Will this lens cover 5x7?

[vssoutlet]

Hi,

I have a Taylor-Hobson Cooke Anastigmat 162mm f/2.9 Series XIII Lens. I was formerly using it on a 4x5 graflex RB. Would this lens provide sufficient coverage on a 5x7 camera?

Thanks!

John

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Are you sure it covers 4x5? It was designed to be used on a 3x4 camera. In any case, it won't cover 5x7 without vignetting.

[John Layton]

Sorry to hijack this thread...but boy, would it ever be amazing if there were actually a reasonably modern lens of this FL, which was also reasonably compact (F/9 would work just fine!), not too expensive...which would (generously) cover 5X7! No...not a 150...not a 180...but...a 165! (and not a W.A. Dagor nor a 165 SA!). There, feels so good to get this off my chest!

[lucaas]

Sorry to hijack this thread...but boy, would it ever be amazing if there were actually a reasonably modern lens of this FL, which was also reasonably compact (F/9 would work just fine!), not too expensive...which would (generously) cover 5X7! No...not a 150...not a 180...but...a 165! (and not a W.A. Dagor nor a 165 SA!). There, feels so good to get this off my chest!

Schneider Angulon 165mm/f6.8 can cover 5x7 easily and is a very compact lens. You can find a single coated one in a working shutter for less than $250.

[Dan Fromm]

Um, John, how 'bout a 160/5.6 Pro Raptar? AFAIK there's no documentation available so we can't know how much coverage Wollensak claimed, but Andrew Glover, who sells on eBay as dagor77 and insists his coverage claims are never ever exaggerated, sold a bunch of them and might know. It has to cover at least 70 degrees, that's ~ 225 mm. 5x7, but not generous.

Not to be a complete idiot, but what's so wonderful about 165 mm, as opposed to 150 mm or 180 mm? Its somewhat old-fashioned and obsolete.

[Mark Sampson]

The only advantage of a 160/165mm lens (that I can see) is that it more-or-less equals the diagonal of 4x5 film. Some people think that's important. More accurately, they like that focal length. Maybe for Mr. Layton and others, the 165mm lens is a 'magic bullet'. Confidence that you have the right tool does indeed help you make better pictures!
For the record, I chose to use a 180mm lens decades ago, and it has always served my 'normal' lens purposes well (on 4x5). I have never chosen to use a 150mm, (although I have on occasion), which proves only my taste.
If the OP wants to achieve similar effects to his 162mm on 5x7, he will want a fast 210mm lens. I can't think of one offhand, but they probably exist...

[Dan Fromm]

But Mark, 4x5 film's diagonal is ~ 150 mm. But you're right, there's no disputing tastes.

[vssoutlet]

Are you sure it covers 4x5? It was designed to be used on a 3x4 camera. In any case, it won't cover 5x7 without vignetting.

Jason,

Would it vignette on apertures or just at the higher numbers? Is there a formula that applies to all lenses to determine coverage? Of course, that would be too easy

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

I am not sure. There is slight chance that it might not vignette 5x7 at small apertures, but regardless the corners are going to be mush. Anyhow, why would you use this lens stopped down? If you are after a 165mm you can buy Angulon for pretty cheap, and if you want fast you are far better off with a 210mm f3.5 Xenar or Tessar.

[Lachlan 717]

Or an f2.9 8" Pentac.

[John Kasaian]

If what you want is wiggle room, a Wollensak 159mm f/9 or f/12 EWA would work splendidly. Of course they are s-l-o-w.

[Michael Graves]

I used to own a 165mm Caltar. I don't know what possessed me to sell it, and I haven't found one since. But if you find one, it's an excellent lens.

[John Layton]

Again, sorry to the OP that I continue to deviate...but in response to the above questions, and as my primary format is currently 5X7, and as I've really come to appreciate the 120 (SA) and 210 (Sironar) as very powerful focal lengths in their own right...I very occasionally find that I need something smack dab in the middle of these - which, in terms of the change of percentage of angular coverage, would be...hmmm...159/160? So...closer to 165 than to 150. But maybe something like a 150 would do fine. Something compact, like a G-Claron. Or the 165 Angulon? (might as well throw a WA Dagor in there too) But I commonly print to 20x30, and sometimes 30x40 - would the older Angulon/Dagor perform adequately, and consistently with my existing "modern" lenses? Don't mean to be a lens snob...but these aspects are important to my way of working.

Sometimes I think I might sell my 120 and go with a 110XL...in which case a 150 would be a natural to fit between this and a 210. This would also afford me a nice set of "modern" 150mm options: G-Claron, Apo-Sironar W, Schneider HM.

Jeesh! John...I'm so sorry to blather on - and also that I cannot help you with your original question. My only response would be that an older optic of that (162mm) FL, with such a large maximum aperture would be very unlikely to cover 5x7. An anastigmat of equal FL with a smaller max aperture might do it, but I doubt that an F/2.9 would, or at least without some very "interesting" optical effects! But hang in there...5x7 is worth the effort!

[Bill_1856]

It's hard to believe that you're using a 162mm lens on a 4x5 Graflex RB. The minimum swing on the mirror is about 180mm, allowing a 190mm lens minimum.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

It's hard to believe that you're using a 162mm lens on a 4x5 Graflex RB. The minimum swing on the mirror is about 180mm, allowing a 190mm lens minimum.

The 162mm f2.9 Series XIII lenses were an option on 3x4 Graflex D cameras, so perhaps a mistake was made.