Better lens for my Crown Graphic?

[campy]

I recently re-purchased a Crown Graphic special with the Xenar 135mm and would like something that is much sharper to be used with the existing 135mm cam. I want to mostly use it with the rangefinder for candid pictures and scale focus at f16/f22 with and without flash. I know all 135's are different but at f16 or f22 they should all fall in the depth of field or am I wrong?

[C. D. Keth]

I don’t know if I’d count on it. Different lenses of different designs will have different back focus distances.

How much adjustability is there in adjusting the focus cam? I’ve never used a crown. You may want to do some research to find lenses with the same back focus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Exploring Large Format]

Simply repeating what I've read: swapping out lenses, even if same (front?) focal length, doesn't guarantee the cam will work. Probably due to reason stated above. Also heard that the Xenars vary from specimen to specimen. Some are considered good by some. I have one in my newly acquired Crown and it seems sharp to me. However, I am super new, so I don't trust my judgement on this element, pun intended!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Dan Fromm]

Um, er, ah, the cams are measured focal length-specific. Focal lengths engraved on lenses' trim rings or barrels are marketing focal lengths, are rarely equal to the lenses' actual focal lengths as measured.

OP, if you want another 135, fine, but be prepared to find or make a cam to suit it.

If I were you, OP, I'd check RF calibration -- are the bed stops in the right place? does good focus per the RF coincide with good focus on the GG? -- before giving up on the Xenar. I'd also check for operator error. When I was doing extensive lens testing, I found that much more often than not the reason a lens failed acceptance testing was me, not the lens.

Christopher, all that's needed to set up a Graphic top rangefinder for a lens is setting the infinity stops -- also called bed stops -- at the lens' infinity position if the RH has the right cam for the lens. I used to believe that more work was needed, eventually found that I was mistaken. Oh, and by the way, back focus is the distance from the rear element's vertex to the film plane when the lens is focused to infinity. I think you meant the flange-focal distance, the distance from the rear of the shutter or barrel lens' flange when the lens is focusted to infinity. Minor quibble, but still ...

[Neal Chaves]

Unless that Xenar has some unusual defect, you are not going to improve your results noticeably with another lens on the Crown Graphic. Be sure your own RF is in accurate adjustment, many of them are not.

[Kevin Crisp]

Unless your Xenar sample has an issue, it should be as sharp as a modern 135mm lens. Typically they are very sharp, they just have limited coverage that makes them perfectly fine for your use, but less so for landscapes. I know people view top mounted rangefinders as being a plus, but the ability to fine tune to a particular lens without messing with cams has been a reason I prefer the side-mount Kalarts.

[Eric Woodbury]

Just another two-bit opinion, but the Xenar I had long ago was a turd. Not sharp, but soft. Plus, a modern lens will be multicoated offering additional contrast to your images.

As for the cam, and again this is a two-bit opinion as my experience with these cameras is limited (I've owned 5, but didn't use them much), it is bound to the focal length and not the back focal distance. The back focal distance is just an offset. I think if you adjust the offset by setting the infinity focus properly, then the cam focus should be fine as long as the focal length of the new lens is the same as the old lens. Easy enough to find out. Try one.

[campy]

I think I will just take more pictures and see what I get and I will double check the rangefinder and gg for focus outside in good light. I came across a 203mm Optar with graflex lensboard, infinity stops and a cam for about $200 and may get that instead. The little reading I did it appears to be a nice lens. I have no way of knowing if the cam is original to the lens but I assume if I set it up for infinity with this cam and check the gg and rf I should be good to go. Am I correct?

[Neal Chaves]

I think I will just take more pictures and see what I get and I will double check the rangefinder and gg for focus outside in good light. I came across a 203mm Optar with graflex lensboard, infinity stops and a cam for about $200 and may get that instead. The little reading I did it appears to be a nice lens. I have no way of knowing if the cam is original to the lens but I assume if I set it up for infinity with this cam and check the gg and rf I should be good to go. Am I correct?

It's a more complicated than that. TRF cam-coupled lenses were set up by the factory in one of two ways, with "hard stops" or "soft stops". With hard stops, the stops are set to infinity focus with the camera track back hard against the bed stops. The RF was then adjusted to indicate infinity. This is the way a new camera with a supplied lens was set up. However, because the cams supplied with additional lenses might indicate something other than infinity if set up this way, the soft stop set up was used. With the cam in place, the camera was adjusted so that the RF showed infinity, which might not and probably was not with the track back hard against the bed stops. The track was then locked down and the infinity stops set for the new lens. Someone who knows what he or she is doing and has an unmolested camera, including correct ground glass/Fresnel, to work with can set up a TRF Graphic on hard stops with very accurate cams for lenses from 58mm to 360mm tele, operationally far superior to the Linhof Master Technika, and much lighter and less expensive. But for others, I suggest you work with a simple field camera or monorail and avoid possible disappointments.

[C. D. Keth]

Perhaps you get whatever lens you want and make a custom cam for it: https://graflex.org/articles/oakes/

[campy]

Even if it's off a mm or so why wouldn't the depth of field keep it focus since the press photographer used the distance scale.

[Dan Fromm]

Even if it's off a mm or so why wouldn't the depth of field keep it focus since the press photographer used the distance scale.

You seem to want more sharpness than's needed for reproduction in a newspaper.

[Bob Salomon]

Even if it's off a mm or so why wouldn't the depth of field keep it focus since the press photographer used the distance scale.

Why don’t you focus critically on the gg with a good loupe adjusted to be focused on the grain side of the gg and then refocus a mm, or so, near and then far and see what happens to the spot you focused on?
At the f stop you would use.

[C. D. Keth]

You seem to want more sharpness than's needed for reproduction in a newspaper.

That may be the issue. Newspapers aren't that sharp and a 4x5 negative isn't enlarged much, if at all, to get there.

I bet, with some very careful work, you could make a custom cam that's pretty damned accurate.

[Bernice Loui]

Depth of Field_Depth of Focus produces area in the image that appears to be in focus. A lens can focus the image to what is essentially a single point, unless the lens is focused at true infinity.

All photographic lenses are design-optimized to be at their best for a range of lens apertures. As any lens is stopped down, there comes a size in the effective aperture where the physical size of colored light cannot be smooshed pass the opening aka taking aperture and they spray out in an effort trying.
https://www.imagen-estilo.com/Articles/Photography-basics/lens-diffraction-limit.html

That Xenar has a optimum taking aperture from f8 to about f16, as the taking aperture becomes smaller, diffraction begins to degrade what is possible for optical performance. Diffraction effects happens to ALL lenses and optical lens system, no exceptions.

Keep in mind a Crown Graphic is a range finder News Press camera never designed or intended to be a high precision sheet film camera. Unless the range finder is calibrated with absolute precision and accuracy to a specific lens, it's system performance will always be modest.. Regardless of the lens being used with the Crown Graphic_Rangefinder and...

Do try using this Xenar by focusing with the Ground Glass and loupe to achieve sharp focus on a specific area in the image. This is likely to improve the images produced long as this sample of Xenar is in GOOD optical condition, film holder and film is flat, precise alignment from film holder area to ground glass. Try a taking aperture of f11, focused on the ground glass, note the area that has been focused on.

Film type and film processing can affect the perception of "sharpness"..

Second factor, do not confuse high contrast with low contrast. The Xenar is a low contrast, high "sharpness" lens. Typical modern lens is high contrast with similar "sharpness". Neither is better or worst, it is much a image maker preference.

Know contrast rendition is a trade off, higher contrast will often produce a visually "harder hitting" image, but lack the subtle contrast gradations a lower contrast lens can render. The lower contrast lens can render contrast gradations well, but cannot produce a visually "hard hitting" image. Again, there is not correct_not-correct to this, it is part of the personality of any given lens and it is up to the print image maker to decide what fits best for their print image goals.


Bernice



Even if it's off a mm or so why wouldn't the depth of field keep it focus since the press photographer used the distance scale.

[LabRat]

So, have you actually shot this lens yet, and did you find the results unacceptable???

One of the pros I worked with used the top lenses for studio 4x5's, but wanted a Graphic for field personal work... I found him one cheap with an old 135mm Optar, and he went out to Joshua Tree to shoot landscapes... He came back with film, and he was glowing about how he thought these were "special" for their look... His "new" favorite lens... (And the Xenar was the premium lens when that camera was new...)

Shoot it for a while, and find out what it can do...

Have fun!!!

Steve K

[Bob Salomon]

“ Depth of Field_Depth of Focus produces area in the image that appears to be in focus.”

Depth of field is the area in front and behind the point in sharp focus in front of the lens.
Depth of focus is the area behind the lens that the image plane has to lie in.

Depth of field, the longer the focal length the narrower the depth of field.
Depth of focus, the shorter the focal length the narrower the depth of focus.

[Don Dudenbostel]

My dad bought a new Pacemaker Crown in 1964 that I used all through high school and college in the 60’s. He eventually gave it to me and I continued to use it until buying a Technika 70 kit. It has the 135 Xenar and to this day is very sharp. In the 70’s I worked for the Department of Energy where we continued to use Super Speeds and vintage Crown. I still have my old Pacemaker and continue to use it.

From my experience it’s not uncommon for lenses or cams to get swapped around resulting in mismatched lenses and cams and incorrectly set infinity stops. The first thing I’d do is check infinity focus and adjust the stops if needed and then see if the cam matches the lens. There’s a good chance one or more of these conditions is the problem. I’ve see quite a few Crowns and Speeds with this lens and never seen one that wasn’t sharp.

Someone stated felt the Pacemaker RF system was better than the Master Technika, having owned / RF coupled Technika V 6x9’s and a 4x5 Master that I used eXtensively for nearly thirty years, I can say without hesitation. I’ll take the Master any day of the week. The Technika is so easy to swap cams and accuracy is fabulous. The Pacemaker is a good camera though.

[campy]

I have only taken a couple of pictures and they were indoors with flash. I hope to get outdoors and shoot some using the GG but I bought it so I can use it as a point and shoot with the hope that the quality will be better than my medium format.

[C. D. Keth]

From my experience it’s not uncommon for lenses or cams to get swapped around resulting in mismatched lenses and cams and incorrectly set infinity stops. The first thing I’d do is check infinity focus and adjust the stops if needed and then see if the cam matches the lens. There’s a good chance one or more of these conditions is the problem. I’ve see quite a few Crowns and Speeds with this lens and never seen one that wasn’t sharp.

With these cameras being upward of 50 years old at this point, could existing cams have worn along the bearing edge and eroded their accuracy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Neal Chaves]

[QUOTE=C. D. Keth;1542647]With these cameras being upward of 50 years old at this point, could existing cams have worn along the bearing edge and eroded their accuracy?

These aren't like the cam in your hot rod small block Chevy. They don't wear out. Most RF problems are caused, unfortunately by ignorant tampering. TRF Graphic cams, unlike a properly matched Linhof cam are not precise as to infinity setting on "hard stops". They can be adjusted to very close tolerances with stretching and filing techniques, and cams can be cut out of brass stock that are extremely accurate. The Graphic, and not just the TRF but the Kalart as well, can be set up for a head and shoulders "Big Shot", something the Linhof cannot do.

[Bob Salomon]

[QUOTE=C. D. Keth;1542647]With these cameras being upward of 50 years old at this point, could existing cams have worn along the bearing edge and eroded their accuracy?

These aren't like the cam in your hot rod small block Chevy. They don't wear out. Most RF problems are caused, unfortunately by ignorant tampering. TRF Graphic cams, unlike a properly matched Linhof cam are not precise as to infinity setting on "hard stops". They can be adjusted to very close tolerances with stretching and filing techniques, and cams can be cut out of brass stock that are extremely accurate. The Graphic, and not just the TRF but the Kalart as well, can be set up for a head and shoulders "Big Shot", something the Linhof cannot do.

Why can’t the Linhof do it? Or the Wista RF?

[Neal Chaves]

I have never tried a Wista. I had a Master Technika for a number of years and was unable to successfully configure it for Big Shot. It is considerably heavier than a 4X5 Graphic and neither the Multi-focus optical viewfinder or the frame finder can be accurately adjusted as the frame finder on the Graphic. Attaching a flash in the correct orientation was not possible. Here's a photo with a 210mm lens and one of the TRF set up for Big Shot with a 150mm lens.

201857201858

[Bob Salomon]

I have never tried a Wista. I had a Master Technika for a number of years and was unable to successfully configure it for Big Shot. It is considerably heavier than a 4X5 Graphic and neither the Multi-focus optical viewfinder or the frame finder can be accurately adjusted as the frame finder on the Graphic. Attaching a flash in the correct orientation was not possible. Here's a photo with a 210mm lens and one of the TRF set up for Big Shot with a 150mm lens.

201857201858

Why? The Multifocus corrects for,Parallax and for fields size. There isn’t a more accurate finder! And, if that finder isn’t accurate enough you can always but one of the discontinued frame finders!

[Corran]

Pick the 135mm lens you want to use. Install it on your Crown. Focus the RF to a target at the most common distance you'll be shooting on a tripod, and lock the focus. Unscrew the infinity stops and let them loose, and then using the front standard adjustment, focus on the target mentioned previously. Once it is sharp, lock the front standard and tighten up the infinity stops to that placement of the front standard.

I guarantee you'll be well within the DOF when stopped to the normal working apertures you mentioned when focused roughly around that distance, and perhaps most distances. You'll want to test to be sure, but it's really not all that hard or dire like a lot of folks like to imply.

There was a user here a long time ago who did this and locked the focus at that point, and then focused by moving back and forth until the RF was aligned. He got wonderful shots in perfect focus even wide-open. There's plenty of ways to shoot this way, if you've got a bit of gumption and work with what ya got.

And Bob, the Linhof Multifocus Finder I have sitting here only works down to 10 feet with a 210mm lens. That image is clearly much closer. I really don't understand the constant shilling for Linhof.

[Bob Salomon]

Pick the 135mm lens you want to use. Install it on your Crown. Focus the RF to a target at the most common distance you'll be shooting on a tripod, and lock the focus. Unscrew the infinity stops and let them loose, and then using the front standard adjustment, focus on the target mentioned previously. Once it is sharp, lock the front standard and tighten up the infinity stops to that placement of the front standard.

I guarantee you'll be well within the DOF when stopped to the normal working apertures you mentioned when focused roughly around that distance, and perhaps most distances. You'll want to test to be sure, but it's really not all that hard or dire like a lot of folks like to imply.

There was a user here a long time ago who did this and locked the focus at that point, and then focused by moving back and forth until the RF was aligned. He got wonderful shots in perfect focus even wide-open. There's plenty of ways to shoot this way, if you've got a bit of gumption and work with what ya got.

And Bob, the Linhof Multifocus Finder I have sitting here only works down to 10 feet with a 210mm lens. That image is clearly much closer. I really don't understand the constant shilling for Linhof.

Which MF do you have? The current type that covers 72/75 to 360mm? Or one that pulls apart for 90 to 360?

[Corran]

Both but was referring to the current one.

[campy]

I took this today handheld. It looks better printed than it does here.
201893

[Don Dudenbostel]

With these cameras being upward of 50 years old at this point, could existing cams have worn along the bearing edge and eroded their accuracy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t think this is very likely. Figure the majority of these cameras were used until the mid to late 60’s then most were retired. In the last 15-20 years they’ve been given new life by enthusiasts but the amount of use enthusiasts put them through is nothing compared to what we put them through in professional use.

In the mid 70’s when I worked for the Department of Energy / Oak Ridge National Lab, we often shot 100-200 sheets in the course of a day on a regular basis. We were issued Super Speeds with the leaf shutter that went to 1/1000 sec. I can’t remember a time that the RF got out of calibration. The Super Speed has the same RF that the Pacemakers had. The issues with the Super Speed were shutters self districting and the electrical wires that triggered the solenoid that synced and tripped the shutter were always breaking causing the camera to fail. I actually got so fed up with the Super I was issued I located a WW2 vintage Speed Graphic that worked like a champ and used it for a year until I left the DOE. I’ll say it was a very cool camera with olive green leather and signal Corp / US Army markings.

[campy]

This was taken using the GG and although it's nothing special I am happy with the results with minimal digital processing.
202889