New page about how a $60 Conley Anastigmat trumps a Sironar-S

jimgalli · Feb 14, 2006

Another of my infamous links to my little web page where I've got some new scans made with a 90 year old camera and lens. Sorry, these aren't about Bokeh. They're about how I feel the tonality and sharpness of these 11X14 contact prints is nicer than anything else seen with all the megabuck cameras and lenses. Just my ever-so-humble opinion of course.

No Matt, the Conley isn't going to show up in the Classifieds

Go ahead, have a look, tell me I'm full of excrement, whatever.

BTW these can be duplicated / viewed / purchased? during the (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

rrankin · Feb 14, 2006

Gee, Jim, it isn't the lens! It is obviously that fine black lacquered Seneca 11x14!

Those are terrific, as usual. If you aren't going to sell THAT one, maybe I should drag out my old conley in its 'safety shutter'. I've never even used it, but now I may have to try it out!

Cheers, Richard

avandesande · Feb 14, 2006

great, now send me your Sironar-S

Dave Wooten · Feb 14, 2006

"A Clean Well Lighted Place"

nice, very nice....and it appears you've been scouting around and found some affordable lodging for Per's Tonopah Workshop!

MattCarey · Feb 14, 2006

jimgalli said:
No Matt, the Conley isn't going to show up in the Classifieds

Are you trying to make it so I can get more sleep? You tend to put these on in the evenings, and I spend the night alternating between, "I should buy it" and "I hope someone else buys it". Being a cheapskate, I usually waffle long enough for option 2.

Alternatively, does that mean that it is already on it's way to me? I'll gladly pay the $60.

Matt

cperez · Feb 14, 2006

Hmmm... interesting idea, now that I've just sold both the 11x14 and 7x17 cameras.

I used to think the same things about contact prints being better than enlargements. Oh well, maybe my contacts weren't all that great to begin with.

Nice page, Jim. I'm now beginning to think that not only is the sharpest lens in a photographer's kit a tripod, but that once you have a tripod it's important to also have a lens. Just about any lens, in fact. Cheap ain't no sin neither!

... Now I'm not saying you could put a $60 lens on your 4X5
and make 30X40 enlargements. I am saying that the tonality
and sharpness in these contact prints exceeds what you
could get with a Sironar-S on 4X5 and enlarged to 11X14.

jimgalli · Feb 14, 2006

Chris makes a good point. The Tripod is a Ries. Like a rock. Shutter Richard? What's a shutter?

jonw · Feb 14, 2006

As we have come to know, love and expect from you Jim, these are excellent.

BTW, are you still making it to Winnemucca? Theresa and I are going. She is looking forward to meeting you. We have the 3 8x10 contacts you gave me in a place of honor in our family room.

Still hope to be able to afford the Tonopah Workshop, but will have to let you know in a couple of weeks.

Charles Webb · Feb 14, 2006

I am kind of use to being barefooted here lately! Jim keeps knocking my sox off with his fantastic images. All I can say is that they keep getting better
every post. Thank you Jim for your efforts!

Been checking out the map to see how far it is to Tonapah. I don't really have much hope of getting to the work shop but am working on several angles.

Charlie.................

colrehogan · Feb 14, 2006

Great pics, Jim!

Early Riser · Feb 14, 2006

The image quality is great, what do you expect from a 11x14" contact print. Comparing the image quality of an 11x14" contact print to that of an 11x14" enlargement from a 4x5" neg is not exactly a fair contest or a fair way to compare lenses. A coke bottle on an 11x14 camera will produce an image with great tonal range and detail.

The print produced by the 4x5" neg is being subjected to enlargement, about 3x as compared to no enlargement for the 11x14" neg contact printed. In addition the 4x5 neg is being projected through an enlarger lens, and is also at the mercy of enlarger alignment, vibration,possibly poor focus and negative pop. If you want to test the lens on your 11x14" camera compared to a modern lens, like a Sironar-S, you need to use the same size film and enlarge them both to the same degree. You could also use a 4x5 " section of the 11x14" negative and shoot the shot at the same time framed identically with a 4x5" camera and a modern lens. Then make identically enlarged prints of both.

jimgalli · Feb 14, 2006

Early Riser said:
not exactly a fair contest or a fair way to compare lenses. A coke bottle on an 11x14 camera will produce an image with great tonal range and detail.
.

