Will this lens cover 5x7?

[vssoutlet]

Hi,

I have a Taylor-Hobson Cooke Anastigmat 162mm f/2.9 Series XIII Lens. I was formerly using it on a 4x5 graflex RB. Would this lens provide sufficient coverage on a 5x7 camera?

Thanks!

John

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Are you sure it covers 4x5? It was designed to be used on a 3x4 camera. In any case, it won't cover 5x7 without vignetting.

[vssoutlet]

Are you sure it covers 4x5? It was designed to be used on a 3x4 camera. In any case, it won't cover 5x7 without vignetting.

Jason,

Would it vignette on apertures or just at the higher numbers? Is there a formula that applies to all lenses to determine coverage? Of course, that would be too easy

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

I am not sure. There is slight chance that it might not vignette 5x7 at small apertures, but regardless the corners are going to be mush. Anyhow, why would you use this lens stopped down? If you are after a 165mm you can buy Angulon for pretty cheap, and if you want fast you are far better off with a 210mm f3.5 Xenar or Tessar.

[John Layton]

Sorry to hijack this thread...but boy, would it ever be amazing if there were actually a reasonably modern lens of this FL, which was also reasonably compact (F/9 would work just fine!), not too expensive...which would (generously) cover 5X7! No...not a 150...not a 180...but...a 165! (and not a W.A. Dagor nor a 165 SA!). There, feels so good to get this off my chest!

[lucaas]

Sorry to hijack this thread...but boy, would it ever be amazing if there were actually a reasonably modern lens of this FL, which was also reasonably compact (F/9 would work just fine!), not too expensive...which would (generously) cover 5X7! No...not a 150...not a 180...but...a 165! (and not a W.A. Dagor nor a 165 SA!). There, feels so good to get this off my chest!

Schneider Angulon 165mm/f6.8 can cover 5x7 easily and is a very compact lens. You can find a single coated one in a working shutter for less than $250.

[Dan Fromm]

Um, John, how 'bout a 160/5.6 Pro Raptar? AFAIK there's no documentation available so we can't know how much coverage Wollensak claimed, but Andrew Glover, who sells on eBay as dagor77 and insists his coverage claims are never ever exaggerated, sold a bunch of them and might know. It has to cover at least 70 degrees, that's ~ 225 mm. 5x7, but not generous.

Not to be a complete idiot, but what's so wonderful about 165 mm, as opposed to 150 mm or 180 mm? Its somewhat old-fashioned and obsolete.

[Mark Sampson]

The only advantage of a 160/165mm lens (that I can see) is that it more-or-less equals the diagonal of 4x5 film. Some people think that's important. More accurately, they like that focal length. Maybe for Mr. Layton and others, the 165mm lens is a 'magic bullet'. Confidence that you have the right tool does indeed help you make better pictures!
For the record, I chose to use a 180mm lens decades ago, and it has always served my 'normal' lens purposes well (on 4x5). I have never chosen to use a 150mm, (although I have on occasion), which proves only my taste.
If the OP wants to achieve similar effects to his 162mm on 5x7, he will want a fast 210mm lens. I can't think of one offhand, but they probably exist...

[Dan Fromm]

But Mark, 4x5 film's diagonal is ~ 150 mm. But you're right, there's no disputing tastes.

[Lachlan 717]

Or an f2.9 8" Pentac.