dan_fromm2

The diagonal of a 4x5 film holder's gate is approximately 150 mm. This is why the minimum coverage needed for the format is 150 mm.

 

As Jochen said in post #4 above, lens makers have published catalogs and specification sheets that report their lenses' claimed coverage. Finding them is fairly easy. The first post in this https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?138978-Where-to-look-for-information-on-LF-(mainly)-lenses discussion has a link to a list of lens catalogs and other bits of information of interest to LF photographers. Use it.

glen_h wrote, in post #9 above:

 

I thought the story I remembered was that retrofocus lenses originated with movie cameras.

 

H. W. Lee of Taylor, Taylor & Hobson invented the inverted telephoto lens, later dubbed retrofocus by Angenieux, for Technicolor cameras.

 

glen_h wrote, in post #14 above:

 

I am not so sure how wide you can get without retrofocus, but I suspect that true fisheye (close to 180 degree field of view) is always retrofocus.

 

The Goerz Hypergon, a symmetrical lens, with "star" covers, depending on the catalog, 135-140 degrees. Rodenstock's 35/4.5 Apo-Grandagon covers 120 degrees. There are also several Schneider lenses that cover 120 degrees. All of these are rectilinear, illumination off-axis falls off with cos^4 theta. Fisheyes have much less falloff, thanks to high distortion.

 

dennisbrown wrote, in post #14 above:

 

As to the wide angles, I was taught that any wide angle 35mm lens had to be retro-focus at focal lengths less than 25mm.

 

It really depends on the designs, lens and camera.

 

Tessar types, which aren't retrofocus, can be made fairly thin, i.e., with back focus -- the distance from the rear element's vertex to the film plane -- not much shorter than focal length. Hence 43 mm tessar type "pancake" lenses for some 35mm SLRs. 43 mm is the normal focal length for 24 x 36, a 43 mm lens has to cover 53 degrees, which is very possible with a reasonably fast tessar type.

 

And the camera has to have a short flange-to-film distance and, possibly, a short mirror. Both have been done ...

If you don't have the manual, the first post in this

 

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?138978-Where-to-look-for-information-on-LF-(mainly)-lenses discussion is to a list of links to sources of information. There's a link to a Horseman roll holder user manual in there.

What's the point of telling a camera that doesn't have an on-board meter the speed of the film you're using?

 

Get a hand-held meter and tell it the film speed.

Hmm. 4"/2.0 TTH Anastigmat as fitted to Vinten F95, Williamson F.134 and AGI F.139 aerial cameras? Covers 2x3. I have one for my 2x3 Pacemaker Speed Graphic, retired it in favor of a smaller lighter plasmat type because at the apertures I normally use the f/2er has no advantages. Uncommon these days.

 

98/1.4 Wild Heerbrugg Falconar. Covers 6x6, originally fitted to the F95. Quite rare, but I b'lieve that there's one up on eBay right now.

 

100/1.4 Boyer Saphir, covers 645. Unobtanium.

 

4"/1.9 Dallmeyer Super Six. Very uncommon. Super Sixes are now cult lenses, sell for very silly money. I used to have a 6 incher, big heavy monstrosity not really usable on any of my cameras.

 

If you can stand a little slower, the 100/2.5 Uran-27 from the former Soviet Union. I bought one for 1 Euro plus 25 Euros postage to see what it is. Same story as the 4"/2.0 TTH. Decent lens, not up to the TTH. These aren't that rare, I think that a least a dozen are up on eBay now.

 

There's also the earlier 100/2.5 Uran-10. Poorly achromatised, so usable only with heavy filtration.

 

If you can stand a little longer, 120/2.0 S.F.O.M. as flew on S.F.O.M. 680 and 681 cameras.

 

If you can stand a tiny bit longer still, 125/2.0 Schneider Goettingen Xenon as flew on the Volk Handkammer. Most are uncoated with serial numbers < 60,000, but I once passed on a coated one with s/n 6xx,xxx. Should have bought it.

 

Super Graphic no, Super SPEED Graphic si.

There have been quite a few non-invasive suggestions so far. It seems all that's needed is a readily available and cheap replacement for the 22.5 volt batteries that will fit in the same space.

 

I draw your attention to my previous mention of small 12v alkaline cells (type 23A). They're used in little remote control zappers and the like. Locally I can buy a pack of two for £1 UK.

 

I'm pretty sure that two of them side-by-side would fit in the same space as one 22.5v layer battery, giving a close-enough 24 volts.

 

Using 4x 23A batteries would therefore fit the brief of requiring little to no modification of the camera, while being readily available and cost-effective.

 

Replacing the electrolytic capacitors would be a good idea anyway, since they tend to dry out and lose capacitance over time. The youngest Super Speed Graphic is nearly 50 years old now, and capacitor miniaturisation and longevity has improved vastly in the intervening years.

Cowboy, please read post #18 above. In it I name the batteries required and point out that they can still be purchased. No need to improvise ...

