Another impulse: Taylor Hobson

Stephanie Brim · Apr 30, 2008

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110247545501&_trksid=p2759.l1259

This one is probably better than the last.

I'm really curious if the elements will fit in a shutter or if I'm stuck with a barrel lens. If you know anything about the lens let me know.

And this is my thousandth post. Seems fitting somehow.

Dan Fromm · May 1, 2008

You're stuck with a barrel lens. If I thought you'd take advice I'd offer some.

bdial · May 1, 2008

Many things are possible, if you apply sufficient $'s. Not too likely it would be worth the cost with this lens, however. Since it's presumably a photocopy lens it's optimized for 1:1 reproduction ratios, and optimized to render a flat image of a flat subject. Using it pictorally won't exploit its best performance, but it could work well despite that, only one way to tell...

John Koehrer · May 1, 2008

Copier lens with a variable iris? Probably not.

Stephanie Brim · May 1, 2008

Considering simple lens boards aren't that hard to make I figure I don't really have that much to lose by using this lens. I have a lot to gain. I don't need the best of everything to make a good photograph...I tend to use whatever I can afford.

Oh, and I AM saving some money for a certain type of lens. I'm waiting for one to come up.

bdial · May 1, 2008

Absolutely it's worth trying out, and you have a speed graphic, so you're all set shutter-wise anyway.

Indeed, a variable iris would not be much use on a copier, but it's marked Xerox, and they don't do much else image-making wise, at least so far as I know.

Phillip P. Dimor · May 1, 2008

I have a pretty good method of making lensboards if it will help you any..
I find a piece of flat opaque plastic scrap, usually from an old computer bezel, plastic case, etc. If you look hard enough you'll find something. I cut it to the size of the original lensboard using a large power grinder (think big dremel) but you could use a saw, or if your plastic is thin enough maybe scissors or an xacto knife. I then grind the top and bottom edge like /-----x-----\
with the 'x' being where the lens would be if you get my drift. The sliders on the front standard of your speed will grip onto the /- and -\ parts that are beveled or grinded to an angle. If you need to, you can loosen the screws on the sliders slightly with a flat head screwdriver to give you some slack.

Working with wood might be easier but this way works for me. I've mounted an aero ektar, 15" tele-optar, 6" petzval, 10" kodak anastigmat, etc.. all pretty big lenses. You can even spray-glue some black felt onto the back of the lens board or use black electrical tape/gaffers tape to reduce reflections and make the fit tighter.

MattKing · May 1, 2008

This photo.net thread seems reasnably informative:

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00OwkG

Matt

Dan Fromm · May 1, 2008

John Koehrer said:
Copier lens with a variable iris? Probably not.

Wrong, John. I just went looking for C & H Sales' site. C & H is the company that sold crappy 3"/4.5 Pacific Optical Biogons, among other wonders, in fair numbers. They also sold at least three makes of lenses taken from Xerox copiers, all 210 mm and all with adjustable diaphragms. I found the site, the on-line catalog isn't there so I can't direct you to it.

But the lens in question is just of of several that C & H offered.

This discussion is amazing. Here we are, talking seriously about a lens that's been sold as scrap in fair numbers and that isn't prized. That it has been available and isn't prized should tell us something about how wonderful it is. But no, we can't resist speculating that it might be a wonderful sleeper.

What's next? Ancient lenses from inexpensive lantern slide projectors?

Dan Fromm · May 1, 2008

The VM says "Xerographic This was seen as a f4.5 8.25in coated triplet from RTH-Xerox Corporation, and was probably a photocopier lens. It was also noted in 9.5in. It was in a barrel mount, with an iris for a rather limited range of stops"

Sound familiar?

Mind you, I've bought mystery lenses that had the marks of "something good." Sometimes for less than $25, sometimes for considerably more. But I've never expected much from a mystery lens that had the marks of "nothing special."

Stephanie Brim · May 1, 2008

Perhaps the right hands is all it needs. Not saying that those hands are mine, mind you.

BrianShaw · May 2, 2008

Dan Fromm said:
This discussion is amazing. Here we are, talking seriously about a lens that's been sold as scrap in fair numbers and that isn't prized. That it has been available and isn't prized should tell us something about how wonderful it is. But no, we can't resist speculating that it might be a wonderful sleeper.

What's next? Ancient lenses from inexpensive lantern slide projectors?

Amen!

scootermm · May 2, 2008

Dan Fromm said:
This discussion is amazing. Here we are, talking seriously about a lens that's been sold as scrap in fair numbers and that isn't prized. That it has been available and isn't prized should tell us something about how wonderful it is. But no, we can't resist speculating that it might be a wonderful sleeper.

