Horseman 612 135mm lens cone problem? Is it true?

[Fragomeni]

Can anyone speak to the supposed problem with the lens cone made for the 135mm f5.6 Apo-Sironar-S for the Horseman 612? I’ve found only a few references to this without much additional info and am trying to confirm if it is true and also determine if it was redesigned/resolved after a certain serial number. If anyone knows any of this for certain please let me know. Thanks very much.

Edit: I forgot to state the actual problem
Apparently Horseman made the lens cone too narrow which causes the lens to vignette, progressively worse at closer focusing distances. I guess there was rumor that they’d remedy it with a design update but I haven’t found anything that confirms that happened or if it did, what serial number the corrected cones begin at.

 

[ic-racer]

What is the problem? Can't solve it without knowing what it is.

 

[Fragomeni]

What is the problem? Can't solve it without knowing what it is.

Total brain flub. Editing the original post to say. From what I’ve found, apparently Horseman made the lens cone too narrow which causes the lens to vignette, progressively worse at closer focusing distances. I guess there was rumor that they’d remedy it with a design update but I haven’t found anything that confirms that happened or if it did, what serial number the corrected cones begin at.

 

[ic-racer]

I looked through all my Horseman literature and I only have information on the 6x9 camera. In that case it appears the lenses all came already on the cone, forming a 'lens unit.'

 

[ic-racer]

There was a FAQ for these cameras with the following information about vignetting and availability of the lensboards individually.

 

[Oren Grad]

ic-racer: the 135 Apo-Sironar-S was indeed offered on a cone-with-helical for the SW612 cameras - it was Horseman catalog number 510017. Now discontinued, alas.

Fragomeni: Afraid I've not head of the vignetting issue, which of course doesn't mean there isn't one. Can you point to any source where you read about this?

 

[Fragomeni]

Yes, the lens came on the lens cone from the manufacturer. It is not a third-party cone. All of the stock lenses for the 612 were produced in versions supplied with the cone/lensboard with focus helicoid. The 135mm was the longest lens offered.

This link at photo.net from 2005 includes a reference to the problem. It’s unclear what problem the first poster is referencing but the last poster speaks about it specifically: https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/135mm-lens-for-horseman-sw612.176746/

And this link references the lens and has a section that recommends consulting discussion threads which speak to “ problems with connecting and setting up medium format lenses for Horseman.” I am unable to find what discussion threads it refers to beside the one linked above: https://www.pdf-manuals.com/horseman-135mm-f-5-6-apo-sironar-s-lens-unit-for-612-21369-40342-manual

 

[Oren Grad]

This link at photo.net from 2005 includes a reference to the problem. It’s unclear what problem the first poster is referencing but the last poster speaks about it specifically: https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/135mm-lens-for-horseman-sw612.176746/

OK, thanks. Yes, I'd consider Paul Droluk a reliable source.

 

[Dan Fromm]

OK, thanks. Yes, I'd consider Paul Droluk a reliable source.

So would I, but I don't understand his logic. For my own purposes -- designing a tandem Graphic, which has an obstruction between the lens' exit pupil and the film plane; front mounting an extreme wide angle lens -- I've had to think a lot about the, um, geometry of mechanical vignetting.

Look at the picture of the camera's back here: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Horseman_SW612. If there is mechanical vignetting with the 135, it is due to the camera body, not to the cone. All of the cones fit the same opening in the front of the body. There's a sort of step in the body that might cause vignetting with a lens extended a considerable distance.

Whether the problem is real is an empirical one. Francisco, if you can get the lens with the right of return, buy it and try it. This is the only way to know whether mechanical vignetting will be a problem for you.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

I have a 180mm Nikon in a custom Fotoman cone on my SW612P and it doesn’t vignette. Maybe the P body is different ?

 

[Dan Fromm]

I have a 180mm Nikon in a custom Fotoman cone on my SW612P and it doesn’t vignette. Maybe the P body is different ?

In post #9 above I gave a link to a photo of the camera's interior, viewed from the rear. Is yours like that?

 

[Fragomeni]

I’m not sure what causes the problem specifically with the 135 but I’ve only heard it referenced with regard to that specific lens cone on this system. Vignetting is not present with any of the other lenses offered for this system (both from what I’ve read and from my own experiences). If none of the other lenses vignette and the 135 does, I don’t see how the issue can be assumed to be at the body. It only makes sense that it would be at the cone which is what is described everywhere I’ve seen this mentioned. I’m trying to find other links where I’ve seen this same problem described but am not having luck at the moment but the message is the same. The problem is described as at the cone and that Horseman understood the problem and planned to make an updated version of the cone with the same Sironar lens.

Other lenses are also used with the system via custom third-party lens cones, such as the 180 Nikkor mentioned, and if well made they do not vignette either. The P body is for all intents and purposes the same as the regular 612 when it comes to how the lenses attach and the relevant body dimensions. One source that I’m now unable to find specially stated the user was using the P body and experiencing the vignetting with the 135. All of this information is realistically anecdotal in the first place but with the info we have, it doesn’t make sense to jump to assumptions about an issue with the body. There is no data, anecdotal or not, to support that.

 

[Dan Fromm]

All of this information is realistically anecdotal in the first place but with the info we have, it doesn’t make sense to jump to assumptions about an issue with the body. There is no data, anecdotal or not, to support that.

Look at the many times cursed picture. There's data. What's in question is the data's meaning.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

One source that I’m now unable to find specially stated the user was using the P body and experiencing the vignetting with the 135

Was the lens shifted or centered ?

 

[Fragomeni]

Was the lens shifted or centered ?

I don’t remember that info being provided (can’t be sure and haven’t found the link) but the 135mm I believe has full coverage for the 612P movements. Someone correct me there if I’m wrong but I think it does.

Look at the many times cursed picture. There's data. What's in question is the data's meaning.

Yes Dan, I see the picture. I’m familiar with the body design. I have the camera. I don’t think that’s the issue but could be. I don’t have any more info than anyone else aside from all of these older reports. My main interest was confirming whether or not the report that Horseman was aware and planned a fix was true because that would essentially confirm any info I need.
———

K, looks like this remains unanswered. I may pick one up if one becomes available with the option to return as Dan mentioned earlier. If I do, I’ll report back with what I find.