I never play fair.

athanasius80 · Feb 14, 2006

How'd you know that Conley was my pet brand Jim?

c.d.ewen · Feb 15, 2006

Hey, Jim: is this lens worth anything?

jimgalli · Feb 15, 2006

c.d.ewen said:
Hey, Jim: is this lens worth anything?

Sure. It is likely a Rapid Rectilinear. I know someone with a Seneca 11X14 that would love to have it. Looks like a regular barrel lens front mounted in a big shutter. Probably a Bausch & Lomb product that Seneca rebranded as theirs.

MattCarey · Feb 15, 2006

jimgalli said:
I never play fair.

I do like your economics, though.

Let's see, you have a $1,000 camera with a $200 filmholder shooting film at $4 a sheet. But, you are a cheapskate because you use a $60 lens. Do I have that right?

Can you come over to my house and do some 'splaining? (as in "Lucy, you got some 'splaining to do!")

What about when I take some pictures with my $30 4x5, $75 coated Heliar on film that is $0.50 a sheet....

OK, it may not (probably won't) work out as well. But, in the end, we both have fun, and that is the point of the exercise.

Matt

p.s. of course, you also shoot about 100x more film than I do. I can't buy dedication and passion.

jimgalli · Feb 15, 2006

MattCarey said:
I do like your economics, though.

Let's see, you have a $1,000 camera with a $200 filmholder shooting film at $4 a sheet. But, you are a cheapskate because you use a $60 lens. Do I have that right?

Can you come over to my house and do some 'splaining? (as in "Lucy, you got some 'splaining to do!")

What about when I take some pictures with my $30 4x5, $75 coated Heliar on film that is $0.50 a sheet....

OK, it may not (probably won't) work out as well. But, in the end, we both have fun, and that is the point of the exercise.

Matt

p.s. of course, you also shoot about 100x more film than I do. I can't buy dedication and passion.

Actually an interesting topic Matt. I moved it over (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

c.d.ewen · Feb 15, 2006

jimgalli said:
Sure. It is likely a Rapid Rectilinear. I know someone with a Seneca 11X14 that would love to have it. Looks like a regular barrel lens front mounted in a big shutter. Probably a Bausch & Lomb product that Seneca rebranded as theirs.

Sorry, Jim, about the teaser-post Somebody with an 11x14 Seneca already owns it. I got the lens from Jay Tepper a couple of years ago, for a lot less than I expected - back when ordinary folks could afford ULF lenses.

It does look like an RR/Aplanat. The photo only showed the front cell. It's normal-mounted in a big Ilex Universal. If you're curious about it, I'd be happy to loan it out. I'd like to see what it does, but I seem only to accumulate lenses, not use them. Sigh.

BTW, do modern holders fit into your Seneca? When I got mine (a New Improved) a couple of years ago, I had to do some surgery on the back. It had miles of tape on it holding it together. I had to either widen or deepen the stop groove on it, as modern holders were too long, and previous owners had broken the far end of the back off. I glued a strip of mahogony there, and two more along the sides, as the back was made too wide for modern holders. It's been waiting for a paint job for the last two years. No time; no time.

'scuse me - the boss-lady's calling for me to hang the picture, mirror and shelf in the new bathroom. And I better not forget to bring home the hammer-drill to put in her new phone. No time; no time.

Let me know about the lens.

Charley

eclarke · Feb 15, 2006

Too sharp, you cut my eyes..EC 8^))

psvensson · Feb 15, 2006

Great pics. In particular, the first shack picture is stunning.

downfader · Feb 15, 2006

Hmm, maybe my saving up £500 for a wide angle for my 5x4 Cambo would be a bad idea if i could get an old lens like that for £30 (UK conversion from Dollars)

If I see any Conley lenses I might now be tempted

New page about how a $60 Conley Anastigmat trumps a Sironar-S

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency