Choosing and Finding Barrel Lens for Sinar 4x5

[polaroid_memories]

Hi all,

As I’m progressing on in my collodion journey, I’m looking to upgrade my lens arsenal by acquiring a nice barrel lens for my Sinar P 4x5. So far Ive been using a lovely sharp Symmar-s 240mm f5.6 lens for my portraiture work and it has produced some lovely results. But with it being a more modern lens, I personally want lens more timely and fitting to the period the collodion medium was being used originally. I am at this moment looking for the aspects I will have to check for when looking for a barrel lens for 4x5 coverage.

So, what factors should I take into consideration when choosing a barrel lens for 4x5 use? Flange, length, width or any other aspect or characteristic of a lens? Whats are the key determining factors for deciding which old style lens will work with what format? How does one determine coverage of a lens? Also, with barrel lenses without waterstops/a waterstop slot, how do you calculate the (fixed) aperture of that lens? What lenses are better quality or more desirable; those made in Paris, France or London, England?

From the little research Ive done so far, I know the petzval lenses are quite popular, however, I’m not a massive fan of the circular effect these lenses give. From my barrel lens I would simply want a sharp, crisp, shallow DOF image with nice bokeh - if thats not asking too much

Also, if anyone has had any experience with, can recommend, or vouch, for a source of good barrel lenses in the UK or Europe that would be very much appreciated also.

Look forward to hearing your information suggestions and help.

Thanks again all

Nathan

 

[removed account4]

hi nathan

i had originally suggested you look at illumiquest's vitax he is selling in the classifides
but i just realized you have a 4x5, and it would be wicked-long ..
there were vitax lenses ( f 3.8, wollensak ) at about 10", 9" that would be a nice speed lens
you might consider magic lantern projection lenses that were the same lens design ( petzval-ish )..
rapid rectalinaers you also see in barrels but they are usually a few stops slower, i'm fond of these RR lenses
shooting dry plates and ferrotypes ( silver gelatin tintypes ) and regular film/paper there is a nice look to them.

reinhold's meniscus lenses might also be a great choice. inexpensive if you don't have a lot of $$
for a name brand speed lens, they come in a barrel with waterhouse stops too.

forgot to post how to calculate the stop
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)


good luck !
john

 

[Ian Grant]

MWClassic is s good source. A period lens for wet plate is usually a Darlot/Petzval, so the next option is a later RR (Rapid Rectilinear) ideally an 8" often they are marked by the coverage so my early Wray which is approx 12" just says 8"x5" on the side, it covers Half plate.

If you don't have a Sinar shutter you'll need to find something else like a Thornton Pickard roller blind shutter or a LUC.

Ian

 

[rthollenbeck]

Hmmmmmm
Seems kind of a backward way to end up with a barrel lens.

So at least to my way of thinking..... One does not set out to end up with a barrel lens. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a lens in a shutter. A lot of people end up with a lens in a barrel because they search for a certain lenses and it's design is to big to fit in a shutter. Another reason I often hear is "old lens type abc" is known for a soft look that is nice for portraiture. There are also a lot of process lens that well suited to photography but were manufactured in barrels. Often people will have them later put in shutters.

 

[Jerevan]

Remember that the "petzval look" comes from the modern idea (or fad if you will) of using a lens that is too small for a given plate/film size, thus giving the swirly effect.

 

[Dcesilo80]

Your question helped me.

 

[carylee2002]

 

[LJH]

Triplet design lenses and Tessar design lenses should fit your bill.

A cheap option is to search for "projection" lenses. Often really, really cheap at the expense of not having an iris. Somewhere around 8" would be good.

 

[tonyowen34]

Remember that the "petzval look" comes from the modern idea (or fad if you will) of using a lens that is too small for a given plate/film size, thus giving the swirly effect.

Please clarify - the inference is that if (say) I put a lens designed for 6x9cm onto a 4x5 (inch) camera, Then I'd get the 'swirly effect ( whatever that means). However putting a 6x9 lens onto a 4x5 camera merely limits the 'illuminated' coverage of the 4x5 stock.
regards
Tony

 

[Dan Fromm]

Tony, lens abuse -- in particular, using a lens on a format it wasn't made to cover -- will create the nauseating swirly hokum only if the lens is a Petzval type.

 

[tonyowen34]

Tony, lens abuse -- in particular, using a lens on a format it wasn't made to cover -- will create the nauseating swirly hokum only if the lens is a Petzval type.

Thanks Dan - I guess the universal "because" answers the unasked question!!
Supplementary, Jerevan's statement infers that it is not peculiar to Petzval lenses, whereas you infer it is peculiar to those lenses.
For the sake of my curiosity please clarify.
regards
Tony

 

[Dan Fromm]

What's unclear? Only means only. Petzval means Petzval. Nauseating means nauseating.

 

[tonyowen34]

What's unclear? Only means only. Petzval means Petzval. Nauseating means nauseating.

Dan, sorry - maybe its UK grammar VERSUS US grammar , Jerevan referred to the "petzval look", implying the swirly effect could appear when using non-Petzval lens. He did not say one, or the possible, effect of using petzval lens(es) was a/the swirly effect.
Apologies if I appear to be pedantic - which is not my intention.
I'm sympathetic to your comments of 'lens abuse' and 'nauseating', my questions are just for clarification and enlightenment.
regards
Tony

 

[Dan Fromm]

Ah. Thanks for the reply.

 

[Jerevan]

I was less than clear on the swirliness ... as an aside, in smaller formats (35 mm for example) there are lenses that cover the format but still give swirly/nauseating backgrounds (Summar and Summitar comes to mind). This is due to, if I got my abberrations right, coma that is not corrected.

The petzval lens that I mentioned does not cover the format at infinity (much in the same way as in the above example of a 6x9 cm lens on a 4x5") but at portrait distances it covers the plate/film. Hopefully that makes things a bit more clear.