Fastest lenses for 4x5 and 8x10?

[Asher Kelman]

What are the fastest lenses one can buy for 4x5 AND 8X10.

Fotoman point and shoot helical focus cameras are bargains seems, and Crown Graphics a lot of us have in a cupboard, there's the Master Technika 3000 ($$$$!!) or the Polaroid bellows Littman cameras converted to 4x5 (also $$$!!!0) and from Ozy land la meme chose in AUS$.

With all these options, stopping down to f16 means a tripod unless the aperture is large enough and the lens is great at that aperture.

What lenses do we have available at the widest apertures to use with a LF camera in point and shoot mode? Also what shutter would you suggest?

Thanks,

Asher

The Arc of Intent: Making Pictures That Live (http:/www.openphotographyforums.com)

[Jim Jones]

A google search for Kodak Aero Ektar will lead to information on this 6" f/2.5 monster on 4x5 cameras.

[BrianShaw]

What's wrong with the f/4.7 lens for P&S 4x5? That's what has been standard o n Speed Graphics for about 40 years. Worked for PJs back then; works for me now!

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

There are dozens of fast lenses for 4x5, my favorite is the 150mm f2.8 Schneider Xenotar, but the 8" f2.9 Dallmeyer Pentac is easier and cheaper to find.

A lens faster than f4.5 for 8x10 will be hugh, weighing ten to fifteen lbs., and will require large lensboards. Most cameras won't be able to hold them. If portability is a concern, or of you have a field camera, a 300mm f4.5 lens may be the best compromise. There are many of these availbale on the used market.

[Walter Calahan]

The Kodak Aero-Ektar 178mm f/2.5

Covers 4x5 nicely. Will cover 5x7 with no problem. I've been told, but haven't seen it, it will cover 8x10 barely.

I love the Aero-Ektar. Only shoot it at 2.5. I own three. One on a Speed Graphic; one on a RB Gradlex Series D 4x5 SLR (cannot focus to infinity - only a close portrait set up or macro use); and soon, one on a 5x7 SLR Graflex (once I get my new drill press up and running). The key to using this lens is to get a camera with a focal plane shutter.

The minimum depth-of-field is amazing, and what is sharp it very sharp, especially if the lens is used with a yellow filter.

[Dan Fromm]

Don't forget the 6"/1.9 Dallmeyer Super Six and the 12"/2.5 AeroEktar. The Super Six won't go in shutter, the AeroEktar comes in an electrically operated shutter whose power supply and timing circuitry are unobtainable.

I've seen two 6" Super Sixes sell on eBay. $1475 and $1393, respectively. Not for you. The AeroEktar is huge and heavy, so also not for you.

If you want to shoot wider than f/16 with a 4x5 point & shoot, get a nice f/5.6 plasmat type lens and stop worrying. On an 8x10 point & shoot, use a 270/9 or 305/9 G-Claron wide open and feel sorry for yourself.

[Asher Kelman]

Thanks for all the superv guidance!

I have to study the treasures here. Meanwhile I grabbed this (http://cgi.ebay.com/Meyer-12-IN-Lens-for-8x10-in-HUGE-74mm-Alphax-Shutter_W0QQitemZ270095243734QQihZ017QQcategoryZ30076QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem) for the 8x10 since it seemed a good start. Meyer 12 IN Lens for 8x10 in HUGE 74mm Alphax Shutter

"beautiful coated lens is really quite something. Set in a huge 74mm (3 IN) diameter flash sync's Alphax shutter, this large piece of glass is ready for your 8x10 Deardorff, Sinar or Linhof. Glass is virtually pristine, as is the shutter. Shutter fires perfectly at all speeds with no hesitation."

It look very good from the images.

Any experience with this lens?

There is also a Wollensak 75mm(3") Oscillo-Raptar f/1.9 Alphax Graflex available for a 4x5. Any experience?

Thanks so much for your suggestions. You are very generous and I appreciate it!

Asher

The Arc of Intent: Making Pictures That Live (http:/www.openphotographyforums.com)

[Dan Fromm]

Asher, you've just been a sucker. The Oscillo-Raptar is a wonderful opportunity for you to be a sucker again.

Folklore has it that Carl Meyer lenses were assembled from factory reject lens elements by Burke & James and that they're all, um, poor. Folklore is sometimes wrong, so please test your Meyer lens and report back. Folklore also says that B&J made up the name from Carl (as in Zeiss) and Meyer (as in Hugo) to give their lenses an aura of germanic respectability.

Oscilloscope camera lenses were made to cover, mainly, 3 1/4 " x 4 1/4" at magnifications from 1:2 to 1.25:1, depending on the lens and camera. They're consistently lousy at distance and no one has ever reported that any of them will cover 4x5 at infinity. By all means buy it, try it, and report back.

[Brian C. Miller]

Asher, just go and use the lens. Do a Google search, and you'll see that some people have used it with success. This guy (http://schlachet.net/) uses it with Polaroids. Depending on what you do, you probably won't notice the difference between it and something way more expensive. If the lens really does stink, it didn't set you back that much, right? And you can go and find some good glass to put in the shutter.

Anyways: go forth and photograph!

[Brian C. Miller]

Asher, you've just been a sucker. The Oscillo-Raptar is a wonderful opportunity for you to be a sucker again.
Based on the Ebay photo, it reads "12 in. (305mm) F6.3 Carl Meyer Anastigmat No OC 467". Different lens than Oscillo-Raptar (which seems to be a 75mm Wollensack)?

And if you go to his site (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/art_Asher_Kelman_001.php) and see what he talks about, I'll bet that if there was a plastic f2.0 Holgaroidmat 200mm lens that covered 8x10 he'd slap it on there in a heartbeat. (Exactly why he wants an 8x10 camera, I don't know, but what the hey.)

(oops, I see you're writing about the other Ebay listing. For that reference, do a search on Google for Oscillo-Raptar, and look at the Apug result. Nice photo of a dandelion. The nice painting is the result of the artist, not the brush.)

