Same focal length, same speed, same film format, one lens is a zillion times bigger than the other.

[__Brian]

I use an F2Sb with DS-1 EE-Servo motor, 80!200/F4.5, and MD-2 with MB-1 to strike fear into the hearts of my enemies.
It is the film camera preferred by the Borg.

 

[Pieter12]

Again, an apples and elephants comparison.

? Unless you can take pictures with apples or elephants, I don't follow.

 

[Pieter12]

Rangefinder cameras.

When did I say anything about having a RF camera?

 

[Huss]

1F w/ CV 15:

? Unless you can take pictures with apples or elephants, I don't follow.

Elephants like apples. I think that's his point.

 

[nosmok]

The only 200 made a 35mm rangefinder that comes to mind is the 200 for Kodak Retina S, it is uncouple (if memory serves me) same lens as the Retinaflex used. All of the other 200 were used with reflex housings. The other longish lens for a rangefinder was the 150mm for the Ektar, it was coupled.

The Bell and Howell Foton (1948) had a 216mm Cooke lens available for it, and supposedly a 12"/ 300mm as well. But try finding them-- Kodak Ektras (didn't they have a 250mm available? my spider-sense is tingling) are available by the fistfull in comparison.

 

[Paul Howell]

From I've read the 250 was advertised, never produced. I have to look up the Foton, don't think I've ever seen one.

 

[nosmok]

From I've read the 250 was advertised, never produced. I have to look up the Foton, don't think I've ever seen one.

With hazy memory bubbling up, you're right about the Ektra's 250-- there was a setting for it in the zoom viewfinder, but no actual taking lens has ever been found. Again from memory, a few years (~7 maybe) back on evilBay, there was a spate of viewfinders for the Foton's 216, and a couple bodies and at least one of the lenses. But you can't search that far back on the 'bay, AFAIK.

 

[Paul Howell]

From the font of all knowledge Wiki

The lenses have a screw mount. The focusing helical thread is part of the camera body, not the lens.[2] A four-inch T4 (f/2.5) Panchrotal was available;[2] An example has been seen at Westlicht with a Cooke 216 mm (8½ inch) f/5.6 Telekinic and a shoe-mounted rangefinder unit to serve one of the telephoto lenses;[3] clearly, this suggests that the camera's own rangefinder does not couple with all the available lenses. McKeown states that a twelve-inch Cooke lens was also available.[4]

 

[MattKing]

The Bell and Howell Foton (1948) had a 216mm Cooke lens available for it, and supposedly a 12"/ 300mm as well. But try finding them-- Kodak Ektras (didn't they have a 250mm available? my spider-sense is tingling) are available by the fistfull in comparison.

Ektra vs. Foton - with pics: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/coffee-and-a-kodak-ektra-and-a-bell-and-howell-foton.187298/

 

[Huss]

And this is what I love about Photrio. I start some random, non-sensical topic, and you lot take it down interesting alleys.

 

[Pieter12]

And this is what I love about Photrio. I start some random, non-sensical topic, and you lot take it down interesting alleys.

You just wanted to know if elephants eat apples or take pictures with them.

 

[Huss]

You just wanted to know if elephants eat apples or take pictures with them.

I guess you could take a picture of an elephant with an apple.

 

[j-dogg]

Weird. No wonder SLRs never took off.

Dude, we have the same Leica / 15mm Voigtlander setup! That's awesome lmao. Mine is a IIIc with a gacked RF and VF so I slapped a 15 on it and left it.

 

[j-dogg]

Don't make me post my F100/Tamron 15-30 2.8 VC in here it gives my RB67 a run for it's money in the size department lol

 

[Huss]

Dude, we have the same Leica / 15mm Voigtlander setup! That's awesome lmao. Mine is a IIIc with a gacked RF and VF so I slapped a 15 on it and left it.

The only thing is that plastic CV viewfinder is crappy. It has no frame lines and so using the whole frame is not very clear, nor does it seem to be at all 'precise'.
I'm thinking about getting the much nicer metal one, but feel cheap at the moment..

 

[j-dogg]

The only thing is that plastic CV viewfinder is crappy. It has no frame lines and so using the whole frame is not very clear, nor does it seem to be at all 'precise'.
I'm thinking about getting the much nicer metal one, but feel cheap at the moment..

It's good enough, i wished it did have frame lines though.

 

[ragazzo]

I have a mamiya 7 80mm and then the rollei 6008 with an 80mm, which is an absolute brick. Don't get me started on the RZ....

 

[BradS]

left: 200mm f/4 Nikkor AI-S
right: 200mm f/4 Nikkor-Q
both with built in shade retracted.

If you can't hear the shutter go thaaa-wap...how do know for sure if you even exist?

 

[Sirius Glass]

left: 20mm f/4 Nikkor AI-S
right: 200mm f/4 Nikkor-Q

If you can't hear the shtter go thaaa-wap...how do know for sure if you even exist?

Thus along with interchangeable backs and more I chose the Hasselblad with a healthy THA-WACK!!

 

[BradS]

Thus along with interchangeable backs and more I chose the Hasselblad with a healthy THA-WACK!!

I remember back when my kids were young.
We used to visit Oakland zoo fairly regularly.
They had a male elephant back then.
The first time I saw it in profile,
I realized immediately that I'd never before seen a male elephant in a zoo.
in fact, I don't think I'd ever seen a male elephant anywhere - not even on Mutual of Omaha's, Wild Kingdom.
It might have been the same zoo where Winogrand photographed that famous photo of the humans disguising themselves from the elephant.
Where they feeding the elephant an apple?
but I don't think Winogrand was using one of those boxy Swedish things.
he probably had an existential crisis as a result.

 

[grat]

Speaking of ridiculous things, there's always the Sigma "Green Monster"-- The 200-500mm f/2.8 lens that weighs 34.6 lbs, looks suspiciously like a high end refractor, and costs about the same as a small car.

Comes with a 2x teleconverter, hence the 1000mm on the display.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Speaking of ridiculous things, there's always the Sigma "Green Monster"-- The 200-500mm f/2.8 lens that weighs 34.6 lbs, looks suspiciously like a high end refractor, and costs about the same as a small car.

Comes with a 2x teleconverter, hence the 1000mm on the display.

You meant "reflector" not "refractor", right?

 

[grat]

You meant "reflector" not "refractor", right?

Well.... There's no opaque center spot on the lens, so it wouldn't be a Schmidt-Cassegrain or Maksutov design, and the eyepiece is on one end, so it's definitely a similar optical path to a refractor.

But you're right that the proportions are closer to a reflector, although I was able to find the TEC 200/1600 F8 APO which is comparable in size (and price).

 

[Sirius Glass]

You meant "reflector" not "refractor", right?

Well.... There's no opaque center spot on the lens, so it wouldn't be a Schmidt-Cassegrain or Maksutov design, and the eyepiece is on one end, so it's definitely a similar optical path to a refractor.

But you're right that the proportions are closer to a reflector, although I was able to find the TEC 200/1600 F8 APO which is comparable in size (and price).

I will just go crawl back in my hole and pout.

 

[grat]

I will just go crawl back in my hole and pout.

Nah, don't do that. I actually started to say "Schmidt/Cassegrain reflector", but wasn't sure how many people would know what it was. And for those that do know, expected they'd correct me.