Do I need to worry about really heavy lenses causing damage?

[Rayt]

I hope this is not a silly question.

I bought a Dallmeyer 8” f2.9 Pentac in a Betax #5 on a Sinar board. The lens weigh 3.4 pounds. After the CLA I shot a few sheets with an Ebony SLW 8x10 a light weight camera to test the lens and the coverage. It covers a full body environmental head to toe shot with reasonable sharpness in the center at f5.6 The lens weigh half as much as the camera and when I mounted it I feared something might give. I only used a bit of rise and fall.

Am I taking a risk using such a heavy lens on a light weight camera?

[Drew Bedo]

My 4x5 is a little Wista-made Zone-VI. I used to havea ;argish Wollensak 15" f/5.6 telephoto that I mounted to a Wista lens board. It would work on the little ca,era, but the front standard was wobbly. It was always an iffy exercise for me and I sold it off.

[Robert Opheim]

Yes - really heavy lenses can ruin you camera. Years ago I put a heavy 12" Velostigmat (in a #5 Betax shutter) lens on a old wooden 8x10. After using it for a while it broke the front standard of the camera.

[mdarnton]

Based on what I see of pix of the camera, your most likely chance of damage is ripping the track covers off the bed. Because of the WA configuration of the camera, and the possibility that you'll be using a lot of extension, that's the place where the lens is going to exert the most leverage. It probably won't happen all at once, but it could. I've put some pretty heavy lenses on old cameras that have secure glue joints (because I redid them myself!) without problems, but this kind of leverage situation didn't exist. It's all speculation until the moment it happens, but I don't think I'd do it.

[Bernice Loui]

Goes back to deciding on the lenses needed to meet the finished image goals before deciding on any camera.

Seems too many are driven to choose a camera then decide to or find a lens they want to use only to discover the camera they have placed top priority on as their choice is not suitable for the lens they want to use... which these days seems to be camera must be as lightweight and compact as possible.

Not only is there a risk of camera damage from using a lens that is too heavy for that camera, the set up cannot be stable complete with the risk of having the lens fall off the camera.


Bernice

[drewf64]

Bernice is correct! if the lens is something you intend on using, invest in a second camera more suited to the weight.
I use a number of very heavy lenses (I like fast glass) along with more conservative glass and keep several 8x10 cameras appropriate for the given lenses.
You will be glad you did in the long run.

What 8x10 camera (s) do you find best suited for your heavy lenses?
Thanks!

[Bernice Loui]

IMO and this is a perpetual plug... Sinar as a system. Interchangeable like Lego to meet the needs of virtually any image goals and lenses required.

In the case of BIG lenses, Sinar P does good. Previously posted image of Sinar P with a Schneider 480mm f4.5 Xenar in barrel with a Sinar shutter. Had and used this combo for years with zero problems.
204880


Bernice

[Andrew Plume]

Rayt, Hi

Any LF lens which covers up to 10 x 8 and is faster than f3 always smacks of being on the heavier side........

Bernice's advice is always spot on, a Sinar, preferably a 10 x 8 version can 'take'/accept that sort of weight and the Sinar P series (apart from the Graflex Speed's) is probably the only 4 x 5 model that can handle, for instance, the less than light 178mm f2.5 Aero-Ektar

Any solidly built 10 x 8, say one of the Toyo's should be able to handle a weighty lens, also, say the Calumet C-1 series (correct me if I'm wrong anyone) would probably work, there's also the Kodak 2D which might be another choice

A 'Light and compact' Camera automatically means 'light and compact lenses' and with that you loose the extra 'speed stops'.............

I've found (and I'm not the only one) that you probably end up with more than one Camera in the same format to be able to accommodate the different weight(s) but YMMV

Good luck and regards

Andrew

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Honestly, an 8" Pentac on a Betax shutter is not that heavy, I have used one on 5x7 Canham. Your Ebony (no swings or shifts, right?) should be easily able to carry it. If you are worried, use a piece of wood or other support between the bed and the bottom of the standard to hold it in place.

Not what you asked, but there is no way an 8" Pentac is going to cover 8x10, except at macro distances. The 8" Pentac is a 4x5 lens, and vignettes on 5x7. If you can find one (good luck!) a 12" Pentac might cover 8x10, but that lens won't even fit on your Ebony.

