I know this is an oldish lense, any opinions on how it might work in a Crown?
opinions valued
Perry

see below


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: troublemaker on 2005-04-14 23:09 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: troublemaker on 2005-04-15 20:33 ]</font>

Quote:

On 2005-04-14 18:40, perrycas wrote: I know this is an oldish lense, any opinions on how it might work in a Crown? opinions valued Perry

Schneider rates it as a lens for 2x3, not 4x5. There are better 65s, e.g., f/8 and f/5.6 Super Angulons and 65/8 Ilex Acugon. All of these just cover 4x5.

Good luck, have fun, read the FAQs!

Dan

Thanks Rich for the correction. I have not the slightest idea what happened to my eyesight, so perhaps some pre-exhibit anxiety has got the better of me. Taking three nights off and away from the dark room to contemplate the diffrence between 65 and 90. I must say that Dann's post makes more sense after a good laugh at myself. And I will add that I have avoided the urge to fit a 65 Ang. to my 2x3's because the smallest aperture seems to be 22, and that extra stop to 32 makes a difference on the littel Raptars, as soft as they be...
Thanks, and all apologies,
Stephen

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: troublemaker on 2005-04-15 19:26 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: troublemaker on 2005-04-15 20:31 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: troublemaker on 2005-04-15 20:46 ]</font>

Stephen... Dan and Perry are talking about the 65 Angulon, not the 90...

From the psecs, all three 90mm Angulons were designed for 4x5 with a 152mm image circle. Where's the problem?

The 65mm was designed for 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 with a 109mm @ f/22 image circle. Not quite close enough to cover 4x5! Sure they are known to be concervative with their ratings, but I doubt that much. Even the 65mm f/8 SA with an image circle of 155mm just covers 4x5 with dark edges. What chance would the non S have?

thanks a lot for the information. Most helpful.
Perry

Quote:

On 2005-04-15 19:10, troublemaker wrote: ... Thanks, and all apologies, Stephen

No appologies needed. I've made worse mistakes than that And at least you don't make the typo's that I do (I still blame this keyboard though)...

But I do think editing out your old msg is a real cheat! I should go back over my old messages

Now that perrycas has the usefull info...

Oh fear not,
one must step on thine own foot more than once to remember how to fall down...

Have a good weekend,
Stephen

Quote:

On 2005-04-15 22:21, RichS wrote: Quote: On 2005-04-15 19:10, troublemaker wrote: ... Thanks, and all apologies, Stephen No appologies needed. I've made worse mistakes than that And at least you don't make the typo's that I do (I still blame this keyboard though)... But I do think editing out your old msg is a real cheat! I should go back over my old messages

Ah. Another person with a tripewriter. Welcome to the club, Rich.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: 45PSS on 2005-12-24 21:40 ]</font>

Thanks

The keyboard may function as designed, but what a design... One of those Dell mini keyboards that my fingers simply can't get along with. And even after two years or so, I still have not gotten the adapter to hook up one of my old standard IBM keyboards to this computer. As we all well know, newer is not always better...

Getting the fingers into the center of these keys is a real chore... But it's the simple typos that kill me. I tend to think faster than I type so letters get transposed and most often I'm just too lazy to proofread and correct. The real joy is in programming where a typo is a killer.....


_________________
----------------------------------------
"Ya just can't have too many GVIIs"
----------------------------------------

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: RichS on 2005-04-18 21:50 ]</font>