Has there ever been a retrofocus wide that covers 4x5/9x12 or larger?

[Oren Grad]

I know the reasons why you're supposed to not want one. My question is simply whether such a beast actually exists. Can't find anything in the VM or in the second edition of Ray.

[Corran]

The Komura 75mm and 90mm f/6.3 lenses were retrofocus right?

75mm Biogon is also retrofocus to an extent. And really any modern wide-angle has an infinity focus of slightly more than its focal length.

What is defined as truly retrofocus?

[Oren Grad]

I'll make it more concrete: shorter-than-normal (where normal = format diagonal) lenses with FFD long enough for the rear cell to clear the mirror of a Graflex in the respective format.

[MAubrey]

The Super Symmar Aspheric XL lenses look retrofocus to me, also the Super Angulon XL's.

[Corran]

Komura Super-W 90mm f/6.3 apparently has a FFD of about 130mm. Oren, what is the minimum FFD on the 9x12 or 4x5 Graflex SLRs? I remember the "standard" lens on one of those was a 190mm, so I assume the FFD needs to be close to that...a tall order.

A ~125mm lens of the same design as the Komura Super-W seems like it would fit the bill. But most references online only mention the 75mm and 90mm, with one rare mention of a 47mm (!) version.

[Oren Grad]

Oren, what is the minimum FFD on the 9x12 or 4x5 Graflex SLRs? I remember the "standard" lens on one of those was a 190mm, so I assume the FFD needs to be close to that...a tall order.

Dunno off the top of my head, but I have a 4x5 Super D, will look at that sometime later today after I've gotten some work responsibilities out of the way. But yes, the standard FL on the 4x5 Super D was 190, and it will be a tall order.

[Peter De Smidt]

Maybe the 125, 100, and 80mm Fuji GX lenses, the ones for the GX680 systerm? They fit in Seiko shutters.

[Dan Fromm]

I'll make it more concrete: shorter-than-normal (where normal = format diagonal) lenses with FFD long enough for the rear cell to clear the mirror of a Graflex in the respective format.

Sorry, no.

The closest is the 1.75"/2.8 Elcan type C-88 (serial numbers are 88-xxxx), which is the shortest lens that will focus to infinity on a 2x3 Pacemaker Speed Graphic. Covers 6x6, just. Not at all what you want.

f/4.5 Biogons aren't retrofocus, their back focus (rear vertex to film) at infinity is roughly half focal length.

[Bruce Watson]

I know the reasons why you're supposed to not want one.

I don't -- what are the reasons I'm not supposed to want one? I've always thought they would be a pretty good idea. Especially when you get down to, say, 80mm or less on 5x4. About the point were you start locking up the bellows when you use more than a little shift, say.

Or as you point out, you're trying to avoid a big honking swinging mirror in a Graflex.


My question is simply whether such a beast actually exists. Can't find anything in the VM or in the second edition of Ray.

When I was investigating this many years ago, I couldn't find one. Many of the lenses had rear nodal points that were farther away from the film plane than you'd normally think they would be based on their focal lengths, but was that really a retrofocus design? I didn't think so. Because it wasn't sufficiently retrofocus to be really useful.

Interesting question; it'll be interesting to see what this thread turns up.

[Steve Goldstein]

Following up on Corran's posts, my 75mm f/6.3 Komura has a measured-by-me flange focal distance of right around 100mm.

[ic-racer]

You might look into creating your own retrofocus lenses by altering the lens formula with a high-quality converter.

I ran into similar issues looking for short lenses that would clear the shutter and prism of some of my movie cameras. In the picture I'm using a 0.5x adapter to create a 2.5mm lens. In fact, in the cine industry, wide angle adapters are common place.


197571
197572

[RedGreenBlue]

Yes, I have one for 4x5 format. I've known of 3 others. The focal length is 133mm and back focal distance is 215mm That would allow infinity focus on a 4x5 Graflex body. They are as common as hen's teeth unfortunately.

I also have the Curtis 90mm retrofocus lens for 2x3 format. I haven't seen the back focal distance of the 90mm lens mentioned in the Curtis literature. I could measure it but I haven't. My photos are of the 133mm, previous owner's of the 90mm.

197574

197575

197576

Scott

[Dan Fromm]

Following up on Corran's posts, my 75mm f/6.3 Komura has a measured-by-me flange focal distance of right around 100mm.

That's a bit short for a 2x3 Graflex, and flange-focal distance isn't all that matters. Back focus is the real killer.

[Dan Fromm]

Yes, I have one for 4x5 format. I've known of 3 others. The focal length is 133mm and back focal distance is 215mm That would allow infinity focus on a 4x5 Graflex body.

That's really neat, also new to me, so I don't mean to disparage it but although 133 mm isn't much wider (59 degrees on 4x5) than Oren's 190 (43 degrees), it isn't particularly wide for 4x5. More of a short normal lens like the 127 Ektar or 135 Optar/Raptar.

Similarly, 90 mm an 2x3 is really a shortish normal lens for that format. Wonderful for a one-shot color camera.

Thanks for mentioning it,

Dan

[Oren Grad]

Oren, what is the minimum FFD on the 9x12 or 4x5 Graflex SLRs?

Couldn't get the board out for an exact measurement just now, but my Super D looks to be somewhere in the 170-180mm range.


Yes, I have one for 4x5 format. I've known of 3 others. The focal length is 133mm and back focal distance is 215mm That would allow infinity focus on a 4x5 Graflex body. They are as common as hen's teeth unfortunately.

Scott, that is spectacular - thank you for sharing!


That's really neat, also new to me, so I don't mean to disparage it but although 133 mm is much wider (59 degrees on 4x5) than Oren's 190 (43 degrees), it isn't particularly wide for 4x5. More of a short normal lens like the 127 Ektar or 135 Optar/Raptar.

Call it wide or semiwide - I'd use the latter term. Either way, 135 is my most important focal length for 4x5. I'd be thrilled to have one that would work on a Graflex. The lens we've just been shown is unobtainium, so odds are still overwhelming that it's never going to happen. But I'm surprised and delighted to see an existence proof, at least.