4x5 Graflex Super D + 18/21cm heliars

[RoboRepublic]

I'm curious to know if anyone has been successful in installing a 18/21cm Heliar on a 4x5 Super D. I've read some hearsay that the mirror does not clear the 18cm- but would love to hear of a first hand experience. Further, I'm curious to know if the 21cm heliar can be used on the graflex, and if it sits well inside the body with the bellows retracted. I enjoy the experience of the Super D and for my lack of skill, I am unable to bring a 'wow!' factor out of the stock lens. Would appreciate peoples experiences on the matter!

[Tracy Storer]

I'm assuming you're talking about a 4x5 Super D. Either lens would probably fit fine on a 3.25"x4.25".

[RoboRepublic]

Ah, sorry, maybe thats not specific- i thought the super D was only made in a 4x5 variation. Thats the one I have.

[Hugo Zhang]

I have a 21cm Lanthar lens on my super d without any problems.

[Tracy Storer]

They also made Series D and Super Ds in 3.25"x4.25".


Ah, sorry, maybe thats not specific- i thought the super D was only made in a 4x5 variation. Thats the one I have.

[Neal Chaves]

I made a lot of pleasing work on a 4X5 Super D. I converted to Graflok back and liked the results on 4X5 with the factory 190 Ektar auto diaphragm lens. But I also had a 4X5 view camera with 250 Imagon and 360 Tele Xenar in Compound shutters and I wanted to try those on the Super D. I had a local machine shop make an aluminum barrel mount, threaded like the Compounds. I mounted that on a board for the Super D. The Imagon could use all the discs on the front, and the Tele Xenar was always wide open.

I made use of all three. I also pulled out 4X5 Polaroids that put models at ease and refine the set up and pose. The 55PN negatives were great too! I have a new scanner and will post some images soon.

[LabRat]

The shortest lens that will focus to infinity was the 190mm, and the camera FS would be flush inside camera...

Then there is the issue where lenses with the longest rear extension could hit the mirror in operation... Take a blank lensboard (with the hole cut-out) and use a ruler inside it while slowly moving the mirror up/down manually and note the distance behind lensboard that just touches the moving mirror during it's travel ((FS should be completely recessed into camera body)... That is your safety zone shorter than that... Any lens mounted must be no longer from back of board than that... Note that if a longer rear lens is mounted on camera while in carry/storage mode and shutter is accidentally tripped, mirror or lens can be damaged somewhere midpoint during mirror travel...

Steve K

[Neal Chaves]

You are no doubt correct about the mirror hitting the rear element. I never used that 250 or 360 except at medium and close up distances so they might have hit the mirror if focused further away. Remarkable work can and has been done by many great photographers with the auto 190mm.

[LabRat]

But you do have to look up the specifications of the various era models and see what lens FL came standard on it... The older prewar cameras look longer than the later models... This will help as the stock lenses will just focus infinity with FS fully retracted... The postwar models usually had a 190mm as normal...

I had a box of old barrel lenses to try on my late model 4X5 (1948?) Super D RB (Graflok converted) and found some great matches... A Kodak Anastigmat 203mm (non coated Ektar) was GREAT, and a couple of 210mm process lenses worked very well, but did notice something peculiar with longer FL lenses I tried... The mystery was when using a 275mm process lens closer up with bellows almost fully extended, something in camera could block off a sliver of an edge of frame... It varied with different FL's, but somewhere about 2/3rds extended, usually doing close-ups... I never nailed it down, and sometimes not showing, but was croppable out... (Maybe it was the lip flap under the mirror???) Didn't show when using the 300mm Trigor... Crazy, but I found the camera really liked using 6X6 or 6X9 film backs for a long lens rollfilm vibe, and bypassed the cut-off issue...

Me thinks the camera was primarily designed for using the "normal" lens in terms of the cone of light + internal baffles, but longer lenses can be used, but maybe some "gremlins" in there then... :0

Steve K

[Pete Roody]

Have tried a 210mm f3.5 Meyer Trioplan and that works. Also a 7-1/2" Verito (sunken mount) and that works.

[rjmeyer314]

Supposedly the 178mm Kodak aero-ektar won't work, but the 8" Dallmeyer Pentac will work.

[Neal Chaves]

I found this image I made of model Tonya with the 360mm 5.6 TeleXenar on the 4X5 Super D. Lens was wide open in a barrel mount. I see from the negative that I used a Graphmatic Magazine. I had previously convereted my super D to Graflok back.244857

[Jeff Keller]

It looks like 10 years ago the question of wide angle conversion lenses came up...
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?107404-wide-angle-conversion-lens

jeff