Any 240mm lenses f5.6 or faster that fit Copal 1 or other #1 shutters?

[Misko]

Hello
Are there any 240mm lenses of f5.6 or faster that fit to #1 shutter originally without any "surgery" and if yes - which ones? (6.3 or slower lenses are not of interest unfortunately).

(I guess mathematics of calculating focal length / f-stop would give me the entrance pupil diameter which is not real opening of the diaphragm and depends on lens' front parts magnification - which is for me unknown part? ----> 240/5.6=42.9 - but I am not sure what are the magnifications for 240mm lenses! so I can compare them to #1shutter's diaphragm which I believe to be 30mm!?)
I am still a rookie - so forgive me for all the mistakes!

Thanks a lot for the help!
Cheers,
Misko

[Steve Goldstein]

I think your math is telling you the answer. I can't recall a 240 faster than f/6.8 (Caltar Type-Y == Rodenstock Ysarex, I believe) in a Copal 1. There are several f/9 choices (G-Claron, Docter Germinar-W, Fujinon-A, probably more). Any f/5.6 240 I can think of is in a Copal 3.

[NickyLai]

Schneider 240mm 1:5.5 Tele-Xenar most likely is in older shutter #1 .

[Leigh]

Schneider 240mm 1:5.5 Tele-Xenar most likely is in older shutter #1 .
There's a Schneider Tele-Xenar 250/5.6 in a Copal 1.

My database has no Tele-Xenar 240, nor any at f/5.5, but that DB only has modern lenses.

- Leigh

[brouwerkent]

Misko

May I ask why you are concerned about the speed? At that focal length, a slower lens will be smaller, sharper and just fine. f9 at 240 is quite easy to focus... Lens speed is frankly overrated IMHO. In the olden days, fast lenses were desirable for street photographers working in low light with slow film. On large format, most shooters stop down...ie f32 or f45...for the shot.

Cheers

Phil


Hello
Are there any 240mm lenses of f5.6 or faster that fit to #1 shutter originally without any "surgery" and if yes - which ones? (6.3 or slower lenses are not of interest unfortunately).

(I guess mathematics of calculating focal length / f-stop would give me the entrance pupil diameter which is not real opening of the diaphragm and depends on lens' front parts magnification - which is for me unknown part? ----> 240/5.6=42.9 - but I am not sure what are the magnifications for 240mm lenses! so I can compare them to #1shutter's diaphragm which I believe to be 30mm!?)
I am still a rookie - so forgive me for all the mistakes!

Thanks a lot for the help!
Cheers,
Misko

[Dan Fromm]

My database has no Tele-Xenar 240, nor any at f/5.5, but that DB only has modern lenses.

- Leigh

Leigh, see http://web.archive.org/web/20100922053809/http:/www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/archiv.htm

[David Karp]

The 240mm Fujinon A is in a number No. 0 shutter.

[Leigh]

The 240mm Fujinon A is in a number No. 0 shutter.
True, but it's f/9.

The OP specifically requested f/5.6 or faster.

- Leigh

[William Whitaker]

The iris diameter for a Copal 1 is 30mm which is going to be pretty limiting.

[Jim Galli]

Nope. 210 is the biggest 5.6 in Copal 1. The Symmar 240 convertible is a lovely lens in Compur 2. Obsolete now, unfortunately. Somewhat bigger than size 1 but definitely smaller than Copal 3. It was f5.6

[Leigh]

Nope. 210 is the biggest 5.6 in Copal 1.
Hi Jim,

You apparently missed my previous post.

The Schneider Tele-Xenar 250/5.6 is in a Copal 1.

- Leigh

[Jim Galli]

Hi Jim,

You apparently missed my previous post.

The Schneider Tele-Xenar 250/5.6 is in a Copal 1.

- Leigh

Tele's don't count :D:D

[Leigh]

Tele's don't count :D:D
OK. The OP did not specifically exclude tele designs.

Which of the following standard components is missing???
Glass lens elements
Metal structure to support same
Diaphragm (adjustable)
Shutter
Housing and support structure to rigidly connect the above

That's all there is to an LF lens that I know of.

- Leigh

[Jim Galli]

OK. The OP did not specifically exclude tele designs.

Which of the following standard components is missing???
Glass lens elements
Metal structure to support same
Diaphragm (adjustable)
Shutter
Housing and support structure to rigidly connect the above

That's all there is to an LF lens that I know of.

- Leigh

No, because they suck :O

[Dan Fromm]

No, because they suck :O

Jim, let the OP make its own decisions.

[Jim Galli]

Jim, let the OP make its own decisions.

I was just being playful. You guys get wrapped around the axle too easy.

[David Karp]

True, but it's f/9.

The OP specifically requested f/5.6 or faster.

- Leigh


Just correcting a prior post that said it was in a No. 1.

[Leigh]

OK. I guess I don't understand what's going on.

If I contributed to the confusion, I apologize.

- Leigh

[David Karp]

I could have been more clear.

[Misko]

Hi,

Thank you all so much for your answers, suggestions & comments!

"Tele" design would not work on the rigid design camera that I plan to use - hence I need standard 240mm lens.

Speed is needed since I plan to work with very low sensibility materials and then each f-stop counts a bit.
I found some (I believe japanese) Congo lens with f6.3. I guess that will be the fastest in Copal 1 for non-tele design.

When I have a camera set - I should also probably test it with my 210/5.6 lens & see what enlargement I get… maybe that will be usable to but based on mathematics I am afraid not. :(

Maybe I could check if some 9-10" Petzval projection lens could be mount in some Copal1 shutter w/o loosing light… More food for taught…

Cheers,
Misko

[William Whitaker]

Maybe I could check if some 9-10" Petzval projection lens could be mount in some Copal1 shutter w/o loosing light…


Not bloody likely.

Why are you fixated on the Copal 1 shutter? It's better suited for short or slow-ish lenses, not longer focal length, fast lenses. Do the arithmetic.

[Dan Fromm]

"Tele" design would not work on the rigid design camera that I plan to use - hence I need standard 240mm lens.

Misko

Why on earth not? A box is a box. A lens is a lens. Flange-to-film distance is what it has to be. What do you think a telephoto lens is?

[Kevin Crisp]

Seems like a rigid camera would be perfect for a telephoto.

[Carsten Wolff]

Seems like a rigid camera would be perfect for a telephoto. - Thats what I'd think :)

Anyway, there are few other lenses I can think of that come close to your specs:
E.g. the Fujnon-W 250mm f6.3 (Copal 1); a very nice, modern lens and
there are acouple of non-tele Raptar/Velostigmat lenses by Wollensak (as well as the ubiquitous telephoto versions):
e.g. Wollensak 254mm f6.3 (Alphax 3 (similar size as Copal 1; slightly larger mounting hole)), and also f5.6 and f4.5 series.
Alphax/Betax shutters have larger max opening size than Copal 1 shutters for similar external physical dimensions
(but, again, different mounting threads), if that is what you're after, unless you want/need Copal dimensions.

[EdSawyer]

I'd recommend checking out the Tele-arton 240, 250 and 270s. Most are in small(ish) shutters like Compur 2 or Copal 1, I think. If you are using this for portraits, the Teles have better bokeh than the typical plasmats. ;-) And re: rigid design - well, if you can match the flange distance, it should still be doable... ? Tele-arton 270 in compur 2 has something like 150mm flange-focal distance - crazy short! I like the Nikkor T lenses a lot too.

[Drew Wiley]

I've owned the Fuji 250/6.7 and it would be pretty hard to see any difference in viewing brightness between this and a 5.6 aperture. It had the advantage of not only
a number 1 shutter but of also a sufficiently large image circle for realistic 8x10 use. I've moved on to even smaller lenses, namely the 240 Fuji A and 250 G Claron,
which I never have focusing issues with, but that 250/6.7 is a real gem if you can find one. Any of these lenses will be distinctly optically superior to any tele design
in comparable focal length.

