PDA

View Full Version : Brass lens suggestion for a 4x5 camera



Jimi
15-Nov-2017, 10:13
Perhaps this is one of these "how long is a piece of string" questions ... so I apologise. :)

I am looking for a brass lens that should work for 4x5" size, with a focal length somewhere between say, 130 to 180 mm, i.e. normal. Finding something longer (or way too long) is easy, but this span seems much harder to find.

So far I have not found much, but I am not sure what to look for except very general terms such as Aplanat, Rapid Rectilinear etc. A Petzval needs to be longer than 180 to cover I suppose and prices are going way beyond my wallet.

Any tips? :)

xkaes
15-Nov-2017, 11:59
Since you mention your wallet, just buy a lens that does what you want it to do -- along with a bit of brass paint.:o

Mark Sawyer
15-Nov-2017, 19:31
So far I have not found much, but I am not sure what to look for except very general terms such as Aplanat, Rapid Rectilinear etc. A Petzval needs to be longer than 180 to cover I suppose and prices are going way beyond my wallet.


Aplanats and Rapid Rectilinears are not Petzvals, so don't look for those. On a smaller Petzval, you'll need something around f/4.5 or faster to really show the Petzval's signature. There are a lot of magic lantern Petzvals around for fairly inexpensive prices that might work for you. More modern projection Petzvals like the Cinephor show a lot of the swirly signature, but have a chrome or nickel finish over the brass, so they don't look like a brass lens cosmetically. Are you after the "Petzval look" in the images, or the "brass lens look" on the front of the camera, or something else completely?

DG 3313
15-Nov-2017, 19:47
I'm no expert....but, I own one brass lens (6" Cooke Series 2). I love what it does in front of a Sinar shutter.
Don

Jimi
16-Nov-2017, 03:14
Thanks for the suggestions - brass paint cans and whatnots ... :)

Perhaps I should say something about what I want to use the lens for. It is mainly landscape (urban or otherwise). I know Petzvals aren't Aplanats, and I am leaning towards something "neutral" which probably means an Aplanat lens. The camera itself is just going to be a light tight box, so I don't need large coverage. Perhaps in the future I might have a go at making a portrait or two, and I might look for something else if turns out to be something I want to continue doing.

I am after the "brass lens look" on the camera (yes, yes, shallow indeed!), lower contrast in the images, reasonably straight lines whenever they show up in man-made structures.

Tobias Key
16-Nov-2017, 04:24
Are you looking for a 19th century lens or just an uncoated lens?

I have seen quite a lot of stuff here:

http://www.mwclassic.com/product-category/early-film-plate/page/3/

Never bought from them myself, but they seem to have a lot of lenses around the 150mm mark.

Whether they are just a load of old Tessars and you might just be better off with a newer Tessar I can't say. Everyone is looking for lenses that are bad in a good way, unlike modern lenses which are of course good in a bad way. These might just be bad in a bad way and you'll have the worst of both worlds!!

Ray Heath
16-Nov-2017, 07:22
G'day Jimi
I recently acquired a smaller brass lens and built a 4x5 box camera to fit it to.
These brass lenses, though physically large, have quite restricted coverage. I was planning on buliding a 5x8 camera but the lens doesn't cover that much.
This lens measures about 165mm focal length. The only engraving on the lens is Ross and a serial number.
How do I determine what type of lens it is?

172050

Steven Tribe
16-Nov-2017, 12:31
Well the title on thumbnail says "Petzval" and I would be surprised if it was something else!

Ross was naughty about labelling this Petzvals until quite late, so this is likely a CdeV no.1 or no.2. He did make some smaller ones as stereoscopic pairs (Now often split up). I think it is a no.2. There are Ross catalogues which will give the size from a precise focal length. Yes, coverage of Petzvals is very limited and you will need a larger Petzval (from the old CdeV size up to the medium Cabinet size - lens weighing about a kilo).

This sort of simple camera (sliding box type) is a very suitable for small old Petzvals - especialy for alternative photography - like tintypes. I have a few projects in hand with putting similar early lenses to work on sliding box cameras.

Jimi
16-Nov-2017, 14:15
I am familiar with MW Classic - bought a few things there - there used to be more interesting stuff but it seems to have dried up a bit. I am snooping around a bit for something suitable - we'll see what I come up with eventually.

Ray, very nice little "pill box" - is it a sliding box or it is a fixed focus camera?

Ray Heath
16-Nov-2017, 18:47
G'day Steven
Thanks for the info. I found a page at http://antiquecameras.net/rosslenses.html that shows what appears to be original Ross advertisements.
If I assume that the stated measurements are a bit loose then my lens would match the stated specs for a CdeV No.3, 2.5 inch diameter and a focal length of 6 inches. Which I actually measured to the waterhouse slot to be closer to 6.5 inches.

Ray Heath
16-Nov-2017, 18:52
Hi Jimi
My camera is not a sliding box I use the rack and pinion to focus.
It doesn't focus as close as I'd like for still lifes etc.
I'm thinking of building some kind of step out mount for close up work.
Not really a problem though as I have a second mounting ring that I can use to mount this lens on one of my larger sliding box cameras that has a 4x5 reducing back.

Steven Tribe
17-Nov-2017, 03:18
I'll check my Ross CdeV sources sometime to-day. I still think it is a no.2!

One of the problems with early catalogues is that there was a tradition of giving the "back" focal lengths, not the effective focal lengths. This is quite logical really as many cameras did not have fine adjustment and used the adjustment on the sleeved barrel to do this. A camera owner could see if his camera was OK for his lens at infinity. And, before the advent of Waterhouse slots (around 1857) there was no marker from where to measure the efl from on the barrel.

I seem to remember that the Ross CdeVs were not completely constant through the 1850's and 60's. I have all three sizes, two are with the type engraved, and the third is like yours and is obviously the intermediate size no.2.

Another characteristic of the early Ross CdeV is the ultra thin lens hoods, which are often either damaged or completely lost from the soldered connection.

My later no. 3 has a diameter (front lens) of 70mm and a efl of over 7.5".

Carsten Wolff
17-Nov-2017, 04:35
e.g. Lancaster and Son's small landscape brasses are ~135mm afaik, not expensive and cover 4x5 with ease. Being simple achromatic doublets, you can play with open aperture sharp centre only to small aperture and pretty much everything sharpened, provided you can suss a shutter... but I'm sure there are tons of other lenses out there that fit the bill.

Jim Andrada
18-Nov-2017, 01:34
Something in a Volute shutter looks quite the cat's meow.

Steven Tribe
21-Nov-2017, 05:05
G'day Steven
Thanks for the info. I found a page at http://antiquecameras.net/rosslenses.html that shows what appears to be original Ross advertisements.
If I assume that the stated measurements are a bit loose then my lens would match the stated specs for a CdeV No.3, 2.5 inch diameter and a focal length of 6 inches. Which I actually measured to the waterhouse slot to be closer to 6.5 inches.

I found time to-day to check my thought that the Ross catalogues at:-

http://www.antiquecameras.net/rosslenses.html

are, in fact, back focal lengths - rather than effective focal lengths.

I checked the measurement of all CdeV sizes and can confirm that they all give efls which around two inches longer than in the catalogues. These misleading focal lengths extend to the Portrait series as well, where the focal length of size 3 is given as just 10" - it is really around 12"!