PDA

View Full Version : WHAT LENS DO I NEED FOR A 4FTX5FT (Image circle of 68 inches or bigger)



FrostySnaps
31-Oct-2013, 17:23
I am building a camera with a 4' X 5' image surface. I would like to know what lens would create an image circle large enough to cover this space.

Thank you

FrostySnaps
31-Oct-2013, 18:13
I want to make a 40" X 40" Paper Negative

Bill_1856
31-Oct-2013, 18:31
That seems like a lot of unnecessary work. Any good 8 MP digital camera will easily give you a print that large.

StoneNYC
31-Oct-2013, 18:51
That seems like a lot of unnecessary work. Any good 8 MP digital camera will easily give you a print that large.

Hope that's a joke...lol

This is the LARGE format forum...

goamules
31-Oct-2013, 19:03
If you figure a 8x10 normal is 300mm, and you want 4 or 5 times larger, you'd need a 1200mm lens, roughly. Here is one I have:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?106608-Lenses-as-big-around-as-your-head!

FrostySnaps
31-Oct-2013, 19:11
It's not a joke and how many 8mp cameras do you know that have four wheel drive and can go anywhere

StoneNYC
31-Oct-2013, 19:18
It's not a joke and how many 8mp cameras do you know that have four wheel drive and can go anywhere

My phone in my pocket (iPhone) 8mp, but can't do what my toyo can do...

I know 8mp can make a decent sized image, but wouldn't compare to what this guy is doing :)

Taija71A
31-Oct-2013, 20:44
... Here is one I have:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?106608-Lenses-as-big-around-as-your-head!

____

@FrostySnaps...

YES! Garrett's 120cm 'Hermagis Aplanatique' is definitely a 'Real Contender' for 40x40 (and larger?)... And is most definitely -- A Very Rare, Exquisite, Lens indeed! :D

'Free Bump For Garrett'... If he is still perhaps interested? in putting his lens -- 'Up FS'. :)

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?106608-Lenses-as-big-around-as-your-head!/page4

________

HT Finley
31-Oct-2013, 20:55
I believe I'd find out the size of my health insurance rate increase is going to be before splurging. A lens like that can't be cheap, and neither will be the rate increase. Just sayin'... Good luck.

StoneNYC
31-Oct-2013, 21:15
Do the prints sell for quantitatively more because of the giant lens? Proportionally is this a good move sales wise for you OP?

gleaf
1-Nov-2013, 02:02
I get 1951.67 mm for the four by five foot question and 56.57 inches for the fourth square. Normal on my TLR is 75mm for 2 1/4 square. So 1333 mm 52.49 inches for a 'standard lens'. My my what a standard that will be.

goamules
1-Nov-2013, 06:47
....pm instead...

Dan Fromm
1-Nov-2013, 07:13
E., make no assumptions about the OP's gender. A similar question popped up earlier this year on the French LF forum. The poster was a young woman. After the state of the world -- lenses with the coverage desired don't exist, lenses that come close are rare and expensive -- had been explained to her she promised that she was determined and would show us all. Hasn't yet, and I doubt she will, but its just barely possible ...

Richard Wasserman
1-Nov-2013, 07:17
I don't know how serious the OP is, but no-one has yet mentioned doing away with a lens and using a pinhole. Lots of coverage and they tend to be very light-weight....

E. von Hoegh
1-Nov-2013, 07:20
E., make no assumptions about the OP's gender. A similar question popped up earlier this year on the French LF forum. The poster was a young woman. After the state of the world -- lenses with the coverage desired don't exist, lenses that come close are rare and expensive -- had been explained to her she promised that she was determined and would show us all. Hasn't yet, and I doubt she will, but its just barely possible ...

I didn't want to type "It seems..."

Jim Noel
1-Nov-2013, 08:35
.
That seems like a lot of unnecessary work. Any good 8 MP digital camera will easily give you a print that large.

A print, yes. A good print, NO!!!

StoneNYC
1-Nov-2013, 08:40
.

A print, yes. A good print, NO!!!

Good is relative, a billboard image probably wouldn't be noticeable as being low IQ even from an 8mp camera, however I wouldn't shoot with an 8mp unless it were the only option.... Eep!

Getting the shot on a crappy 8mp is better than no image at all...

Alan Gales
1-Nov-2013, 09:38
E., make no assumptions about the OP's gender.

Just the other day someone thought Leigh was a woman. :)

Randy Moe
1-Nov-2013, 09:46
OP, look here.

http://www.re-inventedphotoequip.com/ULF%20Lens.html

DrTang
1-Nov-2013, 10:03
so..you gonna turn a camper or camper shell into a camera? and then just back up into a shooting spot?



that's way cool



don't waste all that work just on rocks and trees - tow a platform with a chair and shoot some people too

gignormous headshots

Řyvind:D
1-Nov-2013, 10:37
I am building a camera with a 4' X 5' image surface. I would like to know what lens would create an image circle large enough to cover this space.

Thank you

Start with Close-up lenses of +1 or longer (lesser number). f100 is 10mm opening - could be useful for portraits with bigger aperture. http://fuzzcraft.com/achromats.html Leica Elpro 4 is +0,75, ie 1/0,75 is 1333mm. 2 of Pentax T226 would give 0,44 +0,44= 0,88 ie 1136mm. Two close-up lenses with aperture: ( A ) will remove some lens artifacts. If you have 8x10", try a +4 close up lens and see if you like the way it looks!

Dan Fromm
1-Nov-2013, 11:01
don't waste all that work just on rocks and trees - tow a platform with a chair and shoot some people too

gignormous headshots

Oh, my, there's a lot of that going around. Remember that fellow in Chicago? The typical van is a bit short for portraiture, might well be good for landscape work.

StoneNYC
1-Nov-2013, 11:42
Yea there's a guy who makes something BIGGER THAN 20x24 collodion or tintype or something out of his van.

It takes 2-3 people to dev each one lol

Cool, impressive, but expensive too, wish I had that kind of capital

jnantz
1-Nov-2013, 11:48
I am building a camera with a 4' X 5' image surface. I would like to know what lens would create an image circle large enough to cover this space.

Thank you

hi frostysnaps

look for the longest rapid rectalinaer lens you can find, and remove the front cell
it will increase in focal length and more than likely cover your 40x40 or 4'x5' area.

have fun with your project !
john

Emmanuel BIGLER
1-Nov-2013, 12:13
Regarding a 4 by 5 feet image, the diagonal of this image is close to 2 metres (actually, 1951 mm, hence the name for the 1951 US AIR FORCE test target ;))

Rodenstock Apo Ronars have been manufactured in focal lengths as long as 1800, mm but even a 1800 mm apo ronar will not cover completely a 4 by 5 feet image

There is at least one 1800 mm apo ronar in the world.
http://ultrahighresolution.de/mediapool/86/869693/resources/27759796.jpg
(http://ultrahighresolution.de/mediapool/86/869693/resources/27759796.jpg)
from this guy in Germany
http://ultrahighresolution.de


Recently, again on the Frech MF+LF forum, a team of enthusiastic people has announced a 2 m by 3 m pinhole camera, no lens this is easier
http://holein.fr/
.. and not not rare, pinhole-van-cameras are quite common, and still much smaller than the legendary pinhole-hangar-camera.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Picture

Dan Fromm
1-Nov-2013, 12:30
.. and not not rare, pinhole-van-cameras are quite common, and still much smaller than the legendary pinhole-hangar-camera.


They're more portable than the hangar cam too.

Drew Wiley
1-Nov-2013, 13:14
Heck... instead of using a blimp hanger for your giant pinhole camera, just use the blimp itself, cause it gets around jes fine. The only minor technically issue is when you actually make the pinhole, and all your helium leaks out!

Taija71A
1-Nov-2013, 13:23
He seems to have trouble making up his mind, in one post it's 4x5 feet, in another it's 40" square.

____

He seems pretty clear to me in his requirements:

Post #1. >> 4' X 5' 'image surface'. (*I.e. the 'OP' has defined the total amount of space that he has to work with)...

and in...

