http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/kowapg.html All messages from thread From: W.J.MARKERINK (w.j.markerink@fotobank.nl) Subject: Re: Kowa six 19mm fisheye? Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc Date: 1995/12/04 Hi, I read an article about the Kowa six, and noticed that there once has been a 19mm *circular* fisheye for this camera. Does anyone know if this lens has ever been sold? Any chance of finding one on the used market? Ever seen one? Thanks in advance! bye, _/ _/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ illem _/ _/ an _/ _/ _/ arkerink _/_/_/ The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand Fotobank Nederland (r) +31 24 3441009 w.j.markerink@fotobank.nl ## CrossPoint v3.02 ## * ZQWK v0.38Beta [CrossPoint-Version] From: Fred Collins (fcollins@gonix.com) Subject: Re: Kowa six 19mm fisheye? Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc Date: 1995/12/07 In article <8B6457C.0008002AED.uuout@fotobank.nl>, w.j.markerink@fotobank.nl says... > >I read an article about the Kowa six, and noticed that there once has been >a 19mm *circular* fisheye for this camera. > >Does anyone know if this lens has ever been sold? > >Any chance of finding one on the used market? Ever seen one? The Kowa Super 66 was my first rollfilm SLR and I still keep it, and a companion Six, running because I have the 40mm and 50mm lenses for them. I love the angle of view of the 40mm, but honestly think that the Distagon is way too expensive for what I need. All of my Kowa lenses are sharp, contrasty, and well color balanced, by the way. In 16x20 finished prints, I can't find a difference is sharpness or resolution between them and the 80mm Planar and 150mm Sonnar. In both cases, I can count blood vessels on eyeballs in head and shoulders portraits. I have never seen the 19mm for sale, or even advertised for sale. Here in the US, Kowa was distributed by Berkey/Colortran which didn't do a great job with what is really a fine rollfilm camera line. There weren't millions of the cameras sold, so there probably aren't a lot of the specialty lenses available on the used market. I chanced on the 40mm, by the way, and bought it on the spot for about 1/3 of what I have seen it advertised for. The guy who repairs my Kowas is located in Los Angeles and does quite a lot with the camera system. His name is Ross Yerkes and advertises monthly in Shutterbug magazine. The last time I spoke to him about wide angle Kowa lenses, he said that he had never seen the 30mm Kowa lens either. You might want to contact him about equipment he does have available. -fred -- ___________ http://www.gonix.com/fcollins/welcome.html ______________ There is a road, no simple highway | Fred Collins Between the dawn and the dark of night | The Light Fantastic And if you go, no one may follow | Fine Photography That path is for your steps alone | Omaha, NE - R. Hunter, J. Garcia | (402) 498-0263 _____________________________________________________________________ fcollins@gonix.com * fcollins@delphi.com * 73311.2466@compuserve.com From: Bob Neuman (rpn1@cornell.edu) Subject: Re: Kowa six 19mm fisheye? Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc Date: 1995/12/08 In article , fcollins@gonix.com says... >In article <8B6457C.0008002AED.uuout@fotobank.nl>, w.j.markerink@fotobank.nl >says... (...) >>I read an article about the Kowa six, and noticed that there once has >>been a 19mm *circular* fisheye for this camera. (rest deleted) And a 35mm rectangular-perspective super wide that appears to have been quite sharp. Darn! Sometimes it seems like the best/most interesting products sink and the worst/dullest float - maybe yet another example of the power of salesmanship to triumph over quality/content. (Never was a Hasselblad fan - too much trouble and too little offered relative to the cost, and to what others offered [at much lower price], but, then, don't get me started on Leica vs. Nikon again......;-) Hope this helps. From: cardude@westworld.com (cardude@westworld.com) Subject: Kowa Super 66 Medium Format Camera For Sale Private Party Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 1996/12/01 For Sale by Private Party Kowa Super 66 Medium Format Camera. Kowa Wide Angle Fish Eye 19mm 4.0 fstop Tripod Mount for the above camera & lens $950.00 or Best Offer! cardude@westworld.com for further info http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:NFq0HzVnxhMC:digistar.net/rollei/1999-10/1053.html+kowa+19mm+OR+fisheye+sale&hl=en&start=26 http://digistar.net/rollei/1999-10/1053.html Re: Re: [Rollei] Ebay Damaged Goods and eBay David Seifert (lotusm50@sprynet.com) Fri, 22 Oct 1999 10:20:33 -0400 Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] Next message: David Seifert: "Re: [Rollei] 3003 outfit for sale" Previous message: David Seifert: "Re: [Rollei] Film and attachments" Maybe in reply to: Bob Shell: "Re: [Rollei] Ebay Damaged Goods and eBay" My experience with FEDEX has been great. Anytime I have a high value item to send I use FEDEX. Your experience with FEDEX was the fault of the shipper. In no way should