6x9 Monorail - Lens Recommendations

[ozphoto]

I'm in the process of considering a 6x9 monorail. I have used 5x4 monorails previously at college, but I'm not sure if I can use lenses advertised for 5x4 on 6x9? Yup, I'm a real newbie - only used a 6x9 once when I assisted a photographer many years ago; it was a Linhof and superb! Note I'm not looking for 5x4 recommendations, as 6x9 is perfect for my needs, my budget and my darkroom.

I will be shooting architecture and landscapes, not really going to be doing much studio work (if at all), so what lenses would you guys suggest I start with?

I don't currently need ultra-wide nor ultra long; if I were to use 35mm as my equivalent wants list, I'd be looking at a 24/28mm, 50/80mm, and 180/200mm or wide, standard, medium telephoto I guess. (I started with a 28mm, 50mm and 180mm with my 35mm kit and these worked really well). I could probably stretch to a 17mm equivalent which would be great for landscape work, as I own a 17mm for my 35mm kit and it's beautiful for landscape photography when the view begs for something wider.

I know this is going to garner me a variety of responses - a bit like asking "Which is better? Canon or Nikon?", but I'm hoping I get a good array to choose from, to give me food for thought.

Age doesn't bother me as I'm not after the latest and greatest - I'm happy with a lens that does what it says, but it doesn't need to scream out "brand".

Look forward to your responses!!

 

[Paul Howell]

The range you want is a 55mm for wide, 90 to 100 for normal, and 210 for long. Kodak, Wollensake, most of the German folks made lens for 6X9 rangefinders, issue with some of these lens it that may not have enough coverage for monorail movements. Lindoff,and Horseman had a complete line for their 6X9 tech cameras which ought to have good coverage. I would pick the monorail you want, what size lens board, then start looking for lens that will fit.

 

[Ian Grant]

Cost wise a 65mm 105mm and 210mm might be the cheapest and also lightest.

Ian

 

[ced]

47mm Schneider Apo-Digitar should have good coverage for movements, you may need a recessed lens panel.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/178377-REG/Schneider_03_013255_47mm_f_5_6_Apo_Digitar_XL.html

 

[Dan Fromm]

If a lens will cover 4x5 it will cover 2x3, and will allow larger movements on 2x3 than on 4x5.

35 mm still and 2x3 have the same aspect ratio. To find the focal length on 2x3 that's equivalent to a focal length on 35 mm still, divide the 35 mm still focal length by 0.43.

I shoot 2x3 -- the format's nominal size is 2.25" x 3.25", actual sizes are 56 mm by anywhere from 78 mm to 84 mm depending on the roll holder; 6x9 is a crude metric approximation -- on 2x3 Graphics and a 2x3 Cambo monorail.

There are many many lenses that cover at least 2x3. At today's prices there's no need to compromise by getting a crappy old tessar type or angulon type that barely covers the format. The first post in this http://www.largeformatphotography.i...to-look-for-information-on-LF-(mainly)-lenses discussion is a list of links to information on lenses etc. Look in the list for short lenses for 2x3 and lenses for 2x3 Graphics. Both are in the lenses for small and medium format section.

 

[Paul Howell]

I thought about lens designed for 4X5, only hesitation is the size of the 6X9 body's lens board. I don't think that my Kodak 152mm Commercial Ektar will fit, while the 150 Ektar may. Knowing the lens board size will help in finding lens that will fit. There were only a few 6X9 monorails made, so narrowing down which one best meets your needs ought to be easy. Yeah I know, easy, famous last words.

 

[jim10219]

Figure out the camera first. That'll tell you the size of the lens board and how much weight it can hold. From there, you'll know if you can't use certain shutters or lenses due to size or weight restrictions. Also, you'll need to know the maximum and minimum bellows extension you can use. Since you're shooting landscapes and architecture and not wanting a really long or really wide lens, this might not be an issue for you, but it's still worth considering.

Next, figure out your budget. Keep in mind some things like older shutters may need a CLA to get accurate and reliable speeds, and wider angle lenses may require a center filter if you don't want vignetting but do want movements. Those can be quite costly. So sometimes getting an older lens/shutter to save you money will actually cost you more. View camera lenses are really cheap these days, so my advice would be to go ahead and spend more to get a newer model in better condition.

In all honesty, I'd look for a 4x5 monorail with a 6x9 back. That would make finding accessories easier, probably cost you about the same, and give you a 4x5 option should you choose to exercise it later on down the road. Plus, the weight difference won't be huge, because no monorails are light.

 

[MattKing]

Plus, the weight difference won't be huge, because no monorails are light.

Peter Gowland's Jim Galvin's cameras being a possible exception.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Galvin, Matt, Galvin.

 

[MattKing]

Galvin, Matt, Galvin.

Absolutely correct Dan - most of Peter Gowland's photography wasn't exactly oriented toward "lightweight" .
I've corrected my earlier post.

 

[ozphoto]

I knew the great folks here wouldn't let me down - thank you!

I'm torn between an older Arca-Swiss or Linhof camera - still deciding which will provide me with the "best bang for my buck". I have experience with the 5x4 Arca Swiss from my days assisting and, like the Linhof I mentioned initially, it was also very nice to use.

Thanks, Dan for the calculation - that will definitely help as I check out various lenses as I come across them.
And Ian, your suggestion regarding the choice, based on weight, is also very welcome.
Paul, you read my mind - I'm definitely going to choose based on the lensboard but thought I'd test the waters with regard to length so that I can at least make some early inroads. Easy? Hehe - you nailed it in 1!!

I'm sure I'm going to be back with a lot more questions once I've nailed down the model, but this is a great starting point for me to start investigating.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Which Linhof? I ask because years ago a dying friend offered me one of his Cambo SC-1 (that's the 2x3 size SC) and his Linhof TK23 (I think that's what it was). I took the Cambo. Believe it or not the TK23 seemed more limited and less rigid. Lovely camera but not what I chose. I don't regret choosing the Cambo, but that may be confirmation bias at work.

My friend Emmanuel Bigler uses a 6x9 Arca-Swiss. If you want to ask him about it, he posts regularly on http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/ and on galerie-photo.info, where he's also a moderator. I've played with his little A-S. His has the binocular viewer, which is a joy to use. There's nothing like that for my little Cambo, alas. The 2x3 Horseman reflex viewer fits international backs but is dim and, at least for me, makes focusing harder.

 

[ozphoto]

I have been looking at the Technikardan 23, but they are at the higher end of the budget. Ah yes, the Cambo - I would not be averse to one of those either; I'm not sure if you posted elsewhere here, that they were a possible contender for another member looking at 6x9 cameras and I actually did a search for these, but no luck.

Thanks for the links - I'll check it out and touch base with Emmanuel if I have questions. (I'm sure I will!!)

 

[DREW WILEY]

I think it makes more sense to use a 4x5 camera because then you can use either full 4x5 sheet film or 6x9 roll film backs, or even 6x12. Generally you're going to pay more for a dedicated roll-film monorail anyway, because far fewer of them were made than 4x5's. Of course, there are 4x5 folders and technical cameras to choose from too. The problem with roll film is that, being smaller, you have to focus more carefully; and unfortunately, some roll film holders are rather heavy and tend to tug the back standard out of focus. So you need a solid camera, regardless. I don't see the appeal of 2x3 cut sheet film at all. It's hard to get and has no advantage in working speed over full 4x5. A good roll film holder holds the film flatter anyway (but not all roll film holders are precise - those need to be purchased thoughtfully too !). You can select any view camera lens with a sufficient image circle, within the max or min limits of your bellows and rail or focus track. But because 6x9 negs need to be enlarged more than 4x5, modern sharp lenses might be preferable (unless you like softer images). I use the same lenses as for 4x5, with one exception. Most of these same lenses are even used on my 8x10, though obviously having a different angles of view on different formats.

 

[rknewcomb]

Cambo SC is a big heavy camera. Even the older Arca Swiss is smaller and lighter with more precision. Baby Linhof Color view is nice as one would expect, a little heavy but nice. The award for the smallest lightest but with high precision goes to...Plaubel Peco Junior, rise/fall on the front, swing/tilt on the rear.
I've actually had all of these and liked different ones for different reasons, except the Cambo is way too big.
Robert

 

[Oren Grad]

Absolutely correct Dan - most of Peter Gowland's photography wasn't exactly oriented toward "lightweight" .
I've corrected my earlier post.

Time to un-"correct" it. Peter built plenty of lightweight and even ultralight monorails. Over the years I've owned three of them - an 8x10 I purchased used, and a 5x7 and a 2x3 that he built to my orders. I still have the 2x3, which is a bag-bellows camera for use with short focal lengths.

I'd reckon that comparing cameras in like formats, a substantial fraction of the cameras Peter made were lighter weight than Jim Galvin's. That was certainly true of my 5x7 and 2x3 Gowlands.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks Oren, but I didn't know that, and I was thinking about Galvins.
But my comment about Peter Gowland's photography does stand.

 

[Oren Grad]

I don't see the appeal of 2x3 cut sheet film at all. It's hard to get...

For now at least, it's not hard to get - it's a regular stock item at both B&H and Freestyle, to name two major mail-order dealers. It is more expensive per exposure than the same emulsions in roll film, though.

EDIT: looking back at the OP's posts, I need to acknowledge that I don't know about availability or cost in Australia.

A good roll film holder holds the film flatter anyway (but not all roll film holders are precise - those need to be purchased thoughtfully too !).

Most rollholders for 2x3 cameras have a feed path that pulls the film through a tight reverse curl before it enters the exposure gate. If the film sits for any substantial length of time between exposures, you will see a noticeable bump parading across the gate if you pull the darkslide and watch what happens as you operate the film advance. Whether this matters depends on the kinds of pictures you make, typical working apertures, and how critical a viewer you are. Similarly, whether roll holders are superior to cut sheet holders for any given application is an open question, and will depend on the particulars.

 

[Oren Grad]

But my comment about Peter Gowland's photography does stand.

And among the cameras, his 'flexes *are* pretty bodacious...

 

[ozphoto]

Oren, no stress there - I know the "weirder" film usually has to be purchased OS, so that's not going to be an issue at all. To appease the other Aussie members though: don't worry I'll check locally first (but chances are it'll be 10x the price if it is actually available!!)

 

[Oren Grad]

OK. Second-hand 2x3 cut film holders are cheap these days. If you enjoy tinkering, then once you have settled on a camera, why not get both a few of those as well as a roll holder, and both a box of sheet film and a couple of rolls of 120 rollfilm, try them both and see which suits you better, in terms of both enjoyment of the process and results?

The one caveat is that some modern 2x3 cameras will accept only rollholders - they don't have spring backs to accept cut film holders. Just something to keep in mind as you're shopping, if you think you might like to try cut sheets.

Regardless, good luck and enjoy!

 

[ozphoto]

OK. Second-hand 2x3 cut film holders are cheap these days. If you enjoy tinkering, then once you have settled on a camera, why not get both a few of those as well as a roll holder, and both a box of sheet film and a couple of rolls of 120 rollfilm, try them both and see which suits you better, in terms of both enjoyment of the process and results?

The one caveat is that some modern 2x3 cameras will accept only rollholders - they don't have spring backs to accept cut film holders. Just something to keep in mind as you're shopping, if you think you might like to try cut sheets.

Regardless, good luck and enjoy!

I actually didn’t realise they made sheet film holders for these, so your posts have enlightened me and privede me with some extra fun to consider. Thank you Oren.