Post #2. >> I want to make a 40" X 40" Paper Negative

________

Taija71A
1-Nov-2013, 13:27
Heck... instead of using a blimp hanger for your giant pinhole camera, just use the blimp itself, cause it gets around jes fine. The only minor technically issue is when you actually make the pinhole, and all your helium leaks out!

'Good One' Drew!!! BIG Smile. :)

Bill_1856
1-Nov-2013, 18:05
.

A print, yes. A good print, NO!!!

What kind of quality do you believe a paper negative is gonna give?

karl french
1-Nov-2013, 19:50
Richard Learoyd is working at this size (4x5 feet) with direct positives. I just saw some of his work at the Fraenkel Gallery recently. The portraits especially are amazing.

Dan Fromm
1-Nov-2013, 20:00
There have been many discussions of Learoyd's work and gear here. He uses great long lenses at magnifications around 1:1. At 1:1 and f/32, the 1800/16 Apo-Ronar covers 60"x80", the image circle is 100". Huge. But the original poster wants to shoot landscapes, and at infinity that monster lens' image circle is 50". Still huge, but not huge enough.

Taija71A
1-Nov-2013, 20:35
What kind of quality do you believe a paper negative is gonna give?

____

The proposed use of Paper 'In itself' (*Instead of Film), is not going to be a 'Limiting Factor'... With respect to any said "Quality" -- In this situation or others.
--
Photographic Papers 'in general' (B&W and almost always Color)... Are more than capable of resolving enough resolution (line pairs/per mm).
*Actually, the resolution of photographic papers is usually far greater than what is often considered as being required for a good 'Quality Print'... Which is to be observed by visual inspection (i.e. Resolution + Acutance).


http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?8375-Resolution-of-photopaper

http://ctein.com/PostExposure2ndIllustrated.pdf


Many years ago, there was a detailed article by Ctein in the March/April 2002 (Vol. 23, #2) issue of photo technique which was entitled... "Is Your Print Paper Sharp Enough?" -- That addressed this very subject question in greater detail. :)
--
Is this what you were perhaps originally referring to?

There of course, are many other factors that can affect/determine the ultimate sharpness of a print... But the use of Paper (In itself) -- Is not usually one of them.
--
Best regards,

-Tim.
________

gphoto
4-Nov-2013, 16:01
I'm working with frosty on this and after doing some digging it seems like the largest lenses are the Artar 70" and the Ronar 1800mm and the Nikkor 1800mm. It doesn't sound like these will cover the 68" circle at infinity from what I can deduce from the muddled internets. Are there other options we're not looking at? Those are copy camera lenses and rare as hens teeth but perhaps there was another application for massive lenses that someone knows of?

Giles AKA Illumiquest

Dan Fromm
4-Nov-2013, 17:16
If there is another application that uses lenses with large coverage it is well hidden.

You might want to learn how to grind glass. Eric Beltrando's site www.dioptrique.info has a few prescriptions for ultrawides, also for garden variety dagor types, most taken from patents. One problem with making lenses from them is that the glass types used are ancient and there aren't always modern equivalents.

As I've remarked at least once in this discussion, David is on a well-trodden path.

One way to get off the well-trodden path would be to make a camera with a swinging lens. The lens will have to cover only the vertical edge of the film or paper or whatever you'll use to catch the photons. Not a van camera in the usual sense, but I suppose one could be built within a van. See what an apparently simple idea that's infeasible can get you into?

Jac@stafford.net
5-Nov-2013, 05:07
One way to get off the well-trodden path would be to make a camera with a swinging lens. The lens will have to cover only the vertical edge of the film or paper or whatever

Like the rotating prism they used in some aerial cameras? They were far from the more-square format the OP cited. His specification would still require a huge lens.

One bizarre thought is to combine two old traffic light lenses. Those used for highway applications projected the light a quarter mile, and could still be seen close-up. I have two of those intended originally for tail light lenses for my sports car - an idea that would have been deadly-stupid in practice. But at $4 each, I just had to get them. (coke-bottle green glass).

Dan Fromm
5-Nov-2013, 06:13
Like the rotating prism they used in some aerial cameras? They were far from the more-square format the OP cited. His specification would still require a huge lens.

