Adapting other format lenses???

[davetravis]

Has anyone ever taken the lenses from Kodak, Agfa, or other brands of folding cameras, and/or Polaroids, Mamiya Press, all these medium format rigs, and mounted them onto plates for 6x9? I'm talking the 50mm to 150mm range. I'm trying to fit good glass with manual shutters onto my Graflex Miniature Graphic 2x3, without using the Geronars, Caltar E's, Symmars...etc...Any experience?
DT

 

[darinwc]

The lenses from the Mamiya Press and Graflex XL are great lenses for 2x3, but they wont save you any money.

I wouldnt bother scrounging lenses from folders. They are usually not worth the trouble and any nice lenses are also on nice cameras which demand a price in the collectors market.

The folding cameras have 3 or 4 element lenses that will usually cover 2x3 nicely. The standard type lens for 2x3 is the tessar type which are typically Ektars, Xenars, and Raptar/Optars. The Ektars are generally considered to be the best in this catagory.

A great lens at rock bottem price is the Tominon lenses from the Polaroid MP3/4 cameras. I have a 105mm and a 127mm.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Darin's absolutely right that there are no bargains to be found among lenses for the Mamiya Press and Graflex XL systems. But there are some good usable lenses hiding in old folders. For example: 101/4.5 Ektar (sold as original issue on 2x3 Graphics, also on top-of-the line Kodak folders); fine lens regardless of source. 130/6.3 CZJ Tessar, ex-#3 Folding Pocket Kodak; superb lens. There are no good wide angle lenses hiding in old folders.

I strongly disagree with Darin's blanket recommendation of Tominon macro lenses. I've had all of the MP-4 lenses, which are in barrel and screw into the front of a #1 shutter, except the 105/4.5. I've shot the 75/4.5 and 135/4.5 on my 2x3 Graphics to see how good they were. I don't use 'em, in fact sold all of them. Enough said?

But and however I have a 127/4.7 Tominon in #1 Copal Press that was originally on a Polaroid CU-5 camera. This is a very fine lens at all distances, I believe that on 2x3 (not sure about 4x5) it is slightly better than my 135/5.6 Symmar. These lenses are actively pursued by people who want #1 Press shutters for remounting process lenses, so are not as inexpensive as they used to be.

 

[jimgalli]

One lens worth pursuing is the 75 5.6 sold for the Polaroid 600SE. A pitfall is the nice Seikosha shutter won't have it's cable release socket after removal from the helical mount but the lens elements would spin right into a Copal 0 shutter. It's a rather unique wide field gauss type like the WF Ektar's so it has plenty of coverage on 6X9. I also feel the f2.8 100mm Planar type from the 6X9 Mamiya press would be worthy of careful consideration. Superb lens. Konica had some super lenses too for their 6X9 series. I fiddled with the 600SE 127 and 150 on 4X5 but felt the corners were too soft. They'd be great on a 6X9.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Jim, all that you wrote is true. But I have the original impression that the original poster isn't up for paying the price of, say, the 100/2.8 Mamiya.

He said he wasn't up for, e.g., a Symmar. But I don't know why he should reject them out of hand. Not that long ago I snagged a nice little 135 Symmar in barrel that the seller offered as an enlarging lens. $32 delivered, probably less expensive than a Folding Pocket Kodak with f/6.3 Tessar (CZJ or B&L) in shutter.

About the Konica lenses. Were you thinking of lenses for the Koni-Omega? I ask because they have to cover only 6x7 and I've been wondering whether they'll cover 6x9 too. Will they?

Cheers,

Dan

 

[jimgalli]

Yes, Koni - Omega. Yes, probably not good choices for the reason you stated. Yes, nothing else replaces jumping in with both feet, buying lots of worthless old stuff, and finding out for yourself what works and learning in the process. The other day I got a box of goodies with a 14" and an 18" B&L projection petzval's. F9 and f12 respectively. They're both the same size. They're both sharp enough in the center sweet spot that if you coupled them to a Nikon they'd give modern optics a good run.

 

[davetravis]

Thanks for the responses!
The mini 6x9 I got came with the 1947 coated Ektar 101, and a Mamiya-Sekor 65mm off of the press camera, I think from around the middle 60's. I've only studied them on the GG, but both seem sharp middle to edge. I've only got 7 1/2 inches of bellows to play with, so I'm looking for the best 135 to 150 lens as my medium tele, without going over $75. Those Tominon's are labeled "macro," but does anyone think they would be sharp for infinity work?
DT

 

[r-brian]

I pulled the lens off of a trashed Kodak 3A, 170mm f7.7 Anastigmat, and mounted it on a board for my Tachihara. The postcard size 3A is larger than 4x5 so the lens covers just fine. Unfortunately, it's in the cheap Kodak ball bearing shutter, but for $5 what do you want. Some of the 3A's had nice dial set shutters.

