dan_fromm2

<p>The lens is a Planar #4. Its serial number was issued between 1905 and 1910.</p> <p>Download the 1901 Zeiss London catalog to learn more about it. <br> <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=cnkWAAAAYAAJ&dq=zeiss+unar&source=gbs_navlinks_s">http://books.google.com/books?id=cnkWAAAAYAAJ&dq=zeiss+unar&source=gbs_navlinks_s</a> CZ London, really. In English. Click on the little starry wheel in the upper right corner of the screen to download as a PDF.</p> <p>Short version, it was to be used for reductions, photomicrography, micro-projection, cinematography, photographing moving objects and as a taking lens on hand cameras that used 4x4 plates.</p>

<p>35 mm in Hasselblad mount? If this http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWLds.aspx is right there is no such lens.</p> <p>If you're thinking of the 38/4.5 Biogon, it isn't in Hasselblad mount and has a much shorter flange-to-film distance than lenses for Hasseblad SLRs. Were you thinking of a 40 Distagon?</p> <p>85 mm for Hasselblad? I think not. See http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWLds.aspx again. 80 mm, yes, 85 mm, no.</p> <p>Nothing personal, Michael, but you have a lot of homework to do. So do the kind and helpful people who missed your errors.</p>

<p>The 80/1.9 Rareac isn't a cine lens. It is a normal lens for 6x6.</p> <p>The chip is trivial. Fill it with india ink so it won't create flare.</p>

<p>Colin, that's very interesting. The Rareac is an improved, they say, Super Six with rare earth glasses. Super sixes sell for absurd amounts of money. Has that bubble burst?</p>

<p>To find out how much it is worth, put it up for sale on eBay.</p> <p>I don't desire it but there are people who do. Offer it and let the bidding war begin.</p>

<p>Interesting. Whether to use a center filter has been discussed extensively on http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/ To the extent that there's a consensus it is that center filters aren't necessary on 4x5 for lenses longer than 90 mm and that they're optional on 90s. </p> <p>If you look at Schneider's current list of center filters (see https://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogSubCategoryDisplay.aspx?CID=182) you'll see that although they offer CFs for focal lengths longer than 90 mm these CFs are for lenses that cover vastly more than 4x5.</p> <p>Strong suggestion. Try y'r Fuji lens out at the film-subject distances you'll encounter in the church and see how it does.</p>

<p>For a fuller explanation of Big Berthas with a link to an article describing how AP planned to use several to shoot the 1952 World Series, see <a href="http://www.galerie-photo.com/baby-bertha-6x9-en.html">http://www.galerie-photo.com/baby-bertha-6x9-en.html</a></p>

<p>Alan, an image would help us understand what you have. That or more words, your post falls far short of 1000 words. Your description makes me think that the lens has been adapted to something, but what is far from clear. More seriously, yes, the lens was made for an aerial camera. These and similar monstrosities aren't common but they're not particularly rare. What's rare is examples in good order at prices low enough to encourage experimentation. </p> <p>Colin, UK- and US-made aerial cameras aren't always as similar as one would expect. Some of ours used lenses in monstrous leaf shutters that were cocked by electric motors. The lens is too big to for its cells to be fitted to even a #5 Compound or Ilex as would be done to adapt it for use on a normal ordinary LF camera. </p> <p>I agree with you and the Vade Mecum. Few lenses made for aerial cameras are worth the bother and expense of repurposing. A few, mainly for cameras that shot 6x6 on 70 mm roll film, are and of course some people have found uses for others that I wouldn't try to use. Tastes differ and so do goals and budgets.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Oh come on, Chris, the film pack is useless. Just dismantle it. How do you think I got access to a pack's front to measure its thickness? If you use the film pack's front section you won't have to worry about how well I measured or even whether I'm lying about having measured. Hell, for all you know I'm a dog. That's the Internet.</p> <p>Alternatively, get a Century or 2x3 Crown in better condition and complete with focusing panel. If you get an early 2x3 Crown you can have a spring back <em>and</em> a focusing panel</p>

<p>Hobby shop shim material</p>

<p>https://books.google.com/books?id=bKAxvLHQC8oC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=lens+OR+camera+%22rapid+orthographic%22&source=bl&ots=eaYOiwhM4S&sig=LXdb5kLDwnfFzHKh91ezkLj0ORU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAmoVChMIn67osLSpyAIVSDI-Ch1dswwI#v=onepage&q=lens%20OR%20camera%20%22rapid%20orthographic%22&f=false</p> <p>According to http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/wollensak_12.html , convertible</p>

<p>Joe, are you well? Or is the US, from the UK perspective, a small country far away of which we know little?</p> <p>In their time Ilex was one of the four major lens makers in Rochester, NY. They designed and made lenses, also made shutters. Ilex lenses are poorly documented.</p> <p>If you were acquainted with Google you'd have learned that the name Seminat seems to to have been applied only to a 6"/3.5 lens. Or several such lenses. Some were sold mounted as cine lenses, others as taking lenses for large format cameras. I wonder what the OP asked Google to find</p> <p>6" is very long for a lens intended for an oscilloscope camera and f/3.5 is very slow for such a lens.</p>

<p>RJ, I agree with you that the OP can't use his mirror lens on his 645.</p> <p>I don't agree with you about "the same image size and magnification." This because I moved up from 35 mm to 2x3 to solve a flower photography problem. With 35 mm, when I shot a bloom at high enough magnification to get good detail I had to give up its setting. When I shot to include the setting I lost good detail in the main subject. With 2x3 I could get reasonable to good detail in the main subject and its setting too.</p> <p>As for focal length, well, with a longer lens I didn't have to be as close to get the magnification I wanted.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Is there anything that uses the hooks besides the spring back?</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Focusing panel, not spring back</strong>. No.</p>

