Starter LF Lens

[alechosterman]

You already have good advice regarding a lens. I add two more. First, the lens might be restored with a CLA (clean,lube,adjustment), and a reducing back to 4x5" opens opportunities for more available films.

You've piqued my curiosity! With my old camera, do you know if anyone makes a standard reducing back that might fit?

[Jac@stafford.net]

You've piqued my curiosity! With my old camera, do you know if anyone makes a standard reducing back that might fit?

So very many manufacturers back then used common backs in part because they copied each other. I cannot read the front label on your camera, so if you could type-in exactly what it says it would be helpful. Thank you.

[mdarnton]

If you are comfy with Ebay, 180mm/5.6 and 210/5.6 Fujinon-W lenses are dirt cheap from Japan, and as good as anything. The inside-lettered ones have more coverage but are single coated, and the outside letter are multicoated, with more recent shutters, with coverage more like the run of the mill Sironars and Symmars.

I often buy from Japan, and it's reliable and often quicker than from the US. Descriptions are usually spot-on.

180mm a bit wider than 35mm on 35mm, and 210mm on 5x7 is textbook normal, like 42mm on 35mm, if there were such a thing. I find myself using slightly wider lenses on 5x7 than on 35mm, for some reason, and like my 150mm Fujinon-W the best for outside, but for portraits 250 (50mm equivalent) or 300mm (like 60mm) is more appropriate.

One more thing--look into the xray film thread. The stuff costs 40 cents per 8x10 sheet! 1975 film prices. I started with it thinking I'd move to more expensive film when I got more experience, but have been stuck at xray film. If you like the look of 1920s photos (and I do), it's perfect.

Frankly, the lens on your camera looks pretty interesting. What does it say on the lens itself? The shutter is a simple one and should be easy to get going again.

[alechosterman]

OK - I now get to ask the last dumb question of 2017 (I hope): I measured the glass and the film holder and both were 5x7, thus I presumed it was a 5x7. Is this accurate? In other words, how can I accurately tell if I have a 5x7 or 4x5?

Picture for reference:

[alechosterman]

Here's the front tag.

[mdarnton]

Yes, the camera is 5x7. Read what I asked about the lens, above?

[Louis Pacilla]

OK - I now get to ask the last dumb question of 2017 (I hope): I measured the glass and the film holder and both were 5x7, thus I presumed it was a 5x7. Is this accurate? In other words, how can I accurately tell if I have a 5x7 or 4x5?

Picture for reference:

Yes you have a nice Kodak Eastman 2d 5x7 and reducing backs like 4x5 are available and should not be hard to find and in 30 days you can place a WTB right here which will help you locate a nice matching finish reducing back. I would also suggest you find an matching finish 2d 5x7 extension rail and sliding base to make a 'complete' working set giving you more choices when doing close up work not to mention being able to use longer focal lengths at infinity focus.

BTW -What does does the lettering around the rim (ring that holds glass into the front barrel) of your lens read?

[alechosterman]

Michael -

Here's what I can see written on it: Gundlach-Manhattan Optical Company, Rochester NY. Rapid Reotigraphic F8. Looks like it goes f/8 through f/64. There is other writing on the front but it's aged off. On the back it has 25 in marked in the inner ring as well as what looks like a serial number.

Have any thoughts on it? Have any recommendations on who might look at it for a cleaning?

Thanks!

[mdarnton]

Thanks. OK, interesting, but not that exotic. Best to probably buy something newer. Leave it for if you go insane for old stuff. :-)

[Jac@stafford.net]

Thanks. OK, interesting, but not that exotic. Best to probably buy something newer. Leave it for if you go insane for old stuff. :-)

Oh, Mr. Darton, you sucked all the romance away.

But to the OP: there are LF fanatics who search wide and far for old lenses that have flaws they cherish. Sharpness is entirely over-rated.