Pentacon researchers edition

Most Prakticar lenses were Pentacon products, most of them derived from the Pentacon lenses. From Camera-wiki. Jump to: navigation , search. Categories : Flickr image Pentacon German lenses. Navigation menu Personal tools Log in. Namespaces Page Discussion. Maybe this article can help. Is it possible? Maybe pictures of blades of two kinds could be helpful…. The fact that you reviewed other vintage lenses made me give you 5 stars.

Thank you very much. I wanted to exchange but 1. That what we told me. I have dozens of lenses that I use with my Canon 5D. They work just as well if not better with Canon crop sensor bodies. For M42 lenses, there is a great Canon full frame M42 guide listing scores of lenses and whether or not they work or can be adapted. No need to shave your mirror or cut down the lens.

I really like your rating, fantastically good! Both lenses I used thousands of times for such work as outdoor First Communion and Confirmation ceremony portraits, always using the Takumar for colour neg. But the Pentacon was better for contrast for reproduction of black and white press photos back in the Sixties.

Your email address will not be published. Magnification The second version has no stripes on the aperture ring but has two silver rings at the front of the lens. The third version still has one silver ring at the front, the focus ring of third version has a spiked profile. The last version is all black. This review is about the last and most common all black version.

Flare resistance Flare resistance is among the worst I have ever encountered. The following two tabs change content below. Bio Latest Posts. My name is Juriaan, I am a passionate photographer from the Netherlands. I mainly shoot landscapes and the milkyway and I like to travel through wild landscapes around Europe. Latest posts by JuriaanM see all. I hasten to add that enjoyed your review immensely and hope to see more from you.

Thank you. Thank you for the correction. Clearly the lens was not made for Pentax. Silly of me. Hi, Great review thanks. Great idea to use the Loxia as a standard for size comparison. I like that. Pingback: Sony Tidbits I also use it with Pentor extention tubes from the same era sometimes. I loved the review! Do you know if the lens is radioactive? Thank you! As far as I know this one is not radioactive. Thanks for the reply. Jupiter-9 85mm 2. I loved your review of that lens too. Pretty much any question I had was answered.

Excellent and very complete review. It would establish broad criteria -- before embarking on a detailed analysis -- to determine when any testimony must be removed. Such an analysis would primarily examine the body of reports as a whole, while also investigating individual discrepancies and anomalies to determine if other consistent observations could be found.

Finally, we do not know how many witnesses object to the claims made by "no-Boeing-impact" advocates, but we do know that some do. For example, Pentagon Police Officer, William Lagasse, described by CIT as a North of the Citgo flightpath witness, openly objected to claims of the original flyover advocate -- Dick Eastman -- by writing in to the site which published it:.

Craig Ranke describes the unfortunate cabbie whose taxi was hit by a lamppost at the Pentagon, as an "accomplice" to the attack:. Like Glenn Beck, the CIT filmmakers show time and again that they are not capable of understanding basic social or legal boundaries, such as the relevance of making public baseless defamatory statements about individuals they have secretly taped. This is perhaps one of the strongest reasons for broad and public rejection of CIT, PentaCon, and any groups, radio hosts, event organizers or others who are promoting them.

Although CIT claims that they are exposing the "inside job" by attempting to show how AA77 never could have hit the Pentagon, their focus on witnesses, such as an elderly cabbie, as a supposed accomplice in the crime, amounts to little more than a soap opera drama which transparently leads viewers down a dead-end path of analysis of each phrase uttered by the cabbie, while the roles of actual officials and decision-making at the highest levels are ignored.

Another person posting on the Loose Change forum counters Craig's speculations about the exact meaning of each of Lloyd's broad statements, with several logical responses.

Here, he adds his feelings about the assertions:. Finally, a summary on the TruthAction forum captures the response by many to the claims about Lloyd:. Is this really only because people just cannot agree on the issues brought up in the PentaCon film? As it turns out, almost all of these forums do host discussions about issues in the film — and debate occurs — but the filmmakers themselves are no longer allowed there.

A quick glance at locked threads where the filmmakers have participated before being removed, shows why: they are unwilling to hear any critique and respond to it rationally.

Instead, they plaster discussions with stills from their films and statements that repeatedly insist that they are correct, typically demeaning others so intensely in the process that the discussion becomes unmanageable and is shut down. Researcher Arabesque, after spending some time in debate with CIT, put together a summary of his observations:. Not surprisingly, almost anyone who disagrees with CIT is eventually labeled as "disinfo" or an agent. For example, Ranke even has claimed on public forums that Dylan Avery deliberately covers up information:.

