You are correct on all counts. I really have no documented basis for
the film size this old lens was designed to cover, though not from lack
of searching. And I can't say exactly how old it is. I think some were
made as early as 1840-50, then returned to popularity circa 1880-90.
Among those listed for sale, Waterhouse stops far outnumber rotary stops
like this one. And, yes, I cherry-picked, using only the center of the
lens. But, as an experiment, I was very impressed with the resolution of
a hand-held image on a freezing January morning, even though I used
Your discussion of the Nikkor-Q 200/4 and its Oly cousins was very
interesting. From discussions on the Olympus List and the LUG, I
realize that size and weight are factors that become more important as
we get older. Though I have hand held the 50-200 SWD lens, I normally
add a shoulder stock or monopod if at all possible. When shooting from a
blind, I always use a tripod.
On 7/16/21 1:49 PM, Moose wrote:
On 7/15/2021 4:11 PM, Jim Nichols wrote:
Mike, I suspect it was intended for a 5x7 camera, which is about 96
times the size of a 4/3 sensor. Not bad resolution for a 130 year
The basics of making a very slow, moderately long lens aren't
particularly difficult. Also, your use is only of the center portion
of the image circle. It could be pure crap in the corners, on the size
film it was designed for, and you would have no idea.
96 times is also misleading. It linear resolution that matters, not
area. Yup, ten times smaller is a lot, but not 100.
The things that make design with good results tough are speed and
size/weight. Speed is obvious, I think. But the pressures of the
marketplace figure in, too. Example: I have the first version of the
Nikkor-Q 200/4 lens, designed in 1960.
It is markedly superior in resolution to the later Oly 200/4 and
200/5. It is also a great deal larger
Quid Pro Moose
Tullahoma, TN USA
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/