[Daniel Unkefer]

My 8x10 Sinar Norma can handle about anything with the proper setup. I have never used a "P" I know they have advantages, but the Norma is much stronger than the "F" but not as much to lug around as the "P"

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48575543432_a0e3933570_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2h1smHw)8x10 Norma 480 Apo Ronar (https://flic.kr/p/2h1smHw) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

The 480mm Rodenstock Apo Ronar is a boat anchor type of lens, the Norma handles it with great solidity and ease. I used this rig at the time for 4x B&W portraiture and it was and still is a delight to use (once it is properly deployed) I've also thrown it over my shoulder and hiked for what seemed like forever (I put a pillow under my shoulder). When I got to where I was going, I sure was glad this was with me :)

The Norma is "The Erector Set of Photography" and can be configured however you desire and need. What you build it into becomes a matter of experience with the basic camera and what you need to get it to work faster and easier for you. So you can concentrate on the image, not mechanics.


The automated cables and automated Norma lens, in this particular rig, enable the Norma with practice to operate nearly as "quick" as a reflex camera. If you are excessively slow with large format you wil lose certain types of photographs. For example, I frequently photographed Architecture in fleeting "beautiful" light which did not last long sometimes.

Here's the same thing but in 5x7

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48441088071_53623499a8_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2gNzePD)5x7 Norma 165mm F8 Norma SA (https://flic.kr/p/2gNzePD) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

[Hugo Zhang]

Rayt,

Ebony is a wrong camera for heavy lenses. I have tried and it was designed that way. I use a lens support with Chamonix camera for my lenses up to 20 lbs. Have to use a second tripod if the lens is too heavy.

[Two23]

Rayt,

Ebony is a wrong camera for heavy lenses. I have tried and it was designed that way. I use a lens support with Chamonix camera for my lenses up to 20 lbs. Have to use a second tripod if the lens is too heavy.



Is that lens support available somewhere?


Kent in SD

[Hugo Zhang]

Is that lens support available somewhere?


Kent in SD

Kent,

We don't have them for 45 cameras. 57 and up.

http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/accessories/lenssupport

[drewf64]

Hello gypsydog:
What 8x10 cameras do you use when you are mounting abig, heavy lenses?
Thanks.
Drew

QUOTE=gypsydog;1557210]Bernice is correct! if the lens is something you intend on using, invest in a second camera more suited to the weight.
I use a number of very heavy lenses (I like fast glass) along with more conservative glass and keep several 8x10 cameras appropriate for the given lenses.
You will be glad you did in the long run.[/QUOTE]

[Two23]

Hello gypsydog:
What 8x10 cameras do you use when you are mounting abig, heavy lenses?
Thanks.
Drew




I bought a Kodak 2D specifically because it's pretty strong. My plan is to mostly shoot wet plate with 8x10 with period correct lenses. If I was primarily going to shoot film I would get a Chamonix. That lens support thing looks pretty slick though.


Kent in SD

[Tin Can]

How heavy?

My heaviest, biggest, longest FL is 890mm Jena Tessar.

Bought for Deardorff SC11 which can easily carry it and shoot 2-1 macro

10 lbs 6 oz

[drewf64]

I bought a Kodak 2D specifically because it's pretty strong. My plan is to mostly shoot wet plate with 8x10 with period correct lenses. If I was primarily going to shoot film I would get a Chamonix. That lens support thing looks pretty slick though.


Kent in SD


Thank you for your reply, Kent ... greatly appreciated!
I have a 5x7 2D which i really like. It is pretty beefy, too.
I am NOT excited about putting a big, heavy period portrait lens on my Deardorff 8x10 for wet plate ... so looking for a solid 8x10 or maybe even a box camera.
Drew

[Tin Can]

Maybe a Calumet C1, they are all metal, rear focus, very strong and can be balanced fore and aft with the sliding rail.

BUT it needs a Majestic 6X7 head (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/127519-REG/Majestic_81901_1901_Gearhead_with_6x7.html)for best support.


Thank you for your reply, Kent ... greatly appreciated!
I have a 5x7 2D which i really like. It is pretty beefy, too.
I am NOT excited about putting a big, heavy period portrait lens on my Deardorff 8x10 for wet plate ... so looking for a solid 8x10 or maybe even a box camera.
Drew

[Hugo Zhang]

Honestly, an 8" Pentac on a Betax shutter is not that heavy, I have used one on 5x7 Canham. Your Ebony (no swings or shifts, right?) should be easily able to carry it. If you are worried, use a piece of wood or other support between the bed and the bottom of the standard to hold it in place.

Not what you asked, but there is no way an 8" Pentac is going to cover 8x10, except at macro distances. The 8" Pentac is a 4x5 lens, and vignettes on 5x7. If you can find one (good luck!) a 12" Pentac might cover 8x10, but that lens won't even fit on your Ebony.

Jason,

Have you ever seen a 12" Pentac?

[Rayt]

Thanks for all the responses. Better be safe than sorry. The Betax shutter itself is heavy and the lens is physically long with a large front element so the front standard naturally wants to swing down and I felt it while adjusting rise/fall. Once tightened it felt solid. I had a wide angle Ektar with the Ilex and the glass didn't extend out so the weight didn't torque the standard. It isn't the kind of lens I would take to the field anyway so I'll set it aside for the future. The lens came from KEH with a 6" what I assume to be a Deardorff board.

[Willie]

Might check out a Bogen Magic Arm or similar. Can attach it to a tripod leg and fashion a small padded platform to hold the extra weight of the lens and take some pressure off the front standard.

[Two23]

Thanks for all the responses. Better be safe than sorry. The Betax shutter itself is heavy and the lens is physically long with a large front element so the front standard naturally wants to swing down and I felt it while adjusting rise/fall. Once tightened it felt solid. I had a wide angle Ektar with the Ilex and the glass didn't extend out so the weight didn't torque the standard. It isn't the kind of lens I would take to the field anyway so I'll set it aside for the future. The lens came from KEH with a 6" what I assume to be a Deardorff board.


Deardorff boards have rounded corners, Kodak and B&J are square. IIRC



Kent in SD

[Rayt]

Honestly, an 8" Pentac on a Betax shutter is not that heavy, I have used one on 5x7 Canham. Your Ebony (no swings or shifts, right?) should be easily able to carry it. If you are worried, use a piece of wood or other support between the bed and the bottom of the standard to hold it in place.

Not what you asked, but there is no way an 8" Pentac is going to cover 8x10, except at macro distances. The 8" Pentac is a 4x5 lens, and vignettes on 5x7. If you can find one (good luck!) a 12" Pentac might cover 8x10, but that lens won't even fit on your Ebony.

I tested the Pentac with the subject 20 feet away and it covered 8x10 with minimum vignetting and definitely no dark corners. The OOF was all bokeh at f/5.6 so am sure the corners wouldn't be sharp not matter what I did.

I don't know how much I can trust published coverage data from manufacturers or what they mean when they say image circle is such and such. Do they mean the lens won't cover at all like leaving an arch on the negative or image quality drops off so badly it is technically out of their "zone"? When the Cooke PS945 came out I really wanted one but don't normally shoot portrait length lenses. I am more of a wide to normal guy. I have one long lens just for the rare moments. Then a friend of mine was using the PS945 on 8x10 for portraits and I sat for him and can say from 6 feet away it will completely cover, so I took a chance it would cover 5x7 at infinity. When I searched online the results say the PS945 covers 4x5 with little movement but I shot 100 sheets of 5x7 with it mostly at f/5.6 and f/8 and can say it covers at infinity with movements contrary to manufacturer's specs. The PS945 is the best lens I have ever used as a normal 5x7 lens. f/4.5 to f/5.6 it is full of character but once at f/8 it is all sharp.

[Rayt]

Rayt,

Ebony is a wrong camera for heavy lenses. I have tried and it was designed that way. I use a lens support with Chamonix camera for my lenses up to 20 lbs. Have to use a second tripod if the lens is too heavy.

Now I am this much closer to a new Chamonix!

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. A number of posts in this discussion have mentioned lens supports. I call these things crutches, have two, one lens-specific the other more generalized.

My lens-specific crutch is a carefully designed thingy made from scrap lucite. It sits between the barrel of a long heavy 12"/4 TTH Telephoto and the front crosspiece of a 2x3 Pacemaker Speed Graphic's bed (= front door).

My general purpose crutch is a milled out Cambo SC 4x5 standard that sits on a Cambo rail in front of the front standard that holds but does not support the lens. I use it with a 610/9 Apo-Nikkor, catalog weight 1.45 kg, and a 900/10 Apo-Saphir, measured weight 4.034 kg.

