wlaidlaw Posted October 18, 2010 Share #21 Posted October 18, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Howard, Thanks for posting those full frame tests. As far as light fall off is concerned, it looks as if there is not a lot of difference from V1 to V2. Therefore, as I have to stop down for the vignetting, the sharpness at wide apertures becomes a moot point. I am now looking, with Teddy's help, at more exotic alternatives. Wilson 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 18, 2010 Posted October 18, 2010 Hi wlaidlaw, Take a look here info update request 65/3.5 black. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
tdavis Posted October 19, 2010 Share #22 Posted October 19, 2010 OK added f/22 and changed VII to VI. Can anyone provide: Smallest object field - Diaphragm setting /type - [manual or auto + no. of blades?] Dimensions (length x diameter) - [metric or inch] Thanks, Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted October 19, 2010 Author Share #23 Posted October 19, 2010 diaphragm - 10 blades; manual with preset (i.e., dial preset ring to intended aperture; then rotate diaphragm ring to the stop determined by the preset ring--preset ring has 1/2 stop detents, diaphragm ring has none) 55 mm length (60 mm incl retaining ring) x 56 mm greatest diameter Thanks, Tim! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdavis Posted October 19, 2010 Share #24 Posted October 19, 2010 Thanks for the info. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harryzet Posted October 20, 2010 Share #25 Posted October 20, 2010 great pictures, all of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted October 20, 2010 Share #26 Posted October 20, 2010 great pictures, all of them. I don't know if this post is a weak attempt at sarcasm or not. This is a technical part of the forum, not the photo posting part. These photos were taken for a particular technical reason to demonstrate the abrupt light fall of in the corners of a specialist lens (Elmar 65mm for use on a Visoflex) with a full frame digital camera. The posters had very kindly put a considerable amount of work into helping me work out whether or not I should spend a considerable amount of money and effort to locate and buy a series 2 Elmar 65 to replace the series 1 I already have. It turns out that the vignetting is similar on both lenses and has therefore saved me the money in upgrading, for which I am duly grateful. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harryzet Posted October 20, 2010 Share #27 Posted October 20, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) boys, you really have too much time and/or money: go out, take some pictures - the lenses will not be the limiting factor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted October 20, 2010 Share #28 Posted October 20, 2010 boys, you really have too much time and/or money: go out, take some pictures - the lenses will not be the limiting factor ....and I suggest you grow up and stop making inane and stupid comments on things you obviously don't begin to understand or have the slightest idea about. As I now assume from your comments, that you have zero experience of professional museum archival photography, you would not appreciate that lens performance is being pushed to its limit, especially as I am currently using a 40+ year old lens. If you have nothing constructive to add to the thread, I suggest that you just don't bother and move elsewhere. It is always the sign of someone who has gone beyond the limits of their intellectual comfort zone, when they tell you to go and take photographs. Wilson 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harryzet Posted October 21, 2010 Share #29 Posted October 21, 2010 it hurts you to listen to the truth, right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted October 21, 2010 Share #30 Posted October 21, 2010 No, it just irritates me when someone who has nothing to contribute to a thread by way of informed comment, knowledge or at the very least, something that might make people smile, hi-jacks it for the purpose of stroking his own ego. Wilson 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodor Heinrichsohn Posted October 21, 2010 Share #31 Posted October 21, 2010 Wilson, I have never used a Schneider Betavaron. As far as I know, however, zooms are not ideal for critical copying work. As a matter of curiosity, I have tried out my Apo Rodagons 80 and 90mm respectively on a Visoflex III. I also put the 50mm Focotar II onto the Viso. The Apo Rodagons perform as expected, however, are not suited for your purpose for the reasons you stated. The 50 Focotar is useless for you on the Viso, as it is only useful for very close situations. I am afraid that you will be best served with your first version 65 Elmar, as when stopped down, the light fall off is far less noticeable than at full opening and in any case best aperture is about f11. Do you have a 50mm dual range Summicron, or a Summicron lens head and a SOMKY-UOORF? If you determine an optimal distance from film/chip plane to subject for your purpose, and stop down, you may be able to get what you want. Please give me the size/sizes of page/subject you wish to reproduce and I will try out the latter possibilities. Teddy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted October 21, 2010 Share #32 Posted October 21, 2010 Teddy, Many thanks for the info. I just tried a Schneider Componon-S 50mm enlarging lens on the Novoflex bellows and it focussed between 5 cm and 10 cm! As you say, not a lot of use to me. I was doing some copying today of a large (Imperial Paper size - 22" x 30") 19th century photo and scrap book album, where the photos (mostly 8" x 10" contact prints) are stuck in and cannot therefore be removed to scan and in any case you would then miss out on the hand written commentary below each photo. I have been using a Zeiss 50mm ZM Planar direct on my M8 i.e. not on the Visoflex and it is working very well. I am using natural lighting from skylights with tissue paper taped over them to soften the light. The very high contrast and total absence of flare on the 50 Planar is working beautifully and I am wondering if it would be easier using this lens, rather than using my Visoflex and Elmar 65 to do the flower books. Ideally I know I should be using an MF with digital back but as I am doing this current job on a "pro bono" basis for a private museum with next to zero funds, I am certainly nowhere near earning enough to justify such a purchase. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodor Heinrichsohn Posted October 22, 2010 Share #33 Posted October 22, 2010 Wilson, Glad to hear that your 50 Planar and the M8 are working out. When mentioning the dual range Summicron, I forgot that it DOES NOT WORKON THE M8 or M9, as the back of the lens catches somewhere in the interior of the camera. Sorry about that oversight. The other combination should, however, work (Somky etc and lens head). The optimal f stop on the 50 Summicron (version II) is about f 5.6 / f 8. It has a bit lower contrast than modern lenses but very good detail. If you are interested, I will try the set out on my M8 (I have not yet used the combination on the M8 or M9) and report. Teddy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted October 22, 2010 Share #34 Posted October 22, 2010 (edited) Teddy, I think I will stick to the Planar for the moment. The high contrast is an advantage on copying old somewhat faded prints. With a bit more work in C1 when converting the DNG's, the results seem to pick up detail that is barely visible to the naked eye on the originals. The other advantage of the Planar series lenses is that in line with their name, they have a very flat focus field. It is certainly much flatter than the Elmar 65, which has noticeable curvature. Here is one from yesterday. The print was very blotchy and faded, with a lot of scars and scratches. The context aware healing tool on CS5 is great for touching up these blemishes. Note - not at lot of sales for Mr. Gillette here. Wilson Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Edited October 22, 2010 by wlaidlaw Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/133851-info-update-request-6535-black/?do=findComment&comment=1479605'>More sharing options...
Theodor Heinrichsohn Posted October 22, 2010 Share #35 Posted October 22, 2010 Wilson, The picture you posted is probably "better" than the original. Congratulations. Teddy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandro Posted January 4, 2011 Share #36 Posted January 4, 2011 About a year ago I received a chrome Elmar 3.5/65 mm and I use it with much pleasure on Visoflex III. Just a few days ago a new addition arrived, the black version of the Elmar 3.5/65. I am trying to understand some things about the history and production years, and about the various versions but I can't figure it out. My chrome version (nr. 2288673) is from 1968, Canada, so I thought the first version. But our Wiki says it is the second version, which it calls Elmar-V. My black version (nr. 2379483), is from Wetzlar and according to the number dates from 1969. Laney (p. 271-272) mentioned that the Elmar was recomputed in 1970, which should be earlier then. The Leica Wiki only calls the black version produced in 1973 black. So am I right that my black version is the second version? Can we assume that it was produced at least from 1969? Is there a source from which we know from which moment the catalogue-name Elmar was changed in Elmar-V? Thanks for any insights. Lex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted January 5, 2011 Share #37 Posted January 5, 2011 Most sources say that the black version (Elmar-V, 11162) was produced from late 1969, beginning with no. 2,378,901. Though on many other details sources are differing: In the Leica-Pocketbook by Puts/Laney 7th edit and in van Hasbroeck "Das große Leica Buch" (p. 280) you read, that the first version was a Wetzlar design, while the later came from Midland. Laney in his Collector's Guide, Lager II, and Rogliatti say it was vice versa. van Hasbroeck, who shows a black prototype, even says that the new black design was from 1962 (p. 222). I don't know whether the black version was listed as "Elmar-V" from the very beginning, one would need the first Leica catalogues which included it. The lens itself never showed the V. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandro Posted January 5, 2011 Share #38 Posted January 5, 2011 Thanks! I also asked the same questions as a new thread in Leica collectors and historica. It's funny and quite strange how difficult it apparently is to obtain such information about an outstanding and interesting lens. I always understood from the books I read that indeed the original design was Canadian, at least the chrome lenses were from Canada. And that the design was changed in Wetzlar, resulting in the second black version produced in Wetzlar. Lex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telewatt Posted January 6, 2011 Share #39 Posted January 6, 2011 The LEITZ catalogue from september 1968 call it "Elmar 1:3,5/65mm" with chrome picture...in the catalogue from 1976 it is the same "Elmar 1:3,5/65mm" but with black picture ...so the V is missing in both... regards, Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telewatt Posted January 6, 2011 Share #40 Posted January 6, 2011 Nr. 2,378,901. was the first with the new E 44 Filter regards, Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts