Looking for lenses

[Dan Fromm]

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!!

Jim, you're absolutely right that if one doesn't look one won't find. But the odds are very much against finding a lens that can be used on 4x5 at a yard/garage sale or in a flea market.

I've been going to our local "farmer's market" that's really an old-style flea market with vendors selling old junk for years. So far I've found two lenses fit for use on 4x5, a pair of 240/9 dagor type G-Clarons that I snatched for $20. Also one good cine camera, a $10 Nikon R-8. And one so-so 6x6 TLR, an Ansco Automatic Reflex for $10 that sort of works. Sort of. I suspect/fear that the good stuff goes straight to eBay.

I believe the story that somewhere, sometime, someone found a very early Nikon rangefinder camera at a yard sale. I don't, however, believe that I'll ever find one.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[Ole]

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

That's not funky; it's US apertures.

US is Uniform System, or Universal, or ... just not United.

 

[sun of sand]

Enlarging lenses are probably an easier find as a lens with a shutter usually gets checked out a bit
I have a 90mm 4.5 Enlarging Raptar that clips the corners but at f22 you can contact it/frame it oval and have a decent, light 90mm lens for crappy days or whatever
Barrel lenses
old brownie post card and folding postcard cameras cover 4x5. I think the Brownies are even sharper than the Folders but only simple shutter and work involved with the Brownies in order to use em

Other than that I'd say look for good names and hope it covers or use it for something else besides 4x5

 

[darinwc]

If you want to know more about the stuff you are buying, i suggest you invest in the lens collectors vade mecum.

I havent had much luck buying stuff from yard sales and stuff. they usually have crappy plastic cameras n such.

at yard sale prices though, its cheap enough to buy first ask questions later.

Antique stores are usually overpriced.

 

[Absinthe]

Ok, here is the image that I was alluding to. The two colored blocks represent the horizontal and verticle orientation of the 2.5x4.25 film image.

The circle represent the least point of coverage.

Notice the two colored blocks together make a cruciform shape and with their circle of coverage together make an octagonal (stopsign) shape.

However, if you see the expanded square on the two colored shapes. Which was what I was calculating for, when I said it should be able to do the widest value square.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Absinthe, what difference does the rectangle's orientation make? It doesn't change the size of the circle that just holds it.

 

[Nick Zentena]

If you mean the black area that's outside the image on both.

To me the formula fails if you are talking really panoramic formats AND want movements. Long thin have smallish min image circles. But if you raise/fall a fair bit then that cause relatively more problems.

 

[jimgalli]

Ultimately you'll have to "get to know" the different classic lens designs. That way you'll know ahead of time that a certain Clement & Gilmour f4.5 is a dialyt and dialyt's cover about 50 degrees so the 105 in your hand will only cover a 6X9cm etc. A Dagor on the other hand will cover 82 degrees and most of the 125-ish ones are excellent bets. In the meantime, if they are cheap, buy em and get the education started. It'll likely work on something. A portrait of your mum with darkened corners might be.......fine art.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. I stand by my position that the chances of getting a decent lens that will cover 4x5 at a garage/yard sale or a flea market are very poor. But if any of you interpreted that as meaning there are none to be found anywhere, I have to retract a little.

Went to the Second Sunday Camera Show in Wayne, NJ this morning. Snagged a 170/6.3 Kodak Anastigmat in Ilex Unversal for all of $10. I wasn't sure whether all f/6.3 KAs are triplets. The lens in hand is a 4/4 dialyte, just like the better known 203/7.7 KA and Ektar. Clean glass, shutter works although I'm sure it runs slow on all speeds but T and B.

So, Absinthe, if you're in range you might visit the next show, which will be in June. If you're not in range of this one, look for other camera shows. Go, and look in boxes of junk lenses. There's no telling what you'll find. I passed on a 5.375"/4.5 Kodak Anastigmat in barrel (a tessar type that will just cover 4x5) because (a) I have too many lenses in that focal length range, some good, and (b) its diaphragm was very tight and I'm not sure how to take the barrel apart for cleaning.

 

[Absinthe]

Dan --

The orientation of the rectangles merely show that the coverage of the circle relates to both portrait and landscape orientation. And when I initially made my statement it showed my mistake of assuming that you needed the widest part square rather than simply calculating the diagonal of the rectangle. And in so doing, you are covering a "stop sign shaped area" (I drew it so you would understand what I meant by that) since you said you didn't understand because most stop signs you knew were octagonal.

