Schneider 350mm F/11 Apo-Tele-Xenar....

Shawn Dougherty · Dec 19, 2013

The Fuji 300mm C f8.5 is certainly NOT a telephoto design... and I do not desire to debate the terms. =)

That being said I did recommend it to Stone for use on his camera, a Toyo 45AII. I have that same camera and the Fuji 300mm C f8.5 lens. I forget the exact minimum focus distance but I can set up my camera with this lens in my living room and focus on the lamp by the wall. I'd have to remeasure but the living room is small, the focus distance is somewhere between 10 and 20 feet. This is the main reason I bought the lens and sold my 305mm G-Claron. The G-Claron requires MUCH more bellows draw.

I cannot and will not comment on Stone's own measurements.

Alan Gales · Dec 19, 2013

Drew, I have a brother in law who is a Machinist. He asked me what tolerances I worked to in sheet metal. I told him a quarter inch because you can caulk over a quarter inch.

DREW WILEY · Dec 19, 2013

Most of my trade nowadays is very high-end residential remodel, marine, art furniture, cabinet makers, etc - but thirty five years ago I mostly sold to import auto mechanics and machine shops. When using certain precision tools the most dimensionally stable work surface you could acquire was a pink granite machinist's block. And way back then Starrett had electronic devices which, when you simply breathed on that piece of rock, would register the change in dimension in millionths due to the temperature of your breath (even back when my breath was probably not as stale as it is now)! Nowadays you do the same thing, and they have a machine which will draw a contour map of that granite surface in millionths. Not that I ever personally sold one of those.

Alan Gales · Dec 19, 2013

That's just crazy. I can't imagine being that precise.

My brother in law makes military jet parts. Some of that stuff is pretty wild too. I don't think he would want to use Stone's tape measure or even my old Stanley for that matter.

DREW WILEY · Dec 19, 2013

Well, if you happen to be the folks up the street who made the correction lenses for the Hubble, you have to be more precise than even that.

E. von Hoegh · Dec 19, 2013

Alan Gales said:
That's just crazy. I can't imagine being that precise.

My brother in law makes military jet parts. Some of that stuff is pretty wild too. I don't think he would want to use Stone's tape measure or even my old Stanley for that matter.

I routinely make parts for watches, a very common job is a new balance staff - the 'axle' of the balance. In a fine pocket watch, the pivots of the staff will be in the neighborhood of .0025" -roughly the diameter of a human hair or a bit less, and made of steel that is tempered just this side of glass hard - it's pointless to measure them, you polish the pivot to final size, where it fits in the jewel hole with freedom but no play.

Have you ever worked on Diesel engine injectors? Handle the injector piston, it warms up a bit and will not go into the bore in the injector body. Hold the injector body in your hand to warm it, pick up the cool piston and it slides right in.

StoneNYC · Dec 19, 2013

E. von Hoegh said:
Give up, Stone. It's been explained to you several times by several people. Your measurement appears inaccurate, BTW. You should measure from the front of the lensboard -without the lens - to the inside surface of the GG. This measurement would giive you the flange focus, not the focal length. You need to look up and understand the difference between these two terms, you will then be less confused. Drew might refresh his memory as well...

You obviously do not own this camera, if you did you would notice that I DID measure from the front of the lensboard to the back of the GG....

Also, it's not cloth tape Drew, it's Taylor's measuring tape and I can assure you it's accurate, and it's a semi-rigid bendable plastic that does not stretch....

No matter what I do you're going to argue with the facts, you probably both own Leica cameras too and talk about the perfect lenses and show people charts to prove the point.... I friggin went out and shot and documented it and you still don't believe me, seriously I could have the president of Fuji and of Toyo on a video telling you I was right and you would respond "but the chart says this other thing..."

*shakes head*

Alan Gales · Dec 19, 2013

E. von Hoegh said:
I routinely make parts for watches, a very common job is a new balance staff - the 'axle' of the balance. In a fine pocket watch, the pivots of the staff will be in the neighborhood of .0025" -roughly the diameter of a human hair or a bit less, and made of steel that is tempered just this side of glass hard - it's pointless to measure them, you polish the pivot to final size, where it fits in the jewel hole with freedom but no play.

Have you ever worked on Diesel engine injectors? Handle the injector piston, it warms up a bit and will not go into the bore in the injector body. Hold the injector body in your hand to warm it, pick up the cool piston and it slides right in.

