greenspun.com : LUSENET : Large format photography : One Thread

Okay, I did the search and looked at Wooden's Lens guide first. I have two rather large (24 inch and 32 inch) apo-rodenstock lenses that are marked Klimsch in red. Does anyone know what Klimsch stands for? Thank you. Kevin

-- Kevin Kolosky (kjkolosky@kjkolosky.com), May 18, 2002


I think it means Even Heavier.

-- David Vickery (vickeryphoto@cs.com), May 18, 2002.

Perhaps in this case it refers to the designer. A search on Google came up with a few people with the surname of Klimsch, and also a number of products bearing the name Klimsch. Perhaps Rodenstock manufactured the lenses for Klimsch cameras.

-- Brian C. Miller (brian.c.miller@gte.net), May 18, 2002.

It is the name of the process camera that the lenses were mounted on. The lenses were marketed by Klimsch

-- Bob Salomon (bob@hpmarketingcorp.com), May 18, 2002.

Thanks Bob. would you know if they differ much from examples that are not marked Klimsch. Kevin

-- Kevin Kolosky (kjkolosky@kjkolosky.com), May 18, 2002.

They were matched to the camera they were made for. Special mounts, levers, etc.

But all process lenses are designed for the same purpose.

making seps and copys from fat field originals at a specific aperture (600mm + at f32 only, shorter versions at f22 only).

They are outperformed by other lens designs for 3 dimensional objects at any ratio the lens is designed for. Also other designs perform better over a wider range of apertures then a process lens does.

-- Bob Salomon (bob@hpmarketingcorp.com), May 18, 2002.


when you say "designed for" what does that mean. For instance, I have looked at prints made from schneider and rodenstock 360mm lenses as compared to an apo-nikkor 360 mm lens. all shot at infinity focus at the same subject on the same film developed for the same time. except for very tiny differnces in contrast my eyes could not see a difference in terms of sharpness or quality, and in fact the apo looked sharper even though it was designed for 1 to 1 ratios.


-- Kevin Kolosky (kjkolosky@kjkolosky.com), May 18, 2002.

Try comparing them to an Apo Sironar S shot at 1:5 to 00 at apertures from f8 to 22 of identical scenes, shot at the same time on the same film.

-- Bob Salomon (bob@hpmarketingcorp.com), May 18, 2002.


Send one right over in 360mm and I will try it.


-- Kevin Kolosky (kjkolosky@kjkolosky.com), May 18, 2002.

I own Apo Ronars, Apo Nikkors, Sironar N's, Apo Tessars, Super Angulons, etc... If you make contact prints from negs. made from any of these large format lenses you cannot tell the difference in sharpness. If you do still life photography like product / table top the Apo Nikkors and Apo ronars are extremely sharp with incredible color and contrast. But these lenses do have a narrower angle of view and will not allow for extreme camera movements.

My all time sharpest lens (that I unfortunaly sold at a careless moment) was an 180mm Apo Nikkor process lens. You could lay different transparencies shot with different lenses out on a light table and stand back. The color, clarity and sharpness of the transparencies that this particular lens created was unbelievable. Today the Apo Nikkors can be bought for a song on ebay. In my mind they represent about the best value for the money anywhere...

I don't really look at lens specs or descriptions that much except as an initial guide. What really counts is the final result: what is on the film...

-- Per Volquartz (volquartz@volquartz.com), May 18, 2002.


these are the guys who do build real large format cameras: http://www.klimsch.com/produkte/pontika/pontika.htm ;-)


-- Thilo Schmid (tschmid@2pix.de), May 18, 2002.

"Send one right over in 360mm and I will try it. "

When you are an importer/distributor the idea is not to make new lenses used by sending out test units. There is no way that you would want to test a lens that has been sent back anf forth for a dozen years to display at shows also.

We have dealers across the country who will allow you to test lenses. Some may rent them and apply all - or part of the rental- to the purchase of a lens.

