Longest Crown Graphic Portrait Lens?

[andy bessette]

What long (over 200mm) portrait lens would be most suitable for a crown graphic, given the short bellows draw, and fold-up requirement? Which was most commonly seen? Any thoughts?

best, andy

THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE

[Frank Petronio]

I know you can get a Rodenstock 210/6.8 Geronar in a Copal 1 inside one. The side mounted rangefinder Crowns have a little large space than the top rangefinder Crowns.

If it can hold that lens then it should be able to handle a Kodak 203/7.7.

[andy bessette]

Yo Frank,

this particular Crown has the top-mounted rangefinder. Think that'll matter?

best, andy

[Frank Petronio]

dunno...it is tight. I know longer have that lens but you could ask for dimensions -- the critical width in the Crown is the space between the rails clearing the diameter of the shutter.

[jnantz]

andy,


i used to have a 203mm in a raptar shutter, it could be folded
up in a speed graphic. i think it was an optar.

if you don't need to fold the lens up inside the box,
you can use a 10" lens without many problems.
if it is a tele design (like a teleoptar)
your bellows will be stretched out less than a non-tele design ...


-john

[andy bessette]

Thanks John,

I recently saw a tele-optar sell on oboy.

best, andy

THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE

[Jim Jones]

The tele designs are long, and a Crown might not close over one. As Frank says, the 203mm Ektar will certainly work, and is a sharp and versatile lens.

[andy bessette]

Thanks Jim,

203mm might be as long as it will accept.

best, andy

[Jim Galli]

There are some possibilities. There used to be a sliding back that gets clamped on by the Graflok sliders and it would give you 2 - 2 1/2 X 4 inch portraits on a single sheet of 4X5 film. That also gets the perspective better for lens focal lengths that you'll need to live with on that camera. I'd shop for a 210mm Heliar or even a 180mm Heliar for some really fine portraits. The Kodak 190mm f4.5 Ektar is a fine lens wide open for portraiture.

[Joseph O'Neil]

Dumb question -are you talking the longest lens a crown will carry, period, or the longest lens the Crown will carry when you fold it up, because I am not sure i am reading your question right.

If are asking about what lens it can carry the longest while open, I have a 15" Wollensak Tele-Raptar my Crown will carry, no problemo. Folded up, I dunno - most lenses in the 20mm or larger I have found where just to big/thick to fold up.

joe

[andy bessette]

Yo Jim,

just saw one of those backs on oboy, but I need 4X5 neg.

The Heliar 210mm could be long enough.

Joe,

am looking for the longest one which will cover the 4X5 format, focus close enough for portraits, and fold up inside the Crown Graphic.

thanks, andy

THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE

[Dan Ingram]

I use a 215 Ilex Paragon in an Ilex #3. Folds up just fine.

Dan

[andy bessette]

I use a 215 Ilex Paragon in an Ilex #3. Folds up just fine.

Dan

Thanks Dan,

Would this be highly regarded as a portrait lens?

Could this be the longest that will fold up?

best, andy

THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE

[Michael Graves]

Thanks Dan,

Would this be highly regarded as a portrait lens?

Could this be the longest that will fold up?

best, andy

THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE

I haven't tried this lens on my graphic, but if the #3 Ilex does indeed fold up, the 10.75" Apo-Artar comes on that shutter and the lens elements are quite small. It'll give you all the coverage you'll ever use even if you use it for subjects other than portraits.

The problem I see here is that once you get into this focal length, unless you're using a true telephoto design, the surplus bellows extension on this lens is less than two inches. I don't know how to do the calculations for distance/focal length/bellows extension, but I wouldn't think you would focus very close with that combination. The true telephotos won't fold up.

[andy bessette]

Yo Michael,

a 10.75 inch lens should make a most excellent portrait lens. Unfortunately I don't think the Crown has enough bellows draw with it for portraits

best, andy

THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE

[Dan Ingram]

The Ilex Paragon (and there is also an Ilex Caltar equivalent -- the same lens, I'm sure) is a pretty good lens, especially for the price. Mine was around $100 with shutter. I've never used it as a portrait lens, and though it covers 4x5 with a little movement, it's probably just short of what I like -- something around a 10-inch lens would suit me better, unless I was shooting a half-shot (waist up) or head and shoulders. But I think Michael and Andy are right -- the 215mm needs almost all the bellows extension, especially for something up close. Surprisingly, I've never thought about this -- for 4x5 portraits I use my view camera.

[Michael Graves]

Okay, just for Schlitz and Gins tonight I tried an experiment. I pulled out my Crown Graphic. Then, I mounted the 10.75" onto a graphic lensboard. I sat my kid down into a chair and first put the 203 Ektar on. At about 8 feet, I was getting head and shoulders shots of a 15-year old boy. Perspective wasn't bad either. His expression left a lot to be desired, but I don't think I can blame that on the Ektar.

Then I put the 10.75 on. I could only get within about 20 to 25 feet with the bellows fully extended. I actually couldn't fill the frame as tightly with the longer lens as I could the 203 simply because I didn't have enough extension on the Crown to focus any closer. On the Toyo 5x7, it was wonderful. And with the 4x5 back mounted on the 5x7, I could fill the frame with just his face. So perhaps the longer bellows of a monorail is in order if you want that sort of focal length. But I would be perfectly happy with the 203 as a portrait lens. In fact, I'm going to try to get him to sit still over the weekend after I set up my Norman lights and see if I can't get some real shots of him now that you've gotten me inspired.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Andy,

"Yo Jim,

just saw one of those backs on oboy, but I need 4X5 neg.

The Heliar 210mm could be long enough."

Perfect choice for 4x5 but it will not fold-up into a SpeedGraphic, too long in front of the lens board. I think the only way to get longer than 210mm is an extention board or tele-photo lens, neither fold-up.

Good luck with it.

[andy bessette]

Okay, just for Schlitz and Gins tonight I tried an experiment. I pulled out my Crown Graphic. Then, I mounted the 10.75" onto a graphic lensboard. I sat my kid down into a chair and first put the 203 Ektar on. At about 8 feet, I was getting head and shoulders shots of a 15-year old boy. Perspective wasn't bad either. His expression left a lot to be desired, but I don't think I can blame that on the Ektar.

Then I put the 10.75 on. I could only get within about 20 to 25 feet with the bellows fully extended. I actually couldn't fill the frame as tightly with the longer lens as I could the 203 simply because I didn't have enough extension on the Crown to focus any closer. On the Toyo 5x7, it was wonderful. And with the 4x5 back mounted on the 5x7, I could fill the frame with just his face. So perhaps the longer bellows of a monorail is in order if you want that sort of focal length. But I would be perfectly happy with the 203 as a portrait lens. In fact, I'm going to try to get him to sit still over the weekend after I set up my Norman lights and see if I can't get some real shots of him now that you've gotten me inspired.

Yo Michael,

VERY WELL DONE! I can't take credit for your inspiration, but I'm glad you now have a new project with your son. Get him to imagine that when he looks into your lens, he is looking at a future someone looking at him. Not that you can get him to improve his expression.

Interesting about being limited by bellows draw to around the 203mm focal length, which would be a pretty intimate perspective for portraits, but it might work. Makes me wonder if the 10.75-inch lens would be OK with a close-up diopter added. Did it appear that it would fold up?

best, andy

THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE

[Michael Graves]

Seemed like it would. I'll try it again tonight after work. I didn't even think to close up the camera. Since one other photographer had already indicated that a #3 closed fine, I took that on faith. The lens elements are no problem at all on that particular lens.

[Ole Tjugen]

Andy,

"Yo Jim,

just saw one of those backs on oboy, but I need 4X5 neg.

The Heliar 210mm could be long enough."

Perfect choice for 4x5 but it will not fold-up into a SpeedGraphic, too long in front of the lens board. I think the only way to get longer than 210mm is an extention board or tele-photo lens, neither fold-up.

Good luck with it.

My 240 Heliar folds up, but that's because it's mounted in a helical mount. I just screw it all the way in, and it closes neatly inside. That also gives me about an inch more extension when I screw it all the way out! :)

[andy bessette]

My 240 Heliar folds up, but that's because it's mounted in a helical mount. I just screw it all the way in, and it closes neatly inside. That also gives me about an inch more extension when I screw it all the way out! :)

Yo Ole,

NOW we're talking! The 240mm is much more to my liking for portraiture. Can you confirm that, with the helical mount, one can focus close enough for head shots with this? And is the Heliar suitable for this purpose?

best, andy

THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE

[Paul Fitzgerald]

andy,

"And is the Heliar suitable for this purpose?"

Now that is a silly question. Heliars are about the finest portrait lenses out there. Personally I have a 240/7.7 Goerz Doppel Anastigmat III with a 1 inch extention mount that will focus down to 3.5 feet on a SpeedGraphic, very nice look to it wide open, but it won't fold-up into the camera.

have fun with it.

[andy bessette]

andy,

"And is the Heliar suitable for this purpose?"

Now that is a silly question. Heliars are about the finest portrait lenses out there. Personally I have a 240/7.7 Goerz Doppel Anastigmat III with a 1 inch extention mount that will focus down to 3.5 feet on a SpeedGraphic, very nice look to it wide open, but it won't fold-up into the camera.

have fun with it.

Yo Paul,

guess that means that you are a BIG fan of Heliars! Maybe Ole has the magic bullet in his helical mount for one. Any idea how close it focused without the 1" extension?

best, andy

THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE

[Ole Tjugen]

I've just tried it.

Screwed all the way in, the Speed Graphic will close with the lens inside. I wouldn't like to think of what would happen to the shutter if it isn't open, though - the rear of the mens almost touches the ground glass!

With the lens fully in, I was able to focus to about 2.4 meters - call it 8 feet. Screwing it all the way out cave me a little less than 1m, 3 feet is a good guess.

My Universal lens mount is just too small to fit the rather chunky Heliar helicoid, so I tried it just holding it in place. I'll make a lens board for it now that I know how nicely it fits! Fortunately I have a small stack of lens boards, and only a very few very big old lenses need dedicated lens boards. In fact the only lens I have in a lens board for the Speed so far is a 135mm Tessar, but it will soon be joined by the big old Heliar!

[andy bessette]

I've just tried it.

Screwed all the way in, the Speed Graphic will close with the lens inside. I wouldn't like to think of what would happen to the shutter if it isn't open, though - the rear of the mens almost touches the ground glass!

With the lens fully in, I was able to focus to about 2.4 meters - call it 8 feet. Screwing it all the way out cave me a little less than 1m, 3 feet is a good guess.

My Universal lens mount is just too small to fit the rather chunky Heliar helicoid, so I tried it just holding it in place. I'll make a lens board for it now that I know how nicely it fits! Fortunately I have a small stack of lens boards, and only a very few very big old lenses need dedicated lens boards. In fact the only lens I have in a lens board for the Speed so far is a 135mm Tessar, but it will soon be joined by the big old Heliar!

Yo Ole,

very well done indeed! Those focusing distances you measured encourage me to believe that the Heliar will work even on the Crown, which should be a little shorter than the Speed. Now if a similar lens will fold up inside the Crown! We'll see.

Thanks, andy

THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE

[buze]

I use a 12" (305mm) Ilex Paragon on my Crown, but I don't think I can fold the camera. If I extend the bellow to the maximum, I can focus it to about 3.5m

Here is a shot at (almost) it's closest focus... I think it will work very well for portraits as far as optics goes. I'm thinking of making a "reverse-resessed" board to allow it to focus closer...
http://galleries.oomz.net/pub/s0701/S/crown-shanghai-287.jpg

[andy bessette]

I use a 12" (305mm) Ilex Paragon on my Crown, but I don't think I can fold the camera. If I extend the bellow to the maximum, I can focus it to about 3.5m

Here is a shot at (almost) it's closest focus... I think it will work very well for portraits as far as optics goes. I'm thinking of making a "reverse-resessed" board to allow it to focus closer...


Yo Michael,

the lensboard extender is not a bad idea if it will allow a bit closer focusing with your existing lens (I've seen them available for other 4X5 cameras). 300mm+ would be awesome, but I might be satisfied with 240mm+. For myself, I am hoping to find the right lens which will provide a flattering headshot perspective, but still be able to foldup in my Crown.

best, andy

THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE

[Dan Fromm]

Andy, why must you be able to close your camera on the lens? This restriction limits your choices considerably.

[Jim Galli]

Just me, but I would limit myself to a lens SHORT enough to get near enough to fill a frame with a head and shoulders. Only some experimentation would tell you which. That's why I was leaning towards the 190 Kodak in my guess.

[andy bessette]

Andy, why must you be able to close your camera on the lens? This restriction limits your choices considerably.

Yo Dan,

you must realize that a thread here would not be necessary for me to find a nice focal length that WOULDN't fold up in my Crown. You're absolutely right--this restriction severely limits my choices. One of my reasons for this restriction is that I usually know ahead of time that an assignment will be for headshots. A folder is practical.

best, andy

THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE

[andy bessette]

Just me, but I would limit myself to a lens SHORT enough to get near enough to fill a frame with a head and shoulders. Only some experimentation would tell you which. That's why I was leaning towards the 190 Kodak in my guess.

Yo Jim,

my preference for this application is a lens in the 10-inch/240mm+ range (if it will focus closely enough), which will provide a flattering perspective when close enough to fill the 4X5 frame with a head shot. I feel that focal lengths less than this provide too much distortion for a close-up. As you say, experimentation will tell. Just have to find a source, but thought it would help me locate a contender if someone has already been through this exercise.

best, andy

THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi Andy,

"guess that means that you are a BIG fan of Heliars! Maybe Ole has the magic bullet in his helical mount for one."

Yes! 105, 150,165,180, 210, 210, 240, 300, 360, 14" New York, 14" Braunschweig, 420. A few others have been sold.

"Any idea how close it focused without the 1" extension?

240/7.7 Goerz will focus down to 32" from the front of the lens, pulled all the way forward. The f/6.8 should not be much larger and the newest Am.Opt. would be coated. Very nice 'look' to it. Maybe someone here has one to buy-and-try, it's an un-loved focal length.

Have fun with it all.

[andy bessette]

Hi Andy,
Yes! 105, 150,165,180, 210, 210, 240, 300, 360, 14" New York, 14" Braunschweig, 420. A few others have been sold.
240/7.7 Goerz will focus down to 32" from the front of the lens, pulled all the way forward. The f/6.8 should not be much larger and the newest Am.Opt. would be coated. Very nice 'look' to it. Maybe someone here has one to buy-and-try, it's an un-loved focal length.

Have fun with it all.

Thanks Paul,

what's an Am.Opt.?

best, andy

THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi Andy,

"what's an Am.Opt.?"

Goerz was 'C.P. Goerz - Berlin' and they opened a shop in the USA. When WWI started the American branch became a separate company 'Goerz-American Optical' which lasted into the 1970's and was bought by Schnieder. I think they also built the 'Todd/A.O.' lenses for Hollywood.

Curiosity struck so I had to check. Pulled the front standard all the way forward and racked out the rail full length, 13" from lens board to GG on a 1964 SpeedGraphic. Closest focus from target to lens board was;

100mm = 6"
120mm = 8"
138mm = 10"
162mm = 12"
190mm = 17"
240mm = 32" to front of lens
240mm w/extention = 27" to front of lens

Need to make boards for 241mm and 254mm but all of these focus closer than any portrait would need. Just for giggles, graph those lengths out and see why Wollensak made these precise focal lengths, (60mm to center of 4x5). :eek:

have fun with it.

[Dan Fromm]

Hi Andy,

"what's an Am.Opt.?"

Goerz was 'C.P. Goerz - Berlin' and they opened a shop in the USA. When WWI started the American branch became a separate company 'Goerz-American Optical' which lasted into the 1970's and was bought by Schnieder. I think they also built the 'Todd/A.O.' lenses for Hollywood.

<snip>
Paul, I've looked up American Optical Company's corporate history. They never owned Goerz American, Goerz American was never affiliated with them, and Goerz American never owned them.

[andy bessette]

Hi Andy,

"what's an Am.Opt.?"

Goerz was 'C.P. Goerz - Berlin' and they opened a shop in the USA. When WWI started the American branch became a separate company 'Goerz-American Optical' which lasted into the 1970's and was bought by Schnieder. I think they also built the 'Todd/A.O.' lenses for Hollywood.

Curiosity struck so I had to check. Pulled the front standard all the way forward and racked out the rail full length, 13" from lens board to GG on a 1964 SpeedGraphic. Closest focus from target to lens board was;

100mm = 6"
120mm = 8"
138mm = 10"
162mm = 12"
190mm = 17"
240mm = 32" to front of lens
240mm w/extention = 27" to front of lens

Need to make boards for 241mm and 254mm but all of these focus closer than any portrait would need. Just for giggles, graph those lengths out and see why Wollensak made these precise focal lengths, (60mm to center of 4x5). :eek:

have fun with it.

Yo Paul,

I readily predicted just by looking at the progression, that they would form a pretty straight line when plotted on log paper (because I actually did that when researching my own kit). They had a plan.

Thanks a WHOLE bunch for the focus info. I'll measure the Crown, which I'm sure has a slightly shorter bellows draw, as it was optimised for wide angle. I am encouraged by the close focusing of the 240mm.

best, andy

THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi Dan,

Now I'm really confused, so confused I just did something I'm not supposed to do. Attached is a picture from someone else auction;

Ebay Dagor auction #200075864594 (http://cgi.ebay.com/4-3-8-inch-f-8-to-f-32-Goerz-Dagor-Synchro-Compur-Lens_W0QQitemZ200075864594QQihZ010QQcategoryZ30076QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)

I guess more than 7 companies made Dagors. What's in a name?

Curiouser and curiouser.

[andy bessette]

Has to be trick photography. ;)

best, andy

THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE

[Dan Fromm]

Um, Paul, lessee now, here's the history as I understand it. My understanding is probably incorrect in places, almost certainly incomplete.

Goerz (the original one, in Berlin) made Ser. III Doppel Anastigmats and then renamed them Dagor.

Zeiss bought Goerz (the original) and merged it into Zeiss-Ikon, and then Zeiss made some Dagors.

In the meantime, Goerz (the original) had established an American branch C. P. Goerz American Optical Company in 1899. Goerz AOC has no connection with American Optical Company of Springfield, MA. Goerz AOC became independent in 1917 or so and continued making Dagors. Also other lenses.

In the meantime, Goerz (the original) had licensed, among others, Ross in the UK and Krauss in France to make, among other lenses, Dagors.

Some time after 1960 Goerz AOC was purchased by Kollmorgen Optical and was subsequently resold to Schneider. Schneider subcontracted manufacture of Dagors to Kern (Aarau, Switzerland). And those were the last real Goerz Dagors.

But the original patents ran out long, long ago and the design, or perhaps just the general layout, was used by other makers. Schneider, for one, in early f/9 G-Clarons. Boyer, for another, since at least the 1930s, in Beryls (Beryl = Beryl S = Emeraude).

Which makers have I missed?

Cheers,

Dan

[Ole Tjugen]

Dan, you've missed the first Schneider Symmars - the triple convertibles.

And the Zeiss Amatar, which was made for a few years between the exipry of the patent and the aquisition of Goerz. Oddly enough I far prefer my Amatar to my Dagors...

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi Dan,

You covered most of them BUT ;
Kern, Switzerland (but they were licensed by Schiender)
B&J , bought the old stock and sold them as 'Berlin Dagor'
the 'joker in the deck'

(**Only my recollection of an article in View Camera a dozen years ago of the 'history of lenses' by Lynn Jones**)

Apparently Zeiss sold their interest in the Goerz name to a company on Long Island, New York that subleted the grinding and assembled the parts and sold them as 'Goerz Dagor' with or without gold rims. Spotty quality control and questionable image quality.

I guess this many years, makers and 'flies in the ointment' explains the variable quality of "Dagor's", from stellar to dogs.

Finished checking the other lenses:

241/4.5 raptar = 32.5"
254/4.5 raptar = 35" and smaller image than 241
381 tele-raptar = 90"

these need a front mounted flange, the mounting ring is too large to fit thru the light baffle. None will close up.

Have fun with it

[andy bessette]

Thanks Paul,

andy

[Dan Fromm]

Paul, I mentioned Kern. AFAIK they weren't licensed, they were a subcontractor.

I refuse to count B&J as a lens manufacturer. Assembler of elements already made, yes, lens grinder no.

Lynn Jones is a real puzzle. He's done many good things, has known many people, knew and still knows a hell of a lot. In all, he's been a powerful force for good. He's been posting for the last couple of years on photo.net. Some of the posts there give the impression that he's somewhat addled. I hope this isn't the case.

One of my friends, formerly closely associated with Boyer, has told me very pointedly that Dagors are very sensitive to cell spacing. So let's add another reason why not all Dagors perform as expected. Poor remounts.

And then there are the f/6.8 Goerz Doppel Anastigmats that well-meaning (?) ignoramuses sell as Dagors. Pays to be careful, Goerz also made dialyte type f/6.8 double anastigmats.

Cheers,

Dan