Process lenses

[lenser]

Am I correct that other than the lack of a shutter and the fact that they are flat field, process lenses from a newspaper or print shop style copy camera will work just fine for traditional large format shooting? Please share your experience and knowledge of any draw backs.

[desertrat]

I have a couple of process lenses, but am hardly an expert. Many use process lenses when they want a longer than normal focal length for their format. Most process lenses have a fairly narrow field of view, so they may not cover the format at a "normal" focal length. A bit longer than normal is usually OK. There are some "wide field" process lenses out there, but I have no experience with those.

[Ken Lee]

You may find this short article helpful: Process Lenses

These photos were made with a 10 3/4 inch Apochromat Artar.
These photos were made with a 150mm APO Nikkor.
These photos were made with a 240mm APO Nikkor.
These photos were made with a 610mm APO Nikkor and here is a resolution test of the 610mm APO Nikkor at infinity distance.

[Vaughn]

I use several of them (8x10 and 11x14).

Their main lack is the lack of a shutter...which for using in the redwoods is not a problem (all exposures are >1 second). Some may not be threaded for filters -- I do not have any handy to check. Coverage may be less relative to 'regular' lenses of the same focal length -- their coverage specs are usually stated at 1:1 rather than at infinity, so one needs to be aware of that.

One advantage is that they weigh less than a shuttered version.

Over-all, I have am quite pleased with the images taken with process lenses. I have particularily pleased with the performance of my two Red Dot Artars (19" and 24"). I believe the red dot signifies that they are optimized for less than 1:1 use (ie landscapes). I also have a Graphic Raptar 210mm that covers 8x10 -- small and sharp. It does not see as much use since I got a Fuji W 250/6.7 (shuttered).

[Michael Jones]

Tim:

As a general rule, yes. Your run of the mill Artars (red dot or not), Ronars, Browns, etc are standard fare for many 8x10 and up format users. I have at least three I use regularly with no issues whatsoever; I have had Steve & Adam at SK Grimes remount into shutter, but all you really need is a lens cap as your "shutter." Most barrel mounts have multi leaf apertures which many portrait photographers prefer over the more modern 5 leaf version in most shutters. These lenses tend to have slightly less coverage than a similar length plasmat, but the coverage tends to enlarge as they are stopped down.

All that said, be careful with some wide field precess lenses; any tended to be used for close-up work and do not behave well if used otherwise. I had a 240 Wide Field G Claron. Aside from being the coolest looking lens with a big hemispherical rear element, it was worthless for landscape or portrait use.

Take a look at the posts in the ULF & lens sub-forums for many threads on process lenses.

Mike

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I use process lenses all the time. My go to lens on my 8x20 is a 360mm Rodenstock Gerogon process lens. 90% of my 8x20 work is shot with this lens. 77mm filter threads which is great!

[Mark Sawyer]

Am I correct that other than the lack of a shutter and the fact that they are flat field...

Nearly all lenses of the past century are flat field, and many process lenses will screw into a shutter without modification other than perhaps correcting the aperture scale. I've used process lenses quite a bit, especially around 1:1 (where they're optimized) with no complaints. All I've tried at distance (admittedly not very many) have done well too.

[Michael Jones]

Nearly all ... and many process lenses will screw into a shutter without modification other than perhaps correcting the aperture scale...

That has not been my experience except with G-Clarons. While I have been told some Doctor Optic and Kowas are direct screw in to modern Copal shutters (and these are scare lenses), and assuming we are not talking Packard shutters or Sinar DB lens mounts, a machinist will need to both mount the lens in a modern shutter and re-calibrate the aperture. Even the few direct mounts will require the aperture to be re-calibrated (and its not as easy to be accurate).

Mike

[Mark Sawyer]

That has not been my experience except with G-Clarons. While I have been told some Doctor Optic and Kowas are direct screw in to modern Copal shutters (and these are scare lenses), and assuming we are not talking Packard shutters or Sinar DB lens mounts, a machinist will need to both mount the lens in a modern shutter and re-calibrate the aperture. Even the few direct mounts will require the aperture to be re-calibrated (and its not as easy to be accurate).

Mike

The Apo-Ronars fit into shutters, as do many of the Wollensak and Ilexes. Here's a long list of process lenses noting which do and don't fit shutters. (BTW, I have a 25-inch Wollensak process lens factory mounted in a shutter which this list says doesn't go in a shutter.) It also notes the 19-inch Red Dot Artar goes in a shutter, so there's at least some hope for Paul Kinzer's pre-Red Dot.

http://www.allenrumme.com/lensdb/Process.html

Regarding the accuracy of the aperture scale, simple measurements are very likely to be more accurate and consistent than the shutter speeds of even modern shutters.

But if one is going to use process or other barrel lenses, perhaps an in-camera shutter like the Sinar or Mentor cameras have is a better solution.

[Dan Fromm]

The Apo-Ronars fit into shutters

My little 150/9 Apo-Ronar regrets to inform you that you are mistaken.