Solinar
Analog Preferred
Bellow replacement
Bellow replacement
The bellows replacement on a Bessa II is very straight forward, except that the bellows are glued to the inner body, in front of the film gate.
I just received a very well made shutter wrench from Fotoman. It doesn't flex and is super compact. I'll definitely take photos of the Super Speedex bellow replacement for posting on the web.
Bellow replacement
The bellows replacement on a Bessa II is very straight forward, except that the bellows are glued to the inner body, in front of the film gate.
I just received a very well made shutter wrench from Fotoman. It doesn't flex and is super compact. I'll definitely take photos of the Super Speedex bellow replacement for posting on the web.
chippy
foo was here
shutter wrench? what sort? have you got a link? is that specific to use with the S/isolette? or do you just mean the the normal wrench to remove the retaining flange/nut inside the bellows.
just not those cheap black ones that are a bit like using spagetti haha--they work but i like the stainless steel ones better-once you use those there's no going back lol
chippy
foo was here
ROTFL..well i was trying not to be that frank! didnt want to offend anyone (seemed to fail anyway),,and besides if thats all someone has its better than nothing (box brownies can make nice pictures too and thier 6x9!
) and as we have mentioned before when people post the results on the net they may look ok but the prints in your hand compared ,,are a different storymh2000
Well-known
I guess my expectations are kind of low, but my Isollette I with Agnar is pretty ok stopped down... and while I did have to attend to the grean cement grease, the original bellows are still fine for 400 speed film (cross my fingers)... but they sound pretty dry... lowish contrast, but decent flare resistance and sharpness... but as I said, this isn't a camera that I expect Zeiss results out of...
FallisPhoto
Veteran
ROTFL..well i was trying not to be that frank! didnt want to offend anyone (seemed to fail anyway),,and besides if thats all someone has its better than nothing (box brownies can make nice pictures too and thier 6x9!
Speaking frankly again, I'd almost rather have the Box Brownie. I really like the Apotars and Solinars, but I seriously dislike Agnars. I will never again buy a camera with an Agnar -- unless I can swap out the lens. Yeah, it's better than nothing, but not by that much.
I have one with an Agnar too. I won't get another one though -- well, maybe a Billy, but I'd swap out the Agnar with an Apotar.
Last edited:
oftheherd
Veteran
Interesting thread. I have been on travel and didn't have time to fire up the computer for anything but work. Ugh!
mh2000. One of the nice things about MF is that there is enough negative and the cof are small enough to be somewhat forgiving. Bottom line, it you are happy, go for it. If you don't have some of the other lenses mentioned here, or those of another better MF, you might want to try one. You might be pleasantly surprised. I have personally never owned an Agfa, but from those who have, the apotar and solinar seem to be worlds above the agnar. Good MF folders are just fun to me. They have a fascination all their own.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
The Agnar is usually better than the lens in your box cameras. I had a f/4.5 on an Ansco Viking that wasn't too shabby - after the overhaul of the helical.
The quality of the Agnar probably varied a bit from camera to camera. The one on the Viking performed nearly as good as a couple of post war Radionars that were common on a Franka roll-fix.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
That's why I said I'd almost rather have a Box Brownie. Almost is the key word there. If the box camera was a Zeiss Tengor though, I'd have to think about it. That Goerz Frontar was pretty sharp for the kind of lens it was.
I bet that Viking would have been a whole lot nicer with an Apotar.
That's not saying a whole lot though. Thing is, an Agfa with an Apotar costs no more than the same camera with an Agnar. The lens element to film plane distance is the same, most times, with Apotars and Agnars, and they are easily swappable, so why not?
Arvay
Obscurant
I have to say that my Agnar is very good and I love it. I did not even thought that it can be so nice.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
If they were that nice, there would be no reason to make Apotars and Solinars.
charjohncarter
Veteran
In Arvay's defense, some of us are not so a-retentive that we count parallel lines per millimeter on every lens we own, but actually look at an image. We decide for ourselves if we like it or don't like it. My best lenses, to me, are totally boring. So, let someone like what he likes.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
I'm not doing that either. I use my cameras and I look at the photos. I study them and analyze them in an effort to figure out what works best for me and why one photo looks better than another. I have an Agnar Isolette, some Apotar Isolettes and a couple of Solinar Isolettes. The differences between photos from my Apotars and Solinars aren't that much, unless you open the apertures up pretty wide. The differences between photos from my Agnar and the Apotars is pretty significant though and it jumps right out at me. Therefore, on both objective and subjective levels, I think the Apotar is a very noticably better lens. Now I accept different strokes for different folks, and Arvay can like his Agnar as much as he wants, but it just isn't in the same league with an Apotar. To me it is like the difference between looking at an old Sanyo TV and a new HD plasma TV.
Last edited:
chippy
foo was here
whenever a thread arrives discussing the Agnar, Apotar and Solinar people always seem to get defensive and ultimately upset as if the criticisum is directed at the person and not the lenses.
this thread is about the lenses, thats what the OP was asking about.
i am all for anyone and everyone simply enjoying themselves with vintage photo equipment. heck i have some terrible lenses, by todays standards or even compared to 40s and 50s, but have still enjoyed using the cameras for a bit of fun..if expectations are kept to a minimum the results are often surprisingly nice.
however it doenst do anyone any good if they ask about the diffeences in the 3 mentioned lenses to simply say they are all good, great, no difference! that just leads to more confusion down the track with the next person asking.
as with most things, the good advice is to get the best you can afford, particularly as its now 50+ years on from when these were produced someone may as well get a Isollette with at least an Apotar given the choice is pretty much the same money, as often as not. (or even if they cost $15+ or more, that doenst hurt our pockets as much as it did to the folk living in the 50's) .
there is a noticable difference, it may as well be said. and as FallisP mentions the solinar's advantage compared to the Apotar is also when used wider open, which for some people may be important (not to mention you do get those extra lines per mm which can be important as well). what is that saying with photography?...spend big dollars for small gains....well when it comes to Isolettes luckly it works out, to spend pretty small extra dollars for bigger gains. (not counting the S/Isolette)
but by all means if you have an Iso w/Agnar and enjoy it, then continue to do so--like i said i had fun and got interesting photos from using all sorts of worse lenses (older period lenses) than the Agnar...cant remember the last time i used pin hole LOL , must try that again one day.
this thread is about the lenses, thats what the OP was asking about.
i am all for anyone and everyone simply enjoying themselves with vintage photo equipment. heck i have some terrible lenses, by todays standards or even compared to 40s and 50s, but have still enjoyed using the cameras for a bit of fun..if expectations are kept to a minimum the results are often surprisingly nice.
however it doenst do anyone any good if they ask about the diffeences in the 3 mentioned lenses to simply say they are all good, great, no difference! that just leads to more confusion down the track with the next person asking.
as with most things, the good advice is to get the best you can afford, particularly as its now 50+ years on from when these were produced someone may as well get a Isollette with at least an Apotar given the choice is pretty much the same money, as often as not. (or even if they cost $15+ or more, that doenst hurt our pockets as much as it did to the folk living in the 50's) .
there is a noticable difference, it may as well be said. and as FallisP mentions the solinar's advantage compared to the Apotar is also when used wider open, which for some people may be important (not to mention you do get those extra lines per mm which can be important as well). what is that saying with photography?...spend big dollars for small gains....well when it comes to Isolettes luckly it works out, to spend pretty small extra dollars for bigger gains. (not counting the S/Isolette)
but by all means if you have an Iso w/Agnar and enjoy it, then continue to do so--like i said i had fun and got interesting photos from using all sorts of worse lenses (older period lenses) than the Agnar...cant remember the last time i used pin hole LOL , must try that again one day.
Last edited:
charjohncarter
Veteran
I would probably pick the Sanyo over the plas(tic)ma, but then again, I'm different from most of you, except maybe arvay. This is one of my Sanyo lenses which is always a surprise:
Last edited:
chippy
foo was here
nothing wrong with being different...and we all are as it turns out
have trouble beleiving though that if we presented in front arvay (or anyone else) the choice between an old Sanyo TV and HDTV plasma and said you can keep whatever one you like best there would be any takers on the old Sanyo
Last edited:
chubasco
Well-known
Stopped-down to f8 or so, the Apotar does a pretty good job. This
scan is at 1200dpi on my Epson 4490, Neopan Acros 100 film:
Camera is the Agfa Isolette 4.5, older model to the Isolette I
Bill
ps that is not my Cayman
scan is at 1200dpi on my Epson 4490, Neopan Acros 100 film:
Camera is the Agfa Isolette 4.5, older model to the Isolette I
Bill
ps that is not my Cayman
Arvay
Obscurant
Probably I'm wrong > It so often that the one should keep the majority line
I will post some pictures later today.
I will post some pictures later today.
Last edited:
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Arvay; said:It so often that the one should keep the majority line
It is getting to be that way. Triplets that I found to be quite good stopped down to f/8 ish are the Apotar 105/4.5, Helomar 105/3.5, Novar 105/3.5 and Trinar 105/3.5.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
From my experience, you can add the Cassar to that list. Don't forget the Elmar either.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Plas(tic)ma vs Sanyo: chippy we will have to ask avray, but that Sanyo really looks sweet to me. Is it yours? If it is, you lucky guy.