normal lens for 2x3 Galvin

[mark]

I am going to Hawaii for business but am looking forward to meeting up with Robert for a little photography. I am exploring my camera options and am either going to take my 6x6 or my Galvin. The problem with the Galvin is the normal to widish lens. I don't have one, I don't think. I have been looking at the prices of 65mm lenses on KEH . Then I got to thinking that this was wide for 2x3 and I have no idea what "Normal" is for this format.

I have 135 Xenar that I use every once in a while on my 4x5. Is that normal or am I looking for something in the 90 range.

Can someone help with the "Normal" lense so i can price them.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

Try looking at a 100mm El Nikkor, or 105mm fujinon. Schneider and rodenstock also make 100mm focal lengths.

 

[Dave Wooten]

75 to 85 or 90 (the diagonal of 2 x 3 is the normal focal length)

 

[Nick Zentena]

The expensive 65mm on KEH cover 4x5. I think they some times have ones aimed at 2x3 cameras.

 

[mark]

It would be nice to have something that i can use on my 4x5 but DAMN those 65mm lenses are expensive.

So 90 or 100. I will look into those.

 

[Bandicoot]

I use a Rodenstock 100mm f5.6 Sironar-N on 6x9, and also a Schneider 100mm f5.6 Symmar-S (I use the Rodenstock more often only because mine is in a more accurate shutter than my Schneider, there is not much to choose between the two lenses optically.) These are both lenses designed for the format: they allow movements on 6x9 but won't (quite) cover 4x5. Both are very good.

An older choice is the Schneider 105mm Xenars in various speeds. These are good lenses too, also not covering 4x5. Less coverage than the above lenses (about 120mm vs. 140+mm) but still enough to allow some movement on 6x9 (diagonal, depending on your back, about 98mm).

Some people like the Kodak 101mm f4.5 Ektar, though my own example of this lens is nowhere near as good as my Sironar-N, YMMV.

If you want something that will do double duty, a 90mm f6.8 Angulon makes a pretty nice standard lens on 6x9 and a lightweight wide for 4x5, and won't cost outrageous money.


Peter

 

[darinwc]

the symmars and sironars were both made in focal lengths of 100mm and 135mm. The 135mm are easier to find, and will cover 4x5 as well.
But there are many choices in that focal length to choose from.

 

[Dan Fromm]

75 to 85 or 90 (the diagonal of 2 x 3 is the normal focal length)

Nonsense! The typical nominal 2.25" x 3.25" gate is in fact 56 mm x 81 (or 82) mm. So normal for the format is 100 mm.

 

[Dave Wooten]

Nonsense! The typical nominal 2.25" x 3.25" gate is in fact 56 mm x 81 (or 82) mm. So normal for the format is 100 mm.

You are correct-full 2.25 x 3.25 is 100 mm diagonal.

 

[Russ Young]

Well MY 101 Ektar is a sterling lens. The only problem is the Supermatic shutters they're mounted in... always be sure the shutter functions properly.
I've also had ONE 101 Optar that was head and shoulders better than the other two I tried.
Both of these lenses are fairly inexpensive.
Russ

 

[darinwc]

really there are so many EXCELLENT choices for a normal 2x3 lens. Help yourself by narrowing down your search.
Price?
Performance?
Coverage?
Age?
Speed?

 

[Dan Fromm]

Um, if you have the time to sweat out an eBay auction this lens http://cgi.ebay.com/Schneider-100mm...ryZ30075QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem would be more useful on y'r Galvin than would, say, a 101/4.5 Ektar or Raptar or Optar (= Raptar). More coverage than the tessars.

I have no connection with the lens on offer, but if I had a 2x3 view camera -- I shoot 2x3 Graphics, can't use much coverage -- and needed a normal lens I'd bid on it.

Good luck, have fun,

Dan

 

[rshepard]

Mark,

I, too, have the 2.25x3.25 Galvin with a stable of lenses. My initial reaction when I read your post was why you specifically want a normal focal length lens? Is this a compromise so you carry only a single lens with you? I'd think there'd be so much you'd want to capture on film that a wide angle and a long range lens would both be used.

When I travel on business I usually take my Seagull TLR because it has a fixed lens and I'm not tempted to carry too much, or I take my 2.25x3.25" Crown Graphic, which also has only the one lens. By eliminating lens choices I restrict what I put in the suitcase as well as the types of images I capture.

Enjoy the trip,

Rich

 

[Dave Wooten]

If I had only 1 lens for this format, it would be either a 75 mm or a 90 mm.

I like the fugi f8 90 mm which is my only lens for my 617 set up on which I also use at 6 x 9, 612, and 617 on the same camera.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

My Galvin came to me with a 135mm Rodenstock Sironar. I also often use my 105mm Fujinon on the Galvin.

 

[panastasia]

If I had only 1 lens for this format, it would be either a 75 mm or a 90 mm.

I agree, shorter than 75mm would require a recessed lens board for full movements with the Galvin 2x3.
75 & 150 would be nice, but that would be 2 lenses (they're relatively lightweight). For ultra-lightweight, the 100mm is it (total camera weight, a little more than 3 lbs).

 

[Curt]

I am going to Hawaii for business but am looking forward to meeting up with Robert for a little photography. I am exploring my camera options and am either going to take my 6x6 or my Galvin. The problem with the Galvin is the normal to widish lens. I don't have one, I don't think. I have been looking at the prices of 65mm lenses on KEH . Then I got to thinking that this was wide for 2x3 and I have no idea what "Normal" is for this format.

I have 135 Xenar that I use every once in a while on my 4x5. Is that normal or am I looking for something in the 90 range.

Can someone help with the "Normal" lense so i can price them.

Mark, do you still have the Galvin view camera?

 

[mark]

yep. Haven't used it in a long time though.

 

[Curt]

Do you find the design ok, any problems with locking movements so they stay locked in place?

Thanks,
Curt