A rotating prism is one way to do it but requires quite a large prism. I had something like a Kodak Panoram (see, e.g, http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kodak_Panoram) in mind. There are similar 35 mm and roll film cameras.

Yes, the OP's intended format (4' x 5', as was eventually explained) will still require a large lens. But there are lenses that cover 48", and as we've been discussing there seem to be none that will cover a 4' x 5' rectangle.

Jac@stafford.net
11-Nov-2013, 11:10
Browse this page for a close-up of the lens.
Is it just a trick?

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/technology-industry/308239-97-000-pixels.html#post2552834

Dan Fromm
11-Nov-2013, 12:26
Have you ever seen an EKCo Ball Bearing Shutter that big? The video shows a mock-up, an ignorant artist's rendering, the same old fantasy to raise money that he's been doing for a couple of years.

I'm not going to sign up to another forum just to see pictures of the thing. BTW, the gigantic negs and prints from them that Manarchy has been showing around were taken with a room cam. Process lens in a wall between two rooms, sitter in one room, film holder in the other. Straight-on head shots of wrinkled old faces, some of which have stubble. Not what I'd hang on my wall, but tastes differ.

Jac@stafford.net
11-Nov-2013, 12:32
...and to get such huge leaves to make 100th of a second - maybe a Coffman engine starter would do it. Well, it's an amusing vision.

StoneNYC
11-Nov-2013, 14:09
Have you ever seen an EKCo Ball Bearing Shutter that big? The video shows a mock-up, an ignorant artist's rendering, the same old fantasy to raise money that he's been doing for a couple of years.

I'm not going to sign up to another forum just to see pictures of the thing. BTW, the gigantic negs and prints from them that Manarchy has been showing around were taken with a room cam. Process lens in a wall between two rooms, sitter in one room, film holder in the other. Straight-on head shots of wrinkled old faces, some of which have stubble. Not what I'd hang on my wall, but tastes differ.

Unfortunately I can't see any of it with my phone, and I'm certainly not going to sign up to another website, however I would think that if you're building a very very large shutter, that you would do one that wasn't a leaf shutter, and was in fact a curtain shutter, that way you could have it on the vertical axis and simply use springs and gravity to carry fast along the line of film almost like a scanning back?

jb7
11-Nov-2013, 16:02
The only real answer to such a poorly defined question -

Any lens you want, as long as you accept that the image circle will be governed by the required magnification.

duh

ebenostby
11-Nov-2013, 16:23
You use a simple meniscus 2000mm lens from Surplus Shed (stock # L8093, $4.00), mount it in a tube, and stop it down to f/128 or smaller and have something better than a pinhole.
Or a pair of 4000mm lenses (L4639), mount them in a tube, symmetrically about a central stop, and have a periskop (symmetrical doublet lens).
Making the huge bellows would be an interesting challenge, wouldn't it? I'm pretty certain that the exposure time would be minutes, not fractions of a second, so a shutter could be a lens cap.

E. von Hoegh
12-Nov-2013, 08:56
...and to get such huge leaves to make 100th of a second - maybe a coffman engine starter would do it. Well, it's an amusing vision.

rotflmao!!

Simon Liddiard
12-Nov-2013, 09:34
What kind of quality do you believe a paper negative is gonna give?

Pretty good, judging by the direct positive Ilfochrome ultra-large work I've assisted with

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilfochrome


____

The proposed use of Paper 'In itself' (*Instead of Film), is not going to be a 'Limiting Factor'... With respect to any said "Quality" -- In this situation or others.
--
Photographic Papers 'in general' (B&W and almost always Color)... Are more than capable of resolving enough resolution (line pairs/per mm).
*Actually, the resolution of photographic papers is usually far greater than what is often considered as being required for a good 'Quality Print'... Which is to be observed by visual inspection (i.e. Resolution + Acutance).


http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?8375-Resolution-of-photopaper

http://ctein.com/PostExposure2ndIllustrated.pdf


Many years ago, there was a detailed article by Ctein in the March/April 2002 (Vol. 23, #2) issue of photo technique which was entitled... "Is Your Print Paper Sharp Enough?" -- That addressed this very subject question in greater detail. :)
--
Is this what you were perhaps originally referring to?