You know, if we were standing face to face and I could talk and use my hands and all that jazz, it would be easier to get a point across. However, here, online, in text, sometimes things get way far away from consensus understanding. Worse than that, as one tries so desperately to explain what has been lost to subtleties things degrade into a dead horse beating session that begin to appear as an argument.

So to summarize the whole thing:

1. Minimum coverage circle is really determined by the actual diagonal of the actual format rectangle.
2. It is possible though not probable to find a bargain/deal on a lens that will cover 4x5 at a second hand event. FWIW, I have found folders but never a full all out monorail, field or technical camera at a yard sale, so why would I find their lenses (In my area, older cameras have become decorating accent pieces, so I am not ruling it out. People are buying $200-$300 Roliflexes for just table top art...)
3. Cruciform images with their corners all joined look like stop signs (octagons) especially if their ratios are conducive to having similar distances between their corners as the width of their shorter side.
4. I have both a HS diploma and a College Degree in computer science, as well as a CRL (certified registered locksmith) and several MCP (Microsoft Certified professional) qualifications. (Not certain what my CV had to do with this initial question other than establishing my lack of being a mathematician I guess)

So if they are cheap enough, buy everything. Otherwise, make sure it is over 150 or designated as "wide". I probably will not be able to project them to test them, but if I carry a lens board and a camera with me everywhere I could possibly "chuck-em-up" and see how it looks. Perhaps building a CO solely for that purpose maybe a nesting box design with view screen and some way to mount "any old lens" or "open back camera" to it.

Theoretically in most cases I could mount it backwards right?

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

Like the 170 mm f/6.3 lens Dan found, the better Kodak Autographic (Special) 3A's used different forms of that lens. Wclavey here has one on his Crown Graphic. He had the multi-speed shutter CLA'ed & was told it was accurate & in good shape.

The Rapid Rectlinear (non-Special model) is the same f.l., pretty sure it covers also because it's a 'normal' lens, but the Ball Bearing shutters are pretty sad and not worth the cost of CLA.

Lastly, the meniscus version covers, but is certainly has the poorest performance...but might be useful for a different look. It is the easiest to recognize (on the web or in person) because there is an aperture in front, with no glass visible. There is a sloping 'face' in front of the iris, not to be confused with a lens cell.

My rules of thumb for trying to distinguish between the Rapid Rectilinear version and the Anastigmat version (without having them in front of me, as in eBay pics) is that the RR often came in a Kodak Ball Bearing shutter or FPK (Folding Pocket Kodak) shutter, with fairly visible round logo, and usually a narrower range of speeds (fewer speed lever positions). The lever is a good visual indicator.

The Anastigmat I believe only came on the 'Special' and was usually in a better shutter of various makes with more speeds and usually a rotary dial.

Dagor77 has 2 on eBay that end today, no Paypal!

 

[Dan Fromm]

Absinthe, thanks for the lengthy reply. I mourn the day when comp. sci. moved out of the math department. And I find it hard to believe that a well-educated adult -- that's you -- has forgotten Pythagoras' theorem. But clearly it is possible. Oh, my, what is the world coming to?

Um, I don't buy every lens I come across that's inexpensive. Several reasons not to: Poor condition. Inadequate coverage. I have one already. Triplet, although I make exceptions for a few. "Bottom of the line." There's no reason to waste money on a lens that a priori won't do.

In your case, although there are indeed exceptions, get no f/4.5 or faster lens shorter than 135 (ok, 127) mm.

I have a Speed Graphic, so can use lenses in barrel. You don't, can't. And given the cost of putting a lens not made to go into shutter in one, you should shun them. Hint: Symmars are made to go into shutters, were also sold in barrels. Otherwise be wary; I have lenses in barrel that should, according to their makers' datasheets, go into shutter but that don't.

Murray, Tessar IIbs on FPKs are often in Compound shutters. Compounds were expensive; that a lens is in one indicates that EKCo thought it was pretty good. The Ilex Universal I picked up today is a rimset press shutter, has one fewer speed than the Compounds. If there were rules in Rochester, they had many exceptions.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[Wayne R. Scott]

I have found a few lenses that will cover 4x5 at flea markets, garage sales, thrift stores, and rural auctions. It averages out to about one lens every two years. So, while it is not impossible, it is not practical if you need a lens immediately. But, if you do not look you will never find them!!!

My meager list of finds:

127mm Ysarex in shutter from a Polaroid 110A.
A couple of 170mm B&L rapid rectilinear on Kodak 3A cameras the shutters were crap.
A Victor Rapid Rectilinear on a 5x7 Pony Premo NO. 4 camera in a Victor Pneumatic shutter that works reasonably well.
A brass 330mm 8x10 Xtra Rapid Rectilinear with waterhouse slot and the six waterhouse stops.
A brass Waterbury Landscape lens with 3 stops.
A brass Darlot 8" Petzval.
A Wollensak Raptar 241mm f4.5 with 2 Packard NO. 6 synched shutters.
A No. 3 16" Wollensak Vitax Portrait soft focus lens in a NO. 5 Studio shutter (good luck fitting that one on 4x5 lens board).

I am happy when I find something interesting at the flea markets,etc. but I don't expect much. I'm still looking for that mint Leica M3. I did find a Leica IIIC once. My Leica average is one every 36 years.

Wayne

 

[Absinthe]

Absinthe, thanks for the lengthy reply. I mourn the day when comp. sci. moved out of the math department. And I find it hard to believe that a well-educated adult -- that's you -- has forgotten Pythagoras' theorem. But clearly it is possible. Oh, my, what is the world coming to?

Dan --
What is it specifically that makes you think I don't understand Pythagoras' theorem? I used it to calculate the rectangles, however, I calculated it on the wrong rectangle, or square as it were, as you should be able to see by the diagram/drawing.

What I did, errantly, was assume that not the actual diagonal of 4.25x2.5 but rather 4.25x4.25 as shown by the outer square encompassing the two colored rectangles, and the coverage circle that touched all 4 corners of that square. However, when calculated correctly, for the 4.25x2.5 then the inner circle that merely touches all 4 outside corners of the union of the 2 orientations (colored rectangles) instead.

Pythagoras' is one of the few things I remember from HS math. Though I did solve the puzzle in the parade last week... wait I'll draw that one too:

bc is twice as long as ed
ae is equal to ac

What is the relationship between area of the polygon acde and the two triangles abc and aef?

The answer should be intuitive and require no measurement, but should be provable and explainable.


--

Back on topic, I didn't run across anything but a few baby brownies (127's) and an overpriced Polaroid roll film camera. So better luck next time

 

[Absinthe]

Looking for Lenses (Second Question)

When I find a lens on eBay or yardsale or wherever, and they don't have a shutter, is that difficult to overcome? Which lens sizes correspond to existing shutters? It isn't it that easy?

 

[Dan Fromm]

It isn't that easy. In fact, its harder than "isn't that easy." I have a couple of lenses in barrel whose cells should, according to the manufacturer's data sheets, go into #1 shutters. They don't. In fact, they don't go into any shutter. And there are some very good lenses, e.g., Rodenstock Apo-Gerogons, that were sold in barrel and whose cells won't go into shutter. If you don't know for sure, don't buy unless the price is very low.

I think I've told you once that Schneider Symmars (all versions) are/were made to go into shutter and that the lenses were sold in barrel and in shutter. My 135/5.6 jes' plain Symmar (also known as convertible Symmar) came from a seller on eBay in barrel, was offered as an enlarging lens; its cells are now in a #0 shutter. So there are some sure good bets.

There are also some fairly sure bad bets. Lenses in barrel from Rochester, NY (Elgeet, Ilex, JML, Kodak, Wollensak) in general won't go into readily-available shutters. There are exceptions, e.g., Ilex f/8 wide angle lenses (47, 65, 90) will go into standard shutters. My 65/8 Ilex is now in a Compur #00.

There are several ways of using a lens in barrel. Hang it on a camera with a focal plane shutter, e.g., a Speed Graphic. Hang it in front of a behind-the-lens shutter, e.g., Packard or Sinar. Put the cells in a leaf shutter; easy and relatively inexpensive if the cells are a direct fit, potentially quite expensive if not. For adapting a lens to a shutter, see, e.g., http://www.skgrimes.com/fits/index.htm. And before you go this route, price shutters, which aren't as cheap as I'd like. See, e.g., http://lensn2shutter.com/shutters.html. Mount the entire lens in front of a leaf shutter; there can be coverage issues and adapters aren't always cheap. skgrimes (Steve himself and successors) has made a number of adapters for hanging lenses on a #1 shutter for me. Prices have been as high as $135 (and may be higher now).

 

[Fotoguy20d]

Went to the Second Sunday Camera Show in Wayne, NJ this morning. Snagged a 170/6.3 Kodak Anastigmat in Ilex Unversal for all of $10. I wasn't sure whether all f/6.3 KAs are triplets. The lens in hand is a 4/4 dialyte, just like the better known 203/7.7 KA and Ektar. Clean glass, shutter works although I'm sure it runs slow on all speeds but T and B.

Nice grab. There were two of those on the bay in the last week - not in great shape from the looks of them - both went for under $10 with a total lack of interest (I think 1 bidder apiece).

I never seem to find anything there (Wayne) so I've pretty much stopped going. It's been a while though so maybe I'll go to the next one (note - no show in May due to Mother's Day).

Does anyone in the North Jersey area ever do a MF/LF "meetup" - get a bunch of folks together for a photo shoot/hike/scenic site/etc?

Dan

 

[Absinthe]

So, if it has no shutter, will not easily fit into a shutter, do you just religate it to long exposures and use a lens cap or bowler hat?

So can a shutter be adapted to mount behind a lens board and then any lens can be used? Is that how the Graflex camera work?

I assume that the shutter numbers indicate size. I assume there is a list somewhere that specifies what each one is. However, when lens goes into a shutter, some of it goes in front of it and some behind it and don't they have to be a specific distance apart?

Anyway, for now I have my 135 from the polaroid, and my 7" wollensak, perhaps some day I will get lucky with something a bit wider, and something a bit tele.. No rush. It's all about the journey, the destination will take care of itself.

I am guessing that since that 135 was on the MP-4 it should even be pretty good for macro work, I'll have to see what it actually does, it should be flat field at least right?

 

[Fotoguy20d]

So can a shutter be adapted to mount behind a lens board and then any lens can be used? Is that how the Graflex camera work?

Anyway, for now I have my 135 from the polaroid, and my 7" wollensak, perhaps some day I will get lucky with something a bit wider, and something a bit tele.. No rush. It's all about the journey, the destination will take care of itself.

The Graflex "Speed" models have a focal plane shutter right in front of the film plane so you can use them with a barrell lens.

Keep an eye out for a 90mm f6.8 Optar (Wollensak) or Angulon (Schneider). They're not expensive (around $100) and will cover 4x5 although without much movement.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Absinthe, buy a book. Buy several books. Steve Simmons' Using the View Camera might do for you.
Visit http://www.largeformatphotography.info/, read the FAQs. You're asking people to type what's already been published and is easy to find.

You say you have degrees/certificates in Comp. Sci. When you need an algorithm, do you beg strangers for one or do you look in Knuth?

Your ex-MP-4 135/4.5 Tominon that mounts in front of a Copal Press #1 with no diaphragm is a mediocre macro lens and poor at distance. I've tried three, they were very consistent, all mediocre.

Google Packard Shutter. Google Sinar Shutter. In general, leaf shutters can't just be hung behind a lens board. Draw a picture and you'll see why.

 

[Nick Zentena]

When I find a lens on eBay or yardsale or wherever, and they don't have a shutter, is that difficult to overcome? Which lens sizes correspond to existing shutters? It isn't it that easy?

Na it's easy. You stick it in a box with lots of stamps. Send it to the SKGRIMES guys. They do some magic and send it back.

The problem is for smaller cameras it's almost never worth it.

Watch KEH. Have a list of interesting lenses. Or at least learn to use google

I bought the following for between $100 and 150 from KEH.

150mm F/5.6 Fuji W
210mm Komura Commerical
300mm Orbit-S

You'd be hard pressed to buy just the shutters for less. When you add in the KEH warranty they become even better deals.

ULF cameras are different. Those lenses can be harder to find in shutters. But for 4x5 to 8x10 mounting common lenses isn't worth it.

 

[jimgalli]

If you want a shuttered lens, buy a lens with a shutter. Barrel lenses almost never fit a shutter without expensive machine work. The machine work ALWAYS spoils any bargain.

So why did they make a bazillion old lenses in barrel without shutters? How did they get used in the first place? I have a page on my website where I answer a bunch of questions about "Packard" shutters. They are a solution for some but not all. We have a generation of folk whose minds get boggled by a car with 3 pedals on the floor. Those folk should stick to a Copal shutter, and that's fine.

OTOH if you're the kind of person that is comfortable double clutching a 1930's car with no synchro's you might also be adaptable to the world before modern shutters. About 80% of the work you see on my web pages is done with a venerable Kodak 2D with a Packard shutter inside. That means I can live very well with a $56 210mm Dagor from about 1919 instead of paying $1300 for the same lens with a shiny brass ring and in a modern shutter. Hey, the pictures are the same.

I'm saying turn back the clock if you're adaptable to those kinds of things at all. The guys that used those lenses successfully when they were new were no smarter than we are. Think about it.

 

[Absinthe]

The Graflex "Speed" models have a focal plane shutter right in front of the film plane so you can use them with a barrell lens.

Keep an eye out for a 90mm f6.8 Optar (Wollensak) or Angulon (Schneider). They're not expensive (around $100) and will cover 4x5 although without much movement.