In orde to do that we sell the lenses for rental to them at special prices so they can rent them to their customers.

If you really want to test and compare we would be happy to direct you to some rental dealers if you call us next week.

-- Bob Salomon (bob@hpmarketingcorp.com), May 18, 2002.

Bob, I think Kevin was joking.

-- Henry Friedman (friedlew@worldnet.att.net), May 18, 2002.

Damn that humorectomy.

-- Chad Jarvis (cjarvis@nas.edu), May 18, 2002.

No I wasn't kidding. If a purveyor of a piece of equipment goes on a national forum such as this and makes a claim, then that purveyor should stand behind his/her claim. Otherwise, I don't believe the claim.

-- Kevin Kolosky (kjkolosky@kjkolosky.com), May 18, 2002.

"then that purveyor should stand behind his/her claim. "

That is why we have provided for dealers to be able to rent current optics to consumers as most rental dealers offer used, discontinued lenses that were traded in. Not product that was purchased new specifically for rental/

Obviously it is impossible to supply an endless number of every lens for test/rental/comparison.

There simply is no economically feasible way to accommodate the market this way.

That is why no manufacturer, in any industry, does what you unrealistically suggest.

Test drive a car - go to a dealer - the saleman usually goes along for the ride. Try a new computer? You don't get one shipped for tryout by Apple, Dell, Compact, etc. - you go to a dealer or store or VAR qand play with it.

Why should you unrealistically expect anything different with a camera or a lens?

You fgo to a dealer and he will let you test - free or for a fee - that is between you and the dealer and your relationship with the dealer.

But we can help you to locate a dealer that WILL let you try a current optic.

BTW, do you give your product/service away for testing to everyone like you are unrealistically suggesting?

-- Bob Salomon (bob@hpmarketingcorp.com), May 18, 2002.

"Bob, I think Kevin was joking. "

No I think he was dreaming.

-- Bob Salomon (bob@hpmarketingcorp.com), May 18, 2002.

Bob. "BTW, do you give your product/service away for testing to everyone like you are unrealistically suggesting?"

Actually Kevin does just that!

-- Per Volquartz (volquartz@volquartz.com), May 18, 2002.


You would never ever believe how much I have given away to help poor and disadvantaged people. You would not believe it!!!! Kevin

-- Kevin Kolosky (kjkolosky@kjkolosky.com), May 18, 2002.


Your lenses do have a "sweet spot" - like most other lenses. However, at this "sweet spot" they are probably sharper and have more more clarity and contrast than most "regular" Apo lenses made today. I agree with you that you'd be hard pressed to notice much difference at infinity too, especially if you are making contact prints or enlarging from 5X7 or 8X10 negs or transparencies.

"The notion "flat field" lenses is only important if you are doing repro photography. NOT when you are doing landscape, portrait or still life photography. A 300mm Apo Nikkor / Artar or Apo Ronar process lens has the same depth of field at f45, as a 300mm Apo Sironar N MC or whatever at f45.

The Apo Sironar N and other modern lenses do excell in terms of coverage.

-- Per Volquartz (volquartz@volquartz.com), May 18, 2002.


The book I mentioned claims 20 x 24 coverage at f22 for both lenses.


-- Kevin Kolosky (kjkolosky@kjkolosky.com), May 18, 2002.

Usually coverage for a repro lens is given at standard working distance = 1:1 = double bellows draw. At infinity the coverage angle would be the same, resulting in a circle of coverage of half those numbers; still fine for 5X7 and 8X10!!!

-- Per Volquartz (volquartz@volquartz.com), May 18, 2002.

Can we please keep self-aggrandizement to a minimum?

-- jason (sanford@temple.edu), May 19, 2002.


If you don't have anything meaningful to add why add anything at all. As for self-aggrandizement, it wasn't meant to be that. Just telling the truth. Kevin

-- Kevin Kolosky (kjkolosky@kjkolosky.com), May 19, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