Using RB67 lenses on 4x5?

[kurtdriver]

I'm hoping to use my existing lenses on my new (to me) Super Cambo. Two questions arise, how do I mount them, is a new lensboard required? If so I should probably just buy a 4x5 lens. I'm a student again, and could definitely save a couple bucks, which is why I want to use the lenses I already have. Would these lenses have proper coverage for the larger format? Someone has done this, I'm certain. Thanks, Kurt

[Daniel_Buck]

I doubt they would cover?

[erie patsellis]

90 and up cover, somewhat. Depends on your definition of cover, do you want a gazillion line pairs/mm all the way to the house next door? Or will a slight softening at the very edges be acceptable?

[Turner Reich]

They wouldn't cover completely but somewhere on the web someone put the front end of an RB on a view camera, it gave focusing. Kinda weird but it worked, I think they got 6x8 or 9 out of it.

[erie patsellis]

still using 6x7 backs, and using the rotating adapter as well, or you can use the 4x5 back. I assume you're referring to my Toyo/RB hybrid:

[rdenney]

They wouldn't cover completely but somewhere on the web someone put the front end of an RB on a view camera, it gave focusing. Kinda weird but it worked, I think they got 6x8 or 9 out of it.

Yeah, couple it with a 6x7 holder and you have a camera that has limited movements.

Ultimately, though, I think it will a frustrating exercise. Large-format lenses of exceptional quality are so cheap now that it's not really worth a bit effort to cobble something else together. One might more easily fabricate the bits needed to provide a shift capability on the front of a real RB67.

Rick "who paid less for a 47/5.6 Super Angulon than for a 45mm SMC Pentax 67" Denney

[kurtdriver]

Thank you guys, I guess I'll just wait until I have a lens or two made for LF. In the meantime the RB67 shoots nice pictures as is.

[Rodney Polden]

Well, it's the only way that I've found to enjoy a 37mm fisheye on 4x5. Some great new perspectives on the world, believe me...

[venchka]

...

Rick "who paid less for a 47/5.6 Super Angulon than for a 45mm SMC Pentax 67" Denney

Wayne, wondering how the heck you managed that, on the Upper East Side of Texas.

[rdenney]

Wayne, wondering how the heck you managed that, on the Upper East Side of Texas.

The 47 is not an XL, and dates from the early days of the 5.6 version--maybe the early 70's. It's in a Compur 00, which dates it. I paid $300 for it about five years ago. The Pentax lens is newer, but I bought it at KEH within the last year, and in Bargain condition (that anyone else would have called EX+) cost me $275. Of course, it doesn't have a shutter.

Rick "not a fan of that 00 shutter, but still liking the lens for 6x9" Denney