Turner-Reich Coverage?

[Captain_joe6]

I'm looking at buying a Turner-Reich convertible in the 12-19-25" focal length configuration. Does anybody happen to know if this lens will cover 8x10 at all the lengths?

For that matter, what Turner-Reich convertibles will cover 8x10, and which won't. I looked on the big list of lenses, but TR's aren't on there, and the info doesn't seem to be anywhere elese either.

Thanks
Patrick

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

I have the 12/19/25" model, and it does cover 8x10 at all three FLs. The combined elements (12") do not have a very large image circle--perhaps 14" or so--so movements are a bit limited but they suffice. The single elements easily cover 8x10 with movments.

[William Barnett-Lewis]

I'm curious - is there any of thier lenses that are appropriate for 4x5?

Thanks,

William

[Gene McCluney]

I'm curious - is there any of thier lenses that are appropriate for 4x5?

Thanks,

William

Well, any lens that will cover 8x10 will certainly work with 4x5, as long as you have enough bellows length.

[John Hannon]

I'm curious - is there any of thier lenses that are appropriate for 4x5?

Thanks,

William

There is listing for a Turner-Reich 6 1/4/11/14 for 4X5. I have the 5X7 7 1/2/12/18.

[Ole Tjugen]

As far as I've been able to determine, there are at least two different types of Turner-Reich convertibles. The difference may not be more than an extra element for papent evasion purposes (mine has three cemented elements in each cell) for a short period of time, but it might have an effect on image circle.

There's also the question of the definition of "coverage". Most lenses go soft before they run out of illumination circle, so what covers for one photographer may be well short of coverage for another.

BTW - my TR convertible is a 10 3/4 / 18 / 23", probably for whole plate. It's usable on 18x24cm, but I haven't tried it on 8x10" yet.

[Captain_joe6]

I'd have to say that most people think of coverage as the sharp part of the image circle, before the edges start to go soft. At least thats the meaning that I'm going off.

[Ole Tjugen]

True - but how soft does it have to go before you call it "too soft"?

There is no hard limit between sharp and soft, just a point where you can say that "this is too soft for my taste - today".

For an example take a look at my 90mm angulon comparison (http://www.bruraholo.no/Cameras/Angulon/): For some purposes the 1939 model can be said to be sharp enough over the whole 5x7"; yet the 1956 model is sharper over the 4x5" coverage which is what is most often used.

So your interpretation of "coverage" is really meaningless! All we can find is manufacturer's specifications (Angulon 90mm - 1939: 13x18cm/5x7", 1956: 9x12cm or 4x5" from f:32), or perhaps a "consensus" (which says that 90mm Angulons don't cover 4x5" until you stop down to f:32 or smaller)...

[John Powers]

No affiliation, but I notice that Igor of Igor's Camera Exchange in Clevleand, Ohio has:
Turner-Reich Convertible 12"/19"/25", f/7, series-II, Acme #4, Ex+ $340.
http://www.igorcamera.com/large_format_lenses.htm

My own experience with him has been good, but I know nothing about this lens. Perhaps he can answer your questions or sell you the lens.

John

[Craig Roberts]

Captain, I have used the 12-inch (12,21,28) and it covered 8x10 without a problem. It is marked 8x10. I also tried the individual components on my 12x20 and they covered the format. I didn't expose any 12x20, so I cannot attest to the quality at that size but it did cover. Craig