When I was working in the lab I used one of the high-dollar lenses for the big Durst (this enlarger ran on rails on the floor, what a huge beast, took up to 11x14 negs) in a similar manner (also 4x5 format, which in retrospect was probably too large for the exposure times I used and the emulsions of the day), being an old copyscope builder myself. I was never satisfied, even though that lens was worth tens of thousands of dollars, none of them are designed for an infinity focus. But I too was awed by a piece of equipment that was worth more than I was at the time! You know, thinking about it, the only time I ever saw the Digistar in action was a demo done for the astro club about the time the original was installed. I haven't seen a real, scheduled star show since the late '70's I guess. Lotsa laser shows back then, though! Thanks everyone who had input on the fisheye lens topic.
Brent Watson wrote:
Chuck,
I did shoot a couple of photos through the original Digistar lens. It was a 43 mm f2.8 160 degree FOV lens and covered a 5 inch circle. I put a 4X5 adapter on it and attached it to my Byers mount. I let it go unguided for about 30 minutes. I was using Ektachrome - probably ISO64(???)
My recollection is that I didn't get much in the way of stars. I could barely see the Andromeda Galaxy. I also did not see much trailing either. I didn't look for trailing due to atmospheric refraction, so I am afraid your original question is unanswered here.
It was fun to use a $25,000 (1980 dollars) large format fisheye lens though.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail