AdClem
Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2005
- Messages
- 47
- Format
- Medium Format
I hope this doesn't seem like one of those 'which lens is best' threads. I know the answer to that: the difference may be evident in theory, but negligible in practice; more is attributable to other factors, not least the care and skill of the photographer, etc.
However,
, is the extra coverage of the 75° ‘L’ version of this lens superfluous on a Linhof Master Technika, as the earlier 72° ‘MC’ exceeds the extent of the camera’s movements anyway? Or could a combination of movements like shift plus swing, say, stretch it too far? I have read that the extra ‘circle’ is more of illumination rather than sharpness anyway but, presumably, the extent of sharpness is nevertheless greater. I should add that I have a Sinar P2, too, which will test the limitations of any lens.
In many ways, this is the more important question: on a Linhof 'Select' Apo-Symmar lens, with the signature engraved on the outside rim of the rear lens, ought it to be on the front too? If it isn't, does that suggest a composite lens that has been assembled from the front of one lens, and the rear of another? I know that this might require pretty arcane knowledge, but I am trying to decide on the authenticity of a particular lens, and I know that this is one of the corners of the internet where someone is most likely to know.
Many thanks.
Adam.
However,

In many ways, this is the more important question: on a Linhof 'Select' Apo-Symmar lens, with the signature engraved on the outside rim of the rear lens, ought it to be on the front too? If it isn't, does that suggest a composite lens that has been assembled from the front of one lens, and the rear of another? I know that this might require pretty arcane knowledge, but I am trying to decide on the authenticity of a particular lens, and I know that this is one of the corners of the internet where someone is most likely to know.
Many thanks.
Adam.