125 or 127 lenses for 4x5, what is the equivalent in 35mm?

[harlequin]

Good Day to all APUG Members,

I am starting to see several 127mm lenses and 135 lenses in the used market for 4x5 cameras and I have heard the 127 was popular on speed graphics etc.....

Questions:

a) Are some brands better than others as these are older lenses?
b) multicoated lenses? probably not
c) would it give the same effect as a 35mm lens on 35mm camera?
d) Any thing to look out for when scouting out these lenses.?
e) would I just be better off having another car wash and get a 135 caltar in copal?
f) any sample images taken with these revered optics would be appreciated.
g) wonder what lens weegee used?

Thanks for your help on this, just trying to save some money here on getting a more seasoned lens
and will be shooting FP4 sheet film with it..... (Omega D)

Harlequin

 

[removed account4]

hello harlequin

the basic math problem for getting a 35mm equiv to a 4x5 lens is divide the 4x5 fl by 3, it is "around" that amount ...

to answer some of your questions in order ...:
a: i've never really had trouble with LF lenses from a variety of makers;
computar, ilex, kodak, wollensak, tominon and schneider to name a few you might not go wrong with.
if you go to the schneider website ( schneider optics . com > photography > faq ) and you can
look up dates of lenses using the serial # on the lens rim ... the ones labled schneider > linhof are the cream of the crop
b. sometimes they are MC some times they are wollycoat ( WC ) i tend not to worry to much about the coatings ...;
c. 35mm on a 4x5 would be around a 90mm lens;
d. just keep in mind you will have to get the lens CLA'd so put that into your budget;
e. naaah i am sure you will find something, you can go to flickr and do a search of some of the lenses you are interested.
but remember not everything on the internet advertised as gold is gold, sometimes it is a piece of shale painted yellowish and photoshopped ...;
f. ( see e. ) there are a lot of sleepers out there, if they are on a speed graphic or you don't plan on using
hella-camera movements there are a lot of choices ... the wollensak exwa 3 1/2 " lens is slow ( f12 ) and
usually in a tiny alphax shutter with only a few speeds and no flash sync ...but it is sweet. wollensak 90mm optars are really nice too, small.
chrome barrelled 90mm super angulons are older than their blackbarrelled cousins and really nice as well ( not small )
and if you want 2 lenses in 1 ... i believe schneider made a 135/250 ( or around there ) convertible. both elements together is 135, remove 1 element and pray you have
enough bellows, and it is a f12 and advertised by schneider as a landscape lens ... poke around and google is your friend .. the tominon 127 is a sweet lens too .. AND the shutter
is like a copal press shutter that you can use to shutter a g-claron if you start collecting them ;
g. no clue what he used, probably something cheap

good luck !
john

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The 127 and 135 lenses were used on press cameras as a mild W.A, that is they were the shortest Tessar type (= good center sharpness, economical, and just enough coverage.)
Get the Caltar, you'll have movements and a newer shutter.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Equivalent focal length depends on the final print ratio. If you crop 135 format to 8x10 print ratio then 'normal' focal length is 38.4mm. If you keep the 2:3 ratio then a normal lens is 43.3mm. Normal on full-frame 4x5 is 153mm but if cropped to 2:3 ratio then normal is 145mm.

Assuming you print 8x10 for both, the math follows...

125/153 = .817
.817 x 38.4 = 31.4
(125mm on FF 4x5 is about the same as 31mm on 135 format printed at the same ratio)

 

[Alan Gales]

I use a 250mm on 8x10 and it feels like a 35mm lens to me on a 35mm camera. An equivalent lens on 4x5 would be half that at 125mm. I've got a 121mm for 4x5 and it feels the same or like a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera to me.

I once bought a 75mm lens for 4x5. I wanted a lens equal to my 25mm Zeiss lens on my old 35mm camera. I put the 75mm lens on my camera and if felt too wide. I sold it and replaced it with a 90mm which I was happy with.

My problem is that I shot Kodachrome 35mm film and projected the image. I did do a little Cibachrome printing at 8x10. Shooting 4x5 or 8x10 is more square than 35mm film. You can do the math but sometimes I have found that I just have to use a lens on a format to see how it feels to me.