 

[Jim Noel]

I buy every lens/shutter combo off roll film cameras that I spot at ridiculously low prices, as well as large folders with the lens/shutters still on them.
A good proportion are useable. Many are convertible. I have several that I use for portraits and figure studies which were removed from folders of the 1910-1940 era. It is surprising how good many of them are.
Last month I bought a Kodak folder which made 4x5 images on roll film. The lens and shutter are now on a board to fit the 57 Deardorff, and it is terrific. I have not delved into the design, I just like what it produces.

Many of the lenses which we now covet were moderately or cheaply priced when in common use.

The best examples are some of those owned by Jim Galli which we all wish we owned. Thanks Jim for making us aware of the pictorial value of these old gems.

 

[Nick Zentena]

so I'm looking for the best 135 to 150 lens as my medium tele, without going over $75.

I've bought 4x5 Xenars for less then that in the past. 150mm F/4.5 [I think] and a 127mm. The 127mm even came with a press camera attached.

 

[darinwc]

"I strongly disagree with Darin's blanket recommendation of Tominon macro lenses."
-Thanks Dan, I was thinking about the lenses from the Cu-5 not the MP-4. I bet one of these people who salvage the shutter would send you the lens cells dirt cheap if you had your own #1 size shutter. BTW do you own a speed or a crown graphic? If you have a speed that will open up the possibility of barrel mounted lenses.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Thanks for the responses!
The mini 6x9 I got came with the 1947 coated Ektar 101, and a Mamiya-Sekor 65mm off of the press camera, I think from around the middle 60's. I've only studied them on the GG, but both seem sharp middle to edge. I've only got 7 1/2 inches of bellows to play with, so I'm looking for the best 135 to 150 lens as my medium tele, without going over $75. Those Tominon's are labeled "macro," but does anyone think they would be sharp for infinity work?
DT

Um, Dave, about Tominons, if you're looking at a lens in barrel it will be lousy at infinity. Those in shutter, as Darin has reported, are better.

You say "mini." So you probably mean 2x3. Thing is, there were several 2x3 models. One officially named Miniature Speed Graphic, easily recognized by: pop-up wire frame finder's wires are round. Three others, Pacemaker Speed Graphic (has focal plane shutter), Pacemaker Crown Graphic (doesn't have focal plane shutter), Century Graphic (ditto); all easily recognized by pop-up wire frame's finders have rectangular cross-section. Which do you have?

The Miniature and the Pacemakers (including the Century) have very different lens boards.

The longest standard issue lens that will work on your camera is the 10" or 250 mm f/5.6 Tele-Optar, also badged Tele-Raptar. Sold in barrel and in shutter (Graphex and Rapax, they're the same). The longest barrel lens that's easily used on a 2x3 Speed is the 12"/4 Taylor Hobson Telephoto.

"Telephoto" doesn't mean a lens with focal length longer than normal. It means a lens with rear nodal point in front of front nodal point, so that flange to film distance is shorter than focal length. This last is telephoto lenses' strong point. Drawbacks are limited coverage, distortion, relatively strong chromatic aberration. To give you an idea of how limited coverage can be, that 12"/4 TTH tele barely covers 4x5. A 12" lens of normal construction will cover 8x10.

$75 won't buy you lots. It should buy you one of those 127/4.7 Tominons that Darin and I like. It might buy you a 135 Tessar or Xenar or Optar or Raptar in shutter. Or a #3 FPK with a 5 3/8" B&L Tessar in shutter.

IMO, it is impossible to assess sharpness on the ground glass. Terrible softness can be recognized, but that's it. The only way to know how good (or bad) a lens is is to shoot film with it. Strong hint there, too.

Good luck, have fun,

Dan

 

[Dan Fromm]

"I strongly disagree with Darin's blanket recommendation of Tominon macro lenses."
-Thanks Dan, I was thinking about the lenses from the Cu-5 not the MP-4. I bet one of these people who salvage the shutter would send you the lens cells dirt cheap if you had your own #1 size shutter. BTW do you own a speed or a crown graphic? If you have a speed that will open up the possibility of barrel mounted lenses.

Darin, I own a 2x3 Pacemaker Speed, a 2x3 Crown, and a Century. Also too many lenses for them, most in barrel. The short cameras are for my shortest couple of lenses.

I use some of the lenses in barrel only on the Speed; others front-mounted on a #1 on all three; and the longest ones front-mounted on a #1 on a tandem rig that incorporates the Speed and the Century.

Its a long story but at the moment I have a set of 127/4.7 Tominon cells in the drawer. And a 127/4.7 Tominon still in its shutter that I shoot.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[darinwc]

"BTW do you own a speed or a crown graphic? If you have a speed that will open up the possibility of barrel mounted lenses."
>sorry for the confusion Dan that was meant for the OP. Someday you gotta post some pics of your tandem rig in your gallery, so we dont have to do a forum search to find it.

