casualcollector
Lifetime Member
In Search of "R" Serial Soligors
Posts: 619
|
Post by casualcollector on Jun 25, 2008 21:00:12 GMT -5
One of my pet subjects! We've had a Vivitar-Soligor T4 lenses thread here previously. It has been over five years since I started gathering them in earnest, but this is the last in the line to be collected. This is the longest in the line, a 400mm f6.3and it's a Vivitar. While I have an example of each focal length, I haven't bothered getting both Vivitar and Soligor versions of each. Have to draw the line somewhere! Vivitar T4 400mm f6.3 Auto Telephoto If you haven't seen it before, here's a link to a web page I wrote on the subject back in '03 or '04. www.vermontel.net/~wsalati/CasualCollector/t4_for_two.htm I'll have to dig them out and line them up for a new family portrait. I also have a start on collecting the successor TX line of lenses. Bill
|
|
|
Post by Randy on Jun 25, 2008 22:33:30 GMT -5
You sure you didn't use Vivagra on that lens? ;D
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jun 26, 2008 6:00:21 GMT -5
That really is a stovepipe, Bill.
Some people laugh at these fairly simple long-focus lenses that sometimes have not much more than air inside the pipe, but many of them deliver first class results fully equal to many telephoto designs with lots of negative/positive elements inside them, and do it at a much lower initial price. The main advantage of the telephoto, and its descendant the zoom, is compactness.
I've been told by people who know much more about optics than me that one of the advantages of a simple long-focus design is that often it uses only the centre of the field it could cover if the rear glasses were larger diameter. This means it tends to suffer much less from things like pincushion, barrel and other edge of field distortions that give designers of more compact lenses of the same focal length so many headaches. They also have fewer air-to-glass surfaces that reduce light transmission and contrast.
Also, they really are impressive when you hang a camera on the back, aren't they?
PeterW
|
|
casualcollector
Lifetime Member
In Search of "R" Serial Soligors
Posts: 619
|
Post by casualcollector on Jun 26, 2008 18:50:15 GMT -5
Randy,
You think that's somethin'? It swells another two and a half inches when its lens hood is erected.
Peter,
I used to laugh at the advertising for these lenses. One American importer advertised their pre-set 400/6.3 as "The Girl Watcher" lens. In the early seventies it was possible to get one for $29.95 U.S. plus shipping and handling!
While a bit more sophisticated mechanically, due to the auto iris and interchangeable mounts, it is still simple optically. Probably only three or four elements. Focusing is a single helix, the front group revolves while focusing. The rear group remains fixed. I've read that these simple lenses could produce amazingly sharp results in black and white by using a yellow filter.
There were so many distributors of the simple, pre-set long teles in the US. I wonder how many manufacturers there could have been? Perhaps two or three grinding the lenses, several more machine shops producing barrel components and perhaps a dozen or more companies assembling them with small cosmetic variations to differentiate their product? I've seen 600mm and 800mm lenses, too. Wish I could read and speak Japanese!
Bill
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jun 27, 2008 6:47:22 GMT -5
As you say, Bill, the stovepipes were usually very simple optically. Some were four-glass Tessar-type layout but a surpising number like the Zeiss Triotar and Meyer Trioplan were simple triplets.
In some cases the ones for 35mm cameras were rehashes of old designs of modest apertures, f/5.6 and f/6.3, intended for use on large format cameras, so they used only the centre of the field where definition was usually excellent. In a few cases when you look in the back the rear element is some distance along the pipe because it needed to be a long way from the focal plane, as it would be on something like a 5x4in or 9x12cm camera.
I too used to read that with black and white film using a yellow filter improved the image but I think this was because it darkened the reflected blue light which gave increased contrast - an increase in 'perceived sharpness' rather than actual sharpness. With modern black and white film emulsions, and a really good lenshood, I doubt if a yellow filter would make much difference except to bring out clouds against a blue sky more clearly. If you want some quite dramatic results try them with 3x light orange filter.
PeterW
|
|
|
Post by Randy on Jun 27, 2008 11:13:06 GMT -5
Randy, You think that's somethin'? It swells another two and a half inches when its lens hood is erected. LOL!!! ;D
|
|