Lens Limitations for 2x3 Century Graphic?

[scott_clark]

Among other things, I'm considering getting a 2x3 field camera, so

that I can get the movements for landscapes. For now, Horseman and

Linhof are definitely out of my range. Thanks to some newsgroup posts

on useful modifications (adding forward tilt by flipping the front

standard, etc.), I'm considering getting another Century Graphic. (Had

one, traded it for 35mm stuff I needed when I got frustrated with the

limited movements, poor lens, etc.).

 

<p>

 

I've heard, though, that the number of modern lenses that will fit

this camera (more specifically, its boards) is quite limited. (I don't

want to go with vintage lenses--the point is to get an affordable

camera to which I can attach good optics.) Anybody know anything?

 

<p>

 

Of course, the quality of the Graflex roll-film backs may cancel out

any advantages here...

[peter_hughes]

I had a 2x3 Graflex years ago and loved it. As for lenses, the 100mm

f/3.5 Zeiss Tessar that came with it was very sharp, at least when

stopped down. I could have gotten a 90mm f/8 Super Angulon, another

very fine lens, and the camera even had a drop bed to accomodate it.

I imagine other modern lenses could be mounted as well. I don't know

about the limitations of the film backs; they *were* pretty crude.

However, I question your need for movements for landscape

photography. Lenses under 100mm are short enough to give you plenty

of depth of field stopped down, and there are no vertical lines to

correct for...so why movements?

[msitaraman]

Try asking the question in the huge

 

<p>

 

http://www.graflex.org/helpboard

 

<p>

 

q&A site for graflex cameras. Or do a search on

 

<p>

 

"Using Modern LF lenses on a Speed Graphic" at that site.

 

<p>

 

I asked the same question there regarding speed graphics, and the

short answer was yes.

[scott_clark]

Peter--

 

<p>

 

Thanks for the response. Could you have fit that 90mm Super Angulon

into a standard Graphic board?

 

<p>

 

The importance of movements is something I'm still trying to figure

out. I'll admit I was assuming I'd need the forward tilt for DOF, and

not considering that with 75mm or so lenses, it might not necessary.

On the other hand, I would like a way to keep the film plane vertical

to avoid divergence/convergence when the lens is pointed above or

below horizontal. (I was looking at Robert Glenn Ketchum's "The

Tongass" last night, and there was a photo of a forest that included a

lot of forest floor. The downward tilt necessary for this led to a lot

of convergence in the top of the frame. Irritating feature in an

otherwise well-executed photo.)

 

<p>

 

I also find that even with my 28mm Nikkor (the widest lens I ever

really use in 35mm) I could use some front rise when I'm in hilly

and/or forested landscapes.

 

<p>

 

scott

[jim_sabo]

I'm getting a little off the original thread, but using the Pentax 67

for landscapes, I often wish I had movements, even with the 55mm.

I've got some otherwise nice images of the painted desert, shot with

the 55 at f22, but the DOF was insufficient for my taste. Lens tilt

would have solved the problem easily. I've another image of Sunset

Crater, taken with the camera tilted up to get appropriate framing.

The trees on the hillside 1/2 mile away are terribly tilted as a

result. An easy fix with shift.

[d_daine]

If the camera will be on a tripod, perhaps a 4x5 Crown would

be a better option. The 4x5 has a larger lens board, the

difference in price is very little (if any), and the 4x5 Crown

is very portable. Another camera that might fit the bill is a

Super Speed or one of the Mamiya press cameras with movements.

 

<p>

 

cheers,

[john_gaasland]

I had a Century once. I used an RB67 back on it, which I think is

flatter and better engineered than the Graflex. You do have to pull

the darkslide out just a bit, but there were no light leaks. It's true

that the Crown 4x5 isn't much heavier, and will take modern wide angle

lenses, where the Century wont. The Ektar 101/4.5 I had was quite

sharp. I think for the money, they are great cameras. I sold mine

because they are slower to use and my daughter became impatient!

Goodluck, John. Oh, that Graflex site is great!

[frank_a._bridges]

This may not really interest you, but i used a very cheap Calumet 4X5

with a 2x3 type rollfilm back and a top of the line 100mm Roenstock

lens. My negatives were tack sharp edge to edge. There was no problem

with the alignment of the rollfilm holder , but occasionally i got a

light leak, probably my fault for not firmly situating it.

[julian oliver bell, photog]

I'm using a 2x3 graphlex century with a f.8 super-angulon 65mm.

Focussed at infinity I get full rise in the normal horizontal stand.

For the shift, I removed one of the two shift fastening knobs giving

an extra 4mm of movement which can be used in the vertical stand.

Removing one of these knobs doesn't really affect the rigidity of the

front standard. I use a f5.6 apo-symmar 100mm as a standard lens. With

a little surgical alteration to the cocking lever knob on the lens,

the camera will close with the lens and lens cap on. So far I've had

no problem with my graphlex roll-film backs but you could maybe try

the mamiya RB 6x7 roll-film back as an alternative, I understand they

fit as well.

[twmeyer]

the rb pro-s backs have a idiot proof lock that makes them tricky to

use on other cameras... use the older non-pro-s backs and avoid the

hassle... they're cheaper, too....t