Sooner or later, Dan Fromm is likely to see and respond to this thread. If anybody knows anybody who actually updated their Super Graphic cleanly to use modern batteries, and could advise you, it would be him. You could also try sending a PM to his p-net handle dan_fromm|2.

Orsetto, thanks for the plug.

 

I'm sorry, but Super Graphics are out of my range. And I don't know any users.

 

The OP can get better advice than I can give by asking his question on graflex.org or Large Format Photography Forum

 

Out of curiosity, I looked in the Super Graphic user manual. It recommends Everready 412 and Ray-O-Vac 215 flat 22.5 batteries. No mention of photoflash. I asked google to find the batteries. 412s are still available. If I were the OP I'd buy a pair and try them out.

Weegee? He set his camera up in advance, almost always relatively near subjects at the same distance.

Some notes on restoring an 8x10 Burke and James View Camera describes how to make a lensboard

 

As for lenses, without knowing more about what you want to do the best suggestion is to start with a normal lens. 300mm +/-, 12 inches +/-. You'll need a lens in shutter, and one that isn't a telephoto. If you don't know the difference between a long focus lens (that's what you want) and a telephoto, look it up.

 

You characterized yourself as an enthusiastic beginner. Take a cold shower, go slowly and educate yourself before spending more money. Go to A large format photography home page and read the FAQs. The first post in this

 

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?138978-Where-to-look-for-information-on-LF-(mainly)-lenses

 

discussion has a link to a large list of links to information that LF photographers find useful. One of the sections is a discussion of books on LF photography. Get one of the ones mentioned and study it.

John, the OP has a 4x5 Crown Graphic. The Pacemaker Crown Graphic is one of two versions of 4x5 Pacemaker Graphic. The other is the Pacemaker Speed Graphic.

 

All Pacemaker Graphics have drop beds.

 

All Pacemaker Graphics have linked inner and outer bed rails. Focusing a lens that makes infinity with the front standard on the inner rails is as easy as focusing a lens that makes infinity with the front standard on the outer rails. Just turn the knob.

As ads for Packard cars said, "Ask the man who owns one."

John, what a great find.

 

I'm sure you know, but that the 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon is the shortest lens that covers 2x3 (6x9 is a poor metric approximation) is worth repeating.

With fixed magnification, the only way to move the plane of best focus is to move the camera+lens assembly. I do this by teetering back and forth. Do you move the plane of best focus by moving the camera+lens or by changing extension (= changing magnification)?

 

Lens to subject distance was approximately 2", lens to front glass distance was approximately 1", not that different from your setup.

Thanks for the reply. I just did the experiment, got the result I expected, not yours.

 

Nikon N8008S. 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS fully extended, so magnification = 1:2. Photographic aquarium 1" thick. Stainless steel ruler. Focus by, um, teetering.

 

Ruler in air, ~ 1.5" from bottom to top of frame as visible in the camera's view finder. Ruler at back of tank pressed to back of tank, i.e., vertical, water in tank, same view. In both views the film plane was parallel to the ruler.

Because of the reduced optical distance there is a magnification effect. The image magnification will be 1.33 times the magnification in air if the front of the lens is adjacent to the tank wall, and the magnification will be lower if the lens is further away. So, if your macro lens is set for 1:1 magnification in air, the actual magnification will be up to 1.33 when focused in a fish tank.

Stuff and nonsense. I've been shooting fish in aquaria since 1971. Shooting through glass into water, 1:1 set on the lens gets 1:1 on film.

 

Have you taken pictures of fish in aquaria?

I haven't done it, but I believe that if you unscrew the lens' rear cell you'll expose a retaining ring that holds the shutter to the focusing mount. Unscrew the retaining ring, ...

One other thing has occurred to me. 90 mm is a commonly used focal length on 4x5. A 90 mm shot straight ahead on 4x5 (that's most of the time on a Graphic) doesn't really need a center filter to even up illumination between the center and corners. A 65 shot straight ahead on 4x5 needs a CF. Have you priced ones that fit a 65/8 SA? Schneider recommends their Center Filter I. Their 49 mm CF II might also do. Beware, the CF II also came with 52 mm rear threads; this version won't fit a 65/8 SA.

Sorry got it. The crud is in the cement side between the singlets. All three lenses where it was cemented.

 

Please try again.

 

Is the situation from the outside in air-glass-crud-air (crud on inside surface of outer singlet) or air-glass-air-glass-crud-cement-glass-air (crud inside inner cemented doublet)?

 

I use a thoroughly ruined 90/8 SA as a paperweight, just tried using a proper spanner to remove the rear cell's retaining (or is it trim?) ring. This is the ring that sits at the very rear of the lens and hold the rear element in. It wouldn't budge. Opening the front cell requires a rubber stopper thingy, which I don't have, to remove the trim ring, then a proper spanner to remove the ring that holds the first element in place. I don't think that opening the lens' cells to clean the glasses' surfaces is a job for a thumb-fingered amateur like me. And there's no guarantee that they'll clean up nicely.

 

If you can return the lenses, return them and shop more carefully. If you're stuck them, try them out just because. If they don't work well enough for you, absorb the loss.

 

Oh, yes, are you absolutely sure that the crud is inside the lens?

I don't think we're speaking quite the same language.

 

To help you understand what I'm saying and to help you understand why I don't grasp what you've said:

 

Lenses are made up of elements mounted in cells. When two or more elements are cemented together the assembly is called a group. Depending on the vintage, G-Clarons have six elements in two groups (each group is a cemented triplet) or six elements in four groups (each cell contains a singlet facing the diaphragm and a cemented doublet facing the world -- front cell -- or the film -- rear cell).

 

With this in mind, does your G-Claron have crud in the cement or on glass surfaces that face air? Your "between the glass" could mean either. Regardless, unless the crud is on the cells' outer surfaces, send the lenses back. Or eat them and resolve to shop more caretully.

Jason, your G-Claron doesn't have separation. You haven't shown us y'r Super Angulons but given your mistake with the G-Claron you're probably wrong about them too.

 

Used lenses are used lenses. Some are also abused lenses. That's why we buy them with the right of return.

 

Are any used LF lenses generally not safe to buy? Nearly all Voigtlaender Apo-Skopars and 58/5.6 Grandagons/Technikons are badly separated. Cement problem. Funny thing is, my 58/5.6 Grandagon has spectacular rings of fire at the edges of the cemented elements and shoots very well.

 

Bottom-of-the-barrel used lenses are generally not to be counted on, but my very inexpensive (well, relatively) 65/5.6 SA is just fine. My $ 50 150/9 G-Claron cells are just fine.

 

In other words, buy carefully and with the right of return.

The lens is filthy, possibly etched, not separated. Send it back.

Hmm. On the one hand, $50 is a good price. On the other, taking the lens apart, soaking the separated groups in the proper solvent, probably MEK, receenting and resassembling isn't a small job. If you want to play, play. Me, I'd send it back and wait for a better one to turn up.

 

I take it the lens is in barrel. If you're willing to use a slightly faster dagor type in barrel, keep an eye out for a 210/6.8 Boyer Beryl. They're good lenses, the cells are direct fits in a #1 (usually, my 210/7.7 Beryl S's cells aren't) and $50 might get you one.

Hmm. Nominal 6x9 uses 120 roll film. This limits the frame's height to 2.25 inches = 57 mm. In practice, 56 mm is the most common height but as mentioned above there are others.

 

There is no ANSI (or successor standards organization) standard for the frame's length. EKCo understood it to be 3.25 inches = 82.6 mm. In practice and as mentioned above, although most nominal 2.25 x 3.25 and 6x9 roll holders' gates are ~ 82 mm some are longer.

 

Orsetto mentioned in post #5 above that some roll holders have short gates. He wasn't very specific. Graflex RH-8 roll holders and late Graphic 23 roll holders have shells with a pin roller at each end of the gate to improve film flatness. Their gates are shorter than 2.25 inches because of the space the pin rollers occupy.

 

I've always seen 6x9 as a poor and misleading metric approximation to 2.25 x 3.25 inches, an EKCo format. Similarly for 6x6 (2.25 x 2.25) and 6x7 (2.25 x 2.75).

 

In post #6 above Jochen mentioned 6.5x9. This is a metric plate -- later cut film -- size that's often confused with 6x9, a roll film format.

Jochen, I appreciate your concerns re process lenses and shooting through glass.

 

The usual recommendation is to shoot process lenses at f/22 to get full coverage. This isn't a problem for the OP, whose camera has a tiny APS-C chip. The ones I recommended are all very sharp centrally wide open. Incidentally, at f/9 set and 3:1 the effective aperture is f/36. The diffraction limit is around 1500/36 = 42 lp/mm.

 

I've photographed live fish in aquaria since 1971. The museum fish department where I have a courtesy appointment routinely shoots preserved fish in fluid (to eliminate specular reflections) through glass. Shooting through glass isn't a problem.

 

Re cropping, I have to get publication quality photos of roughly 4 mm of poeciliid gonopodium. The smallest bone segments are well-resolved by our Leica SMZ 125 (no photo tube, alas) @ 50x and are just visible. Shooting at 1x with our good digital Nikon and good MicroNikkor and cropping won't do the job.

 

The real problem is that the OP needs considerable magnification and close approach is impossible. I gave him the magic formula that will let him calculate the focal length he needs given magnification and working distance. The arithmetic works.

 

Unfortunately sometimes reality bites hard.

Mark, thanks for the clarification. Sturdy support, lotsa bellows and quite a long f/9 process lens. Relevant magic formula: front node (approximately at the diaphragm)-to-subject distance = focal length * (magnification + 1)/magnification.

 

Re f/9 and difficulty of manual focus, I have a heap of f/9 and slower lenses, manage to focus all of them.