Once you get really set up for very wides, you'll likely find your taste running to longer views. Its a murphy's law thing.
Once you get really set up for very wides, you'll likely find your taste running to longer views. Its a murphy's law thing.
John Youngblood
www.jyoungblood.com
When I lived in Austin, a close buddy had a CC-402. At that time, I was using a CC-400. Given his preference for longer lenses, we really should have traded, but I couldn't afford good wide-angle optics in those days anyway.
That camera had a pleated bellows but with flat sections in the pleats to allow them to wrinkle usefully to allow shifts when compressed. It also appeared that the front main standard was reversed so that the u-frames for the standards were mirrored. This allowed the standards to get closer. I was able to make that modification on my 400, as I recall. (That camera is still with me in a box somewhere basically inaccessible). I never realized the 402 could take a 47 or I might have hit my friend over the head and stolen it from him, heh, heh. He eventually gave it away, but not to me. I do recall that he used a 75mm f/8 Fujinon on that camera successfully--the widest lens either of us owned at the time.
I don't mind the bag bellows, and the Sinar bag is easier to live with than the Cambo/Calumet bag. But the Cambo bag will accommodate a longer lens. The main weakness of the Cambo design for really short lenses is that the standards are offset in the U-frames and rotate about their centers. The base-tilt Sinar can more easily put the tilt mechanics out of the way.
Rick "who'll write a summary article if enough information comes in" Denney
Heh, heh.
Considering the lenses I have for other formats, I have no evidence to contradict you. But there are fewer mechanical limitations to going long--one just needs a long enough rail and bellows. And for the Sinar F, that's easy--just keep stacking them on until it focuses.
Rick "who actually wouldn't mind something in the 240 range" Denney
Minimum extension for focusing short focus lenses is a primary spec to be concerned with; standards movements based on bellows compression is another concern, particularly when using 4x5 cameras with rollfilm backs. While movement isn't really an issue using a 55mm lens on a 4x5 frame since the lens will barely cover that format, movements with that lens on a 6x7 or 6x9 frame are possible.
Here are some additions:
Super Graphic. Will focus an 80mm Wide Field Ektar, just barely. Fixed bellows, no OEM recessed lensboards and custom lens boards are difficult to make.
More => http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/B...perGraphic.htm
Crown Graphic. Articulated focusing rack mounted both in the case and on the bed allows focusing of short lenses on flat boards. I have an older 58mm Grandagon that works nicely with 6x? rollholders on a 4x5 Crown.
Graphic View. 90mm lenses can be focused at infinity on flat boards; a recessed board allows closer focusing and will focus a 80mm Wide Field Ektar at infinity. Stiff bellows allow only modest movements with lenses this short. The 4 inch boards are large enough to allow deeper custom recessed boards with enough surround room to allow tedious operation of #00 shutters like those used for 58mm Grandagons and 65mm f/8 Super Angulons.
Wista Technicals. Will focus 65mm lenses on flat boards with modest front standards movements. Ingeneous recessed lensboard framework allows easy access to shutter controls and shortens minimum extension by 40mm. Requires a wide angle bellows, but that allows ample movements for short lenses. Easily focuses my 55mm Grandagon and would likely focus 45-47mm lenses. Sliding auxillary back for rollholders and GG focusing adds only about 7mm of extension. These Wista configurations are the slickest I've seen for mounting short focus lenses on 4 x 5 technicals.
More => http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/B...of_WistaVX.htm
Horseman Technicals. Both 4x5 (HD, HF, and FA) and 6x9 (VH, VH-R and ER-1) have the same focusing rack and front standard that limit rack focusing to 65mm with the standard focusing frame and slide-in film holders or holders attached with Graflok bars. No bag bellows is available. Small lensboard virtually excludes recessed board designs. 6x9 mount Rotary Backs with swappable GG and filmgate add 25mm of extension, limiting the 6x9 cameras to ~100mm lenses. The 4x5 mount Rotary Backs add 45mm of extension.
More => http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/B...eman_Intro.htm
Gowland/Calumet Pocketview. With the standard bellows this will only focus a 90mm, due to bellows compression. This version included a Cambo rotating back which accepts a Cambo bag bellows and with a custom adapting frame for the front standard will focus a 65mm with movements. Current 4x5 Gowlands can accept a bag bellows, but I don't know the limitations.
Good idea to start a repository for these values. One should keep in mind that the focal length is only a rough indication of flange-focal distance (FFD). The FFD can be different for different lenses with the same focal length.
The Anba Ikeda 4x5 I had would handle a 65mm in a recessed lens board with both standards moved to the front of the track.
My Ebony 4x5 will handle the same lens but you have to tilt both uprights to the front and swivel the standards parallel to make it work. It's a pain but it worked.
Yes, that's why I mentioned specific lenses. There really aren't so many lenses to consider.
But I have found that the minimum bellows extension spec from the camera makers is often not realistic, and usually doesn't come with qualifications. For example, the Sinar spec for the standard bellows is so tight that the standards will bow out on the lighter F camera. I have two sets of "standard" bellows for the Sinar, and they are both somewhat different, one being older and stiffer than the other.
And Sinar recommends their Wide Angle Bellows 2 for lenses 65mm and shorter, but I only assume that makes it easier to keep the folds out from between the standards. Again, though, the specs need more description--one buying a second bag bellows (which never seem to come up used) based on that spec might have spent their money needlessly--my F will operate the 65 using the Wide Angle Bellows 1 without issue, and without any limitation on movements.
Rick "appreciative for all the responses" Denney
From another thread, posting here to keep it all in one place:
So, a Horseman LX requires a recessed board for 65 and shorter because of mechanical interference between the standards.Originally Posted by Lee Christopher
Rick "adding to the repository" Denney
Another addition:
I recently bought an older 47mm f /8 Super Angulon. While I am futzing around trying to make a recessed lensboard for my Horseman VH, I tried mounting the lens on a Graphic 23. Because of the Graphic's articulated focusing rack, this combination works very well mounted on a standard flat board. I think if I removed the wire frame finder on the front standard, I could even manage a bit of rise.
For working out of my car, I may just leave the lens set up like this as my SW 6x9, since the Graphic is tiny and light.
Horseman 450 and Fuji 65mm 5.6 will focus at infinity with no recessed lensboard required.
Bookmarks