[Asher Kelman]

Asher, you've just been a sucker. The Oscillo-Raptar is a wonderful opportunity for you to be a sucker again.

Folklore has it that Carl Meyer lenses were assembled from factory reject lens elements by Burke & James and that they're all, um, poor. Folklore is sometimes wrong, so please test your Meyer lens and report back. Folklore also says that B&J made up the name from Carl (as in Zeiss) and Meyer (as in Hugo) to give their lenses an aura of germanic respectability.

Oscilloscope camera lenses were made to cover, mainly, 3 1/4 " x 4 1/4" at magnifications from 1:2 to 1.25:1, depending on the lens and camera. They're consistently lousy at distance and no one has ever reported that any of them will cover 4x5 at infinity. By all means buy it, try it, and report back.

Well Dan,

I guess Holga comes in large sizes too! great I don't have to travel all the way to Russia to find her! It put me back $328! Not the end of the world. Atl east I don't have to take antibiotics!

I'll try it and then still go for a finer lens. Frov the 8x10 I would liek the equivalent of something wider anyway to take the interior of a factory and a concert hall.

The equivalent of 18-24 mm is what I'd love for the 28 mm.

I'm going to study again what's already posted. Unfortunately, I listened to a local photographer who pointed to the bargain of that lens I bought!

I really want the best lenses since film and Polaroid are anyway expensive and I'd rather spend money on a good lens since generally one can recover 75% of that money at anytime.

Thanks again for your help.

I'll try to be more cautious!

Asher

[Brian C. Miller]

Asher, when you go through the auction listings you should find the manufacturer's web site listing for the lens, too. Here's a Schneider 360mm in Oz (http://cgi.ebay.com/Sinar-Schneider-Symmar-S-6-8-360mm-lens-Exc-cond_W0QQitemZ120096387606QQcategoryZ15248QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem) with a nice starting price. Note the seller includes a link to the manufacturer's site. This is similar to a 50mm for a 35mm camera.

For a wide-angle 8x10 lens, you would want something like this Cooke 158mm (http://cgi.ebay.com/Taylor-Hobson-COOKE-WIDE-ANGLE-Series-VIIB-8x10-lens_W0QQitemZ280091407038QQcategoryZ15248QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem) lens. Here's a Nikkor 120mm (http://cgi.ebay.com/NIKKOR-SW-120MM-F-8-WIDE-ANGLE-LENS-680330-IN-COPAL-0_W0QQitemZ270096260386QQcategoryZ15248QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem) but it probably won't give you any movements.

[bartf]

I really like my 135 f3.5 Planar and my 135 f3.5 Xenotar on my Super Graphic.

I can't really use much in way of movements though image circle is tight, but they are great for what I use them for.

[Asher Kelman]

Do you see any benefit in using a Fotoman, Razzle or other Polaroid 4x5 or a Linhoff Master Technika hand held?

In practical terms what comparitive experience is there?

Asume I can a fine fast lens.


Asher

[GPS]

Do you see any benefit in using a Fotoman, Razzle or other Polaroid 4x5 or a Linhoff Master Technika hand held?

...

Asher

The big advantage of the hand hold photography is in its speed. To be able to react quickly at situations, the light on the scene etc. is always a great plus.

[Asher Kelman]

That's why I am willing to pay more for a faster lens. Just as a reference, I routinely do a lot of street photography and portraits with a Canon 50 1.2L at f1.2.

So I'd need a fast excellent lens with a good image circle. Then how hand holdable or these cameras and who has experience with them?

Asher

[Dan Fromm]

Why do you care about image circle? The cameras you're contemplating have at best minimal movements.

[Frank Petronio]

The weight of the Technika is the main downside. A Razzledog 110 (or a Littmann) is amazingly light in comparision.

I tell myself the extra mass will steady my pix but that is just a rationalization.

I have tried the Aero-Ektar and 135 Xenotar and, while they are nice, they have their own look that you may or may not like. There are other ways to increase "handholdability" and use modern 5.6 lenses, which offer a little more margin of error with focusing. I think it is really a crapshoot using the rangefinder to focus an Aero at close distances wide-open, so even if you need the f/2.5 you still have a high likelihood of blowing the shot cuz you missed focus by an eyelash or two.

IMHO the rangefinder focusing accuracy and human error just aren't going to allow consistent success with ultra fast lenses and handholding. On a tripod and with calm subjects then Yes, use them for their image quality and faster possible shutter speed.

I don't miss focus at close distances with a /5.6 lens. So I don't minding paying for the extra 2 stops...

Pushing the film and hold the camera steadier (monopod, bracing, breathing, etc?) are the key here.

[Ted Harris]

Asher,

I have used the 4x5 Fotoman a lot and it is greaet to work with that way. Easy to hold and easy to shoot. I will admit thouht that I am perplexed by your nee for fast lenses. In most daylight situations shooting in a range of 1/30 to 1/125 (or faster) with apertures of f11 - f22 is not usually a problem. This should allow you to shoot with most any film you want. I often use the Fotoman handheld with a 75mm f4.5 Grandagon and Polaroid T55 film ..... I am not shooting wide open or close to it when shooting in normal daylight.

[Ed Richards]

I use Tmax 400 with my Technika, either with the 90 or 150. I try to shoot at F16 or F22 for crowd shots, and it works pretty well, even on overcast days.

http://www.epr-art.com/mardigras/2007-Zulu/index.htm

The mass does help, until you start to shake with fatigue.:-) Since you are not going to get max resolution handheld, there is no reason not to use Tmax 400.

If you want to do tightly cropped head shots with good out of focus backgrounds, stick with your Canon.

[Brian C. Miller]

There is the Hobo camera (http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/cart/home.php?cat=237) which is wood with a pre-fixed focus. For a fast 4x5 lens, there's the Nikkor 65mm f4 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=40&A=details&Q=&sku=36998&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation).

As for film, I've had decent results pushing Tmax 400 to 3200 (http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=688330). I don't think that a commercial lab would do this for you, though.

If your intention is to shoot in daylight, then you really don't need anything like this. A lens at f4 with IE3200 film is really a low-light beastie.

I haven't used the Hobo, but I have used my Graflex Super Graphic hand-held with the sports-finder (metal wire frame that pops up). The 135mm f4.7 Wollensack is a bit wider than the frame, so it gets you pointed in the right direction. At 6#, it weighs about the same as my Pentax 6x7 with 90mm lens. Using a heavy camera is definitely going to build some muscles in your arms.

This is where a Graflex film holder will come into its own. The Graflex film holder holds six sheets of film in (very thin and bendable) metal septums. It weighs as much as three Fidelity film holders, but it changes the film sheets very fast, and the Graphic camera will be able to shoot at least one frame per second with a practised operator.

If you are doing Winogrand-style street photography, I can't recommend a large-format camera. Weegee-style on the other hand requires a corpse in the frame, and those might be difficult to come by.

[Asher Kelman]

Why do you care about image circle? The cameras you're contemplating have at best minimal movements.

I can also use the lens with a camera where movements are needed. I am interested in Fotoman only as anc inexpensive option, but they do now have X and Y movements but no T/S however, I have seen no reports on Fotoman in use. A drawback is that the lens is then not easily transferred to anotehr camera to get full movemets.

A converted Polaroid like the Razzle or other version (!@#$#$%#$), might make movements possible where I'd use a tripod. So I'd have the choice of handheld or with a stable platform capable of using all the movements I want.

Asher

[Ted Harris]

... however, I have seen no reports on Fotoman in use. Asher

If you searrch the archives here you should find a lot of discussions on the Fotoman in use. I also wrote a rview of the Fotoman 45PS for View Camera Magazine ... IIRC it is in eiether the November-December 2006 or January-February 2007 issue.

It's easy to setup and use. I have no trouble handholding it at 1/60 and, when braced, at 1/30. The groundglass is decent if you want to use it on a tripod and critically focus. It is designed to be used as a point and shoot and it does that very well. I have even fooled around doing some exterior architectural shots with it realizing full well that I would have parallels that needed correction in PS .. can be done.

You are correct that removing a lens in the fiel to put it on another camera will take you a bit of time and care. However, I cannot remember ever needing to do that. I most frequently use the Fotoman with either a 75mm or a 135mm lens and just plan on them being out of my lens kit for the day. I can go wider or longer on another camera and have not felt that my work has been hampered by this. I try and stick with the 75mm lens because the cones get longer with the lens. When you get up to a 135mm cone you are taking up space in the gear bag.

If you have specific questions on its use fire away.

[Frank Petronio]

I love Dean and his Pola 110 conversions, but it really isn't an "all-arounder" and while the modified 110s with new lenses and movements are possible, they look like they also forfeit the simplicity of having a tiny 4x5 that folds up nicely for tossing into a backpack or whatever. I can't imagine screwing lens elements into a shutter every time you set up -- it just seems like a fudge. IMHO you'd do better with a 110 conversion for some stuff and supplementing it with a Graphic or Linhof to get movements, different lens possibilities, etc. I had a Crown set-up with a 135/3.5 Xenotar earlier this winter and it was a pretty decent little set-up actually. And it was only $700 invested.

[John Kasaian]

Asher,
Speed comes with trade-offs. What are you willing to trade off? In 4x5 the standard for decades has been the Speed Graphic & 4.7 Ektar. Some goose it a bit faster by putting an aeroektar out front, trading speed for more wieght and bulk (and radiation) and a slightly different "look." I think it all depends on what you're after.

[Asher Kelman]

Asher,
Speed comes with trade-offs. What are you willing to trade off? In 4x5 the standard for decades has been the Speed Graphic & 4.7 Ektar. Some goose it a bit faster by putting an aeroektar out front, trading speed for more wieght and bulk (and radiation) and a slightly different "look." I think it all depends on what you're after.

Hi John,

My Crown Graphic has that Schneider Kreuznach f4.7 135mm Xenar Lens. How good is that? I heard the Ektar's are better. I haven't used this camera in years and just for B&W Polaroids. Needs a C&A.

I also have a Busch Pressman with a 203mm f 7.7 Ektar which I'd imagine is a better lens?

I'm going to test the bellows tonight with a light on a stick and see if there are pinholes then take some Polaroid shots.

The Crown Graphic is exactly 5.5 LB without a film holder in it. The Busch Pressman weight more than that but beyond my scale!

Asher

[vinny]

I've got a 210mm repromaster that i salvaged from a recycling company. It covers 8x10. It's only opens up to a f9. I dropped in in convict lake and it sunk to the bottom before i new what hit the water. That's fast! Luckily we managed to fish it out with some ski poles.

[Ole Tjugen]

The fastest lens I have (at the moment, and in shutter) is a very old Schneider Xenar Typ D 150mm f:3.5. It's - weird. :)

[Asher Kelman]

I love Dean and his Pola 110 conversions, but it really isn't an "all-arounder" and while the modified 110s with new lenses and movements are possible, they look like they also forfeit the simplicity of having a tiny 4x5 that folds up nicely for tossing into a backpack or whatever. I can't imagine screwing lens elements into a shutter every time you set up -- it just seems like a fudge. IMHO you'd do better with a 110 conversion for some stuff and supplementing it with a Graphic or Linhof to get movements, different lens possibilities, etc. I had a Crown set-up with a 135/3.5 Xenotar earlier this winter and it was a pretty decent little set-up actually. And it was only $700 invested.
Thanks Frank for your input. I visited your ste and enjoyed the blog format. It is casually formal in that it shows you do not starch your underware and have a range of approaches to photography. The idea I like is you are showing something that people can buy into. Great you can do the shots with 5 minutes time. What lens and camera did you use? I'd hope you also shot a bunch with a film or DSLR to make a larger sale!

My interests are

1, To get great 4x5 or 8x10 backgrounds to be scanned for my artwork. I add foreground figures to make it seamless.

2. To make 8x10 Polaroid transfers for my artwork.

3. To make film for platinum prints.

4. Work For architectural, faculty and student portraits of a major music college.

5. Casual handheld 4x5 street photography, casual portraits and Landscape. To push myself to do with 4x5 what I do with my 50 mm 1.2L lens on my 5D. I like to shoot wide open at f 1.2 here (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2364) and here (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2177).

I figure the wide aperture will give me the similar DOF.

I have the two 4x5 press cameras as described in my previous post, but still need an 8x10 and am considering a Calumet, but these are so damn heavy, OK for studio but not for schlepping!

So these are my total needs in LF right now!

Thanks,

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

I love Dean and his Pola 110 conversions, but it really isn't an "all-arounder" and while the modified 110s with new lenses and movements are possible, they look like they also forfeit the simplicity of having a tiny 4x5 that folds up nicely for tossing into a backpack or whatever. I can't imagine screwing lens elements into a shutter every time you set up -- it just seems like a fudge. IMHO you'd do better with a 110 conversion for some stuff and supplementing it with a Graphic or Linhof to get movements, different lens possibilities, etc. I had a Crown set-up with a 135/3.5 Xenotar earlier this winter and it was a pretty decent little set-up actually. And it was only $700 invested.
Thanks Frank for your input. I visited your ste and enjoyed the blog format. It is casually formal in that it shows you do not starch your underware and have a range of approaches to photography. The idea I like is you are showing something that people can buy into. Great you can do the shots with 5 minutes time. What lens and camera did you use? I'd hope you also shot a bunch with a film or DSLR to make a larger sale!

My interests are

1, To get great 4x5 or 8x10 backgrounds to be scanned for my artwork. I add foreground figures to make it seamless.

2. To make 8x10 Polaroid transfers for my artwork.

3. To make film for platinum prints.

4. Work For architectural, faculty and student portraits of a major music college.

5. Casual handheld 4x5 street photography, casual portraits and Landscape. To push myself to do with 4x5 what I do with my 50 mm 1.2L lens on my 5D. I like to shoot wide open at f 1.2 here (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2364) and here (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2177).

I figure the wide aperture will give me the similar DOF.

I have the two 4x5 press cameras as described in my previous post, but still need an 8x10 and am considering a Calumet, but these are so damn heavy, OK for studio but not for schlepping!

So these are my total needs in LF right now!

Thanks,

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

If you searrch the archives here you should find a lot of discussions on the Fotoman in use. I also wrote a rview of the Fotoman 45PS for View Camera Magazine ... IIRC it is in eiether the November-December 2006 or January-February 2007 issue.

Unfortunately my last copies are from June last year! My new access code wont be here until May when it comes on the magazine. I called today to see if they can do it earlier! I'd love to see pictures, especially those taken just by using the focus on the lens and trusting the setting! ie not using the ground glass. I can always get pretty accurate distances!

Do you happen to have links to pictures and to your articles on the Fotoman?

Thanks for your help!

Asher

[Ted Harris]

Here's one from the article .... handheld 75mm, Polaroid T55

[Asher Kelman]

Here's one from the article .... handheld 75mm, Polaroid T55
Thanks Ted for sharing! It looks nice and sharp.

I think this looks like a simple way of working. I'd love to get one in my hands!

Anyone in Los Angeles have one?

Asher

[Gordon Moat]

A couple of comparisons using your 50mm f1.2, the FoV (Field of View) and camera to subject distance. With larger film area, the assumption is a different CoC (Circle of Confusion); a simple way to imagine this is that to get an 8" by 10" print takes less enlargement from 4x5 than from 35mm (or full frame D-SLR).

Using your sample image of thigh to head gives us a working distance of 2.2m, though using the pCAM software on my PalmPilot, I can calculate for any distance. Obviously 35mm would print to 8" by 12" if you used the full frame, so to get an 8" by 10" print means cropping a little. Therefore I will base comparison on the Vertical (short dimension).

The 50mm f1.2 at 2.2m distance gives a 26.24º vertical angle of view. The closest large format lens regularly available the does the same is in the 180mm to 210mm focal length, which provides a close match on FoV to that 50mm. Using f1.2 aperture on the 50mm gives 11.3cm Depth of Field (DoF). To get that same short DoF, blurring out the background, would require about f4.4 on a 180mm, f5.6 on a 200mm, and f7.1 on a 210mm. Probably the easiest choice would be any of several 210mm f5.6 lenses available, and use one wide open at f5.6. So if that made sense, you might see that you don't really need a super fast lens to get a very short FoV.

Another aspect you might not have considered is that you can tilt the lens plane relative to the film plane. Effectively you can get even more extreme selective focus, and blurr out backgrounds or foregrounds to an even more extreme level than with that D-SLR and 50mm f1.2 lens.

The only real advantage to f1.2 is under low light conditions. However, if you consider that for an 8" by 10" print even less magnification of grain takes place than with 35mm, then you can get away with using higher ISO film; if you shot at ISO 100 with your D-SLR, you can somewhat match results with ISO 400 B/W film in a 4x5, or even ISO 800 film (or push processing) would not be out of the question; this makes the smaller aperture on the 4x5 lens less of an issue under low light conditions.