[Misko]

Flange-to-film distance is what it has to be.
Exactly because of the flange distance I wanted a lens of about 240mm. But I could eventually get into the project by modifying CU-5 camera where in that case I would have distance of about 180mm - which I guess for Tele-Xenar or Tele-Arton would be kinda ok for a start (maybe with some distances on the front or something) to make camera that would shoot head & shoulders type of shots with fixed focus... One thing is for sure - I would like to skip using helicoid & altering the focus distance.


Why are you fixated on the Copal 1 shutter?
Dear Will, size of the front "standard" or better say front plate is determining this. I guess rare #2 shutter could fit too (not sure about it's size precisely though).


Anyway, there are few other lenses I can think of that come close to your specs...

With the fact that I would like to shoot head & shoulder portraits (with fixed focus distance camera) I should probably think of the lens with pleasant image qualities too. My problem is that most of the lenses of Tele design like:
1) Tele-Arton
2) Tele-Congo
3) Tele-Xenar
are not so much covered with reviews & comparisons... What I could find out is that Arton seems as an update of Xenar design and according to info found here and there is slightly sharper. On the other hand I don't know anything about bokeh / out of focus quality of these lenses (something that is important for my purpose too). Price on ebay comes between 150$ and 300$ for most of them in Copal 1 or similar #1 shutters... so there is not much difference in that field.

On the other hand I know that Fujnon-W 250mm f6.3 (Copal 1) is very cool lens apparently. Unfortunately I am new to LF and didn't have a chance to try it...
And I will now investigate about Wollensak 254mm f6.3 (Alphax 3 (similar size as Copal 1; slightly larger mounting hole)), and also f5.6 and f4.5 series - Do you know if these 5.6 and 4.5 lenses are also in Alphax 3 shutter?

I just need small shutter - and I can make any thread needed :)


I'd recommend checking out the Tele-arton 240, 250 and 270s...
Very interesting input Ed. While I was searching for Tele-Xenars I've stumbled upon Tele-Artons too and was reading that people like them more than T-Xenars.
Do you have maybe some examples shot with any of Tele-Artons? Nice Bokeh is for sure what I am after. Extreme sharpness is not totally important, maybe is even better if not overly sharp.

BTW - If I know flange2film distance for a lens - how can I calculate the extension needed for a certain enlargement or focusing distance?

I am afraid that Nikkor Ts are a bit too expensive?! :)


I've owned the Fuji 250/6.7 and it would be pretty hard to see any difference in viewing brightness between this and a 5.6 aperture.
For my (call it) "design" - there will be no Ground Glass. I will be focusing with the RangeFinder attached to the camera so I am hunting for brighter lens only because of the shallow depth of field.

Thank you all for contribution to the discussion. I love learning new things all the time and you help me in that a lot!!!

[Carsten Wolff]

...since tele designs seem to be acceptable and shutter mounting hole diameters flexible and you want a good portrait lens: I can very highly recommend Wollensak's Tele lenses (coated or uncoated are both great for b/w, The coated ones are also very good on CN film): My go-to lens for portraits is generally my 15" f5.6, esp. on 5x7". So for you the 10" version (either in f4.5 or f5.6) should work well; the 10" f5.6 at least comes e.g in an Alphax #3, which is similar in external size (well, a little bit larger) as an Copal #1 (some versions also come in Raphax/Graphlex shutters I think).

[EdSawyer]

I have a really nice Nikkor-T 270/6.3 in a Copal 1 I can part with for say $400 (incl. paypal and shipping), that makes a great portrait lens. I forget the F-F distance offhand but it's listed online somewhere. The Tele-Arton isn't really a deriviative of Xenar (aka Tessar), AFAIK. More like a deriviative of Xenotar if anything. but really it's it's own design, I think. The Tele-Arton 270 f/5.5 (2nd generation) I had was great, really nice bokeh (smoother than any plasmat in that range I tried), nice rendering, not crazy-modern sharp but plenty sharp enough for portraits. Compur 2 shutter, so it had a hole/thread diameter of around 45mm as I recall. It also had a super short F-F distance of only something like 155mm, so on your lens cone, it would definitely provide a fairly tight view (head and shoulders). For calculating focus distance for a given lens, I'd say start with the fact that 1:1 would require double the distance of infinity focus, right? So if flange-focus distance at infinity is 155 mm, 1:1 would be 310mm (right?) - I think that is how it works, but someone else could likely confirm that.