What's next? Ancient lenses from inexpensive lantern slide projectors?

Touché and well said Dan. Also, could you do us a favor and perpetually start a bunch of completely pointless threads. Thanks. :confused:

JBrunner · May 2, 2008

Something here sounds a little familiar... hmmm.

Hi Steph. I think you should get a speed graphic with the focal plane shutter, and try out all the barrel lenses you can get your hands on. Ignore "expert" advice that is hurled like cat pee. You will only know if you dig this lens if you use it. It will very likely make a nice portrait lens. If you don't dig it, sell it and try another. There is nothing wrong with first hand experience, as a matter of fact it is the best teacher there is. Ancient lenses from slide projectors can have some very nice effects. They don't have great math skills, but they look cool, sort of like hippies. Far out. It's all about learning, and what you are looking for.

Oh, and one of the best lenses I own, that is a great performer by any standard, was made from mis-matched "copy" lens cells. My immortal mutant 210 G Claron.

Phillip P. Dimor · May 2, 2008

I was under the impression that lantern slide projector lenses are essentially petzvals.. And that if you get one that was meant to cover a quarter(?) plate (which is close to the size of a 4x5?) you'd be in business.. Is that correct?

I've a petzval, a Peerless that is close to 5" in length, covers 4x5 barely.
It's got a good look and if I extend the lens using the knob on the lens itself, I seem to get a lot of swirlies but it might all be in my head.

Post some pics once you get to try the lens out, you never know.. The lens looks like it's very well made.

Ken Nadvornick · May 3, 2008

Dan Fromm said:
What's next? Ancient lenses from inexpensive lantern slide projectors?

Why not? As long as everyone is having fun, $25 is less expensive that a family night at the movies. And Ms. Brim seems to be enjoying photography at a level not understood by a few of the more "serious" practitioners who post here. Why should she give that up?

One of the more charming aspects of large format cameras is that one can stick darn near any lens on 'em - and nobody gets hurt in the process. Ancient lantern slide lenses? Mr. Galli's LGM seem to be doing a land office business bringing him boatloads of similar guys from somewhere deep within the universe...

Ken

mjs · May 7, 2008

Dan Fromm said:
What's next? Ancient lenses from inexpensive lantern slide projectors?

My wife has a collection of antique eyeglasses...

Mike

Dan Fromm · May 7, 2008

mjs said:
My wife has a collection of antique eyeglasses...

Mike

Interesting. Does she wear any of them when reading or driving?

Collecting is one thing, buying with intent to use is another.

Stephanie Brim · May 7, 2008

I got the lens a couple days ago and was surprised. It's heavy. It'll cover, but probably without movements. f/16 is, of course, going to be hard to work with, but not impossible if I was doing paper negatives or using very slow film. Paper first, probably, since it's cheaper. I'm in the process of making a lens board that will hold the sucker, but I'm not going to try to use it until I get the Graphic View.

I think it'll be fun to use. Not perfect by any means, but neither am I and neither is my photography. Nor will it ever be. I'm just trying to have fun here. I'm not really trying to be the next Ansel Adams.

JBrunner said:
Hi Steph. I think you should get a speed graphic with the focal plane shutter, and try out all the barrel lenses you can get your hands on. Ignore "expert" advice that is hurled like cat pee. You will only know if you dig this lens if you use it. It will very likely make a nice portrait lens. If you don't dig it, sell it and try another. There is nothing wrong with first hand experience, as a matter of fact it is the best teacher there is. Ancient lenses from slide projectors can have some very nice effects. They don't have great math skills, but they look cool, sort of like hippies. Far out. It's all about learning, and what you are looking for.

This is what I think as well. I don't care about "expert" opinion, when I posted this I just wanted some facts on the lens. Can't be worse than a pinhole, and I like those.

papagene · May 7, 2008

That's the attitude Steph!! I am looking forward to seeing the results of that "expensive" lens of yours.
Have fun.

gene

Another impulse: Taylor Hobson

Stephanie Brim

Dan Fromm

bdial

John Koehrer

Stephanie Brim

bdial

Phillip P. Dimor

MattKing

Moderator

Dan Fromm

Dan Fromm

Stephanie Brim

BrianShaw

scootermm

JBrunner

Moderator

Phillip P. Dimor

Ken Nadvornick

mjs

Dan Fromm

Stephanie Brim

papagene

Membership Council

Another impulse: Taylor Hobson

Moderator

Moderator

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency