Big Lens, Big Problem

[Two23]

I have a fairly large Voigtlander Petzval I'm trying to attach to my little Chamonix 45n. I'm not sure how to secure it to a lens board and use it. The diameter of the rear of the lens is right at 65mm, and the flange overlaps the lens board. My thought was, "Just take the flange off and have a smaller one custom made." No dice. Somewhere back in time a moron soldered the flange onto the lens. It isn't going anywhere. So, I took some 4mm thick black foam core to make a spacer to fill the gap between lens board and the edge of the front standard's uprights. That was enough, but now how to tie the lens, foam core, and lensboard all together so the lens doesn't fall off? My first thought was to simply run screws through it all, but since the diameter of the lens takes up SO much space on the lens board, the nuts would not fit in the empty space (hole) the lens goes through but would instead hit the solid area surrounding the hole (no clearance.) I had a thought of somehow epoxying the foam core to the lens board, and then screwing the flange into the foam core, or even bolting it on since I can countersink the nuts in the foam core. But, what adhesive will reliably glue foam core to painted aluminum? Any ideas on how to mount this pretty cool lens to the Chamonix? I can't be the first to do something this crazy.


Kent in SD

[Brian C. Miller]

You can still have a spacer machined up and put in place between the lens board and the flange. c.d.ewen did some excellent work for me, and I think that he could have an adapter made pretty quickly. Send him a PM and see what he says.

Whether your little Chamonix survives that Voigtlander, well, that's another story...

[Two23]

Whether your little Chamonix survives that Voigtlander, well, that's another story...

Yeah, I know. You can see the skeptical look our resident inspector has as she is looking it over. I'm being very gentle with it. The lens weighs almost as much as the camera! Note how I pulled out the rear extension so I could put the weight of the lens over the bed instead of having it front heavy. I do have an old Cambo SC-2 4x5 monorail that would likely support two of these lenses at once with no problem, but I really like my little Chamonix. If I had a metal spacer made, how would I attach that to a lens board, or are you thinking just have a really thick lens board made and screw the flange directly into that?


Kent in SD

[lenser]

Why not make (or have made) a top hat lens board to fit the camera body and with an oversized front with area enough to allow for the screw holes to be properly utilized. It wouldn't need to be terrible deep, an inch would be generous but you could go longer if desired. That should be simple enough, but you may have quite a lot of torque pulling downward on the front standard which could either cause stress damage to the mount, or a constant state of the lens' weight causing a sort of permanent tendency to have a down tilt to the lens/film plane alignment. The latter would be easy enough to cure with either a simple support between the lens and the camera bed, or for longer extensions, or a Manfrotto style brace between the lens and one of the tripod legs.

[Two23]

a simple support between the lens and the camera bed, or for longer extensions, or a Manfrotto style brace between the lens and one of the tripod legs.

The lens is about a 6 inch FFL, so the photo shows about it in its focused position. It wouldn't be hard to make some sort of "pillar" support going down to the bed, and it wouldn't have to be all that substantial. Pulling out the rear extendtion does seem to have equalized quite a bit of stress of the front standard, but I don't leave the lens on the camera for any length of time.

Kent in SD

[Brian C. Miller]

If I had a metal spacer made, how would I attach that to a lens board, or are you thinking just have a really thick lens board made and screw the flange directly into that?

The spacer would, of course, take the place of your foam core. The spacer would be an adapter between the lens board, or maybe could just be a custom lens board. Chuck has a computerized milling machine, so I'm sure that something could be done for that. Then it could be anodized or painted flat black.

You have enough room around the actual lens for something to be made to hold it. The problem is that everything's not quite in the right position.

[E. von Hoegh]

Looks like a good way to break that lovely Chamonix.

[Two23]

Looks like a good way to break that lovely Chamonix.

Lens weighs 1.9 pounds--is that too much? I also have a Watson & Son tailboard, but the lens opening isn't that large. I also don't want to put that much stress on it as it's at least 120 years and feels a bit fragile. I've always liked the cool old Thornton Pickard English field cameras from around 1900 such as Royal Ruby or the Imperial Triple Extension. I can shoot 4x5 in the half plate holders. Really though, they don't look any sturdier than the Chamonix. I suppose ultimately what I want to get is a sliding box camera from 1850s/1860s or an Anthony half plate tailboard. That's in the future because my spare cash at the moment is paying for three weeks in Iceland/Scotland in a couple of months. Star Camera could probably modify one of their great value replicas to take modern 4x5 holders. That could be cool! I think if I'm careful with the Chamonix and keep the camera level and not tilt it I might be OK until I come up with a sturdier camera for these lenses. I also have a 7 inch Voigtlander from 1865 and a very "chunky" E.G. Wood pillbox. I'm aware the Chamonix was not designed with those in mind.


Kent in SD

[E. von Hoegh]

Lens weighs 1.9 pounds--is that too much? I also have a Watson & Son tailboard, but the lens opening isn't that large. I also don't want to put that much stress on it as it's at least 120 years and feels a bit fragile. I've always liked the cool old Thornton Pickard English field cameras from around 1900 such as Royal Ruby or the Imperial Triple Extension. I can shoot 4x5 in the half plate holders. Really though, they don't look any sturdier than the Chamonix. I suppose ultimately what I want to get is a sliding box camera from 1850s/1860s or an Anthony half plate tailboard. That's in the future because my spare cash at the moment is paying for three weeks in Iceland/Scotland in a couple of months. Star Camera could probably modify one of their great value replicas to take modern 4x5 holders. That could be cool! I think if I'm careful with the Chamonix and keep the camera level and not tilt it I might be OK until I come up with a sturdier camera for these lenses. I also have a 7 inch Voigtlander from 1865 and a very "chunky" E.G. Wood pillbox. I'm aware the Chamonix was not designed with those in mind.


Kent in SD

What I'm thinking of is this: The camera will probably support the lens just fine as long as it isn't knocked over or otherwise perturbed. Two pounds isn't really that heavy, but it's a physically large and long lens that will be cantilevered off the front of the camera. Certainly nothing the guys who designed the front standard and rails had in mind.

[c.d.ewen]

Kent:

You need to dump some PM's - your mailbox is full.

Charley