 

[davetravis]

Thanks again guys!
Dan, I've got the Crown Graphic 2x3.
I agree about shooting to determine the real sharpness, but I'm busy printing my stuff right now, and we've still got 2 feet of snow in Castle Rock!
I do study the known specs for lens that I'm interested in, but it really helps to hear real results!
DT

 

[Dan Fromm]

Well, then, Dave, lenses in barrel are out unless you're up for front-mounting. The 2x3 Crown will take 8"/5.6 and 10"/5.6 TeleRaptars. Also 135 Raptars, Xenars, 150 mm whatevers, ... Longest "normal" lenses that will go on it, and the bellows will be pretty extended are the 203/7.7 Ektar and 203/7.5 Raptar. Both are very good normal lenses for 5x7.

You really ought to wander over to www.graflex.org

Good luck, have fun,

Dan

 

[Struan Gray]

Symmars are pretty cheap these days, especially the 135s and (rarer) 100s for press cameras.

If you can't stretch that far, ebay.UK has a regular trickle of British press lenses like the 135 mm Wray Lustrars and 89 mm wide angles. The Epsilon shutters don't have a great reputation, and the lenses themselves are often derided, but the ones I have handled and used are more than adequate.

 

[Trent Westin]

What about the very good 127 Rodenstock Ysarex lens?

 

[darinwc]

the 127 Rodenstock Ysarex has a good reputation. I just exposed a roll of 160 NPS in my century graphic using that lens. I'm anxious to see how it turns out. Allthough the prontor-svs was somewhat annoying to use.

 

[epatsellis]

and if you have a #0 shutter lying about, 105 and 135 componons are even cheaper....


erie

Symmars are pretty cheap these days, especially the 135s and (rarer) 100s for press cameras.

If you can't stretch that far, ebay.UK has a regular trickle of British press lenses like the 135 mm Wray Lustrars and 89 mm wide angles. The Epsilon shutters don't have a great reputation, and the lenses themselves are often derided, but the ones I have handled and used are more than adequate.

 

[Ole]

One of the really neat things about having a Speed Graphic to play around with is that I can use some really unexpected lenses - like the 135mm Leitz Hektor! It's cheap, old, and considered "mediocre" as a Leica lens. But it really does cover the whole 4x5" negative, with adequate sharpness for that format. Just remove the baarrel extension, and it's a neat little LF barrel lens.

 

[Dan Fromm]

and if you have a #0 shutter lying about, 105 and 135 componons are even cheaper....


erie

Erie, have you shot either of these lenses at distance?

I ask because a while ago when going through a fit of dissatisfaction with my macro setup for 2x3 -- the lens I was using is great but its aperture scale was hard to see and the aperture harder to set -- I picked up cheapie 100/5.6 Componon-S and 105/5.6 Componon. These are, as far as I can tell, Symmar-S and Symmar, respectively, tweaked for enlarging. And I've tried both. Neither was that impressive at distance.

To get a shutter for 'em, I bought a cheapie ID camera that had a #0 Press. The shutter turned out to hold a 105/4.5 Comparon. A Xenar tweaked for enlarging. Turns out that per Schneider a Comparon is a better lens from 2x - 6x than a Componon-S. So that may be the one I'll use for macro.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[k_jupiter]

Keep looking for a 135/4.5 Tessar. They came on many pre-war Zeiss Ikon cameras and have an almost bulletproof Compur shutter. I have one on a Z-I Trona and it takes incredibly sharp photos on 3x4 film. It would work great on your mini Speed (you might have to finagle the lensboard a bit). On my 2x3 speed, I use the 101 Ektar and a 127 Raptor. The largest lens I have mounted is a 150 Fujinon 6.3 but that lens lives permanently on my 4x5 Speed and I wasn't that crazy about it anyway in 2x3 format.

Generally speaking, I keep my folder lens... on my folders.

Best of luck,

tim in san jose

 

[epatsellis]

Dan, until I got my 135 Fujinon, the 135 Componon was my main lens in that focal length (though I do have a Eurynar 135 f4.5 also) I was quite happy with it, though about 75% of what I shoot is tabletop, what little use it saw at infinity was acceptable to me.


erie

 

[noseoil]

127mm Rodenstock from Polaroid 110

Rodenstock 127mm lenses (Ysarex, etc.) from the Polaroid 110 series cameras were great little lenses. They cover 4x5 and a friend here on Apug (Ria) uses one on her 5x7. At anything less than infinity, the lens works on 5x7 and does a great job. I couldn't believe the coverage was adequate when I used one on 4x5, but it works and is very sharp. The prontor shutters are a bit funky by today's standards, but they work. Slower speeds are a problem at times, but a little warming and frequent use can cure any sluggishness. Not a winter lens here in Tucson, but a CLA would most likely cure any problems, but it might cost more than the lens is worth.

Attached file is another view of the 4x5 box camera I made with one of these lenses. The lens is a 127mm Rodenstock f4.7 Ysarex. It is coated and takes excellent pictures. tim