Anyway, I hope that made some sense. I like that fast focus fall-off too, and tend to use fast lenses wide open on my 35mm gear. I also shoot my 4x5 lenses close to wide open, or as open as f8.0 on for many of my shots, which also creates those nice defocus effects to the background of images. I wish I had something scanned to share with you, but check out the LF Forum thread about Wide Open images; there are some great examples there.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Dean Jones]

Hi Frank....no fudge...I don't screw different elements into the shutter, just stick with one lens. I tend to like working around a single lens, it's more of a challenge. I like getting to know it's limitations as well as attributes. Switching lenses on a 4x5 is just as bad as switching lenses on a DSLR, a pain in the butt, often expensive and unnecessary. ;)

Choose the lens thats best, then work with it....travel light, forget the bag of stones.
So Frank, would you like a 900 lens baby?

Cheers, Dean........:)

[Asher Kelman]

Thanks Gordon!

You kindly calculated to give me mathematical reassurance for what I considered was feasable. I really like the idea of having the technic of my 35mm experimenting to be able to use on a more scalable medium. I do like your coffee series and notice you are Van Gogh re-incarnated!

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Frank....no fudge...I don't screw different elements into the shutter, just stick with one lens. .
So Frank, would you like a 900 lens baby?

Cheers, Dean........:)

Dean, send it to me, I'll feed it! If you were here!

Asher

[Frank Petronio]

Or maybe he is cooking up a large format Lens Baby? That would be pretty fun. Stupid maybe, but fun ;-)

[Brian C. Miller]

Lensbabies for 35mm (http://www.lensbabies.com/) looks like a way to try to make a view camera out of a 35mm. Swing and tilt, but no shift or rise.

[Ralph Barker]

If one could live with a small circular image on 4x5, adapting a Leica 50mm f/1.0 Noctilux to a lens board might be an interesting exercise. :eek:

[Asher Kelman]

Lensbabies for 35mm (http://www.lensbabies.com/) looks like a way to try to make a view camera out of a 35mm. Swing and tilt, but no shift or rise.

Exactly! That's really a wonderful way of seeing an selectively and I've a great interest in this as you'll see here (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1189&highlight=lensbaby). I am so impressed how such a simple device can sometimes yield such beautiful images. I think it may mimic what the brain does when we are fascinated with something, we hyperfocus and blur everything else.

That's in fact what I want with large format, but the ability to enlarge and have a much higher quality principal subject. Further I need to take architectural, landscape and portraits that are formal.

Asher

[Struan Gray]

Fresnel lenses can make for some funky images at large f-stop values. You will need a focal plane shutter to make the most use of their speed. You should also try them both ways round: they are usually faster, and better, in one orientation than the other.

[Dean Jones]

No Frank...it's a normal Polaroid 900 fitted with a 150mm lens. You shoot in the normal range finder way, but there`s the option to get creative by swinging, tilting and shifting the lens, like a big 'Lensbaby' (using the G/G of course). It still folds up flat as well. ;)

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/Polaroid_900/polaroid_900.html

[Asher Kelman]

No Frank...it's a normal Polaroid 900 fitted with a 150mm lens. You shoot in the normal range finder way, but there`s the option to get creative by swinging, tilting and shifting the lens, like a big 'Lensbaby' (using the G/G of course). It still folds up flat as well. ;)

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/Polaroid_900/polaroid_900.html

Dean,

I've visted your pages a dozen times and am totally facinated and admire your efforts. You are in fact a very colorful guy and dedicate too as the Obsession 6x17 fixed lens 6x17 camera attests. However, how am I missing prices and weights. How can I know whether a particular guys camera is for me when I have no weight price or ability to test one. Are these cameras bought mainly from people here and so they all know what I don't?

Then, do you have a kist if LA users so I can test and review one!

Kibnd wishes,

Asher

[Brian C. Miller]

That's in fact what I want with large format, but the ability to enlarge and have a much higher quality principal subject. Further I need to take architectural, landscape and portraits that are formal.
OK, there are a number of press cameras with range finders, like Graflex (http://cgi.ebay.com/Busch-Pressman-Special-Gorgeous-4x5-Camera-Set_W0QQitemZ270099492006QQcategoryZ15247QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem) and Busch. (http://cgi.ebay.com/Busch-Pressman-Special-Gorgeous-4x5-Camera-Set_W0QQitemZ270099492006QQcategoryZ15247QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem) However, press/field cameras are not known for their range of movements. The Linhof (http://www.linhof.de/english/) Master Technika is one big fat exception to the field, but a few Graflex cameras have seen heavy modification. If you are good at just estimating distances or preseting the focus is OK, there's the Toyo 45-CF for around $800.

For architectural shots, most people use monorail view camera, like the Linhof Technikardan. The Toyo 45CX is around $650. Just get a lens with really good coverage.

[Dean Jones]

Hi Asher....Many cameras over there, but I wouldn't mention names. I`m sure nobody wants nuisance calls at 2am.

Razzle 110B 4x5 weighs in at 3 1/4 pounds, 900 with movements at 4 pounds, both under a grand, no interchangeable lenses, but accurate rangefinder focusing and foldability.

What I really want is a truckload of Planar 150mm f2.8 lenses that will cover 5x7! :D

Cheers.

[Asher Kelman]

A couple of comparisons using your 50mm f1.2, the FoV (Field of View) and camera to subject distance. With larger film area, the assumption is a different CoC (Circle of Confusion); a simple way to imagine this is that to get an 8" by 10" print takes less enlargement from 4x5 than from 35mm (or full frame D-SLR).

Using your sample image of thigh to head gives us a working distance of 2.2m, though using the pCAM software on my PalmPilot, I can calculate for any distance. Obviously 35mm would print to 8" by 12" if you used the full frame, so to get an 8" by 10" print means cropping a little. Therefore I will base comparison on the Vertical (short dimension).

The 50mm f1.2 at 2.2m distance gives a 26.24º vertical angle of view. The closest large format lens regularly available the does the same is in the 180mm to 210mm focal length, which provides a close match on FoV to that 50mm. Using f1.2 aperture on the 50mm gives 11.3cm Depth of Field (DoF). To get that same short DoF, blurring out the background, would require about f4.4 on a 180mm, f5.6 on a 200mm, and f7.1 on a 210mm. Probably the easiest choice would be any of several 210mm f5.6 lenses available, and use one wide open at f5.6. So if that made sense, you might see that you don't really need a super fast lens to get a very short FoV.