There of course, are many other factors that can affect/determine the ultimate sharpness of a print... But the use of Paper (In itself) -- Is not usually one of them.
--
Best regards,

-Tim.
________

Dan Fromm
12-Nov-2013, 22:06
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ultimate-large-format-reproduction-lens-70-f-16-ARTAR-Apochromat-/151162533287

Not mine, starting at only $4,750 and no bids yet. I wonder how high it will go. As has been mentioned, it won't meet the OP's needs as stated so far but its about the closest thing to the lens of his dreams.

goamules
13-Nov-2013, 06:10
I talked to the original poster weeks ago, and offered him advice. I respect his planning, and drive, he's been wanting to do this for years. And he's reaching out far and wide to find the best lens. From what I gathered, he's still hoping to find one fairly cheaply, so we moved on to other ideas, after briefly discussing my 1200mm Hermagis. I bet he will get something together, and we'll be hearing from him again before long.

StoneNYC
13-Nov-2013, 07:03
I talked to the original poster weeks ago, and offered him advice. I respect his planning, and drive, he's been wanting to do this for years. And he's reaching out far and wide to find the best lens. From what I gathered, he's still hoping to find one fairly cheaply, so we moved on to other ideas, after briefly discussing my 1200mm Hermagis. I bet he will get something together, and we'll be hearing from him again before long.

Maybe he should be the one posting... Or say thanks for all the helpful advice and close the thread then... Lol

goamules
13-Nov-2013, 08:18
I agree forums see this a lot; we are seen as personal oracles of knowledge, or places to step in for a quick WTB and purchase, then leave forever. But I said what I did because I think he's spending time doing, not talking about it. I think he'll report back.

polyglot
13-Nov-2013, 19:34
I would look into commissioning Reinhold to build one. I think someone linked to his website early in the thread but the OP might have passed over it because the lenses he offers by default aren't big enough. I bet he could make one though, perhaps even with a more-complex design (rectilinear or double-gauss) than his default meniscus lenses.

jnantz
13-Nov-2013, 22:01
this would work perfectly "on the cheap"



You use a simple meniscus 2000mm lens from Surplus Shed (stock # L8093, $4.00), mount it in a tube, and stop it down to f/128 or smaller and have something better than a pinhole.
Or a pair of 4000mm lenses (L4639), mount them in a tube, symmetrically about a central stop, and have a periskop (symmetrical doublet lens).
Making the huge bellows would be an interesting challenge, wouldn't it? I'm pretty certain that the exposure time would be minutes, not fractions of a second, so a shutter could be a lens cap.

Dan Fromm
14-Nov-2013, 04:39
I would look into commissioning Reinhold to build one. I think someone linked to his website early in the thread but the OP might have passed over it because the lenses he offers by default aren't big enough. I bet he could make one though, perhaps even with a more-complex design (rectilinear or double-gauss) than his default meniscus lenses.Does he buy blanks and grind them into lenses or does he buy the lenses?

polyglot
14-Nov-2013, 04:56
Does he buy blanks and grind them into lenses or does he buy the lenses?

I think he's buying cheap/surplus elements and gluing them into PVC tubes. One or two elements per lens maybe.

goamules
14-Nov-2013, 05:58
In that case, I would just buy a surplus shed meniscus and build it myself.

Darin Boville
14-Nov-2013, 08:44
Just the other day someone thought Leigh was a woman. :)

That was me. Turns out that *all* of the people here I thought to be female are male.

--Darin

Simon Liddiard
14-Nov-2013, 10:04
That was me. Turns out that *all* of the people here I thought to be female are male.

--Darin

That is somewhat depressing!

StoneNYC
14-Nov-2013, 11:25
That is somewhat depressing!

There's at least one girl, a girl in New York who started a large-format Facebook group and invited bunch of the guys that are in this New England area to it, though there hasn't been a get together yet. I'm fairly certain she's very young, and seems very very nice.