 

[shutterfinger]

127mm is the standard lens for 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 format. It covers 4x5 with soft corners and no movements. The 127mm Kodak Ektar (Anastigmat renamed) is highly color corrected.
Wollensak Raptar/Optar may be as good. Other brands listed in post #2 are of high quality also.
Due to production tolerances of the day and how the lens has been handled since new will affect performance more than brand.
Soft coating of internal elements began in the mid 1930's and single hard coatings began in the early 1940's.

 

[jim10219]

Weegee used a 127mm Kodak Ektar in a Supermatic shutter set to 1/200, f:16, focused at 10 feet with a flash gun for light.

Personally, If you’re going to use an older lens, I’d look for a 135mm instead. That was the more common standard lens that came with the 4x5 Speed Graphic. You’ll get sharper corners and have a tiny bit of room for movements. Or get a 90mm and crop as necessary. My two most used lenses on my 4x5’s are a 90mm and a 150mm.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Why get an old crock when for slightly more money, and I mean slightly, you can get a 125/5.6 Fujinon W in a modern shutter?

 

[Josh Harmon]

Why get an old crock when for slightly more money, and I mean slightly, you can get a 125/5.6 Fujinon W in a modern shutter?

I second this.

I started out with an old Speed Graphic which had a 127mm f/4.7 Kodak lens, which was plenty sharp but with an old sticky shutter. I upgraded my kit to a 4x5 field camera with a Fujinon 125mm f/5.6 W. The lens is tack sharp and lightweight in addition to being fairly inexpensive used. Plus it has quite a bit of coverage for movements. I believe I picked mine up for about $250 on Ebay in mint condition. The field of view is similar to that of a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera.

Here is a shot using that 125mm Fujinon lens:
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bea-CIVDxz0/

 

[Tobes71]

Why get an old crock when for slightly more money, and I mean slightly, you can get a 125/5.6 Fujinon W in a modern shutter?

Thirded, I have one of these too. It's an excellent lens, works perfectly and wasn't expensive.

 

[jim10219]

Why get an old crock when for slightly more money, and I mean slightly, you can get a 125/5.6 Fujinon W in a modern shutter?

I second this.

I started out with an old Speed Graphic which had a 127mm f/4.7 Kodak lens, which was plenty sharp but with an old sticky shutter. I upgraded my kit to a 4x5 field camera with a Fujinon 125mm f/5.6 W. The lens is tack sharp and lightweight in addition to being fairly inexpensive used. Plus it has quite a bit of coverage for movements. I believe I picked mine up for about $250 on Ebay in mint condition. The field of view is similar to that of a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera.

Here is a shot using that 125mm Fujinon lens:
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bea-CIVDxz0/

To be fair, I wouldn't call one of these older lenses just slightly more expensive, unless you're really rich and a few hundred bucks doesn't mean much to you. For instance, I just sold a Kodak Anastigmat 127/4.5 in a working Kodak Supermatic shutter for about $25, shipped. So that's 1/10th the price that Josh Harmon paid for his Fujinon. And it took me about a month to sell it at that price, so I know it wasn't priced too low given the current market. It made good photos and the shutter was smooth and quite accurate at all speeds, but I didn't need it because I already had a CZJ Tessar 127/4.5 in a Compur shutter, which made the Kodak redundant.

I'm not saying that getting a newer lens is a bad idea. I own quite of few newer Fujinons in Copal shutters and quite a few antique lenses in shutters that are 100 years old or more (plus several in between the two extremes). I would expect the older shutters to likely need some work to get them up and running properly, and I would expect a few more scratches on the lenses. But at the price they go for, you could buy a handful and probably walk away with one or two that worked fine without any work, and still have money left over. And for the others, you could likely repair them yourself, as you'd have a few junkers to practice on. And learning to repair your own equipment is an invaluable skill that I think most professionals today do themselves a great disservice by neglecting that. There was a time when being a professional meant literally knowing your gear, inside and out.

 

[paul ron]

https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/depth-of-field-and-equivalent-lens-calculator/#{"c":[{"f":13,"av":"8","fl":50,"d":3048,"cm":"0"}],"m":0}

 

[Sirius Glass]

I consider the 127mm lens [4"x5"] to be equivalent to 39mm in 35mm and the 135mm lens [4"x5"] to be equivalent to 41.5mm in 35mm. Both are wide angle so that the press photographers could move in to the subject thus cropping out extraneous distractions and still have a large enough negative to allow any cropping if necessary. I use the 90mm, 135mm and 210mm for my Speed Graphic. I use the 7 1/2" and 15" lenses for my Graflex Model D.