Idea, has anyone done this with enlarger lens on Speed Graphic?

[RLangham]

So I have this old Soviet m39 enlarger lens. It's an Industar, which is Soviet code for a Tessar, 110mm f/4.5. I assume they made it for enlarging 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 negs on 120 film and the like, since we would typically use, what, 105mm for that?

I also have this mockup lensboard that I cut out of wood, back when I was trying to mount the Compur shutter from my Recomar on my Pacemaker Speed 45. The hole is rough, but it's just large enough that you can wedge a 39mm lens mount in it, among other things. I was looking around my cluttered house and I thought...hmmm.

So I put the lens in the board and the board on the camera. Believe it or not, it shows a good image on the GG, maybe a little vignetting even wide open (can't tell), but very arresting color rendition, on the glass at least. I might try to shoot through it, once I make a better lensboard.

Has anyone else tried medium-format enlarger lenses on Speed Graphic/other focal plane LF cameras?

 

[removed account4]

I've used enlarger ( and other flat field ) lenses on a speed graphic, it works well ! I've done copywork with it
( making copy negatives of maps and blueprints ) and a 127 tominon ( with a prontor press shutter )
came with mine as its taking lens ... lots of fun !
if you have any Schneider g-claron flavor lenses they screw right into one of the copal shutters. sorry I can't remember which one
maybe it was a copal 1 ? I've heard of people buying one of those shutters and a slew of g-clarons and making a crazy sweet casket set with it.
not sure if they actually did it or thought about doing it but it was a pretty cool idea !
have fun !
John

 

[Dan Fromm]

I have tried out a variety of enlarging lenses, so-called, on my 2x3 Graphics. I say "so-called" because some lenses sold as enlarging lenses are optimized for enlarging, typically by no more than 10x. Others are normal ordinary taking lenses optimized to work best at infinity but sold as enlarging lenses.

All of the real enlarging lenses I've tried have shot badly at distance. One, a 105/4.5 Comparon, is good enough to use for closeup work. Another, a 4"/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar is a very good macro lens.

Industars are tessar types. f/4.5 tessar types do well to cover 110% of their focal lengths. A 110 mm lens that covers 4x5 has to cover 68 degrees. This is more than an f/4.5 tessar can do.

You have the lens and you want to know whether it will be good enough for you to use as a moderate wide angle lens on 4x5. Asking is cheap. Ask it, and then you'll know. I don't know your standards, it might be good enough for you.

About judging lenses by what you see on the GG. This has never worked for me. Years ago one of my friends, who had a 2x3 Miniature Speed Graphic (that's a model name) obtained a 1.75"/2.8 Elcan lens that had been fitted to an aerial camera. Rare lens, usually quite expensive. Charlie somehow stuffed it into the front of his Mini Speed (that's a model name's abbreviation) and showed it to me. We convinced each other that we saw good image on the Mini's GG, all the way to the corners. No long after I came across one for a wonderful price so I bought it and had SKGrimes put it on a board for my 2x3 Pacemaker Speed Graphic (that's another model name). On film, the lens put no light in the corners of 2.25" x 3.25" film (this is the format often called 2x3, the metric format called 6x9 is actually the same size) and barely covered 2.25" x 2.25" (the metric approximation is 6x6). Shortest lens that makes infinity on a 2x3 Speed Graphic (that's a class of cameras), useful, I suppose, if you want to shoot 6x6 with one.

 

[Dan Fromm]

if you have any Schneider g-claron flavor lenses they screw right into one of the copal shutters. sorry I can't remember which one maybe it was a copal 1 ? I've heard of people buying one of those shutters and a slew of g-clarons and making a crazy sweet casket set with it.

John, g-clarons are process lenses supposedly optimized for 1:1 that hold their corrections very well at all distances.

I've see the casket set fantasy, am not sure it is a good idea. The 150 fits a #0; 210, 240, 270 and 305 all fit a #1; 355 fits a #3. So only 210, 240, 270 and 305 have cells that can be mounted on the same shutter. The focal lengths are a bit close to make a really useful casket set. If you're interested in what other makers did with casket sets, look into Berthiot's line.

 

[AgX]

All of the real enlarging lenses I've tried have shot badly at distance.

That is interesting as in 35mm format the respective macro-lenses, designed for even larger scales, are reported as to be good at infinity too, and thus advised as general use lenses, though of lesser speec and the need to maybe stop down further for infinity.

 

[Bob S]

That is interesting as in 35mm format the respective macro-lenses, designed for even larger scales, are reported as to be good at infinity too, and thus advised as general use lenses, though of lesser speec and the need to maybe stop down further for infinity.

Only if they have floating elements. Otherwise they would have to be reversed mounted. And, stop down too far, into diffraction.

you are talking about edge to edge, corner to corner quality and not just dead center?

 

[AgX]

Only if they have floating elements. Otherwise they would have to be reversed mounted. And, stop down too far, into diffraction.

For infinity you do not have to reverse a macro lens. At best you would have to do so for scales larger that 1/1.

 

[removed account4]

John, g-clarons are process lenses supposedly optimized for 1:1 that hold their corrections very well at all distances.

I've see the casket set fantasy, am not sure it is a good idea. The 150 fits a #0; 210, 240, 270 and 305 all fit a #1; 355 fits a #3. So only 210, 240, 270 and 305 have cells that can be mounted on the same shutter. The focal lengths are a bit close to make a really useful casket set. If you're interested in what other makers did with casket sets, look into Berthiot's line.

hey dan -
sure does sound like a fantasy, I wasn't sure if the person actually did it or was thinking out loud, im to gullible and optimistic to know if its a bad idea
https://www.largeformatphotography....or-type-G-Claron-s-as-the-ultimate-Casket-Set
I imagine berthiot's lens/es are quite lovely, I've never seen one, except on eB000 and threads on the internet; sadly, they always appear out of my price range so never any first hand knowledge. maybe after I make a windfall selling fashionista, monogrammed crocheted surgicalmask covers to the Jetset crowd, I will be able to afford one .. im a fan of convertibles and casket sets.