Another aspect you might not have considered is that you can tilt the lens plane relative to the film plane. Effectively you can get even more extreme selective focus, and blurr out backgrounds or foregrounds to an even more extreme level than with that D-SLR and 50mm f1.2 lens.

The only real advantage to f1.2 is under low light conditions. However, if you consider that for an 8" by 10" print even less magnification of grain takes place than with 35mm, then you can get away with using higher ISO film; if you shot at ISO 100 with your D-SLR, you can somewhat match results with ISO 400 B/W film in a 4x5, or even ISO 800 film (or push processing) would not be out of the question; this makes the smaller aperture on the 4x5 lens less of an issue under low light conditions.

Anyway, I hope that made some sense. I like that fast focus fall-off too, and tend to use fast lenses wide open on my 35mm gear. I also shoot my 4x5 lenses close to wide open, or as open as f8.0 on for many of my shots, which also creates those nice defocus effects to the background of images. I wish I had something scanned to share with you, but check out the LF Forum thread about Wide Open images; there are some great examples there.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

Thanks again, Gordon!

Now I have the 229 mm Cooke PS945 which would allow me to constrcut and then go beoyond the dreamy wonder of the Canon 1.2L and have large prints. I hope the image circle, which is 190mm at infinity will give good coverage for H&S and for flowers as well as ful length figures. I'd love to do landscapes too, but I'm worried that I may be out of luck!

Myybe I'll put on a fine correction lens to the front and extend the bellows. Sacrilege of the highest order!

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

A couple of comparisons using your 50mm f1.2, the FoV (Field of View) and camera to subject distance. With larger film area, the assumption is a different CoC (Circle of Confusion); a simple way to imagine this is that to get an 8" by 10" print takes less enlargement from 4x5 than from 35mm (or full frame D-SLR).

Using your sample image of thigh to head gives us a working distance of 2.2m, though using the pCAM software on my PalmPilot, I can calculate for any distance. Obviously 35mm would print to 8" by 12" if you used the full frame, so to get an 8" by 10" print means cropping a little. Therefore I will base comparison on the Vertical (short dimension).................

The 50mm f1.2 at 2.2m distance gives a 26.24º vertical angle of view. The closest large format lens regularly available the does the same is in the 180mm to 210mm focal length, which provides a close match on FoV to that 50mm. Using f1.2 aperture on the 50mm gives 11.3cm Depth of Field (DoF). To get that same short DoF, blurring out the background, would require about f4.4 on a 180mm, f5.6 on a 200mm, and f7.1 on a 210mm. Probably the easiest choice would be any of several 210mm f5.6 lenses available, and use one wide open at f5.6. So if that made sense, you might see that you don't really need a super fast lens to get a very short FoV.

The only real advantage to f1.2 is under low light conditions. However, if you consider that for an 8" by 10" print even less magnification of grain takes place than with 35mm, then you can get away with using higher ISO film; if you shot at ISO 100 with your D-SLR, you can somewhat match results with ISO 400 B/W film in a 4x5, or even ISO 800 film (or push processing) would not be out of the question; this makes the smaller aperture on the 4x5 lens less of an issue under low light conditions.

.....I like that fast focus fall-off too, and tend to use fast lenses wide open on my 35mm gear. I also shoot my 4x5 lenses close to wide open, or as open as f8.0 on for many of my shots, which also creates those nice defocus effects to the background of images. ..........


Thanks again, Gordon!

Now I have the 229 mm Cooke PS945 which would allow me to reconstruct and then go beyond the dreamy wonder of the Canon 1.2L and have large prints. I hope the image circle, which is 190mm at infinity will give good coverage for H&S and for flowers as well as ful length figures. I'd love to do landscapes too, but I'm worried that I may be out of luck! I do have a 4x5 reducing back on order too.

Where do I find out about pcam software and how is it different from other similar programs?

Maybe I'll put on a fine correction lens to the front and extend the bellows: sacrilege of the highest order!

Asher

[Dave Wooten]

Asher,

For daytime street work one can easily use a graflex 4 x 5 and shoot at f/16, even at 250 to 400 sec. Also night work can be done with a graflex and vivitar flash 283 etc. Look at the reportage of the 30's 40's 50's 60's 70's and even the recent political conventions....a 90 mm lens at f/11 or 16 from about 10 feet on is a winner.
Also check some of David Goldfarb's night photography of halloween street scenes in New York City, hand held 5 x 7 (!) with flash....sharp as a tack and good tonality and depth of field.

[Captain_joe6]

Fastest lens I've seen that will cover 8x10 is the Graf Variable Anastigmat, f/3.8, focal length of 14 inches. Its a variable soft-focus type lens, if thats your thing.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Also check some of David Goldfarb's night photography of halloween street scenes in New York City, hand held 5 x 7 (!) with flash....sharp as a tack and good tonality and depth of field.

That series is handheld 4x5"--

http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/halloween

I do occasionally do handheld 5x7" with the Press Graflex, but I don't use flash with that camera.

[Deane Johnson]

David, that shot sure looks good on my 22" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro CRT monitor. It really has the look of the early press shots, back when photo journalism was an art form. There's something about a LF negative in this kind of shooting that cannot be duplicated with anything else.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Thanks, Deane. You can click the image to cycle through about nine shots.

[Asher Kelman]

Thanks, Deane. You can click the image to cycle through about nine shots.

Thanks for sharing David!

Also an impressed with your academic publications! So I guess you are fluent in Russian too!

I'm impressed. What film and lens did you use and at what settings. How did you focus?

Do you have a processor or dunk? Are you scanning or wet processing for printing?

I wonder if you can share ideas on printing.

Asher

[David A. Goldfarb]

Four Grafmatics loated with Efke PL100, EI 200, Acufine. Deep tanks and hangers. Linhof Tech V with a rangefinder cammed Symmar 210/5.6 convertible. GVI Vari-Strobe head on auto with a Norman 200C pack and 5" plain reflector on a bracket over the lens axis. All of those shots are at f:8, 1/15 sec. except for "Le Pescadou," which was at f:5.6, because I was shooting across a wide avenue.

Those negs print very nicely on the paper that is the middle grade of Efke Emaks (sold in the past as Cachet Expo RF, Maco Expo RF, J&C Exposition Graded, and probably a few other labels, and with different names for the three grades).

I wish I had been out shooting last night, but child care obligations came first, and I haven't quite figured out how to carry the above rig and a 20-odd pound 11-month old yet. We did walk around our new neighborhood of Washington Heights last night to do a few errands, and there were some really delightful and astoundingly vulgar costumes.

P.S.--Here's another post with other handheld 4x5" work that I've posted before--

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=278181&postcount=10

I usually think of the 135/3.5 Planar as my basic handheld available light lens on the Technika.

[Scott Davis]

Asher- if you've got the Cooke PS225, you've already got the perfect lens for doing what you want, minus the fact that it's in a Copal 3 shutter. 190mm is more than enough coverage for 4x5 portraiture. The Cooke 225 is supposed to actually cover 5x7, at least at portrait distances.

Another good lens which you can sometimes find in barrel is the one that came on a bunch of the Graflex SLRs - I have an old Series D with the long bellows, and it has a Kodak 8 1/4" Anastigmat f4.5. Great little lens. It will do exactly what you're looking for also.

For 8x10 (if you're still looking...it seems like you've given up on the concept of an 8x10 p/s camera), there's the Kodak Ektar 305mm f4.5. This is NOT the Commercial Ektar, which is an f6.3 lens. The 305 will cover 8x10 even at infinity, although I don't know how sharp the corners will be. It comes in an Ilex #5 shutter (Big Beast!). They often show up on Ebay for $300-350.

[Asher Kelman]

Four Grafmatics loated with Efke PL100, EI 200, Acufine. Deep tanks and hangers. Linhof Tech V with a rangefinder cammed Symmar 210/5.6 convertible.

David,

I wonder about the Grafmatics. There is a reflex and other version. I wonder how they fit with different cameras? Since you use two different lenses is it easy to switch cams? Also how different is your Linhoff camera compared to the Crown Graphic or the Busch Pressman? I have heard that they are well made, but never looked at one. Figures like $6,000 come to mind!

Thanks,

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

Asher- if you've got the Cooke PS225, you've already got the perfect lens for doing what you want, minus the fact that it's in a Copal 3 shutter. 190mm is more than enough coverage for 4x5 portraiture. The Cooke 225 is supposed to actually cover 5x7, at least at portrait distances.

Scott,

I have the Cooke PS945 which is 229mm

I am hoping it will even cover the 8x10, albeit just!!

However, I never thought of putting it the Crown Graphic. I doubt that it would close. Of course I could remove it as I would with a finer camera!! :) If I did then I'd need an adapter to get it on my Chamonix which needs Sinar boards. That would work! However I haven't found one! The Technika lens board is slightly larger so it might well fit in the Linhoff to Sinar adapter sold by S.K.Grimes.


Another good lens which you can sometimes find in barrel is the one that came on a bunch of the Graflex SLRs - I have an old Series D with the long bellows, and it has a Kodak 8 1/4" Anastigmat f4.5. Great little lens. It will do exactly what you're looking for also. I'll have to check it out. Maybe Will Thompson has one and he'' lend it to me!

[QUOTE=Scott Davis;288075For 8x10 (if you're still looking...it seems like you've given up on the concept of an 8x10 p/s camera), there's the Kodak Ektar 305mm f4.5. This is NOT the Commercial Ektar, which is an f6.3 lens. The 305 will cover 8x10 even at infinity, although I don't know how sharp the corners will be. It comes in an Ilex #5 shutter (Big Beast!). They often show up on Ebay for $300-350.[/QUOTE]That would be for a Fotoman camera! Been thinking about that. However, I'd rather just have a handheld 4x5 with the lenses movable to my Chamonix 8x10.

Ciao

Asher

[David A. Goldfarb]

David,

I wonder about the Grafmatics. There is a reflex and other version. I wonder how they fit with different cameras? Since you use two different lenses is it easy to switch cams? Also how different is your Linhoff camera compared to the Crown Graphic or the Busch Pressman? I have heard that they are well made, but never looked at one. Figures like $6,000 come to mind!

Thanks,

Asher

I really like Grafmatics. I have 8 of them as well as 2 Kinematics, which are similar but hold 10 sheets instead of six. Kinematics aren't quite as reliable as Grafmatics, but it is handy to be able to carry that much film compactly.

There are Graflex type for the reflex cameras and Graphic type for most other cameras. They will usually slip under the groundglass back, or if you have a Graflok or International back, they can clip to the back with the Graflok slides, and if you're rangefinder focusing, you can leave the groundglass panel at home (on a Linhof and most other cameras with Graflok or International backs it slides out easily).

I have six cammed lenses for my 4x5" Tech V, as well as some lenses that I use with groundglass focusing only. The cams simply pull out and push in, but you do need to push the front standard into the camera body and to move the rail out to access the cam. To change lenses and cams, figure it takes less than a minute.

A Crown or a Pressman is a lighter camera, so some like them particularly for handheld use, but with the side mounted rangefinders they can only be calibrated for one lens at a time, and only lenses around the "normal" focal length. The later Graphics with the top mounted rangefinder can use cams calibrated for different lenses.

