Looking for lenses

[Absinthe]

Ok, I now actually have 2 calumet 4x5 cameras, one of them totally by accident. I have a 7" wollensack (5x7) lens on one of them, and will, no doubt, play with the polaroid lens that I got from the MP-4 on it as well.

However, we are going junking this weekend, yardsales, fleamarkets, antique shops and the like. I am not expecting some perfect thing to jump out at me, but I am wondering what to look for. How to tell if it will have enough coverage for 4x5 and that sort of thing.

I know some of the folders should be able to handle it or come pretty close like the ones for 116/616 right?

But let's suppose there is a disembodied lens sitting on a table and I pick it up in my hot little hand... Short of slapping it into a lensboard and looking at it on a GG how can I tell coverage and angle and all that jazz?

 

[Stephanie Brim]

If you find you want to get rid of the other camera...

Check http://largeformatphotography.info about lenses. There's SOME good information there, but I don't know how much there is on older lenses.

 

[Nick Zentena]

If it's a large formt lens 150mm or longer it should cover .

If you mean non largeformat lenses? Same idea. Wide angle designs will cover even if shorter. How much shorter depends on the design.

 

[Absinthe]

Hmmm, that seems too easy...

However, what if it is less than 150?

 

[Nick Zentena]

Then it gets harder -)

Basically any lens design will cover enough if long enough. Going shorter means a wide angle design.

 

[Absinthe]

Well, anything I can do with it or look at, to see? I envision making it project and looking at the size of the projection on the table or my shirt or whatever...

 

[Skorzen]

I have found that trying to project an image usually isn't very helpful as there is too much ambient light to get a good idea of the image circle. The advice so far is good, if it is 150mm or 6" + chances are pretty good that it will cover. 127mm Ektars will just cover along with 135mm Optars (both were standard issue on graflex press cameras and therefore somewhat common). Anything that says Dagor is probably pretty good. Schneider Symmars are good, a 90mm angulon or super angulon will both cover (the non-super just barely). Likewise lenses from the other well known brands like wollensak and rodenstock will likely cover (at least the 150mm+ ones will). It's hard to know exactly what (if anything) you might find, I know that in my experience I have found the pickings pretty slim.

 

[removed account4]

i use single cell lenses from junk folding cameras with my 4x5
... have fun

john

 

[Dan Fromm]

Absinthe, I doubt you'll find anything. Lenses for LF cameras, including ones on ancient folding cameras, aren't abundant at flea markets, yard sales, thrift shops, ...

You're not going to find a relatively cheap lens interestingly shorter than 150 mm that covers 4x5, except perhaps a 90/6.3 Raptar or Angulon, anywhere, except perhaps eBay. There are indeed longer tessar type lenses floating around, as for example a variety of Industars, but they're not in shutter so using them won't be easy and inexpensive.

Instead of wasting your time searching for the extremely rare lucky find, go use what you have. And accumulate your small monetary units until you can buy lenses that can be used without much additional expenditure.

You've started too late. Back when the dollar was high and dealers' sites hadn't been picked over and over and over a real steal could occasionally be found. But these days, its pretty much pay the going price or do without.

 

[John Kasaian]

I can't remember if it is the 1a or 3a cameras that have lenses that will cover
4x5. These are old model numbers for Kodak and Agfa folders IIRC.

Is there a "viagra" pill for the memory?

Uhhh ....what was this question about???

 

[Dan Fromm]

John, I look in old Folding Pocket Kodaks (when new, for those with large and deep pockets) hoping to find buried treasure whenever I run across them.

So far I've found a B&L f/6.3 Tessar and a CZJ f/6.3 Tessar, both in gummed up Compounds, and a lot of B&L Rapid Rectilinears with crystallized or separated balsam. The 130/6.3 CZJ is a treasure and is worth having its shutter ungummed, the ~ 135 mm B&L Tessar is the same, but the RRs have so far all seemed lost causes. I know that EKCo fitted other lenses to FPKs, I've seen 'em on cameras offered in, e.g., eBay.co.uk and eBay.fr, but haven't found any here yet.

You're not forgetting anything, you're suppressing bad memories. If I could forget all those RRs it would be much easier to sustain the hope of finding a nice lens in good order inside a moldy old FPK.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[Absinthe]

I will someday buy whatever I need. That is not the issue. What i am doing is going junking in general, not specifically fro camera stuff. What I am asking, is if I see something, how to tell if it is useful?

So if I run across a 116 type camera with a KODAK Anastigmat f:4.5 103mm on it, considering that it needs to have covered 4-1/2 inches of film at least in the long direction, is that a reasonable find? or will it just barely cover, or just barely not cover.

 

[Absinthe]

i use single cell lenses from junk folding cameras with my 4x5
... have fun

john

Tell me more about what you are doing with them..

 

[Dan Fromm]

I will someday buy whatever I need. That is not the issue. What i am doing is going junking in general, not specifically fro camera stuff. What I am asking, is if I see something, how to tell if it is useful?

So if I run across a 116 type camera with a KODAK Anastigmat f:4.5 103mm on it, considering that it needs to have covered 4-1/2 inches of film at least in the long direction, is that a reasonable find? or will it just barely cover, or just barely not cover.

103/4.5? Kodak Anastigmat? Covers 2x3, not 4x5.

 

[ricksplace]

I can't remember if it is the 1a or 3a cameras that have lenses that will cover
4x5. These are old model numbers for Kodak and Agfa folders IIRC.

Is there a "viagra" pill for the memory?

Uhhh ....what was this question about???

I have a lens from a 3A camera tht I use on my 4X5. It's a Zeiss Kodak Anastigmat F6.3. It is in a dial set compur, 1-1/200. It doesn't state the focal length, but it seems to be around 160mm. Uncoated and sharp as a tack.

 

[Absinthe]

103/4.5? Kodak Anastigmat? Covers 2x3, not 4x5.

Intersting, I pulled that out of my posterior actually, but there was a kodak that used 116 film on ebay a while back, and that is the lens the guy claimed was on it. So that wouldn't have even truly covered the format of the camera it was on., unless did they make some of the 116 cameras to not be so wide? I though they all shot 2½×4¼?

 

[Nick Zentena]

If I need the math right 2.5x4.25 is about 123mm of image circle. You need almost a 1/3 more then that for 4x5.

But coverage is a fuzzy term. What one person calls good enough might not be good enough for other people. I bet a lot of those older negatives got contact printed. Contact printing lets you push the limits harder then enlarging.

 

[Absinthe]

I am no mathematician, so correct me if I do this wrong. In order to cover 4.24 x anything you need to be able to cover 4.25 x 4.25 right?

That gives a 6" diagonal, or about 153 mm (and what is it 160 that it takes for 4x5 as the rule of thumb?) so it is only 5% off?

I may be doing this wrong, but best of my understanding, when calculating the coverage circle it is for a square equal to the longer of the two sides like for 8x10 it needs to cover 10x10 ... there are no ovals involved right?

 

[Dan Fromm]

Absinthe, use Pythagoras' theorem. A rectangle's diagonal is the square root of the sum of the side's squares. In your example, 2.5 x.4.25, the right answer is sqrt(2.5^2 + 4.25^2) = 4.93" = 125 mm.

Are you a high-school graduate?

Nick, EKCo didn't push coverage limits. That's a modern perversion.

 

[Nick Zentena]

No. It may be easier to draw some circles to see things but.

For a squarish format lets say 10x10 for example if you draw a triangle starting in the centre and going to one corner. Two sides would be 5".

So you've got 5"
2nd size 5"
The diagonal would be the square root of 5^2+5^2 or just over 7 inches.

Now take a less square format. Lets say 5x10.

One size is still 5"
The second is now 2.5"
That leaves the third side being square root of 5^2+2.5^2 or 5.6 inches.

Like I said easier if you draw the circles around the shapes.

All this assumes no movements of course.

 

[Nick Zentena]

Nick, EKCo didn't push coverage limits. That's a modern perversion.

Kodak might not of but IIRC other companies had different ideas. Didn't BL have different coverage numbers for the Zeiss lenses they made under license?

 

[Absinthe]

Absinthe, use Pythagoras' theorem. A rectangle's diagonal is the square root of the sum of the side's squares. In your example, 2.5 x.4.25, the right answer is sqrt(2.5^2 + 4.25^2) = 4.93" = 125 mm.

Are you a high-school graduate?

Nick, EKCo didn't push coverage limits. That's a modern perversion.

Yes, as a matter of fact I am.

Actually, I see where I went wrong, I assumed that to cover 4.25x2.5 you had to be able to cover 4.25x4.25 as well. I guess as long as your diagonal is longer than the longest width you are ok. With the narrow shape of the format, I assume you are actually trying to cover a cruciform pattern (or maybe something shaped like a stop sign even) rather than a square. So you don't have to have a circle wide enough to cover 4.25x4.25.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Kodak might not of but IIRC other companies had different ideas. Didn't BL have different coverage numbers for the Zeiss lenses they made under license?

Nick, for a while B&L (and many other makers too) engraved lenses with the format they covered. Sometimes just the format, sometimes format and focal length.

I just checked my three B&L Tessar IIbs. Two are pre-1914 ZKAs, just have a Kodak number that isn't congruent with the number B&L assigned when the lenses were sold to other makers. The third is somewhat younger, is engraved "4 x 5 IIb Tessar 6¼" E.F. f6.3" Given f/6.3 Tessars' coverage, this seems a bit conservative.

Absinthe, your thinking is too convoluted for me to follow. And everywhere I've driven stop signs have been octagonal. The trick is to think of the circle defined by three of the sheet of film's four corners, i.e., the smallest circle in which the sheet of film can be inscribed.

Thanks for telling me that you are a high school graduate. College graduate too?

 

[Jim Noel]

I don't understand all of the discouraging information. When one spends the time going to garage sales, etc there is no telling what may be found. It is not as easy to find photo stuff as it once was, but it can happen.
I say go for it. If you find an old folder, or the lens off one, and it is cheap enough for you, pick it up you never know what good luck you may have. I pick up every old lens I can find even if I know it will not cover my smallest sheet film camera at infinity -it may be great for closeup images.
Good luck on your quest!!

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

B&L Rapid Rectilinears with crystallized or separated balsam. ... If I could forget all those RRs it would be much easier to sustain the hope ...

I use an RR for a large-format old-time-soft-focus-glowing-highlight look. I haven't experimented much, but more crystallization would probably just enhance the look.

Stopped down to f22+ they will get sharp in the corners; wide-open on 4x5 the corners are a blurr. The ball-bearing shutter invariably has speeds of 1/40, 1/42 and 1/43 of a second rather than 25/50/100 marked and so I use them on a Speed Graphic with a focal plane shutter.

The aperture scale is funky. On the one I use:

Marked 4 is f9
Marked 8 is f11
Marked 16 is f16
Marked 32 is f22
Marked 64 is f32

Focal length is a crudely measured 175mm.

Remove the front element and you have a reasonable ~350mm(?) f18 lens for 4x5 that is reputed to cover 8x10.

The things are no resolution/contrast match for a modern lens but they have character. And the price can't be beat.