 

[Dan Fromm]

That is interesting as in 35mm format the respective macro-lenses, designed for even larger scales, are reported as to be good at infinity too, and thus advised as general use lenses, though of lesser speec and the need to maybe stop down further for infinity.

Some yes, others no. I once asked Norman Rothschild, who wrote for, IIRC, Popular Photography, why PP never published a review of a 55/3.5 MicroNikkor. He told me that no version of the 55/3.5 met PP's minimum standard at infinity at all distances. PP didn't publish negative reviews to avoid offending and possibly losing advertisers.

As it happened, I was quite happy with the 55/3.5 MicroNikkor I bought new in 1970, eventually retired the 50/1.4 I'd bought earlier this year and used only the 55/3.5.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I imagine berthiot's lens/es are quite lovely, I've never seen one, except on eB000 and threads on the internet; sadly, they always appear out of my price range so never any first hand knowledge. maybe after I make a windfall selling fashionista, monogrammed crocheted surgicalmask covers to the Jetset crowd, I will be able to afford one .. im a fan of convertibles and casket sets.

https://www.ebay.fr/itm/BERTHIOT-Tr...e-format-brass-lens-4x5-5x7-8x10/223603295970

I've corresponded with the vendor, he's ok. I'd like to buy the set but I really can't justify it. The combined focal lengths are too close together.

 

[removed account4]

https://www.ebay.fr/itm/BERTHIOT-Tr...e-format-brass-lens-4x5-5x7-8x10/223603295970

I've corresponded with the vendor, he's ok. I'd like to buy the set but I really can't justify it. The combined focal lengths are too close together.

Thanks for the link Dan - looks really nice.

 

[ic-racer]

Post some pictures when you can. That [enlarger lens on camera] is a popular setup with many uses. Most frequently macrophotography is the goal, but other subject matter can be rendered too.

A cursory internet search might indicate that macrophotography with enlarger lenses is the most common current use of these lenses outside of our analog uses.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Industars are tessar types. f/4.5 tessar types do well to cover 110% of their focal lengths. A 110 mm lens that covers 4x5 has to cover 68 degrees. This is more than an f/4.5 tessar can do.

Perhaps Cooke triplets do better at this than Tessars, but I have a 105mm f/6.3 Agnar that I took off an otherwise non-functional folder and mounted on a board for my 4x5 Pacemaker Speed Graphic. Stopped down to f/11 or smaller, and (bellows) focused to hyperfocal distance (around 12 feet), it not only covers the corners, but has good enough resolution to read a license plate a block away. But no, not an enlarging/copy lens, by any stretch.

 

[RLangham]

Post some pictures when you can. That [enlarger lens on camera] is a popular setup with many uses. Most frequently macrophotography is the goal, but other subject matter can be rendered too.

A cursory internet search might indicate that macrophotography with enlarger lenses is the most common current use of these lenses outside of our analog uses.

I will when I can either get some film or develop some of my plates from Jason Lane (got developers, need to order fixer). I agree with what several people have said in this thread, that the vignetting will probably be bad. Sharpness at infinity doesn't look much worse than my scratched and decoated Optar 135mm, but on the nasty old GG on my Speed Graphic that's not saying much, and anyways that Optar is far from in its prime. A moderate crop might be in order to take care of the vignetting.

It might, honestly, be nicest for portraits, since it seems to give a classic "swirly" bokeh at even middle apertures. I also like that it literally has a built-in lens hood!

 

[Eric Rose]

http://ericrose.com/index.php/black...d-white-urban#11-center_st_tigerstiedt_studio

http://ericrose.com/index.php/black...lack-and-white-urban#11-center_st_lion_shadow

http://ericrose.com/index.php/black...-and-white-urban#11-center_st_night_chinese_1

http://ericrose.com/index.php/black-and-white/landscape-black-and-white-urban#11-galaxy_diner

All the above images where made with a Rodenstock 135mm f5.6 enlarging lens mounted on a Graflex 4x5. These web images are very low rez but the 8x10 prints are razor sharp with incredible luminosity.

I have also used the same setup for daytime photography when I had a Speed Graflex and again results were outstanding. Both near and far. I am always amazed at the BS spouted by those saying enlarging lenses don't work as taking lenses because of this or that. I suspect these same people have never tried it.

 

[laser]

Lens design: If you start with a single element convex/convex lens you can form an image. By adding elements you can selectively correct for specific lens aberrations: chromatic, spherical, coma etc. The designer can also optimize distances (magnification). With a triplet the degrees of freedom are limited. For an enlarging lens the designer will chose to optimize for 1:4 to 1:10 magnification. For a camera lens the ratio will be 1:20 to 1:240 or more. Well designed triplet lenses designed for specific magnifications will be superior to otehr well designed lenses designed for other magnifications.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Lens design: If you start with a single element convex/convex lens you can form an image. By adding elements you can selectively correct for specific lens aberrations: chromatic, spherical, coma etc. The designer can also optimize distances (magnification). With a triplet the degrees of freedom are limited. For an enlarging lens the designer will chose to optimize for 1:4 to 1:10 magnification. For a camera lens the ratio will be 1:20 to 1:240 or more. Well designed triplet lenses designed for specific magnifications will be superior to otehr well designed lenses designed for other magnifications.

Sometimes, not always. For example, Boyer sold enlarging lenses engraved Saphir BX and taking lenses engraved Zircon. They all were made to the same prescription. Only the trim rings differed.