[Misko]

I have a really nice Nikkor-T 270/6.3 in a Copal 1 I can part with for say $400 (incl. paypal and shipping)

Dear Ed, Unfortunately I would prefer to go with 240mm lens and on other hand I think I could find Tele-Artons a bit cheaper which for me at this moment in time is very important :(


The Tele-Arton 270 f/5.5 (2nd generation) I had was great, really nice bokeh (smoother than any plasmat in that range I tried), nice rendering, not crazy-modern sharp but plenty sharp enough for portraits. Compur 2 shutter, so it had a hole/thread diameter of around 45mm as I recall. It also had a super short F-F distance of only something like 155mm, so on your lens cone, it would definitely provide a fairly tight view (head and shoulders)

Basically what you wrote here makes me very happy! :) I think I will hunt Tele-Arton of 240mm & go with modification of probably Polaroid CU-5 or even Polaroid MiniPortrait 454 in order to achieve head & shoulders magnification. I could calculate but I can also empirically test it on my Graflex & establish the precise length that fits my needs before starting with work on the camera body.

Now I can start the hunt for broken cameras & cheap Tele-Artons :) Wish me luck!



For calculating focus distance for a given lens, I'd say start with the fact that 1:1 would require double the distance of infinity focus, right? So if flange-focus distance at infinity is 155 mm, 1:1 would be 310mm (right?) - I think that is how it works, but someone else could likely confirm that.
I will have to spend few moments over this & try to come up with the equation that will let me calculate things into details... If anyone else has anymore info on it - please share :)

[Leigh]

1:1 would require double the distance of infinity focus, right? So if flange-focus distance at infinity is 155 mm, 1:1 would be 310mm (right?) - I think that is how it works, but someone else could likely confirm that.
Nope.

1:1 focus requires infinity focus (flange focal distance) + optical focal length.

For example, given a 300mm lens with a 280mm flange focal distance, the 1:1 distance
from lensboard to film equals 280 + 300 = 580mm.

- Leigh

[Misko]

1:1 focus requires infinity focus (flange focal distance) + optical focal length.
Thank you sir.

So for Tele Arton 270mm it would be: 155mm (ffd) + 270 (ofl) = 425mm for 1:1 enlargement?

And do you know how do I calculate the length for other enlargements between infinity and 1:1?

M

[NickyLai]

Schneider 240mm 1:5.5 Tele-Xenar most likely is in older shutter #1 .

Just came around this Schneider 1938 leaflet for tele-xenar, like to put up for reference:

https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/tele-xenar/data/Tele_Xenar_1938_Leaflet.pdf

It included 180-240-270-300-360mm all in f5.5, and the 180 and 240 also in f4.5.

[EdSawyer]

Misko I would go for the Tele ARton 270 vs. the 240. The flange focal distance is basically the same, maybe even a touch shorter for the 270, depending on version. and, you can usually find it in COmpur 2 shutter which is useful for other reasons we've discussed.

I just pulled the trigger on a Tele Arton 360/5.5 in Compound shutter. It has crazy short flange focal distance of 209mm, so should work on my SuperD 3x4 that is converted to 4x5 Graflok. The FFD on the nikkor 270T that I use on there is 187mm or so, so only another 20mm or so. It's a huge lens from what I can see though. The price was cheap enough that even if it doesn't work out I can always find a new home for it if need be. Bokeh @ f/5.5 should be superb hopefully, for portraits. (Equiv of dof/bokeh of 180mm @ f/2.8 or so, I think - right?)