Question: 120 film lens for 4x5?

[Candlejack]

Weird question, can you remove a lens from an old bellow 120, 616,620 etc camera and install it on a 4x5 lens board?
Looking on the inside it seems like they have that ring thats 4x5 lens have to tighten them. (No idea the names of these things.. and figure id need a spanner wrench to remove it if it is possible?)

 

[BrianShaw]

Not usually. The image circles is likely to be too small for full coverage.

 

[Candlejack]

Not usually. The image circles is likely to be too small for full coverage.

If thats the case.. extreme vignetting essentially if you wanted an artsy photo?

 

[ic-racer]

Here is a modern 6x9cm lens on 4x5in format. The lens from an older camera will have a more gradual falloff at the edges. Maybe more pleasing.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Lens boards don't care what's attached to them. However, the hole in the center of the board has to be the right size for the shutter the lens is in.

Its called a retaining ring, yes you'll probably need a spanner to unscrew it. If you're willing to risk damaging the lens, a screwdriver will probably do. Just don't slip.

All that said, if you're going to try to use the lens to shoot 4x5, try to find a 5" or longer focal length from a folder that shoots 616. If the camera shoots 120 or 620 -- same film, same size gates in the camera, different spools -- its lens will almost certainly not cover 4x5. Illuminate, possibly. Place good image towards the corners probably not.

 

[BrianShaw]

If thats the case.. extreme vignetting essentially if you wanted an artsy photo?

Yes, vignetting but if that’s okay then why not.

 

[Candlejack]

Here is a modern 6x9cm lens on 4x5in format. The lens from an older camera will have a more gradual falloff at the edges. Maybe more pleasing.

View attachment 293777

Thats beautiful and inspiring!

 

[Sirius Glass]

You need a 135mm or 150mm lens mounted in the lens board for 4"x5" negatives but either will let you use a film back. There are many available a good prices.

 

[ic-racer]

This is a 5x7in brass lens from 1800s on 8x10in. This has a little more pleasing falloff.

 

[Candlejack]

This is a 5x7in brass lens from 1800s on 8x10in. This has a little more pleasing falloff.

View attachment 293786

Thats interesting the difference in falloff. Thanks for showing that.

 

[BrianShaw]

If you want the best of both worlds, look for a 122 film folder with a decent lens. That will cover 4x5.

 

[neeksgeek]

I have a Bausch & Lomb Rapid Rectilinear, in a Kodak Ball Bearing Shutter, which came off an old Kodak folder. It’s been awhile, but I think the camera was either 116 or 122 format. Anyway this lens is roughly 140mm focal length and covers 4x5” pretty well, though I’ve got no examples to show.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'll go against some of the other posts.

Yes, most 105 mm lenses will have inadequate coverage for 4x5, but this isn't always the case; in fact, some of the cheaper ones may do better than the Tessar and Heliar types. For instance, I have a 105/4.5 Agnar triplet (in a shutter, haven't looked at the shutter recently but it's not a top end one) that I've used successfully on my Speed Graphic and Graphic View. The key is to do two things: stop down well (most lenses with marginal coverage will improve some past f/16) and don't focus to infinity (also, if the lens is front-element focused, set it to its own infinity). With my Agnar, hyperfocal at f/16 is about twelve feet; if I focus at that distance, everything from six feet to infinity is "in focus" within depth of field. This focus setting moves the lens a few millimeters further from the film plane, which expands the image circle a little bit. The combination of these two things -- stopping down and focusing in a bit -- let my Agnar cover 4x5 with no visible vignetting and acceptable (to me) sharpness in the corners.

I have images from this lens, used this way, in which I can read a license plate a block away from the camera. It makes a nice cheap wide angle (I think I paid $10 for the totally hosed camera the lens came on).

Now, you get no movements, obviously -- and if you want to throw a foreground out of focus, you may need to spend money for a lens intended for large format. But for most landscapes and a lot of street photography (with fast film) on a press camera, this kind of lens will work.

 

[gone]

I'm of the school of photographers that says just screw that sucker on there and see what you get. It will probably vignette like crazy, but that may be OK for some images. You can always crop the neg during printing and get a sharper shot. Myself, I kinda like this shot, it looks old timey.

 

[AnselMortensen]

PM'd OP.

 

[Donald Qualls]

When I posted about using a 105 mm lens on 4x5, I was at work -- now I'm home, I can post an example:

Speed Graphic, Agnar (triplet) 10.5 cm f/4.5, .EDU 400 (rebranded Fortepan), Parodinal 1:50

Some will complain that sharpness falls off in the corners (it does), or may even see a small amount of light loss there (sometimes I think I can) -- but a lens that cost $10 plus a couple squares of Masonite and an hour's work to fabricate a lens board is worth accepting some limitations when you're on a budget.

 

[ciniframe]

Donald that is amazing. I’ve used lenses from 6x9 folders with 4x5 but they didn’t cover as well at the Agnar, even stopped down. Right now I’ve a handheld 4x5 with a gifted 100mm f8.8 Kodak triplet from a Tourist folder. The film gate is masked to 94x96mm which the lens will cover. Since the Kodak Tourist folder lenses can be unclipped from the front standards thinking of trying a 101mm f4.5 Anastar from a different camera. It’s nice that these lenses have front element focusing, therefore you don’t need to worry about that.

Edit; I have no problem shooting 4x4 (94x94mm) on 4x5. It ain’t quite 4x5 but it’s big anyway. And, as a bonus with square format there is no need to decide between vertical or horizontal composition.

 

[Donald Qualls]

My Agnar is a front-focus lens as well; I've got it set to its own infinity position (intending to maximize its sharpness). The other part of the trick here is that, at f/16 or f/22, I focus on an object around twelve feet from the camera, which gives hyperfocal from six feet to infinity (and with the very low magnification needed from a 4x5 negative, hyperfocal still looks pretty good), and at the same time pushes the lens a critical few millimeters further from the film, expanding the image circle just enough.

 

[ciniframe]

If my math is correct at 12 feet the image object ratio should be about 1:35 which would require 3mm of extension from infinity for a 105mm lens.
Last summer I did a mini production line of holders for 4x5, most masked to 4x4 square format. (Yes, I was bored) Made up 17 units so that when a oddball lens falls into my lap that might cover the 133mm diagonal I’ll have a back to try it on. These backs are made of hobby plywood and the rest of the camera is made of 3/16in. black on black foam core. The foam core, with a sheet of 1/8in plywood to hold the lens can be cut to good enough precision to mount all but the heaviest lenses. The 110mm plastic lens from the Jollylook instant camera wound up on one of these. At f64 that simple plastic lens will cover 4x5 with some falloff. Using photo paper as a negative a simple slide shutter is all that is needed since exposures are at least 4 seconds in the brightest conditions.
This makes a simple set up where you can expose, develop the paper, contact print and have a dry print in about 2-3 hours. Almost ‘instant’ photography.

 

[Donald Qualls]

you can expose, develop the paper, contact print and have a dry print in about 2-3 hours. Almost ‘instant’ photography.

Do the same thing with Harman Direct Positive paper and you can cut out one develop/wash/dry cycle, plus whatever time it takes to make test strips and expose the full frame contact print. Say, under an hour, once you know the EI to use for a given light condition (changes some due to ortho sensitivity -- you lose speed in the Golden Hour compared to midday).

 

[ciniframe]

The problem I have with direct positive is that it is a mirror image. Partly psychological, I would know it is a mirror image if its my photo. Cannot explain why that bothers me, like any irrational obsession it’s, well….irrational!

edit; I suppose you could place a first surface mirror at 45 degrees to the image path to flip the image back. Like the way a Polaroid One Step needs that mirror because the image is exposed on the front of their instant film, whereas Instax is exposed through the back so can be placed in holders for regular cameras.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I suppose you could place a first surface mirror at 45 degrees to the image path to flip the image back.

There are "stealth" lens extensions sold for some 35mm cameras (I presume they screw onto a filter ring, amenable to adapters or glue-on if needed) that contain exactly this -- in front of the lens, which is much easier to use than one inside the camera. This could also then be taken off when you want to shoot paper negatives to be able to make multiple prints.

 

[BrianShaw]

There are "stealth" lens extensions sold for some 35mm cameras (I presume they screw onto a filter ring, amenable to adapters or glue-on if needed) that contain exactly this -- in front of the lens, which is much easier to use than one inside the camera. This could also then be taken off when you want to shoot paper negatives to be able to make multiple prints.

I’d rather use something like this on my camera!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_specs

 

[Sirius Glass]

The problem I have with direct positive is that it is a mirror image. Partly psychological, I would know it is a mirror image if its my photo. Cannot explain why that bothers me, like any irrational obsession it’s, well….irrational!

edit; I suppose you could place a first surface mirror at 45 degrees to the image path to flip the image back. Like the way a Polaroid One Step needs that mirror because the image is exposed on the front of their instant film, whereas Instax is exposed through the back so can be placed in holders for regular cameras.

[teasing]It is easy to get rid of the mirror image. Some people say you can no longer buy it, but I am here to tell you that you can. Just go to a camera store and ask for "film". It is that easy.[/teasting]

 

[warden]

Weird question, can you remove a lens from an old bellow 120, 616,620 etc camera and install it on a 4x5 lens board?
Looking on the inside it seems like they have that ring thats 4x5 lens have to tighten them. (No idea the names of these things.. and figure id need a spanner wrench to remove it if it is possible?)

Emmet Gowin did something like that and the effect was quite nice.