longer 4x5 lens on a budget

[johnielvis]

WELL...if you have one, just use part of it...want "budget" then use your existing lens as a convertable


i just saw there's a ilex convertable 215 / 14" for sale still here I think...that's in an ilex shutter, but there's also a cheaprer f5.6 version--same lens--that comes in a copal 1 verstion...2 lens for the price of one...this is how they sold them--"on a budget" type lenses....suggest you go for that or just convert your existing by unscrewing the front cell

[rdenney]

The useful notion of a convertible came up, but you don't have to go back to antiques. Just get a 60's or early 70's Schneider Symmar (not "S" or anything newer), which is a convertible. The Symmar 180/5.6 is mounted in a No. 1 shutter, and becomes a 315mm f/12 lens with the front cell removed. The original Compur will have both aperture scales. Check focus after stopping down, and stop it well down. The Geronar is a better option, but this is even cheaper and it will work. It's also much easier to find. I paid well under $200 for my 180mm Symmar Convertible.

Rick "nothing saves weight like a convertible with two useful focal lengths" Denney

[Michael Jones]

The sleeper lens you should looking for is a 300mm Rodenstock Geronar. Small & mounted in a Copal #1 shutter. The lens will cover 8x10 and on 4x5, you get to use center. More contrast than a G-Claron or Artar and with [relatively] modern coating.
A highly under-rated lens IMHO after using one for a while. They are hard to find, though.

Good luck.

Mike

[E. von Hoegh]

Be on the lookout for telephoto design lens. Graflex Tele-Optars tend to go pretty cheap if you can fit one on your camera. I really like my 12" Dallmeyer Tele-Anastigmat f/7.7. It's very compact- probably not an easy lens to find cheap though.

The main problem with a tele lens on a view camera is there is no excess coverage. The other problems are weight and difficulty in using what movements are available because the rear node is way in front of the front standard.

[sethlatimer]

Thanks for all the responses. I have been researching them all. I did not mention that I have a non-convertible 210 caltar s-II. I took the front cell off and it focussed at infinity at about 300mm. So that may work. If I have time, I'll run some film through this afternoon. I was looking for cheap and I may have found free!
Seth

[rdenney]

Thanks for all the responses. I have been researching them all. I did not mention that I have a non-convertible 210 caltar s-II. I took the front cell off and it focussed at infinity at about 300mm. So that may work. If I have time, I'll run some film through this afternoon. I was looking for cheap and I may have found free!
Seth

The Caltar S-II is a Symmar-S. Schneider gave up on the lenses being convertible with that model, but it's a matter of optimization and might still work reasonably well stopped down.

I've seen reports of the Caltar S-II coming with a shutter with both sets of aperture markings. Do you happen to have two aperture scales on your shutter?

By the way, the Symmar Convertible 210's rear cell had a focal length of 370mm. The maximum aperture (at a scale reading of 5.6) will be f/12.

Rick "be sure to check focus after stopping down" Denney

[sethlatimer]

I took some pics with my caltar s-II. I bungie corded my digital camera to the back so I wouldnt waste any film/time. These are aps-c sensor digital files compressed into jpgs I don't see much difference between the unconverted lens at 210 and the converted at 300 or so. Dont get me wrong, there is a difference, but these are only a small part of the neg, right? I only have one aperture scale so they were both taken with the scale reading f32.
I guess ill need to make a little aperture scale for the conversion.
Converted image is on the left.
Thanks to everyone for their help!
Seth