8x10 cheap studio lens ???

[Calamity Jane]

Seems that "Calamity Jane's Old Time Photography" is taking off - I'm getting requests from people to convert digital images to tintypes and requests for LARGER tintypes (larger than 4x5). I tried to scare them away with $$$$ but it isn't working! I may have to build myself an 8x10 camera . . . (oh the heartbreak!)

What should I look for to get a cheap studio lens for 8x10? Good apperature is nice 'cause tintypes are slow. Expect to do "copy work" at 1:1 and studio type portraits.

I'm flat busted after setting up in tintype and POP, so money is a BIG issue . . .

Suggestions?

(bows humbly in awe of the group's wisdom . . . .)

[Nick_3536]

Do you have a packard shutter already? If you do then plenty of barrel lenses out there. The cheap ones won't mount into a modern shutter without spending quite a bit of money. The process lenses should handle 1:1 just fine if you have the bellows.

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

240mm G Clarons can be had for a reasonable price in a barrel. The mount into a Copal 1 shutter that you can pick up from a Polaroid camera. Any longer and you need Copal 3 shutter and they are expensive.

[brook]

You might just spend more trying to build an 8x10 than buying an ok used one, think Kodak 2D, B&J, ect. A good darkcloth will save you from bellows replacement, and as mentioned, a packard shutter with barrel lenses will work wonders. Mine went down yesterday in the field and I was back to the lenscap method, and I made some images I am very happy with!
If I was trying what your doing , I think I would keep my eyes open for a 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 full plate outfit. They do come up with a lens, camera, plate holder, and sometimes even an old tripod, sometimes cheap! And talk about having the period look...

[Nick_3536]

Ya my Ansco with two film holders was cheaper then a new set of bellows. Just need to be patient but if the joy is in building the camera then that's a different thing.

[Jim Galli]

Any of the 8X10 and longer Rapid Rectilinear's in barrel are very cheap, look "era" because they are, and can be used singly or as a normal doublet. For portraits a single element of a RR has an interesting "look". Look for one in the 18" range for 8X10. F8 RR's are everyday pictorial and F6 extra rapid ones are for portraiture.

Here's (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15248&item=7503555616) a gorgeous one. 10X12 indicates it's longish for the 810 format so excellent for portraits, and it would cover your 11X14 that you build next!

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

Jim, what do you think of the Carl Zeiss Jena 300mm f/4.5 Tessar?

[Calamity Jane]

Edward: Shush! I'm tracking that one!

You guys are GREAT! You just reminded me that I have a big ol' piece of glass on a back shelf that I'd better look at. Don't even remember what it is except that it's about 4" in diameter, I think it has a focal length around 18", weighs about 5 pounds, and has a nice iris but no shutter . . .

I know I have enough material left to do an 8x10 bellows and I just might have enough maple left to :-) ;-) :-)

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

It's allright. Jim doesn't buy anything that doesn't screw into a Copal shutter. ;-)

[Jim Galli]

"Jim, what do you think of the Carl Zeiss Jena 300mm f/4.5 Tessar?"

Competent but boring. Especially for portraits on 8X10. You're giant 18" lens is likely just what you were looking for.

[Ole Tjugen]

Since tintypes are so slow, you don't need a shutter at all - just a lens cap, hat or similar.

For the best "authenticity", look for a Petzval lens in 300mm or longer. These are rare, since most tintypes and daguerrotypes were small... Keep an eye on brass lenses on ebay, they can be surprisingly cheap. I just bought (insert disparaging noise effect here) a J. Lancaster & son 12x10" Rectigraph for the staggering sum of GBP 20.- plus postage.

For cameras, there are new(ish) Russian plate cameras to be had cheap, but postage can be high due to the weight. Or something like this (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7501626448&ssPageName=MERC_VI_RSCC_Pr4_PcY_BIN_Stores)? I own - and use - a camera practically identical to it. Not bought from that same seller, but anyway he's one to keep an eye on!

[Calamity Jane]

Dug thru my old paperwork . . .

What I have on the shelf is a Wollensak Velostigmat 12" f4.5 barrel in beautiful condition.

Maybe I should be shopping for a packard shutter . . .

[John Cook]

"Cheap" is a relative thing.

I have a friend who says he isn't going to get concerned about the price of gasoline until it exceeds the cost of Coors beer.

[MIke Sherck]

Speaking of "cheap", that reminds me that it's a relative term. Prices for 8x10 cameras have been climbing on 'bay lately: what brought $330 last autumn is pushing $500 these days. :( Should have bought one last fall, but didn't have any money (not like I do now either, but whining is free!) There does seem to be a revived interest in larger, large format photography. That's encouraging (or will be, if I ever find an 8x10 I can afford!)

[Nick_3536]

I'm not sure prices are really climbing. Last month a few Agfa Anscos sold for less then $300. Various vintages. All seemed to be reasonable user condition. The one I got for around $300 Canadian was the same camera I got outbid on at a much higher price in Jan. I thought I got a good deal then I looked around and noticed that a few cameras had sold that very week for about the same price. An older one sold this week for $265US.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

I would strengthen Ole's case for using a Petzval type lens. These are quite fast, very sharp (if used properly), and of course are made for portraiture. For 8x10 you will need a 16" lens. I would suggest looking for a Wollensak Vitax (f/3.8) or if you can go a bit slower, try a Wolly Vesta (f/5). The brass 19th century lenses (Dallmeyer, Voigtlander, Darlot, EtC) are nice, but expensive.

On the other hand, your Velostigmat should do fine, unless it is a Series II which are quite soft.

[brook]

Another vote for the Petzval lenses. I made my new favorite shot yesterday with a 305 Kodak Portrait lens, stopped down to f22, dreamy yet sharp, matched the image of a fog enfolded bridge perfectly, and I love this lens for 8x10 and 5x7 portraits around f6.3-f8, just glowing. One was just relisted that could been had for $250....
I also was shooting with a #5 Voigtlander and Sohns lens, a very different look.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Brook, the Kodak Portrait is not a Petzval (its a meniscus), although your no. 5 Voigtlander might be.

[brook]

Jason,
So the meniscus is the 2 element in one group design? Is one of the elemements a negative element? I was under the impression the Petzval was a 2 element design, but I claim no expertise on such matters. CAn you tell me a little about the Pertzval design?
My Voigtlander #5 was on an Anthony 11x14 field camera that I dated at around the early to mid 1880's, I belive it is 4 elements in 2 groups, FL is around 15". The aperature is about 1", so I think about f 7.7-f8. I made some paper stops, one of about f64 that did render a quite sharp image, much more than wide open. I am quite curious about any info about this lens.

Thanks !

[Joe Smigiel]

>>>What I have on the shelf is a Wollensak Velostigmat 12" f4.5 barrel in beautiful condition.

Maybe I should be shopping for a packard shutter . . .<<<

CJ,

You might be interested in Bob Fowler's page on building a Packard Shutter lensboard box:

http://mysite.verizon.net/fowler/photo/packard2.htm

or his page on front-mounting Packards:

http://mysite.verizon.net/fowler/photo/packard1.htm

I've just finished a shutter box and have front-mounted a couple as well. My next project is building that portable darkroom and a couple of tanks for collodion chemicals. I've also decided to either modify an old B&J 8x10 Grover into a full-plate wetplate camera or, if I can find the time and the right materials for the bellows, I will build the camera from scratch. ( I've just taken up woodworking and have all these projects in mind.) So, I say go for building the camera.

Packard Shutters can be dirt cheap on eBay. ( If you can figure out what size you need for the lens you have, I might have the right shutter for it around here somewhere.) Bob's pages also have links to Hub Photo, the manufacture of new Packards.

[Ernest Purdum]

Brook, the original Petzval Portrait lens had a cemented achromat in front and two separated elements in the rear. There have been numerous modification since, but I think Voigtlander stuck to the original design.



A meniscus lens needs to be achromatized if it is to be used with modern film. An achromatic lens must have a negative element.



From what you say, I think your Voigtlander lens may be a Rapid rectilinear type. To find out if this is so, completely close the aperture, then look at the reflection of the glass in front and in back. If the reflections are identical, the lens is presumably a Rapid Rectilinear.

[brook]

Thanks Ernest,
Thats what it is.

[Darin Cozine]

CJ, I have a packard shutter if you want it. It needs a new tube and bulb, but other wise seems to work.

[Ole Tjugen]

Back with a follow-up...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't an old plate camera with "book-type" holders actually be BETTER for tintype than a more modern thingy for modern (Fidelity-type) holders?

I use film in my plate cameras by putting a sheet of glass behind the film to press it in place, and also have the option of using liquid emulsion or similar on any substrate I can think of. Works just great; I haven't had any problems with film flatness (yet).

Which could make the camera I linked to yesterday even better, the only drawback is that it's 18x24cm and not 8x10". But still I manage to find film for it.

[Joe Smigiel]

>>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't an old plate camera with "book-type" holders actually be BETTER for tintype than a more modern thingy for modern (Fidelity-type) holders?<<<

Ole,

I'm not sure which earlier comment on the cameras you are referring to, but in my case I plan to take the B&J Grover off its monorail and adapt it to my 11x14 B&J flatbed. All the B&J stuff was pretty modular so this won't be difficult to do. Then, I'm planning to construct a new full-plate wetplate back for the rear box that would interchange with the standard film back. I'll also build a plate holder with reducing inserts for various formats in the sort of "book design" you speak of. (My other plan would be to remove the Grover bellows or purchase/make a new bellows and build the entire camera, back and holder system from scratch-I may just do that.)

Modern holders can be adapted for wetplate use and then standard film backs can be used, but as I understand it, the silver nitrate solution dripping from the plate quickly ruins the appearence of the holder, back, and possibly the camera as well. As a result, one has to be prepared to have their film back affected by the chemistry, or choose to build a dedicated back and holder system that will take the chemical damage. I imagine the book holders would also be much easier to load a dripping glass or ferrotype plate into compared to a converted modern film or dryplate holder.

[Ole Tjugen]

That's what I get for uncritical pasting - I meant to link to this camera: cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=27994&item=7501626448 (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=27994&item=7501626448)!

I hope it works this time, and I haven't just looped the thread again...

[fred arnold]

In "Primitive Photography" by Greene, he discusses the 19th century lens designs, and how to make them from cheap components and common materials, presuming you want the authenticity when shooting. They won't be suitable for copy work, but will get you where you want to be for live shooting.

It's a fun book, actually, though I haven't been able to convince myself to make blue-only sensitive emulsions yet.

[Struan Gray]

If you're building a studio camera that can take the size and weight, consider the 12" f4 aerial lenses. www.surplus shed always seems to have a few from various makers at reasonable prices, and the Aero-ektars turn up frequently on eBay. They won't have the diffused softness of a 'proper' portrait lens, but they are f4 for focussing and exposing slow plates, and you will get that zero depth of field look. They do a good job of intimidating the sitter.