[Hugo Zhang]

My 19 inch Heliar on its 8 inch CF lens board has a weight of 13.2 lbs.

[jim_jm]

Here's my 8x10 Eastman 2D with a 15 1/2" Wollensak Velostigmat. Rear lens group is about the same size as the front and weight is around 6 lb.
The appropriate Packard shutter is too large to fit behind the lens board, so I adapted it as a front-mount.
The camera is sturdy enough to handle the weight, but I'm careful to support the lens when adjusting rise/fall. I don't walk around with the camera mounted to the tripod over my shoulder, like I can with my 4x5. Especially not with this lens mounted.

204907

204908

[Bernice Loui]

Toyo 810M remains one of my Fav 8x10 folder cameras for a long list of reasons. It is quite capable of supporting a BIG lens and remain stable, precise with good safety for the lens being used. There are GOOD vintage wood folders that are quite capable of supporting BIG lenses too, except none of them are light weight.

Back when these BIG portrait lenses were common, one of the cameras that did excellent with them was the Century Studio. These were BIG wood cameras that were NOT field portable, they were designed and intended to be used in a studio setting. What appears to have happened today, there is a mind-set of lightest weight camera first (possible due to the AA and similar great out doors image making wanna be) then making some choices on lenses with the print goal being near the bottom of the priority list. Then comes the curiosity of wanting to try BIG vintage lenses on the light weight camera that was never designed or intended to support any lens of that size. The experimenting with BIG vintage lenses might come from the idea of a special magical image-print will happen by deploying that mythical lens or camera... no to that.

There is definitely a FUN factor with experimenting with vintage and other optics as view cameras have the innate capability to use optics-lenses that could never be used on a brand specific camera-lens system, that alone is not going to produce excellence in expressive prints or images.

All this goes back again to what are the print and image goals, what optics or lens are required to produce them and what is the most suitable camera that will properly support the first two priorities. Add to this the entire world of film and processing and image finishing process. Once all this is considered as a system, the camera is nothing more than one facet of a much greater whole in the endeavor of expressive image creation.


Bernice







For field work I use a Toyo 810m,

[ericantonio]

I hope this is not a silly question.

I bought a Dallmeyer 8” f2.9 Pentac in a Betax #5 on a Sinar board. The lens weigh 3.4 pounds. After the CLA I shot a few sheets with an Ebony SLW 8x10 a light weight camera to test the lens and the coverage. It covers a full body environmental head to toe shot with reasonable sharpness in the center at f5.6 The lens weigh half as much as the camera and when I mounted it I feared something might give. I only used a bit of rise and fall.

Am I taking a risk using such a heavy lens on a light weight camera?

When I worked at studios back in the 80's'/90's, we just used a lightstand or tripod under the front standard when using heavy lenses. We also had home made light stands. It was a piece of 1x2 in a paint can filled with cement. And we had heavy duty clamps on it. Clamp that front standard to it. We would also have smaller wood clamps and helped that front standard out a little bit. haha, we used a lot of clamps. I mean, it was a living, and we did anything to not mess up. So gaffer's tape and A clamps were our friends.

[drewf64]

For field work I use a Toyo 810m, for the budget conscious The calumet C-1 is exceptional due largely to the construction of the front standard (fixed).[/QUOTE]

Hi gypsydog:
Thank you for your input re: Toyota 810 & the Calumet C-1.
My Cooke Knuckler 12.75 inches is big and beefy.
My Century studio camera supports it with ease!
However, for the occasion where I want to use the Cooke outdoors I have utilized my Deardorff ... and handled it carefully and with great concern. I no longer want to put the Deardorff in this risky situation, hence my inquiry about an 8x10 "field" camera that CAN handle the weight and still be mobile. Camera weight is not a concern ... strength & stability are must haves!
The C-1 looks to be a reasonable option for me ... I will explore it in detail.
Again. ... thank you for your input!
Drew

[LabRat]

Yes you do, as most field cameras FS support in front is limited, and can cause wear elsewhere like on focusing tracks, locks etc... And with base tilt cameras lens weight can allow FS to fall forward/backwards causing lens or camera damage...

If large lenses are used frequently, axis tilt or fixed front cameras (like portrait models) usually are stronger... You usually don't need so much front movements as large fast lenses get weird off axis fast, so not essential... And portrait models are cheaper now...

Steve K