Difference between revisions of "Trinar"
m (→cameras with Trinar) |
m |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
}}{{br}} | }}{{br}} | ||
− | The '''Trinar''' was a [[lens]] made by [[Rodenstock]]. | + | The '''Trinar''' was a [[lens]] made by [[Rodenstock]]. The [[anastigmat]]ic lens was made as well for [[camera]]s as for [[enlarger]]s. It was obviously offered for [[camera]]s as [[normal lens]], and despite of its three-element construction it was featured almost like a well-rendering upper-quality lens. Some say it was better than [[Schneider]]'s Radionar.<ref>[http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/006i4Q better than Radionar?] photo.net discussion</ref> Others say it's sharp just in the frame center and maybe better for BW-photography, maybe comparable with [[Zeiss]]' Triotar.<ref>[http://www.apug.org/forums/forum41/46513-rodenstock-trinar.html maybe good enough for black&white] APUG.org discussion</ref> |
===enlarger lenses=== | ===enlarger lenses=== | ||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
|- | |- | ||
||*[[Edixa 16]] || - Rodenstock Trinar 1:2,8 f=25mm | ||*[[Edixa 16]] || - Rodenstock Trinar 1:2,8 f=25mm | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | ||*[[TDC Stereo Colorist]] || - 2× Rodenstock Trinar 1:3,5 f=35mm | ||
|- | |- | ||
||*[[Boots Pakmatic]] || - Rodenstock Trinar 1:2,8 f=38mm | ||*[[Boots Pakmatic]] || - Rodenstock Trinar 1:2,8 f=38mm | ||
Line 64: | Line 66: | ||
|- | |- | ||
||*[[Lotte]] || - G.Rodenstock Trinar-Anastigmat 1:4.5 f=10.5cm | ||*[[Lotte]] || - G.Rodenstock Trinar-Anastigmat 1:4.5 f=10.5cm | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | ||*[[large format]] view cameras|| - Rodenstock Trinar-Anastigmat 1:6.3 f=15cm | ||
|} | |} | ||
− | Conclusion: The lens was a worldwide success, over decades. Probaly a few copies were made by Japanese lens makers. | + | Conclusion: The lens was a worldwide success, over four decades. Probaly a few copies were made by Japanese lens makers. |
===References=== | ===References=== | ||
<REFERENCES/> | <REFERENCES/> | ||
[[Category:German lenses]] | [[Category:German lenses]] |
Revision as of 20:00, 16 February 2014
The lens in a fast shutter on rangefinder camera means that it was featured as lens with notable quality. image by in2classics (Image rights) |
The Trinar was a lens made by Rodenstock. The anastigmatic lens was made as well for cameras as for enlargers. It was obviously offered for cameras as normal lens, and despite of its three-element construction it was featured almost like a well-rendering upper-quality lens. Some say it was better than Schneider's Radionar.[1] Others say it's sharp just in the frame center and maybe better for BW-photography, maybe comparable with Zeiss' Triotar.[2]
enlarger lenses
- Rodenstock Trinar 1:4,5 f=75mm
- Rodenstock Trinar 1:4,5 f=50mm
- Rodenstock Trinar 1:3,5 f=50mm
cameras with Trinar
*Ohca | |
*Idea A | |
*First Roll | |
*First Etui | |
*Beirette | |
*Romax plate folder | |
*Edixa 16 | - Rodenstock Trinar 1:2,8 f=25mm |
*TDC Stereo Colorist | - 2× Rodenstock Trinar 1:3,5 f=35mm |
*Boots Pakmatic | - Rodenstock Trinar 1:2,8 f=38mm |
*Bilora Bella | - Rodenstock-Trinar 1:2,8 f=45mm |
*Regula L | - Rodenstock-Trinar 1:2,8 f=45mm |
*Durata | - Rodenstock Trinar 1:3.5 f=4.5cm |
*Baldina | - Rodenstock Trinar 1:2.8 f=50mm |
*Metharette | - Rodenstock Trinar-Anastigmat 1:4.5 5cm |
*Ysella | - Rodenstock Trinar 1:2.9 5cm |
*Altiflex | - Rodenstock-Trinar-Anastigmat 1:4.5 f=75mm |
*Ysette | - Rodenstock Trinar 1:2.9 7.5cm |
*Lisette | - Rodenstock-Trinar 1:2.8 f=80mm |
*Metharette | - Rodenstock Trinar-Anastigmat 1:4.5 5cm |
*Rokuoh-Sha Special Pearlette | - Rodenstock Trinar-Anastigmat 1:4.5 4inch |
*Franka Rolfix II/Hapo 5 | - Rodenstock-Trinar 1:3.5 f=105mm |
*Supreme | - Rodenstock Trinar 1:4.5 f=10.5cm |
*Kinka plate folders | - Rodenstock Trinar 1:4.5 f=10.5cm |
*Kokka | - Rodenstock Trinar Anastigmat 1:6.3 f=10.5cm |
*Lotte | - G.Rodenstock Trinar-Anastigmat 1:4.5 f=10.5cm |
*large format view cameras | - Rodenstock Trinar-Anastigmat 1:6.3 f=15cm |
Conclusion: The lens was a worldwide success, over four decades. Probaly a few copies were made by Japanese lens makers.
References
- ↑ better than Radionar? photo.net discussion
- ↑ maybe good enough for black&white APUG.org discussion