Location: Detroit, MI
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2002 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm gonna guess here since you didn't state the aperture.
I believe this came off a Polaroid copy camera and at something slightly beyone 1:1 it will cover 4x5, but people on ebay continually believe that back in the good old days they could make a fast 75 or 72mm lens (f1.9-4.5) that will cover 4x5 at infinity and somehow we just can't do it today. Film Feathers!!
B&L made/makes a 72mm f4.5 Micro Tessar that I will assume is darn close if not identical to the tominion. I know from experience it won't cover 3x4 at infininty.
_________________
"In order to invent, you need a good imagination and a lot of junk" Thomas Edison |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jnanian
Joined: 22 Jan 2002
Posts: 21
Location: near providence, ri
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2002 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
thanks les -
btw it was a 75mm f4.5 
- john
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hellerharris
Joined: 27 Jun 2002
Posts: 46
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2002 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Think the Tominon 4.5 would cover a 6X9 or ^x& on a Century?
________
Ford Ranchero Rio Grande history
Last edited by hellerharris on Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2144
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2002 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2002-07-08 18:38, hellerharris wrote:
Think the Tominon 4.5 would cover a 6X9 or ^x& on a Century?
|
Interesting question.
I have one, and some time ago convinced myself that it wouldn't cover 2.25 x 3.25 at infinity. Last weekend I put the lens on my Century and reconsidered. It illuminates 2.25 x 3.25 @ 40', which is close enough to infinity. The film is at the lab, and soon we'll know how much of the image the lens makes @ f/16 is acceptably sharp.
If you have one, why don't you try it? Your acceptably sharp might not be the same as mine.
Cheers,
Dan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hellerharris
Joined: 27 Jun 2002
Posts: 46
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2002 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't have the lens yet, but they're plentiful on Ebay. If it covers, then I might go for it. I don't love the 6X9 and am looking for a 6X7 back.
I'll be anxious to see how you did.
________
buy iolite vaporizer
Last edited by hellerharris on Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2144
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2002 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2002-07-09 10:38, hellerharris wrote:
I don't have the lens yet, but they're plentiful on Ebay. If it covers, then I might go for it. I don't love the 6X9 and am looking for a 6X7 back.
I'll be anxious to see how you did.
|
I'm pretty curious too.
You do know that the lens is a reverse tessar, and is intended to be used close up, don't you?. On the MP-4 it is supposed to be used from 2:1 to 4:1. It may well perform poorly at normal (infinity, more or less) distances.
I don't know whether the 75 Tominon used in Polaroid CU-5s and DS-3xs is exactly the same as the one sold for the MP-4.
On the other hand, they offer cheap thrills.
Cheer,
Dan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hellerharris
Joined: 27 Jun 2002
Posts: 46
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2002 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dan -
Did you ever get a look at the stuff from the Tominon? Whattcha think?
We're waiting with bated (baited?) breath.
heller
| Quote: |
On 2002-07-09 14:26, Dan Fromm wrote:
| Quote: |
On 2002-07-09 10:38, hellerharris wrote:
I don't have the lens yet, but they're plentiful on Ebay. If it covers, then I might go for it. I don't love the 6X9 and am looking for a 6X7 back.
I'll be anxious to see how you did.
|
I'm pretty curious too.
You do know that the lens is a reverse tessar, and is intended to be used close up, don't you?. On the MP-4 it is supposed to be used from 2:1 to 4:1. It may well perform poorly at normal (infinity, more or less) distances.
I don't know whether the 75 Tominon used in Polaroid CU-5s and DS-3xs is exactly the same as the one sold for the MP-4.
On the other hand, they offer cheap thrills.
Cheer,
Dan
|
________
buy vaporgenie
Last edited by hellerharris on Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jnanian
Joined: 22 Jan 2002
Posts: 21
Location: near providence, ri
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2002 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hi again
it has been quite some time since i posted this orignial message. i ended up getting one of these lenses., and tried like mad to get it to cover a 4x5 unsucessfully. it was great for doing close up work, but since i had hoped to use it as a wide angle lens, i kind of got rid of it. thanks for all your responses, i appreciate your help.
john
ps. btw i ended up gettng a 65mm f 5.6 super angulon which does everything i had hoped for, and THEN some |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2144
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2002 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2002-07-15 10:25, hellerharris wrote:
Dan -
Did you ever get a look at the stuff from the Tominon? Whattcha think?
We're waiting with bated (baited?) breath.
heller
|
The film came back. Velvia, which I hate, but I got some late-dated for a very good price and from time to time pull some out of the freezer for testing. At 30 feet & f/16 the 75/4.5 Tominon is lousy centrally and terrible away from the center.
Yes, it will illuminate 2 1/4 x 3 1/4. No, it won't work well as a real wide angle lens for out-and-about use.
Remember that it was intended to be used at magnifications from 2:1 to 4:1. It is a reversed Tessar, might work better (but who would bother?) reversed in front of a #1 shutter.
I also tried out my 100/6.3 Reichert Neupolar at the same distance. A fine, fine macro lens. It covers ok, but the 101/4.5 Ektar (shot it too, same subject, same f/11) takes a better picture.
All as expected, I'm afraid.
Cheers,
Dan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
