Classic Lens for 4x5

[wgcho]

I'm fairly new to the site and so far having a great time! I've been mostly shooting medium format for the past several years, and slowly moved on to large format (4x5) by using a 4x5 adapter to my Horseman VH at first, and then I finally bought a linhof technikardan 45s a month ago.

I currently own a set of 'modern' lenses - schneider/rodenstock - and they are giving me great results, well at least in terms of sharpness and contrast. Now, I have never been too picky about sharpness and I think I actually appreciate controlled 'softness' and vignetting.

Depending on the subject and type of photography, I enjoy using shallow depth of field and playing around with the plane of focus. I would often burn the edges heavily - both in the darkroom and with photoshop.

It led me to think that perhaps there are some classic lenses which might give me nice light fall-offs at the edge, but with good contrast and tonality. Is this a possibility?

-Ted

 

[Claire Senft]

Good quality lenses designed to fit 6X9 cm and which will not cover 4x5.

 

[Nick Zentena]

Depending on the lenses you have now why not try them wide open? Some 4x5 lenses don't even cover the full 4x5 until you stop down.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Ted, if you want illumination to fall off at the edges you need to use a short lens. I'll get jumped on for this, but for many lenses illumination falls off with cos^4 of the angle off axis. For normal lenses, this ain't much at the edge.

So Claire's suggestion is sort of right, but not radical enough. Try a 65/8 SA or Ilex.

 

[rbarker]

If you are after that "old time" look, interesting results can also be achieved with "filters". The following image, for example, was created by rubber-banding a piece of 1/4" bubble wrap with a ragged, nominally 1" hole in the middle over an otherwise tack-sharp lens.

Dead Link Removed

Not quite the visual appeal provided by a Verito or similar "soft focus" old portrait lens, but the price was attractive.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

You might experiment with lenses from old folding 6x9 cameras. A tessar-type of around 100mm should give you the sharpness you want in the center and gentle falloff both of resolution and illumination toward the corners on 4x5". These lenses are usually pretty cheap on eBay or in junk boxes of photo dealers who have been in business long enough to accumulate them.

 

[wgcho]

Thanks everyone!

It seems like there are three ways to go:
1. Use a lens designed for smaller format (e.g.6x9) to introduce vignettting
2. Use a wide angle lens
3. Alter the optic path with bubble wrap

Now I have another question I would think that an old 4x5 lens with severe light fall-off would have different characteristics in comparison with when a 6x9 lens is used for a 4x5 film. My guess is that the 4x5 lens will have a more natural, gradual light fall-off than the 6x9 lens.

Any thoughts? Has anybody experimented this?

 

[Sandeha Lynch]

I have a 1930, 135mm, f4.5 Zeiss Tessar, made for a 9x12cm Donata, that I'm currently testing out on my 4x5". It covers 4x5 with very adequate movements. Uncoated, it's in a Prontor shutter that goes from B, and T, down to 1/200. Compared with a modern Caltar 210mm it's no way as sharp and lacks contrast, but with a deep yellow filter it responds pretty well. I'll be doing a few portrait shots with it next week and I'm hoping it will be good for that. So that's a fourth option to consider ... an old quality lens (and Zeiss quality ain't bad) from a large size plate camera.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Now I have another question I would think that an old 4x5 lens with severe light fall-off would have different characteristics in comparison with when a 6x9 lens is used for a 4x5 film. My guess is that the 4x5 lens will have a more natural, gradual light fall-off than the 6x9 lens.

Any thoughts? Has anybody experimented this?

What is a 4x5" lens and what is a 6x9 lens? There isn't really a clear distinction. The issues are--what is the circle of illumination and what is the circle of acceptable resolution at the subject distance you're using? For macro/micro subjects, a lens that is designed for 35mm might be the best choice for 4x5", because at those distances, it will cover the format with excellent resolution and without too much overspill that would cause bellows flare. Portrait lenses often don't have very wide coverage circles at infinity, so at infinity they might be said to be appropriate for a smaller format and for portrait distances they might be said to be appropriate for a larger format. Older wideangle designs like Dagors typically had one format designation for large apertures and another for small apertures.

Modern lenses are designed usually to vignette beyond the circle of acceptable resolution, so if you are talking about modern lenses, indeed, you probably don't want a lens that is designed for 6x9 in general. If you are using older lenses, you probably do want a lens that was intended for 6x9, because it will illuminate a larger circle than the intended format and fall off gradually with a falloff in resolution at the edges that will look natural in context.

 

[wgcho]

Sandeha, I'd be very interested in the results of your experiments. Keep me posted.

David, I meant lenses 'designed for' 6x9 or 4x5. Your second paragraph exactly answers my question. Thank you!

Now, any good suggestions for older lenses designed for 6x9? I would mainly do some still life (not too macro), portraits and landscapes (not sure if such lens would be any good for landscape).

 

[Mongo]

If you're looking for something cheap to try, keep your eyes open for an old Kodak Autograpnic 3A folding camera on eBay. The negative size was 3 1/4 x 5 1/2, so the lenses generally cover 4x5 adequately. The shutters are usually limited to a few speeds (1/50, 1/25, T, and B are common speeds), and the lenses are uncoated.

I picked up a couple of these cameras on eBay for a song (I intend to make one of them into a 6x14 panoramic cameras using an old 90mm Angulon lens and a homemade 120 adapter)...the lenses on mine were in the 170-180mm range, clean and clear, and the shutters operate very well. I'm going to play with the lenses on 4x5 soon; I assume I'll get that "old time" look from at least one of them.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

One cheap option worth exploring is a Victorian lens of the "Rapid Rectilinear" type - examples will often have this name inscribed on them, as a rough rule of thumb, if it's in a brass mount and has maximum aperture f8, it's an RR. These lenses (if in good condition after all this time) have good central sharpness at full aperture going to interestingly out-of-focus edges (which will sharpen up on stopping down). This is contrast to early anastigmats, which often seem soft all over until topped down. This effect will depend on focal length of course, most pronounced (on 4x5") with a 5 inch lens (originally made for 3 1/4 x 4 1.4"), less so with an 8 inch lens originally made for 4 3/4 x 6 1/2". I have a very good 8" RR and a quite good 5", they cost me £25 and £12 respectively.

 

[Ole]

German lenses called "Aplanat" are the same as Rapid Rectilinear. There are three basic types - fast "Portraitaplanat" often f:4.5 to f:6, "Universalaplanat" usually f:7 to f:8, and "Weitwinkelaplanat" from f:12 to f:18. There are also lenses with other, sometimes misleading names which are aplanats - the Rodenstock Hemi-anastigmat is a good example (and a nice lens too, I have a perfect 300mm )

NIce Universalaplanats or Rapid Rectilinears can often be found for very little money. The cheapest ones will be unnamed, then the prices tend to increase with the fame of the maker.