<p>Chris, I measured it myself with a dial caliper. Dismantled a film pack and measured the front's thickness.</p>

<p>Sid, please read the thread from the start. </p> <p>The OP doesn't have a proper focusing panel for his Century, wants to convert a Film Pack Adapter into a ground glass holder that he can focus with. He has a clip-on type roll holder with no dark slide. </p> <p>He's asked where to find a dark slide for his roll holder. I pointed out that 2x3 Graflex brand FPAs and 2x3 Graflex brand roll holders to fit 2x3 Graflok backs use the same dark slide and that the FPAs are quite inexpensive.</p>

<blockquote> <p>A Graflok back's sliders will hold it in place.</p> </blockquote> <p>It will also slide under the focusing panel like a sheet film holder.</p> <p>You'll get better answers and think about these things more clearly if you use the language in the standard way. A Graflok back's focusing panel is not a spring back. A spring back is a back whose focusing panel is permanently attached with springs and can be pulled away from the back to allow insertion of a sheet film holder or insertion type roll holder.</p> <p>Sheet film is sometimes called cut film. In UK photographers' English a sheet film holder is called a dark slide (holds one sheet) or a double dark slide (holds two sheets). Graflok backs are also called international backs. Not all international backs have focusing panels on springs that can be pulled away from the back to allow insertion of a sheet film holder. The 2x3 Cambo international back, for example, doesn't conform fully to the Graflok standard. It will accept clip on type roll holders as are used with 2x3 Graflok backs but won't accept a sheet film holder. 4x5 Cambo international backs conform fully to the Graflok standard.</p>

<p>That's what you want. A Graflok back's sliders will hold it in place.</p> <p>If you're going to make an FPA into a focusing panel, you'll need to shim the ground glass back 0.25 mm because the film pack itself holds the film that distance behind the back of the front of the FPA. Don't forget that the ground glass' ground (matte) side must face the lens.</p>

<p>Graflex nomenclature is very confusing. Graflex was a brand of medium and large format SLR, also appeared in some incarnations of the manufacturer's name.</p> <p>Graflex' 2x3 Film Pack Adapters are 2x3 FPAs made by Graflex Inc. The apostrophe indicates the possessive. Graflex' FPAs can be used with Graflex backs (the back usually fitted to Graflex SLRs), Graflok backs (most often fitted to Pacemaker Graphics, including the Century, but not fitted to all Pacemakers and sometimes retrofitted to Graflexes and earlier Graphics), and Graphic backs (often called spring backs, usually fitted to pre-Pacemaker Graphics, also to some Pacemaker Graphics).</p> <p>Search on eBay for film pack adapter, you'll find many. The ones that Graflex Inc. made are clearly marked Graflex. There's no reason why dark slides from other makers' FPAs should fit roll holders made by Graflex.</p>

<p>Dark slides from Graflex' 2x3 Film Pack Adapters are identical to dark slides for Graflex' 2x3 roll holders that fit 2x3 cameras. 2x3 FPAs turn up fairly often on eBay, usually sell for little.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I have the equivalent of the Anniversary Speed then called the Baby Speed Graphic. The "spring back" is needed for both roll film backs and GG backs. Ignorance!!</p> </blockquote> <p>Yup, ignorance. The only easily-found roll holder that can be used with a 2x3 spring back (original equipment on Miniature Speed Graphic, early 2x3 Pacemaker Crown and Speed Graphics, Busch Pressman, ...) is the Adapt-A-Roll 620. This is an insertion type roll holder. Clip-on types like the OP's can't be used with a spring back. You may have been thinking of the Graflok focusing panel.</p>

<p>Interesting. Where did you look?</p> <p>http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-Fujifilm-Fujinon-W-105mm-f-5-6-Lens-Fuji-w-Copal-Schtter-/271974273438?hash=item3f52ee119e</p> <p>http://www.ebay.com/itm/Fujifilm-CM-Fujinon-W-105mm-f-5-6-Lens-3580-/141759111042?hash=item2101805f82 price out of my range, possibly yours too</p> <p>Any of the lenses discussed so far would do very well for you.</p>

<p>Les, they're both overkill for a Century. Claimed coverages @f/22m Nikon 155 mm and Schneider a hair less. The camera can't use their coverage.</p> <p>If you have time to wait for more lenses to come to market consider the 105/5.6 Fujis. More overkill. See <a href="http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/index.htm">http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/index.htm</a></p> <p>I wouldn't pursue a Sironar/Sironar-n because they tend to be pricier than the alternatives. If one came along at the right price, ...</p> <p>Given the Century's lack of movements a good grade of Tessar (Zeiss Oberkochen or Schneider's Xenar) should do perfectly well for you. Postwar coated len in a modern shutter, of course.</p> <p>RJ is right about condition's importance.</p> <p>After I added 6x12 to my toolkit I found that my normal lens for 2x3 (105/5.6 Saphir BX = Zircon) won't allow movements on that format so I shopped for all of these lenses. I ended up with the earlier Fuji.</p>

<p>don, there's press focus and there's press focus. Some shutters with press focus open only the shutter, leave the diaphragm alone. Others open both.</p>

<p>I believe, could be mistaken, that our William Littman is a native of Argentina who changed, officially or not, his given name from Guillermo to William. He's not a native speaker of English.</p>