Folder lenses on 4x5? Rapid Rectilinear?

[matti]

It seems quite easy to find old folders for different formats with for example a Rapid Rectiliniear / aplanat with a focal length of 105 mm or 125 mm. Would it be out of the question for these to cover 4x5? I am of course not after corner sharpness. Far from it! I would like them to fuzzy up a lot. But I don't want total vignetting and a circular image.

I tried to calculate different image circles based on an angle of 50 degrees and ended up with one meter of coverage. Obviously I don't understand this math very well...

Dialytes seems to be quite common in these folders too.

I could of course just buy one and try it out and crop the picture if I don't get what I want. But I suppose one or two here have tried this, no?

/matti

 

[Nathan Smith]

Sure, this will work fine. The larger folders have lenses that will easily cover 4x5 and some of them are quite good. See this list of Kodak film numbers to get an idea of the coverage http://www.bvipirate.com/Kodak/FilmHist.html

Nathan

 

[matti]

Thank you for the list. Makes me think it would be interesting with a 4x5 roll film back to my Tachihara. And film to go with it...

My 16,5 cm dialyte covers 4x5 without much to spare. I think I have seen somewhere that Rapid Rectilinears have a wider coverage. But I am not sure.

/matti

 

[Ole]

matti, I have tried. Even with some success...

Aplanats tend to illuminate much more than they cover, which is exactly what you're after.

This one was shot with a 3 1/4" WA Rectilinear at f:11ish - it really isn't supposed to be used above f:16, but I forgot to stop down. A "normal" Rapid Rectilinear would be much softer in the corners.

"Normal" Aplanats/RR's have less coverage than this though - usable to an image diagonal around the focal length at small stops, soft corners at larger openings. Sharp coverage is considerably less than a dialyte!

 

[matti]

Was that on 4x5? That is wide!

So "illumination" is about the focal length in Aplanats? That should mean I need a 165 mm lens? Or did you mean that after that I will just get a bit of vignetting and unsharpness?

Hm, I understand these things are really relative and just up to what I am looking for. But I was thinking about 105 or 125.

/matti

 

[Ole]

No matti, the coverage is about the focal length. Illumination is quite a bit more. Something around 120mm should give plenty of scope for fuzzy corners, or almost sharp at very small apertures.

That picture was on 4x5", but it's cropped to about 9x12cm since I didn't hold the camera straight (hand held Speed Graphic). Looking at the full slide made me dizzy, like I was about to fall over...

 

[matti]

That was what I hoped for. Now it is shopping time!

/matti

 

[Nathan Smith]

Matti -
The 3A cameras which used 122 film had lenses around 170mm and came in a variety of qualities, from meniscus to anastigmat. They would make a very nice lenses for 4x5. You can also use the camera as a panoramic by adapting it to use 120 film. I bought one a while back with a 170mm Tessar, but haven't done anything with it yet. I've been thinking of picking up one of those with the meniscus achromats just for the lens.
Nathan

That was what I hoped for. Now it is shopping time!

/matti

 

[rippo]

Matti -
The 3A cameras which used 122 film had lenses around 170mm and came in a variety of qualities, from meniscus to anastigmat. They would make a very nice lenses for 4x5. You can also use the camera as a panoramic by adapting it to use 120 film. I bought one a while back with a 170mm Tessar, but haven't done anything with it yet. I've been thinking of picking up one of those with the meniscus achromats just for the lens.
Nathan

i've shot on an Ansco 3A, using paper negatives cut down to the 3x5 (roughly format). i also mounted the lens from one (i have two) on a lens board and did a test shot with my now-sold Calumet 4x5. covered 4x5 fine...as it should, since the original neg size was 3x5. i'll be putting one of the lenses on my toyo-view C when i can find the time to make a lens board.

so yes, pick up a 3A of some sort, hopefully with a working shutter.

 

[walter23]

I tried to calculate different image circles based on an angle of 50 degrees and ended up with one meter of coverage. Obviously I don't understand this math very well...

Basic trig:

tan(1/2 * angle) = (1/2 * coverage ) / focal_length

ie:

coverage = tan(0.5 * angle) * focal_length * 2

So: 2* 105mm * tan (25) = coverage

Coverage would be about 97mm for a 105mm lens with a 50 degree coverage angle.

 

[John Bartley]

I have my great-uncles Kodak Autographic 3A (postcard size). Some time ago, just for the halibut, I put the lens on my Calumet 4x5 and took a close up, wide open photo of my hand holding a beer mug. The image was clear and sharp in the centre but progressed to being very soft, almost fuzzy at the edges. It did not leave any vignetting. I think the lens is a Kodak Eastman. I don't remember if it had any size printed on it ... I'll try to dig it out and see exactly what it is.

cheers eh?

 

[Nathan Smith]

The 3A's were generally about 170mm I think. They came in a variety of types, usually meniscus, Rapid Rectilinear, or Tessar ... I've even seen a Dagor, but don't count on finding one of those easily. I haven't used a RR off of a 3A, but I've used them on other old folders, I really like the look they give.
Nathan

 

[rippo]

yeah, 170mm is what i roughly measured on my Ansco.

 

[sun of sand]

I took the meniscus out of a horizontal 3A Buster Brown and opened it up to
f8
It comes with a screw in metal hood so I also get f16 if I want that
It's soft at f8. Everything is pretty soft
Decent at f16 but no use for that really unless I want to leave it on the camera
Have not made a print of only negative shot at f32 but certainly respectable for general use if need a cheap lens

I took the lens out of a 2C brownie -postcard size- 130/131 film or something
Opened it up to f8 and it is actually -quite- sharp in the center with everything getting progressively obliterated -extremely soft- towards corners
(I don't know if normal for a lens like this but even stuff in the distant background is rendered sharper in the center)

I like the crazy look of the brownie best but the 3A gives a nicer, diffused sort of look, I think. Haven't used them but a few times.

I'll upload what I have for photos

This 1st one was my first try on kodalith -I used the brownie lens to see if less contrast from the lens would help keep overall contrast down
-don't mind the tones and highlights -scan was terrible
It's much sharper in center than appears

2nd is the 3A lens at f8 on Polaroid 55 -the print. My first 4x5 shot. I think I exposed for the negative ..but this is at least accurate of the look I get

 

[matti]

Looks great. I just got a postcard sized folder with a 6 1/2 in RR-lens in a working shutter. Maybe I can clean it up tomorrow for some trials.
/matti