A Technika is a more precise camera, with cams ground individually for each lens, like the focusing cams in Leica lenses. Technikas have more extensive movements front and back, longer bellows extension, and a more rigid body. You can get a second-hand Tech V for considerably less than the price of a new Master Tech, and the only feature you will be missing is the flap on top that makes it easier to use a few modern lenses between 72 and 90mm that have very large image circles. You can have your lenses cammed for a Tech IV, V, or Master Tech by Marflex in the US.

I doubt they would cam the Cooke PS945 lens, because the don't cam the Imagon on the grounds that the focus position of a soft focus lens is too subjective for rangefinder use, and it makes more sense to use a Cooke with groundglass focusing. On the other hand, a Graflex reflex camera would be an ideal match for the Cooke.

[Lightbender]

Dude, if you are using 4x5 or 8x10 just shoot at ISO 400 and up.. The grain will not be noticeable at all and 4.5 and f5.6 will be plenty bright.. you will even have to stop down in daylight!

[Asher Kelman]

Dude, if you are using 4x5 or 8x10 just shoot at ISO 400 and up.. The grain will not be noticeable at all and 4.5 and f5.6 will be plenty bright.. you will even have to stop down in daylight!

Hi Dude,

There's always the option of using a neutral density filter. That is one custom needed whenever one wants flexibility in aperture choice but can't change the film. That is not in the mindset of those going for sharpest focus from here to infinity.

The other point you might be touching is whether the silver deposition that makes the glow of these lenses will occur if the exposure in not correct. Is that what you are referring to?

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

I doubt they would cam the Cooke PS945 lens, because the don't cam the Imagon on the grounds that the focus position of a soft focus lens is too subjective for rangefinder use, and it makes more sense to use a Cooke with groundglass focusing. On the other hand, a Graflex reflex camera would be an ideal match for the Cooke.

I think one would Cam the Cooke Lens at f11 which would mean that only about 15% of the soft focus would be present. One would then develop an experience of how to use that. That would be flexible. One could always go to f16 or more and the focus would be fine. Dropping down to f5.6 would be fine to.

I just wonder which Technica I should look at?

Is the Technica V the best choice at this time.

Asher

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you are buying a used Technika, I think a Tech V in good condition is the best value. If you don't plan to use very wide lenses, the IV is also a good value. The main differences between the IV and the V are the front rise mechanism (the ratcheting lever on the V is easier to use with wide lenses than the knob on the IV), and the "zeroed" groundglass on the V and Master Tech. On the III and IV, each lens was cammed individually for one camera body, so Tech III and IV cams will have the serial number of the lens on top and the body on the bottom. On the V and Master, the groundglass is calibrated to be in the same position on all camera bodies, so lenses and cams can be moved from one body to another, and you can have a lens cammed without sending in the body. In practice, however, it's always good to send the body in anyway when having a new lens cammed to have the groundglass and rangefinder calibration checked, and to have the infinity stops and focusing scales installed accurately. They can also shim lenses so that with different positions of the focusing rail, two lenses can share one set of infinity stops (75mm and 135mm or 90mm and 150mm are common pairs).

If getting a Technika depends on your being able to use the PS945 with the rangefinder, call Marflex and see if they will do it for you. There are lenses they don't provide cams for.

[mark edward randle]

Hi all,
I`m new here, but I`ve just started using an 11x13 Ross F2 extra rapid universal symmeterical on my 8x10 Gandolfi. It`s a monoster of a thing though and my back isn`t too happy about it.

[Jim Galli]

Hi all,
I`m new here, but I`ve just started using an 11x13 Ross F2 extra rapid universal symmeterical on my 8x10 Gandolfi. It`s a monoster of a thing though and my back isn`t too happy about it.

That f2 is deceptive though as I'm quite sure it's the old system and would equate to f6 on more modern lenses. Still a lovely big lens.

[Asher Kelman]

Hi all,
I`m new here, but I`ve just started using an 11x13 Ross F2 extra rapid universal symmeterical on my 8x10 Gandolfi. It`s a monoster of a thing though and my back isn`t too happy about it.
Greetings Mark!

Great to hear about your lens. How did you come to choose it? Also what pictures have you taken so far?

Asher

And the focal length is?

[Maris Rusis]

This is not in the serious vein of this thread but some years ago I decided to shoot 8x10 with a f.1 lens to see what happened.

To get a suitable lens I stacked some condensers from a Durst 184 8x10 enlarger on a bench and clamped a 8x10 camera back the right distance behind the huge glass to catch an image of a test chart. Exposure was in a black studio with a carefully shielded open flash.

Result was abominable image quality with negligible depth of field muddled up with outrageous optical aberrations. The negative was darker than expected so the system probably ran faster than f.1.

Conclusion: Waste of time not worth repeating!

[mark edward randle]

Yeah, hi there. Didn`t go out of my way looking for it, it just turned up on ebay for 80 dollars and nobody seemed to want it, it came from an estate sale of an old photographer New York apparently. As to the aperture, yes, I think it`s the old USA system of F-stops, I develop by inspection anyway ( ortho film ). The things nearly 6 inches across and barely goes on the lens board. I`ve been using it for landscapes, usually wide open or thereabouts -- gives a nice bokeh. Sorry, can`t put any jpegs up yet as I`m completely non-digital.

[John Kasaian]

Handheld 8x10 photography is what you're after, right? I see two issues---
1. The fastest lenses are too big for a copal #0 or #2 which will give you fast shutter speeds, which you'll also need.

2. Aerial lenses that will cover 8x10 like the 12" aerostigmat in a camera like a K-17 are fixed focus at infinity---not much use for terrestrial shooting (and did I tell you about my hernia surgery?)

My handheld 8x10 is a Gowland Aerial model with an f/9 Nikor "M" 300mm. Performance is very good wide shot open at f/9 or f/11 and down to 1/125/sec if I do my part. Mine is fixed focus but Peter offers a helical focus model too.

[mark edward randle]

Shutter speed isn`t a problem, I`m only using 8 asa ortho film. Hand-held 8x10 ?? You should try that in some of the winds we get up here in North Wales.