they have allowed a shipment of that value to be delivered without a signature. That's just plain foolish! rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us wrote: > I'm good at packing stuff and ship out many thousands of dollars worth ofstuff every month. This is the first problem in more than 15 years. The last time I had a problem was with UPS and that was something over 15 years ago. I had overhauled a lens for a fellow and had put it in a LOT of bubble wrap and a good strong box. The lens was a Kowa fisheye for one of their old MF cameras, and had a front glass something like seven inches across. It arrived with the front element cracked. No idea how that could have happened. UPS absolutely refused to pay, saying that there was no way this was shipping damage. I had insured the lens for $ 2,000. We had to fight with UPS for months on this and eventually they sent the man $ 400 and said "get lost". I have not shipped anything via UPS since then. Some people swear by Fedex, but they screw up also. A box with something like $ 16,000 in Rollei gear which was shipped to me was left on my front porch when I was out of town at a trade show. The box was not there when I returned home and I didn't even know it had been shipped, so I didn't miss it. Months later this was discovered and Fedex was not very cooperative in trying to resolve it. So far I have had the best results with the Post Office. Bob ---------- >From: Denton Taylor >To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >Subject: Re: [Rollei] Ebay Damaged Goods and eBay >Date: Fri, Oct 22, 1999, 11:10 AM > > I might do the same... but I wouldn't try to work both sides of the street like > Bob's buyer did! > > BTW when I ship a lens I wrap it in bubble wrap, then nest in in newspaper in a > MUCH larger box. Never had a problem... Next message: David Seifert: "Re: [Rollei] 3003 outfit for sale" Previous message: David Seifert: "Re: [Rollei] Film and attachments" Maybe in reply to: Bob Shell: "Re: [Rollei] Ebay Damaged Goods and eBay" FROM: w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink) SUBJECT: Re: DOF dabbling (was Kowa 250) DATE: Tue, 26 Mar 02 12:28:18 GMT NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format In article , Struan Gray wrote: >Willem-Jan Markerink, w.j.markerink@a1.nl writes: > >> "Q.G. de Bakker" wrote: >>> "Amazing" DOF (like in this Empire of Bugs thing) can >>> be achieved with quite down to earth ancient techmology. >>> Pick a lens, any lens, and point it at anything of >>> interest. Then, put a tiny object, like a bug, in >>> the image space behind that lens. Next, pick a >>> camera and macro lens, and focus it on the bug. > >> >>No preference in focal length for that secondary lens _at all_? > > The focal length of the secondary lens determines the relative >magnification of the bug and the background. It's aperture determines >their relative brightness. The background will of course be upside >down unless you use a rectifying prism or relay lens too. Hmm....freeze the bug, and hold it upside-down....:)) >It can be >very hard to avoid bad aberrations in the outer parts of the image of >the background, but c'est la vie. > > One of Attenborough's "Life" series of nature films had him >talking to camera with a line of ants marching across the front of the >frame, all in focus. I think this was the first time it had be used >to wow the couch potato public. Nice antsy feeling yes....:)) > >> Btw, I am currently dabbling a bit in huge lenses >> from Diaskop and Epidiaskop....focal range 200-500mm, >> aperture f4.0-6.0 .... > > Wide open? Don't get the sun in the frame - your bug won't >last long :-) Yup, no aperture (but as with any projection lens, one could insert a hand-made one, fixed f-number of course). Another project involves using a Diaskop lens on a 4x5" camera....there are *no* other tele lenses with such apertures (up to 1000/6), while optical quality is based on 9x12cm slides (projector opening 11x11cm). (the Episcope lenses might not be that high-quality, as they only had to project reflective subjects (and not just flat stuff either, I just bought an old manual for the Aldis Epdiascope, a huge contraption, and one of the applications shows a big globe put underneath the projector....:)) (lens for episcopy is 18.5" with 5" diameter, or f3.7) > > >Struan > >PS: I'm taking a mill to the Kowa back plate. Making a circular >hole is the only way to end up with a lens that will fit both a >Super 66 and a 6/6MF. I can live with the depreciation. You could always sell it as if it were a feature....:)) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] FROM: Struan Gray SUBJECT: Mega topic drift (was Kowa) DATE: 26 Mar 2002 13:36:34 GMT ORGANIZATION: This line intentionally left bland NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format In article Willem-Jan Markerink, w.j.markerink@a1.nl writes: >>> Btw, I am currently dabbling a bit in huge lenses >>> from Diaskop and Epidiaskop....focal range 200-500mm, >>> aperture f4.0-6.0 .... > > Another project involves using a Diaskop lens on a 4x5" camera >....there are *no* other tele lenses with such apertures (up to > 1000/6), There is a surplus place is selling relay lenses from Xray machines in eBay, and some of those have big apertures and large coverage (4x5 and up at 1:1). No really long focal lengths though. If you can live with a mere 24", there is an Aero-Ektar aerial mapping lens in that length and f6.0. Telescope objectives made of an air-spaced doublet can be long and big, but f8 seems to be about the limit. I have an antique Zeiss 'comet spotting' refractor whose front element is roughly a 1000 mm f8. One of the other uses of my reversing ring (if I ever get it made up) will be to mount the Kowa on that. (Yeah! Back on topic!). At the other end of the quality scale, simple plastic fresnels can make "interesting" images on large sheet film or paper negs. (Whoa! wrong newsgroup!) Struan FROM: w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink) SUBJECT: Re: Mega topic drift (was Kowa) DATE: Thu, 28 Mar 02 02:22:37 GMT NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format In article , Struan Gray wrote: >In article Willem-Jan Markerink, >w.j.markerink@a1.nl writes: > >>>> Btw, I am currently dabbling a bit in huge lenses >>>> from Diaskop and Epidiaskop....focal range 200-500mm, >>>> aperture f4.0-6.0 .... >> >> Another project involves using a Diaskop lens on a 4x5" camera >>....there are *no* other tele lenses with such apertures (up to >> 1000/6), > > There is a surplus place is selling relay lenses from Xray >machines in eBay, and some of those have big apertures and large >coverage (4x5 and up at 1:1). No really long focal lengths though. >If you can live with a mere 24", there is an Aero-Ektar aerial mapping >lens in that length and f6.0. I just located a 350/4 and 700/3.5....:)) There's just one very confusing thing: although both carry the same Leitz model/type name, at this time I am only sure that the 350 was used for slide projection, the 700 might have been designed for paper/reflective projection (and optical demands for that (resolution) is much less of course). The only way to be sure is finding an extensive listing of all the lenses that were available for the 'Large Lecture Hall Epidiascope IIIs'....all Epdiaskop's have 2 lenses, one for slide (diaskop), one for paper projection (episkop), but only the smaller ones use 1 (500/1000W) lamp for both purposes, and subsequently a much smaller diaskop lens to give equal brightness when mixed (reflective projection is very inefficient, lumen-wise). The big IIIs however used 4x 1000W for Episkop, and only 500W for Diaskop....subsequently, it's Diaskop lens is much larger in diameter, relatively speaking....about half the diameter (normal ratio is 4:1)....so a 700/3.5 Diaskop lens *might* have existed (700mm as such did, that's what they say in the only catalog I have for the IIIs, along with a 1300mm Episkop lens). Btw, I have also been told that those Episkop lenses have *very* little distortion, since they were used/designed to enlarge maps and drawings, for redrawing.. > Telescope objectives made of an air-spaced doublet can be long and >big, but f8 seems to be about the limit. I have an antique Zeiss >'comet spotting' refractor whose front element is roughly a 1000 mm >f8. One of the other uses of my reversing ring (if I ever get it made >up) will be to mount the Kowa on that. (Yeah! Back on topic!). The Kowa 500/5.6 with 2x might be better....;)) (how many of those would be around btw?....Robert, more or less than the 35mm you think?) > At the other end of the quality scale, simple plastic fresnels can >make "interesting" images on large sheet film or paper negs. (Whoa! >wrong newsgroup!) I better keep those glued to the rear window of my Land Cruiser....:)) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] FROM: rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) SUBJECT: Re: Mega topic drift (was Kowa) DATE: 28 Mar 2002 13:53:57 -0600 ORGANIZATION: Southern Methodist University NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format re: more 35mm kowa or 500mm kowa lenses? hard question to know how many 35mm kowa and 500mm lenses out there; short answer seems to be not many ;-) IIRC, Ross Xerkes had not seen a 19mm, despite decades of being one of top kowa repairers in USA ;-) no serial number or factory data that I have seen or know of anywhere ;-( insights from hassy C lens sales?: the hassy C lens stats are only .72% 350mm, 0.96% 500mm, 40mm 2.16% (9,000 lenses approx.); but there were about 15,000 SW/SWA/SWC and 6,000 SWC/M/M-CF, so my guess would be more 35mm and 40mm Kowa lenses than 500mm, but you have to factor in the lack of a 350mm kowa lens (jumps from 250 to 500mm). Kowas sold less lenses over far fewer years; while there are over 400,000 C hassy lenses, there are far fewer kowa lenses and camera bodies out there (cost was ~3/4ths of hassy etc.)... personally, I'd rather have the 35mm (and do ;-) as the widest rectilinear in 6x6cm SLRs, since there are lots of modest cost ways to get a 500mm f/8 lens in MF, and most 500mm subjects are too far off for flash synch, so the leaf shutter lens is less a factor, and there are lots of low cost 300mm, 400mm, 500mm lenses which can be hacked or converted to MF focal plane bodies such as the bronica s2/EC (see rmonagha/bronhb.html etc.). This is a generalized preference; there are lots of longer focal length lenses from view cameras and folders etc. which are easy to adapt to MF many with leaf shutters, but very few wide angles from LF which can be used on most MF rigs due to the lack of retrofocus design and distance of MF from film plane of the lens mounts and adapters needed etc. So for folks with the choice of 35mm or 500mm, I think buying the wider lens makes more sense as harder to replace with another hacked lens etc. ;-) but it is amazing how many lenses were made in rather small runs, world wide sales rather modest, eg., the 500mm hassy or 350mm hassy lenses sold maybe a lens every few days in the entire world, USA with 20% of the market for hassy might be expected to have less than 800 of the 500mm hassy C lenses, and 600 or so of the 350mm C lenses. Not many, even if you double that number for the later lens series ;-) grins bobm -- * Robert Monaghan POB752182 Southern Methodist University, Dallas Tx 75275 * * Third Party 35mm Lenses: http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/third/index.html * * Medium Format Cameras: http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/index.html * FROM: w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink) SUBJECT: Re: Mega topic drift (was Kowa) DATE: Thu, 28 Mar 02 20:05:12 GMT NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format In article , rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote: >re: more 35mm kowa or 500mm kowa lenses? >hard question to know how many 35mm kowa and 500mm lenses out there; >short answer seems to be not many ;-) I asked because you estimated the 35mm to be about 50 (it would surprise me massively if not another zero was required, perhaps even two, worldwide)....in that context, regardless of absolute numbers, do you estimate more or less 500mm's? >IIRC, Ross Xerkes had not seen >a 19mm, despite decades of being one of top kowa repairers in USA ;-) >no serial number or factory data that I have seen or know of anywhere ;-( Serial number endings 44 and 25 exist....:)) >insights from hassy C lens sales?: >the hassy C lens stats are only .72% 350mm, 0.96% 500mm, 40mm 2.16% >(9,000 lenses approx.); but there were about 15,000 SW/SWA/SWC and >6,000 SWC/M/M-CF, so my guess would be more 35mm and 40mm Kowa lenses >than 500mm, but you have to factor in the lack of a 350mm kowa lens >(jumps from 250 to 500mm). Kowas sold less lenses over far fewer years; >while there are over 400,000 C hassy lenses, there are far fewer kowa >lenses and camera bodies out there (cost was ~3/4ths of hassy etc.)... Aha, those are cool stat's indeed. But how many 6/66's were sold then? >personally, I'd rather have the 35mm (and do ;-) as the widest rectilinear >in 6x6cm SLRs, since there are lots of modest cost ways to get a 500mm f/8 >lens in MF, and most 500mm subjects are too far off for flash synch, so >the leaf shutter lens is less a factor, and there are lots of low cost >300mm, 400mm, 500mm lenses which can be hacked or converted to MF focal >plane bodies such as the bronica s2/EC (see rmonagha/bronhb.html etc.). Yeah, but are they as good as the Kowa 500mm?....:)) (the 19mm is stunning; the 35mm is not marveled by those few who had it (and told/wrote me), so I asume it to be a bit less) >This is a generalized preference; there are lots of longer focal length >lenses from view cameras and folders etc. which are easy to adapt to MF >many with leaf shutters, but very few wide angles from LF which can be >used on most MF rigs due to the lack of retrofocus design and distance >of MF from film plane of the lens mounts and adapters needed etc. So for >folks with the choice of 35mm or 500mm, I think buying the wider lens >makes more sense as harder to replace with another hacked lens etc. ;-) > >but it is amazing how many lenses were made in rather small runs, world >wide sales rather modest, eg., the 500mm hassy or 350mm hassy lenses sold >maybe a lens every few days in the entire world, USA with 20% of the >market for hassy might be expected to have less than 800 of the 500mm >hassy C lenses, and 600 or so of the 350mm C lenses. Not many, even if you >double that number for the later lens series ;-) And only a few dozen EOS 1200mm/f5.6's....:)) (has the one on Ebay been sold already?) I'd rather have a 1300mm/f3.5 for 4x5", but that's just me....;)) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] FROM: w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink) SUBJECT: Re: Mega topic drift (was Kowa) DATE: Thu, 28 Mar 02 20:18:24 GMT NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format In article , w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink) wrote: >In article , > rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote: >>re: more 35mm kowa or 500mm kowa lenses? >>hard question to know how many 35mm kowa and 500mm lenses out there; >>short answer seems to be not many ;-) > >I asked because you estimated the 35mm to be about 50 (it would surprise >me massively if not another zero was required, perhaps even two, >worldwide)....in that context, regardless of absolute numbers, do you >estimate more or less 500mm's? > >>IIRC, Ross Xerkes had not seen >>a 19mm, despite decades of being one of top kowa repairers in USA ;-) >>no serial number or factory data that I have seen or know of anywhere ;-( > >Serial number endings 44 and 25 exist....:)) Oh, and that includes a shift in labeling, from "Kowa/Six - Made in Japan" (aluminum plate) to "Kowa - made in japan - 19mm" (aluminized foil sticker). Not sure about the camera quantities between Six(6?) and 66, in an attempt to quantify the 'before' and 'after' production of 19mm's.... The odd thing is, I realize now, that the 19/35/500 were released along with the (black) 66, not? Hence such an early, 'Six' labeled 19mm (both are black) should not even have existed? -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] FROM: rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) SUBJECT: lens # projections kowa from hassy was Re: kowa DATE: 28 Mar 2002 15:53:18 -0600 ORGANIZATION: Southern Methodist University NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format re: #35mm lenses - 50? 500? 5,000? yes, I must have been thinking about the 19mm if I said 50 ;-) probably 500 is more like the 35mm sales, but I'd doubt 5,000; esp. given 40mm was so close. Same reason I am cautious about hassy 40mm SLR lens with 38mm biogon; in my own case, I have the SWC rather than the bigger 40mm. I'd bet a number of kowa very wide buyers opted for less bulky 40mm, as I did for 38mm biogon smaller than 40mm), also cheaper ($800 vs $925..) Still, with only 9,000 40mm SLR hassy C lenses sold in 20+ years, it is hard to think that Kowa would have sold 5,000 very wides (35mm + 40mm) in rather fewer years with rather less marketshare? IIRC, you noted that Ross Xerkes had never seen a 2X Kowa converter? yet he has a few 500mm lenses for sale generally; the 35mm lenses seem to turn up in ads a lot less, like half as often as the 500mm, though the 35mm was cheaper originally. The 40mm show up now and again. The 55/85/150 show up all the time, and even 110 and 200/250 are pretty common. So my bet is that numbers are related to hassy sales profile, but rather lower, see model projection below Let's assume that Kowa's 19mm fisheye was at least (if not more) attractive to folks wanting a fisheye than the 30mm zeiss distagon. The zeiss sold only 1,000 lenses (not sure when it was intro'd, but certainly sold for more years than the kowa fisheye). The kowa fisheye was a lot less than the zeiss ($2,700 list price mid 1970s, $1,890 dealer cost, street price inbetween?), as well as being a 19mm vs. 30mm. If we assume the number of fisheyes is perhaps 100 (s/n only to your second lens, #44, right?) then we could ratio sales to hassy, 1000 fisheyes/420,000 lenses by hassy ~~=100 kowa fisheyes/40,000 lenses. This could be low, as fewer kowa rentals so if you wanted a fisheye, you had to buy it, yes? same 1/4% fisheye sales ratio is an assumption, but this doesn't seem impossible. here is a projection: 30mm f3.5 F Distagon C - under 1000 0.24% 40mm f4 Distagon C - approx. 9,000 2.16% 50mm f4 Distagon C - approx. 75,000 18.03% 80mm f2.8 C Planar - approx. 210,000 50.47% 120mm f5.6 S-Planar - approx. 14,000 3.36% 150mm f4 Sonnar C - approx. 70,000 16.82% 250mm f5.6 Sonnar C - approx. 30,000 7.21% 350mm f5.6 Tele-Tessar C - approx. 3,000 0.72% 500mm f8 Tele-Tessar C - approx. 4,000 0.96% (per rick's hassy compendium) If we assume kowa users had same lens usage and purchase patterns?: kowa lens ~hassy hassy%=kowa% projected kowa lens # 19mm 30mm .25% 100 lenses 35mm/40mm 40mm 2.4% 960 lenses 55mm 50/60 18.03% 7,212 lenses 85mm 80mm 50.47% 20,188 lenses 110mm macro 120mm 3.36% 1,344 lenses 150mm 150mm 16.82% 6,728 lenses 200mm 250mm 7.21%/2 1,442 lenses 250mm 350mm 7.21%/2 1,442 lenses 500mm 500mm 1.68% 672 lenses comments: My guess is that the biogon sales (38mm) have reduced sales of 40mm, so that would be higher in lines without a biogon mix as with Kowa. Similarly, I split the 250mm hassy sales equally between 200 & 250mm kowa; but merged the hassy 350mm and 500mm sales for the kowa 500mm estimate. My guess is that just as the 350mm sales suffered as folks skipped over to buy 500mm, the 200mm kowa was rather close to 150mm, so maybe more 250mm were sold as more useful jump? With circa 40,000 lenses, we would expect about 20,000 Kowa bodies based on hassy 2 lenses per SLR body ratio. a check with listings of lenses (mf/kowapg.html) suggests 4 macro 110mm listings, 3 200mm, 5 250mm, and 2 500mm; based on USA dealer listings, we'd expect 4 times as many 200+250mm lenses as 500mm lenses (7.21% vs 1.68% in model); and double the # of 110mm macro as 500mm (3.36% vs. 1.68% in model), which is at least encouragingly consistent for that end of the model. The 150/85/55 are too common and in packages to tell. The 4 listings for 35mm (1) and 40mm (3) suggests that there are more very wide sales (again, the biogon sales not factored into the hassy SLR lens sales) but we are only about 1% low, suggesting that the total # of kowa lenses in wide end might be higher by perhaps 500 or so lenses. So the adjusted wide angle number might be more like 500 35mm lenses and 1,000+ 40mm lenses, again reasonably consistent with sales (I suspect those of us with 35mm lenses are holding on to them, as unique etc., while 40mm options are more available in other lines including hasselblad..?). This suggests that Kowa sales were like 20-25% of hassy sales during same late 60s to late 70s timeframe; given that Kowa prices were about 70-75% of hassy lens prices, this doesn't seem impossible; lots of folks would have bought the "hassy" for just 25% more, including those pros already using hassy, than the kowa for just a 25% savings, yes? The bronica and CZJ pentacon etc. were lots cheaper than Kowa, so budget folks found Kowa too pricey, hassy folks found it to close to hassy prices to not buy hassy; which in the end may be part of reason sales didn't do well enough in long run? Optics were too good, prices went up end of 70s, inflation in USA, priced Kowa too high?... Anyway, it is an interesting model; can't prove it, but I think the hassy lens usage # are similar to what kowa (also a 6x6cm, leaf shutter rig) would have been, and prices are reasonably similar too so similar economics? If so, then we infer circa 20,000 Kowa SLRs, with ~42,000+ lenses, assuming the estimate of 100 fisheyes is right ;-) The comparison between the numbers from this model, and the independent price guide listings of lenses for sale, suggest that there is surprisingly good internal consistency (ratios right) except perhaps at wide angle 38mm end. If there are only 50 fisheyes, then reduce figures by 50% ;-) But the ratios are probably generally reasonable, based on the independent dealer listings check consistency. So an interesting model, but without factory data, hard to prove or disprove ;-) bobm -- * Robert Monaghan POB752182 Southern Methodist University, Dallas Tx 75275 * * Third Party 35mm Lenses: http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/third/index.html * * Medium Format Cameras: http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/index.html * FROM: Duncan Ross SUBJECT: Re: lens # projections kowa from hassy was Re: kowa DATE: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 01:02:09 GMT ORGANIZATION: Duncan Ross Photography NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format My comments inline.... Robert Monaghan wrote: > re: #35mm lenses - 50? 500? 5,000? > > yes, I must have been thinking about the 19mm if I said 50 ;-) probably > 500 is more like the 35mm sales, but I'd doubt 5,000; esp. given 40mm > was so close. Same reason I am cautious about hassy 40mm SLR lens with > 38mm biogon; in my own case, I have the SWC rather than the bigger 40mm. > I'd bet a number of kowa very wide buyers opted for less bulky 40mm, as > I did for 38mm biogon smaller than 40mm), also cheaper ($800 vs $925..) > Still, with only 9,000 40mm SLR hassy C lenses sold in 20+ years, it is > hard to think that Kowa would have sold 5,000 very wides (35mm + 40mm) > in rather fewer years with rather less marketshare? > The Kowa 35 mm lens is actually smaller in size and MUCH lower in weight than the 40mm 35mm - 3.9" long, 25 oz 40mm - 4.2" long, 34 oz I'm guessing that the 40mm outperformed the 35, which is why they are more common (though I have never owned a 40mm). The 35mm was $125 more expensive in 1976 which probably also contributed. > > IIRC, you noted that Ross Xerkes had never seen a 2X Kowa converter? yet > he has a few 500mm lenses for sale generally; the 35mm lenses seem to turn > up in ads a lot less, like half as often as the 500mm, though the 35mm > was cheaper originally. The 40mm show up now and again. The 55/85/150 > show up all the time, and even 110 and 200/250 are pretty common. So my > bet is that numbers are related to hassy sales profile, but rather lower, > see model projection below I had a 2x and know that Ross had never seen one. He did have 500s, but they were pricey. I decided to get into a newer system rather than pay $1800 for a 500 or $1300 for the 35. That money goes a long way towards an RZ or M7 lens (though I have yet to get one at the 500 length) FROM: Duncan Ross SUBJECT: Re: lens # projections kowa from hassy was Re: kowa DATE: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 01:05:31 GMT ORGANIZATION: Duncan Ross Photography NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Well, I made an error below...... I've never owned a *35mm*, I have had the 40 and it was a fine lens. Duncan Ross wrote: > My comments inline.... > > The Kowa 35 mm lens is actually smaller in size and MUCH lower in weight than the > 40mm > 35mm - 3.9" long, 25 oz > 40mm - 4.2" long, 34 oz > I'm guessing that the 40mm outperformed the 35, which is why they are more common > (though I have never owned a 40mm). The 35mm was $125 more expensive in 1976 > which probably also contributed. > FROM: rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) SUBJECT: Re: lens # projections kowa from hassy was Re: kowa DATE: 30 Mar 2002 16:14:19 -0600 ORGANIZATION: Southern Methodist University NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format yes, I'm the reverse, having the 35mm but now lacking a good excuse to own the 40mm ;-) I think this was part of the problem for many buyers too. You must be right on the 35mm being lighter, though it is pretty wide too. I am thinking of the hassy 40mm distagon vs. 38mm biogon, but it is surprising that the 35mm is lighter and slightly smaller than the 40mm?;-) The kowa seems to be a good system for someone doing portraiture, say, where the option for an 85mm, 110mm, 150mm, 200mm, and 250mm gives you a nice range (esp. with short tube) for portraiture with flash synch too. the 500mm lenses seem endangered species; hasselblad just dropped their 500mm lens from the catalogs; not enough sales presumably. I think the superiority of low cost focal plane shutter systems for these longer lenses explains their rarity and high cost in leaf shutter med fmt setups? IIRC, there were only a few copies made for 1,000mm zeiss leaf shutter lenses for the rolleiflex 6x6cm SLRs, at tens of K$ apiece ;-) on the other hand, thanks to USENET, I've just learned that the rubinar 500mm mirrors evidently also cover 6x6cm, so I have another project there ;-) grins bobm -- * Robert Monaghan POB752182 Southern Methodist University, Dallas Tx 75275 * * Third Party 35mm Lenses: http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/third/index.html * * Medium Format Cameras: http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/index.html * FROM: w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink) SUBJECT: Re: lens # projections kowa from hassy was Re: kowa DATE: Sun, 31 Mar 02 00:16:15 GMT NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format In article , rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote: >yes, I'm the reverse, having the 35mm but now lacking a good excuse to own >the 40mm ;-) I think this was part of the problem for many buyers too. You >must be right on the 35mm being lighter, though it is pretty wide too. I >am thinking of the hassy 40mm distagon vs. 38mm biogon, but it is >surprising that the 35mm is lighter and slightly smaller than the 40mm?;-) > >The kowa seems to be a good system for someone doing portraiture, say, >where the option for an 85mm, 110mm, 150mm, 200mm, and 250mm gives you a >nice range (esp. with short tube) for portraiture with flash synch too. > >the 500mm lenses seem endangered species; hasselblad just dropped their >500mm lens from the catalogs; not enough sales presumably. I think the >superiority of low cost focal plane shutter systems for these longer >lenses explains their rarity and high cost in leaf shutter med fmt setups? > >IIRC, there were only a few copies made for 1,000mm zeiss leaf shutter >lenses for the rolleiflex 6x6cm SLRs, at tens of K$ apiece ;-) The Zeiss Jena Mirotar 1000/5.6 isn't all that expensive btw....;)) >on the other hand, thanks to USENET, I've just learned that the rubinar >500mm mirrors evidently also cover 6x6cm, so I have another project there >;-) Have the various 1000mm versions been ruled out for this purpose btw? They can be changed in a 700/7 and something longer I believe (also something focusing closer). -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] FROM: rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) SUBJECT: Re: long telephotos DATE: 31 Mar 2002 12:59:01 -0600 ORGANIZATION: Southern Methodist University NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format I haven't seen any reports of modifying and using the 1,000mm (or 700mm..) range mirrors to MF, it would be quite interesting to know if they have the coverage for MF without excessive coma or vignetting etc. Most of the compact scopes seem to barely have 7mm pupilary coverage, let alone MF ;-) I was interested in the successful 500mm rubinar mirror conversion to MF (delphi forum..) since very few of the cheapy 35mm 500mm f/8 mirrors seem to work for MF coverage - most barely handle 35mm ;-). Very few astro mirrors have coverage for med fmt which are portable, and even with a folded optical pathway (mirrors in Z shape) you end up with a pretty ungainly setup at larger than 1 meter focal lengths (equiv to about 600mm on 35mm SLRs). Feininger has some project shots from 5 miles outside New York City using a LF long telephoto and old barrel lens, but they're hard to find, and even the 4" new chinese APO 'scope lenses are ~kilobuck I am pretty happy that we can use the low cost long focus (2 element achromatic) lenses in the 300, 400, 500 and 600mm range from 35mm low cost lenses (Spiratone "sharpshooter"..). I haven't heard of any of the new "APO" long zooms working on Med fmt either, having asked here in postings etc., but that would be an ideal option for low cost telephoto work if the lenses have the coverage, and the only 35mm zoom likely to work on Med Fmt. A few folks have converted slide projector zoom lenses for use as med fmt zooms with surprisingly good results, but had help of mfger (ISCO) to install stop mechanics and remount. I am sort of considering the older plate slide projectors, and wondering if their lenses might be used in a pinch as a low cost telephoto experimenters lens too? Another option I'd like to see if anyone has explored is a teleconverter and mount converter, using the light spread from a TC (Kiev low cost optics?) to spread coverage over 6x6/6x7cm? Some folks have reported so-so results from using a 3X TC for 35mm as the optics, but I think that less TC effects and more coverage would work better. But if you start with 50 lpmm and spread it out over twice the area, you don't have very high resolution left - darn! ;-) lots of projects, not enough time or $$ ;-) bobm -- * Robert Monaghan POB752182 Southern Methodist University, Dallas Tx 75275 * * Third Party 35mm Lenses: http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/third/index.html * * Medium Format Cameras: http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/index.html * FROM: w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink) SUBJECT: Re: long telephotos DATE: Sun, 31 Mar 02 22:58:01 GMT NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format In article , rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote: > >I haven't seen any reports of modifying and using the 1,000mm (or 700mm..) >range mirrors to MF, It's a well known modification in German astro groups, which I assume must have trickled down to English groups as well.... >it would be quite interesting to know if they have >the coverage for MF without excessive coma or vignetting etc. Most of the >compact scopes seem to barely have 7mm pupilary coverage, let alone MF ;-) > >I was interested in the successful 500mm rubinar mirror conversion to MF >(delphi forum..) since very few of the cheapy 35mm 500mm f/8 mirrors seem >to work for MF coverage - most barely handle 35mm ;-). > >Very few astro mirrors have coverage for med fmt which are portable, and >even with a folded optical pathway (mirrors in Z shape) you end up with a >pretty ungainly setup at larger than 1 meter focal lengths (equiv to about >600mm on 35mm SLRs). Feininger has some project shots from 5 miles outside >New York City using a LF long telephoto and old barrel lens, but they're >hard to find, and even the 4" new chinese APO 'scope lenses are ~kilobuck Must have one too one day anyway, for the 3d following mechanism (found a cheap Canon L1 videocam, which can be adapted to EOS quite nicely (even saw a night vision unit that could bolt inbetween, and retain full control of the factory lens (including EOS tele's of course; I am just not sure whether AF could still work....can't see an AF-prism inside the camera itself, but I do sea the typical spherical bubbles if you look into the lens at a specific angle)....that's one thing I've always wanted to do with my Rollei RF-100 night vision unit....T2 on both ends is a bit boring, but EOS-AF could never be retained that way....but IS and Electro-Mechanical-Focus on higher grade tele's would(should)....:)) >I am pretty happy that we can use the low cost long focus (2 element >achromatic) lenses in the 300, 400, 500 and 600mm range from 35mm low cost >lenses (Spiratone "sharpshooter"..). I haven't heard of any of the new >"APO" long zooms working on Med fmt either, having asked here in postings >etc., but that would be an ideal option for low cost telephoto work if the >lenses have the coverage, and the only 35mm zoom likely to work on Med >Fmt. A few folks have converted slide projector zoom lenses for use as >med fmt zooms with surprisingly good results, but had help of mfger (ISCO) >to install stop mechanics and remount. Would that be for 35mm slide or 6x6? The Rollei 110-160mm would be a tempting candidate....quite common & relatively cheap, on the P11's. Isco also makes worlds largest fisheye, for the Omnimax theatres....:)) (there's a link on my homepage: http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm (do a search for isco or fisheye) >I am sort of considering the older >plate slide projectors, and wondering if their lenses might be used in a >pinch as a low cost telephoto experimenters lens too? Just don't destroy a complete projector....I am mentally still not recovered from those 3 scrapped huge Epidiaskop IIIs'es....sad sad sad.... >Another option I'd like to see if anyone has explored is a teleconverter >and mount converter, using the light spread from a TC (Kiev low cost >optics?) to spread coverage over 6x6/6x7cm? Some folks have reported so-so >results from using a 3X TC for 35mm as the optics, but I think that less >TC effects and more coverage would work better. But if you start with 50 >lpmm and spread it out over twice the area, you don't have very high >resolution left - darn! ;-) Btw TC's: I just got an email from someone, asking whether I knew the rank & order/orientation of the 4 lenses in his 3x converter, after he had cleaned it out....sad sad sad....8-)) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]