 

[Dan Fromm]

[QUOTE="Oren Grad, post: 2133718, member: 5343"The one caveat is that some modern 2x3 cameras will accept only rollholders - they don't have spring backs to accept cut film holders. Just something to keep in mind as you're shopping, if you think you might like to try cut sheets.[/QUOTE]

That's the Cambo SC-1. Two types of back are available for it. International, which accept roll holders that fit Graflok backs and don't accept insertion type holders (sheet film, some roll holders). Bail, which accept insertion type holders.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Most rollholders for 2x3 cameras have a feed path that pulls the film through a tight reverse curl before it enters the exposure gate. If the film sits for any substantial length of time between exposures, you will see a noticeable bump parading across the gate if you pull the darkslide and watch what happens as you operate the film advance...

The amount of time necessary for acetate-based roll film to take a set on reverse-curl feed rollers varies with ambient conditions. A bulge can occur in as little as 15 seconds.

...Whether this matters depends on the kinds of pictures you make, typical working apertures, and how critical a viewer you are...

It's also a function of lens. Contrary to what many might think, shorter focal lengths suffer greater lack of focus in the 'bulge stripe' than do longer ones.

The only way I found to completely overcome what is essentially a holder-film system design defect was sacrificing half the frames on each roll. Load and advance to frame one. After exposing it, quickly advance to frame three, thereby skipping the deformation a feed roller had imposed on frame two. Etc.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Unless size/weight is an issue, I'd recommend a 4x5 with Graflok back and a 6x9 roll film holder... preferably Horseman brand RFH. This will probably be less pricey and if you decide to try 4x5, you can without further expense. If you buy lenses to comfortably cover 4x5 fitting your types of subject matter then they'll all work for either format.

The following list of lens focal length conversions are approximate, depending on actual image size and crop factor.
The first FL is 135 format, followed by 6x9cm...

17mm = ~38mm
24mm = ~ 58mm
28mm = ~ 65mm
50mm = ~ 115mm
80mm = ~ 180mm
* I would suggest an intermediate FL between 80 and 180 such as 110/115/120/125/127/135
* (~ 240-300mm equivalent FL)
180mm = ~ 420mm
200mm = ~ 465mm

If one is on a tight budget, the most affordable relatively modern lenses are 65, 120/125/127/135, 203/210/240 for a three lens kit for either format. If you have a large budget then 38, 58, 90, 135, 203/210, 300 would make a fantastic six lens kit for 6x9cm and you could add a 355/360/420/450 for use mostly with 4x5. If you want all lenses to cover 4x5 and have a large budget then 47, 72, 110/115/120/125/135, 180/203/210, 240/270, 300/355/360 would be a phenomenal five or six lens kit. I know of no fairly modern lenses shorter than 47mm that cover 4x5.

I think most 6x9 monorails have enough bellows to focus a 180mm lens at infinity or a bit closer but you'll need to check the specs. Likewise, I'm fairly sure most will focus a 58mm lens at infinity but check that too. You can probably infinity-focus a 38mm with a recessed board but adjusting lens settings may be challenging especially with a small board. You can probably get a 210-240mm lens to focus at infinity with a top-hat board but probably not to subjects much closer (check this too). I think most folks would suggest you shy away from lenses much longer anyway due to difficulty in field use. A 300/305mm might be doable but it's unlikely you'll find a 6x9 monorail with long enough bellows and rail... another good reason to get a 4x5 body rather than 6x9.

The above stated, there are 6x9cm monorails which will focus just about any lens from any maker provided you can make it fit the appropriate lens boards. One that comes to mind is Toyo View but they're not easy to find in 6x9 format and are usually a bit pricey. Toyo are also built like tanks and are an absolute joy to use, but that hefty well-machined construction comes with a price... they're heavier than most other makes.

On the other hand, there are many dozens of 4x5 monorails that will do everything you need them to at very reasonable prices and are very easy to find, if you can live with the added weight and bulk.