Ranke would have to have ESP to actually "know" that Avery were doing anything deliberately, yet he states it rs though it were fact. Jayhan wrote:. This sad but clever observation by Farmer cuts through much of the rhetoric underlying the divisiveness and illogic in the debates -- the advocates of "no plane", "no Boeing" and "no-Boeing-impact" are attempting to explain away such highly contradictory evidence that they typically adopt aggressively defensive and often nonsensical methods and claims to account for the opposing bodies of evidence.

Consequently, numerous different theories -- missiles, drones, flyover, etc -- abound, each to try to account for the many contradictions and ultimately revealing the underlying weakness of the basic premise that AA77 could not have hit the building. In the end, most of the discussions on the topic of PentaCon end up with posters claiming that someone else is deliberately lying, is an agent, is "disinfo", etc. For example, on the page for American 11 North Tower , only a single news story is posted about the tape destroyed by the FAA, and nothing more, except a link to the forum to read anything more.

One would have thought that at least the basic facts would have been posted there. Fake Passenger Lists FL A further look at a forum thread -- a post called My Questions About Flight 11 , which sounds reasonable enough -- brings up a response to the questions with numerous links to disruptors and hoax advocates like Serendipty , Gerard Holmgren real planes never hit the WTC , and even the Webfairy planes were holograms. Although the Pilots group did a meaningful analysis of Flight 77's flight data recorder and submitted a FOIA request, little more appears on the site for those investigating the role of the planes and pilots without having to navigate a forum clogged with dis-and mis-information.

Members are listed on the site, and a handful of radio interviews are included i. Pilots member Ted Muga gave a presentation about the extreme improbability of the official hijacking account from a pilot's viewpoint for the San Diego Citizens Grand Jury :.

Muga is a retired flight engineer and first officer with experience on Boeing s and s. Having so much information to work with, Schou's story spread out to 5 pages in length. But as we will see in this essay, despite CIT having traveled to DC to film several witnesses to the attack, the claims that CIT extrapolates from these interviews serve mainly to provide a easy target for debunkers and mainstream media reporters like Schou to smear in just a few sentences. Schou essentially lays out for readers the behind-the-scenes look at how PentaCon filmmakers manipulated the outcome of what they called an investigation, often harassing and offending eyewitnesses in the process.

Schou further notes the level of manipulation going on in what is billed as objective interviews:. In reality, CIT cannot prove that Walter or any other employee of USA Today is an operative and asset, so the claim hangs out in the public article as speculation, making one wonder why the filmmakers would make such assertions to the writer without evidence. Shou also points out another example where CIT re-frame the witness statements:. Did Keith Wheelhouse hallucinate during the burial of his brother-in-law?

What is relevant about Schou's reporting on the film is primarily that he contacted people CIT had interviewed and asked them questions, and the responses were somewhat surprising. He cites a good example of the vulgarity used by CIT and presents it directly to the public in his article:.

Is it any surprise that Russell Pickering and his significant website, PentagonResearch. CIT has no real defense of their dialog with Russell Pickering, and so effectively declare him non-existant, much as they wipe away the Pentagon witnesses who don't fit their theory. Putting aside the veracity of the claims of not being disruptors, this excerpt also provides a nice example of the logic engaged in by CIT: since Pickering left the movement at some point, he now no longer exists as someone Schou can mention, despite the fact that Pickering was actively researching the Pentagon attack and hosting a significant website when he was involved in debate with CIT.

The importance of this reasoning is that it neatly parallels that of the more broad reasoning engaged in by CIT: all of the eyewitnesses at the Pentagon attack whom CIT did not interview, and whom, in many cases, contradict CIT's claims that the plane flew over the building, are erased from history.

Arabesque has preserved an excellent collection of witness statements here. Another example of disappearing historical evidence is shown when CIT implies that, until CIT came along, no one had ever debunked "missile at the Pentagon" with hard evidence -- again the same reasoning that everything that happened before CIT, simply never happened:.

In reality, the views about what happened at the Pentagon have been diverse and often in disagreement with each other, and numerous websites and researchers have debunked the missile claim over the years. While a massive initial effort was made by Thierry Meyssan and Voltaire Network to spread the missile and truck bomb claims early on by publishing the book Le Pentagate and translating it into numerous languages with resources that very few grassroots activists have , the theory mainly died off in later years after the misrepresentations of witness statements became clear -- that the commercial jet which witnesses said they saw "sounded like" a missile, had been cleverly manipulated into claims that witnesses said they heard a missile.

Later, the idea that a different plane or drone had hit the building, with or without a missile and or and that bombs went off inside the building Griffin The New Pearl Harbor Revisited , were more popular. This is also true of PentaCon, which ignores or grossly misrepresents the body of eyewitness evidence.

Interestingly, CIT rejects the missile claim as though it were a transparently obvious hoax, when in reality, there is actually no more evidence for a flyover than there is for a missile. By grandstanding about debunking a similarly baseless claim, like the missile claim, CIT attempts to gain unwarranted credibility and to implicity suggest their own theory has much more merit. CIT's basic premise -- that the witnesses were fooled by the magic show -- could in fact have had any number of magic show 'elements' inserted: missile, drone, flyover, pre-planted bombs, etc.

This is exemplified by a comment on Nick Schou's article by user 'jthomas':. How many others hold the same view as jthomas, that CIT is representative of the movement overall? And what are the consequences? If a person unaware of the many unanswered questions comes across CIT's videos accusing a witness of a "virtual confession", and other absurdities, it is likely that person may turn away and never look back. Whether these are claims that real jetliners never hit the WTC, that pods on the planes fired filles at the buildings, or that the plane at the Pentagon flew away and no one noticed, the efforts to refute these are an unfortunate necessity of the work to bring and hidden facts of the attacks to the public.

Or so we are led to believe. The Pentacon Six System. The long lens hood or shade is fitted to the lens. The outfits have been mounted onto a display stand for these photographs. Normal film advance was by turning the knob on the top plate of the camera, as was standard with most cameras at that time. For both lens heads, the minimum focus can be reduced i. In fact, it appears that all you need to do is to loosen six screws technically, tiny bolts to remove the camera mount, then tighten the same screws onto the front of the bellows unit.

As an alternative, one could purchase the grip itself with the bellows already mounted onto it. This appears to be equally rare in the 21st century. However, the picture to the left illustrates the principle with a 35mm outfit. For focussing on closer objects, the bellows are set at a convenient intermediate point of the desired focussing range and the trigger is then used in the standard way to obtain the exact focus.

When the bellows are extended in this way, infinity focus is not possible, but with them closed, the unit operates exactly as with a standard camera mount, and provides infinity focus when required. Image courtesy of Martin Grahl of Novoflex, to whom I extend my thanks. See more information on books on the Novoflex system at the bottom of this page. However, as the front of the metering prism extends forward of the front of the camera, it fouls the rear of these special bellows.

The only difference in this photograph is that the mm Noflexar lens head has been replaced by the mm Noflexar lens head. By Medium-Format standards, this results in a small and easily-manageable unit, especially if shooting at maximum aperture.

They can of course be extended when photographing subjects that are closer than the normal minimum focussing distance of the outfit. Prices of the Tispigriff-U and the Tisbig-U Interestingly, the price of the Tispigriff-U is given: ,— Deutschmarks, a sum that few amateurs will have been able to afford. Photographers who already had the standard Tispigriff price in ,— DM could send it in to Novoflex to have the Tisbig-U bellows mounted, for the price of ,— DM, which included the cost of mounting the bellows onto the Tispigriff.

Prices of the Medium Format lens heads We also note the prices for these two lens heads in mm Noflexar: ,— DM mm Noflexar: 1,,— DM It is clear that this system was designed for use by professionals whose company would cover the cost of the purchase. The company would naturally expect the revenue from the sale of photographs taken with this equipent to cover the purchase cost within a reasonable time-scale, and thereafter to generate significant on-going profits.

Especially in the case of the mm lens, images should be obtained that would be unobtainable with most other lenses, or would have a high risk of being unsharp, especially in the case of wildlife and action photography! TRA, July Tispigriff-U dimensions and production numbers In August I received from Martin Grahl of Novoflex further fascinating information on this seldom-seen product.

A company drawing shows the dimensions for the pistol grip and its camera mount, and inventory cards show the numbers produced, and the dates. In the drawing, the mm Tele-Noflexar in its pistrol grip focussing mount is shown mounted onto a schematic representation of a Hasselblad F or F.

The key dimensions are: The distance from the rear surface of the Pigriff to the film plane. In order to achieve infinity focus, this remains constant, regardless of camera, at mm. The distance from the film plane to the front flange of the camera.