You carry a pocket watch? Isn't that a bit old fashioned? Next you will be telling me that you shoot film with one of those old cameras with the bellows and ground glass. When I started in sheet metal as an apprentice, my foreman used to yell, "Hurry up, we're not building a watch!".

No I have never worked on Diesel engines. That's some pretty close tolerances on those injector bodies. I did a 3 angle valve job on a slant 6 gas engine once. I haven't done much machine work.

DREW WILEY · Dec 19, 2013

In this town, where quite a few people actually measure things at a subatomic level, all we photographers might as well be using double bit axes to fine-tune our own kind of tolerances. But Stone would have to become one heck of an actor to get a job around here in anything tech, or even as a cleanup kid in a machine shop. Even I for one measure film plane with a depth micrometer attached to a precision ground piece of flat stock. Don't really care. His camera doesn't have enough bellows extension for him to even worry about closeup corrections with that lens, and
he should do fine with it without having to understand all the technical details. Maybe in the process he'll learn to read too. Lens spec sheets
aren't all that different from lager labels anyway.

PKM-25 · Dec 19, 2013

Shawn Dougherty said:
I cannot and will not comment on Stone's own measurements.

I'm pretty sure those vary a lot depending on if he is shooting landscapes or nudes....

StoneNYC · Dec 19, 2013

PKM-25 said:
I'm pretty sure those vary a lot depending on if he is shooting landscapes or nudes....

I would say that my measurements stay fairly the same during either shoot type, I'm very professional, and the one time they may have changed, it wasn't my fault, I wasn't the one adjusting the lens at that point...

DREW WILEY · Dec 19, 2013

Certain surfaces are more pliable than others. Maybe that affects his definition of focus distance.

E. von Hoegh · Dec 20, 2013

Alan Gales said:
You carry a pocket watch? Isn't that a bit old fashioned? Next you will be telling me that you shoot film with one of those old cameras with the bellows and ground glass. When I started in sheet metal as an apprentice, my foreman used to yell, "Hurry up, we're not building a watch!".

No I have never worked on Diesel engines. That's some pretty close tolerances on those injector bodies. I did a 3 angle valve job on a slant 6 gas engine once. I haven't done much machine work.

Yes indeedy. A Waltham 16s, 23 jewel Vanguard - their top of the line RR watch, adjusted to heat, cold, isochronism, and five positions, with gold jewel settings, gold second wheel, diamond endstones, and a double-sunk vitreous enamel dial. You wind it every morning. It was made the year the Titanic had that encounter with the iceberg, and if I carry it carefully it runs within 30-40 seconds/month. And I have several of them old "box cameras".

Edit - This model Waltham, almost - the regulator is different - http://www.ebay.com/itm/STUNNING-23...7115332?pt=Pocket_Watches&hash=item3cda1917c4

StoneNYC · Dec 20, 2013

E. von Hoegh said:
Yes indeedy. A Waltham 16s, 23 jewel Vanguard - their top of the line RR watch, adjusted to heat, cold, isochronism, and five positions, with gold jewel settings, gold second wheel, diamond endstones, and a double-sunk vitreous enamel dial. You wind it every morning. It was made the year the Titanic had that encounter with the iceberg, and if I carry it carefully it runs within 30-40 seconds/month. And I have several of them old "box cameras".

Edit - This model Waltham, almost - the regulator is different - http://www.ebay.com/itm/STUNNING-23...7115332?pt=Pocket_Watches&hash=item3cda1917c4

I really wish the front looked as good as the back.. It's so pretty in the back but the front is so blah, why have all that gold if it's hidden, at least the hands and numbers could have been gold. But still an amazing timepiece. Thanks for sharing.

E. von Hoegh · Dec 20, 2013

StoneNYC said:
I really wish the front looked as good as the back.. It's so pretty in the back but the front is so blah, why have all that gold if it's hidden, at least the hands and numbers could have been gold. But still an amazing timepiece. Thanks for sharing.

Stone, it's a railroad watch. The dial is designed for one purpose, ease of reading. The timekeeping commision had fairly strict standards. Gold hands and numerals? Please. I wouldn't own it if it looked like that.

StoneNYC · Dec 20, 2013

E. von Hoegh said:
Stone, it's a railroad watch. The dial is designed for one purpose, ease of reading. The timekeeping commision had fairly strict standards. Gold hands and numerals? Please. I wouldn't own it if it looked like that.

Yea with elegant mother of pearl inlayed into the center of the hands and numerals

Ok now I understand why it's designed that way, makes sense, ease of viewing.

Schneider 350mm F/11 Apo-Tele-Xenar....

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency