The MOTHER of all Rangefinder lenses arrived yesterday...

jdos2 · 03-18-2004

At my back door. It's bloody HUGE!
A Mamiya Universal 250mm F/5 lens. 5 elements, 3 groups. Known for sharp performance, but will flare (single coated optics) without a hood. I'm going to build a hood or look around for one. Gotta be a new barndoor 105mm thread hood around.

My goodness, the Universal had some heft to it before, but now, it's seriously several POUNDS heavier.

Wide open, it clips the corners of Polaroid. I don't know if I got lucky, but mine engages the rangefinder, and stopped down to the darker numbers (yellow? orange? What's the difference), focuses WELL closer than the 20 foot minimum. Ive tried 10 feet and the Polaroid is sharp (f/11)

WHAT-A-MONSTER!

I wonder if there was ever a larger, heavier lens for ANY other rangefinder camera.

105mm filter threads. Bet one of THOSE will cost me.

bmattock · 03-18-2004

For Fujica G690:

180mm Fujinon f/5.6
Stops from f/5.6 to f/45
Focusses to 2.5m (98.4 in)
31.2 degrees angle of view
Requires Accessory Viewfinder (equiv. to f=78mm in 35mm format)
List Price: $295 US (1971)

I, er, happen to have one. Hehehehe.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

PS - Dante Stella has a nice write-up on the camera and the lenses:

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/g690bl.html

jdos2 · 03-19-2004

Just... Just the weight is impressive. I'm going to have to throw this bad boy on the scale to see what it weighs, I can't find that information on their website.

I brought the camera to work today in an effort to build up neck and shoulder muscles during lunch. I was ribbed for "compensation," whatever they meant by that.

:-)

Now, for a hood.

jdos2 · 03-21-2004

1,865 grams, 4 pounds and an ounce.

Yeow!

oftheherd · 03-22-2004

The 250mm f/5 was designed to engage the rangefinder. The 250mm f/8 was not, and could only be scale focused. I didn't know the 250mm f/5 would cover poloroid. If it clips the corners (edit: when not) stopped down, I guess it should give full coverage by about f/16. I have always thought I would like to have one, and would take either the f/5 or f/8. But, I have wides which is where I would usually rather be, so, maybe someday in the future.

Congrats on the new lens/workout system.

jdos2 · 03-22-2004

I've heard it mentioned that the f/8 has better contrast- it being a 4 element lens, the f/5 is a six lens. I'm willing to bet that the f/8 is lighter too.

It's clipping pattern on Polaroid is similar to the 100-mm f/2.8- it does improve on stopping down, but the mask gets in the way. It's not so important, I've the 5" and the 75-mm for Polaroid, but I do exposure checks, and for that, this lens is good.

Now I've got to figure out how to best pack a travel kit with the 250-mm...

oftheherd · 03-22-2004

Quote:

Originally posted by jdos2
I've heard it mentioned that the f/8 has better contrast- it being a 4 element lens, the f/5 is a six lens. I'm willing to bet that the f/8 is lighter too.

It's clipping pattern on Polaroid is similar to the 100-mm f/2.8- it does improve on stopping down, but the mask gets in the way. It's not so important, I've the 5" and the 75-mm for Polaroid, but I do exposure checks, and for that, this lens is good.

Now I've got to figure out how to best pack a travel kit with the 250-mm...

Foam padded barrel on a burro?

Wayne R. Scott · 03-22-2004

The largest lens I have is an Aero-Ektar 7" f2.5 (178mm). Here, I hope, is a photo of it on my Super Graphic, with 25A Red Filter and my Rollie 35 for size comparison. I haven't weighed it yet.

Wayne

Rich Silfver · 09-13-2004

Holy cr*p Wayne, I missed the photo of that lens. Wow!

Have you taken any photos with it yet? I'd love to see some examples!

(By the way...love the Rollei 35....I want one...actually I want the 35S (not the SE)....)

Wayne R. Scott · 09-14-2004

Richard,

I will try to scan some photos in taken with this lens in the next couple of weeks and post them. The Rollie was cute, but I traded it in on my Contax IIA.

I gotta get a 4x5 scanner.

Wayne