850mm f/4.0 lens

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Oct 29, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Oct 29, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Rob Guest

    Rob, Oct 29, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 29/10/2012 09:06, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 19:29:00 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/t1653.html

    >
    > Doesn't work for me.


    It isn't the worlds greatest photo, but the lens is there and looks
    rather chunky with a roughly 12" front element. Looks like it
    illuminates a whole plate or slightly larger film too.
    >
    >> For 8 or 16mm film?


    For sheet film or very big rolls! Guessing 200mm or 250mm from
    http://www.surplusshed.com/photo.cfm?ID=T1653_3

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Oct 29, 2012
    #3
  4. RichA

    Mort Guest

    RichA wrote:
    > http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/t1653.html
    >
    > For 8 or 16mm film?
    >


    Probably surplus from the Air Force, which used really big cameras in
    the old days.This lens without its camera probably cannot do much other
    than look interesting.

    Mort Linder
    Mort, Oct 29, 2012
    #4
  5. RichA <> writes:

    > http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/t1653.html
    >
    > For 8 or 16mm film?


    For large roll film; 70mm or larger, up to 18" or so.

    The actual description is "36 inch F/4.0 Aerial lens"; focal length in
    inches plus "aerial" flags it as intended for aerial surveillance work,
    which was done using large roll films in that era.
    --
    Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
    David Dyer-Bennet, Oct 29, 2012
    #5
  6. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 30/10/2012 03:48, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:08:24 -0500, Rich <> wrote:
    >
    >> Eric Stevens <> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:22:49 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> RichA <> writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/t1653.html
    >>>>>
    >>>>> For 8 or 16mm film?
    >>>>
    >>>> For large roll film; 70mm or larger, up to 18" or so.
    >>>>
    >>>> The actual description is "36 inch F/4.0 Aerial lens"; focal length in
    >>>> inches plus "aerial" flags it as intended for aerial surveillance work,
    >>>> which was done using large roll films in that era.
    >>>
    >>> Probably in a Schmidt camera or similar which used a vacuum to suck
    >>> the film back into a template shaped to correspond with the lens's
    >>> actual focal plane.

    >>
    >> No, I've seen a Baker Super Schmidt (17" front element) but the Surplus
    >> Shed lens is definitely a refractive lens, no mirrors.

    >
    > So is the camera I had in mind. I've confirmed that I am wrong in
    > thinking it was a Schmidt. What could it have been that I had in mind?


    Some other fast optical design that uses a curved focal plane for a
    tradeoff of distortion against optimised point spread function off axis.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Oct 30, 2012
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Beowulf
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    2,951
    Lionel
    Aug 24, 2003
  2. Mike Kozlowski
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    786
  3. Amyotte
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    706
    amyotte
    Feb 11, 2004
  4. SteveJ

    Canon 10D lens Nikon Lens

    SteveJ, Jun 9, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    839
    Steve m...
    Jun 14, 2004
  5. silvio

    DIGITAL LENS VS REGULAR LENS

    silvio, Jun 16, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    557
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Jun 16, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page