Ahhh, ok I knew they had a shutter inside just never held one so I didn't know where. So that is a really big shutter then, near as large as the film size itself.

Lenses, noted. I will definitely keep an eye out for them. I have seen "90 super angulon" is that different,or just another name?

 

[Absinthe]

Absinthe, buy a book. Buy several books. Steve Simmons' Using the View Camera might do for you.
Visit http://www.largeformatphotography.info/, read the FAQs. You're asking people to type what's already been published and is easy to find.

You say you have degrees/certificates in Comp. Sci. When you need an algorithm, do you beg strangers for one or do you look in Knuth?

Your ex-MP-4 135/4.5 Tominon that mounts in front of a Copal Press #1 with no diaphragm is a mediocre macro lens and poor at distance. I've tried three, they were very consistent, all mediocre.

Google Packard Shutter. Google Sinar Shutter. In general, leaf shutters can't just be hung behind a lens board. Draw a picture and you'll see why.

Dan --

You know what? For some reason I really like you. I look forward to reading every reply that you post. You are obviously a very knowledgeable and experienced fellow, and your responses are lucid and well thought out. This community here, as a whole, is lucky to have the benefit of your knowledge and experience and I hope they all appreciate it as much as I do.

I just bought Steve Simmons' book and am about 4 chapters into it. I am also going back to the NYI course and reading through their lesson on the View Camera. I am doing my best to seek through the FAQs as I find them, and honestly, your recommendations on what to Google to find out about shutter types will no doubt be quite illuminating. I will do that this evening.

As for algorithms, when I need one, I generally write it myself. Though I may consult Sedgwick, or Knuth for basic principles and concepts, I would more likely turn to one of my cell^h^h^hcube-mates and ask, "Have you ever had to do this that or the other thing to a Blurf?" Most of the time, it is a 2 way street, and they have either done it already, or it is contained in our libraries so forth. I am not sure what that has to do with this discussion but as with the rest of my CV there is the methodology I use for coming up with algorithms. Many times, however, when I have brought it up as an issue with coworkers, sometimes they don't have the answer either. Then I share it with them as I find it, or we brainstorm a solution.

Thanks also for the technical review on the 135 Tominon. That is useful information and will definitely help me in making decisions about it. It is great to learn from the experience of others, rather than making all the same mistakes as one's predecessors.

I understand fully why a leaf shutter can't be hung behind a lens board. However, there are shutters that can certainly be placed between the lens and the film or even the subject and the lens. Certainly none of my SLR type equipment had lenses mounted in shutters, though all my C330 stuff did. All I was asking was what the solutions were? I assume, from everything I have ever seen of the "old time" stuff that you took off the lens cap, then after how ever many minutes or the big flash you put it back on. I would guess I could do that, not much different from the pinhole stuff I have done, with a tape or other manually operated shutter. That would suggest longer exposures or ND filtration or whatever.

I had asked the questions and continued with them as a generally casual social interaction with the forum. I apparently should apologize for wasting time and bandwidth by doing so and go do the research myself and just surf Google for answers. So, I apologize to you, Dan, for wasting your time with such inane and sophomoric questions. To the rest of the forum, I apologize for wasting bandwidth with my insignificant inexperienced blather. Lastly for those of you who felt compelled to retype, previously existing information for my benefit, please first of all accept my sincerest apologies and my tremendous appreciation for taking the time to do so.

Thanks again Dan, you have shown me the error my ways and I will try and research my questions better before posing them so as to not waste anyone’s time or the site's bandwidth.

Hopefully I have not violated any of the TOS, but if I had it was purely unintentional, and I will now go back and reread them as well.

Anyone with pointers to useful FAQs, Book references, and other links please feel free to PM me with them if you wish.

Sorry again...

-- B

 

[Absinthe]

Na it's easy. You stick it in a box with lots of stamps. Send it to the SKGRIMES guys. They do some magic and send it back.

The problem is for smaller cameras it's almost never worth it.

Watch KEH. Have a list of interesting lenses. Or at least learn to use google

I bought the following for between $100 and 150 from KEH.

150mm F/5.6 Fuji W
210mm Komura Commerical
300mm Orbit-S

You'd be hard pressed to buy just the shutters for less. When you add in the KEH warranty they become even better deals.

ULF cameras are different. Those lenses can be harder to find in shutters. But for 4x5 to 8x10 mounting common lenses isn't worth it.

Thanks Nick --

I will start watching KEH again. I forgot all about them. I remember in the past, I got a lot of mamiya MF stuff from them.