Normal Lens for 2x3 Crown Graphic

[yessammassey]

It came with a dirty Wollensak 90mm that wasn't matched to the RF or the infinity stops. I'll try it out with the ground glass (need to replace that first though). But the search is on for a 100-105mm that I can adjust the RF and focus scale to match.

The Fujinon W 105/5.6 and Nikkor W 105/5.6 seem to be widely available in good condition. Think I'll be able to close up the Crown with one of these installed? Is there any difference in reputation between the two, image quality wise? I can't find much said about either from my searching, except for one piece of forum errata that called the 105/5.6 Nikkor "a dog". What little I have found about the Fujinon is generally positive. One post claims the Fujinon W has a 67mm filter thread, is that true? From the photos I've seen, it doesn't look that big, but if it is, I'd probably favor the Nikkor, provided it's performance isn't really that bad.

Also from the Nikkor line are the Nikkor M 105/3.5 and Nikkor Q 105/3.5. The M would be an ideal lens I think (small multicoated Tessar with enough coverage for the Crown's modest movements) but it's rare and thus more expensive. The Q is very interesting, I think it's the same as the lens on the Marshal Press, but I don't know if it covers 6x9 with any movements at all. Both of these look like they'd very likely fold up with the camera.

100mm Symmars on offer and in my budget range right now don't appear to be in great condition. There's always waiting, but...

I'm disappointed that there aren't many good condition luminized 100,101, or 105 Ektars available where I'm looking.

Horseman Super ER's are out there, but eh.

Rodenstock Sironars are sparse too.

What else am I missing?

Any Baby Crown/Century Graphic users able to advise?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Consider pulling a Tessar type, or even a triplet, off an otherwise junk 6x9cm roll film folder? I've used a 105mm triplet on 4x5 (barely covers, stopped down to f/16 or smaller and focused to hyperfocal, 12 feet), with remarkable results. You'd have room for a good amount of movements on 2x3, and the price is hard to argue with.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Fuji's lens designations are very confusing. They made two 105/5.6 lenses that will do for you. The older less expensive is designated Fujinon-W (so engraved on the front cell's barrel), takes 46 mm filters. I have one, it is in front of me. A 2x3 Crown will close with it, I just checked to make sure. The newer much more expensive is designated CM Fujinon-W (so engraved on the front cell's barrel) It takes 67 mm filters.

It is very hard to go wrong with either Fujinon or with a 105/5.6 Nikkor-W if the lens and shutter are in good condition.

Nikon claims that the 105/3.5 Nikkor-M (same lens, I believe, as the 105/3.5 Nikkor-Q) covers 110 mm stopped down. I don't have either, don't plan to buy. But I have a 101/4.5 Ektar that has similar coverage.

You've drunk the Kool-Aid and believe that Graphics have useful movements. The only generally useful movement 2x3 Pacemaker Graphics (I have a Speed, 2 Centurys that I shouldn't have, and a Century) have is ~ 19 mm of front rise. That's it.

Nikon claims that the 105/3.5 Nikkor-M (same lens, I believe, as the 105/3.5 Nikkor-Q) covers 110 mm stopped down. I don't have either, don't plan to buy. But I have a 101/4.5 Ektar that has similar coverage. I've used it with full rise and didn't feel deprived.

The 100/3.5 and 105/3.7 Ektars are heliar types. I've had two 105s. Sold the first because it wasn't as sharp and didn't cover as well as my 101/4.5 Ektar. I still have the second. On formal test, it doesn't really cover 2x3 and it isn't as sharp anywhere in the field as my 101/4.5 Ektar. You don't want either heliar type Ektar. If you want to get an inexpensive lens, get 103/4.5 Trioptar. Mine tested sharper across 2x3 than my 101/4.5 Ektar. When I mentioned this on graflex.org, several other users chimed in to agree.

About coating. The 101/4.5 Ektar doesn't need it. I have one coated, one not. The uncoated example shoots better.

I'm fascinated by the 105/4.5 Horseman, less so by the 105/5.6, not at all by the 105/3.5. They share a drawback. They're sold in Seiko/Seikosha shutters on Horseman boards. Nothing wrong with that if you have a 6x9 Horseman, Their flash sync terminals are on the board, they are not integral with the shutter.

Not to abuse Mr. Qualls, but lenses fitted to junk folders are often junk too. If you must go that route, look for a unit focusing tessar type and avoid Voigtlaender Color Skopars.

I've got very good results on 2x3 from a 105/5.6 Boyer Saphir BX. This is a plasmat type lens sold for enlarging made to the same prescription as Boyer's Zircon, which was sold as a taking lens. One replaced my 101/4.5 Ektar in my out-and-about kit. The cells are direct fits in a #1. I replaced it with the Fuji when I started shooting 6x12. The 105 Saphir BX/Zircon just covers 6x12.

 

[shutterfinger]

For your consideration
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Zeiss-Graf...370952?hash=item21734d5e08:g:sxYAAOSwilpfIYSN

 

[Besk]

I have the Nikkor 105/5.6 lens but not mounted. It appears that it could close up in 2x3 Crown. The Copal shutters are a very close fit however and have to be oriented carefully on the lens board to allow the lens to be closed up in the camera. This is my experience with a 100 5.6/APO Symmar in a Copal 0 shutter.

 

[shutterfinger]

and another
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Graflex-Tr...362417?hash=item2f46078b31:g:TtgAAOSwgQZe4kxQ

 

[yessammassey]

Lots of useful information in all these responses, thanks. That triplet looks good in the pictures, but then again so did the Raptar that came with my camera..

I have the Nikkor 105/5.6 lens but not mounted. It appears that it could close up in 2x3 Crown. The Copal shutters are a very close fit however and have to be oriented carefully on the lens board to allow the lens to be closed up in the camera. This is my experience with a 100 5.6/APO Symmar in a Copal 0 shutter.

Thanks for the word of caution, Bob. By the way does the Crown body release lever work with your Symmar's Copal 0?

Fuji's lens designations are very confusing. They made two 105/5.6 lenses that will do for you. The older less expensive is designated Fujinon-W (so engraved on the front cell's barrel), takes 46 mm filters. I have one, it is in front of me. A 2x3 Crown will close with it, I just checked to make sure. The newer much more expensive is designated CM Fujinon-W (so engraved on the front cell's barrel) It takes 67 mm filters.

It is very hard to go wrong with either Fujinon or with a 105/5.6 Nikkor-W if the lens and shutter are in good condition.

This answers my main question, thanks. Any reason you could think of as to why a 105/5.6 of either type wouldn't cooperate with the Crown's RF and focusing scale, with calibration?

Nikon claims that the 105/3.5 Nikkor-M (same lens, I believe, as the 105/3.5 Nikkor-Q) covers 110 mm stopped down. I don't have either, don't plan to buy. But I have a 101/4.5 Ektar that has similar coverage.

You've drunk the Kool-Aid and believe that Graphics have useful movements. The only generally useful movement 2x3 Pacemaker Graphics (I have a Speed, 2 Centurys that I shouldn't have, and a Century) have is ~ 19 mm of front rise. That's it.

Yep looks like they are the same now that I've dug a little more. Also found some positive comments and examples of images from the Marshal Press. The lens has nice rendering.

The rise I've played with and it will help a little with urban scenes; that's mostly what this is for. I've enabled front tilt using the bed drop and looked through the dirty old ground glass and couldn't make much sense of what I was doing. It's a secondary concern after rise but I plan to at least see what I can do with it. Not very experienced with movements. Tried them on a 4x5 a handful of times with mixed results.

Nikon claims that the 105/3.5 Nikkor-M (same lens, I believe, as the 105/3.5 Nikkor-Q) covers 110 mm stopped down. I don't have either, don't plan to buy. But I have a 101/4.5 Ektar that has similar coverage. I've used it with full rise and didn't feel deprived.

Are a little rise and fall all one can get (theoretically. in landscape orientation) from these 110mm-covering lenses? Found a Nikon brochure for the 105/3.5 and it says it covers 100mm wide open, 110 at f/22. So that's barely 2x3", right?

 

[shutterfinger]

Any reason you could think of as to why a 105/5.6 of either type wouldn't cooperate with the Crown's RF and focusing scale, with calibration?

From the Kalart manual:

That triplet looks good in the pictures, but then again so did the Raptar that came with my camera..

Any lens in shutter purchased used likely needs the shutter CLAed and the elements cleaned unless just serviced bu a known repair shop or reliable person.

Are a little rise and fall all one can get (theoretically. in landscape orientation) from these 110mm-covering lenses? Found a Nikon brochure for the 105/3.5 and it says it covers 100mm wide open, 110 at f/22. So that's barely 2x3", right?

The coverage is based on the diagonal of the format. 2.25*25.4=57.15mm; 3.25*25.4=82.55. The diagonal is the square root of 57.15²+82.55² = 100.4mm. Being the image area is 1/16 (approximately) smaller each dimension the actual usable image diagonal is about 98.19mm so 100mm coverage will allow 1mm movement..

 

[Dan Fromm]

This answers my main question, thanks. Any reason you could think of as to why a 105/5.6 of either type wouldn't cooperate with the Crown's RF and focusing scale, with calibration?

Work with the RF? Yes, of course. Work with the focusing scale? Perhaps. It depends on the focal length the scales are for. They're not lens make/model and actual focal length specific, as the position of the bed stops and RF calibration are, but they are focal length specific. Calibrate the RF with the new lens, adjust the focusing scales so they're correct at infinity and then see how close they are at nearer distances.

The rise I've played with and it will help a little with urban scenes; that's mostly what this is for. I've enabled front tilt using the bed drop and looked through the dirty old ground glass and couldn't make much sense of what I was doing. It's a secondary concern after rise but I plan to at least see what I can do with it. Not very experienced with movements. Tried them on a 4x5 a handful of times with mixed results.

Are a little rise and fall all one can get (theoretically. in landscape orientation) from these 110mm-covering lenses? Found a Nikon brochure for the 105/3.5 and it says it covers 100mm wide open, 110 at f/22. So that's barely 2x3", right?

To get fall with the dropped bed, drop the bed with the standard on it, tilt the standard as far backwards as it will go and use rise to center the lens' axis on the gate. You'll find that for a given lens, the range of focused distances for which this works is very narrow. For longer focal lengths it won't work. And it won't work with the standard on the inner bed rails.

Whether a lens with a 110 mm circle at f/22 will work on a 2x3 Graphic with full rise depends on what's in the upper corners of the image and on how demanding you are. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

That triplet has more coverage than 101/4.5 and 105/3.7 Ektars. This by test, as mentioned in post #3 above.

 

[yessammassey]

Nevermind.

 

[yessammassey]

Work with the focusing scale? Perhaps. It depends on the focal length the scales are for. They're not lens make/model and actual focal length specific, as the position of the bed stops and RF calibration are, but they are focal length specific. Calibrate the RF with the new lens, adjust the focusing scales so they're correct at infinity and then see how close they are at nearer distances.

Got it. I'm guessing this camera was set up for a 103 or 101mm lens. Will just have to see how accurate the scale is close up with a 105. Although it sounds like maybe I could just draw corrected scales onto paper and paste them onto the metal ones.

*whoops, double post. Meant to paste this into the post above*