Cheap Lenses! Post your pics done with some real mud suckers here:

[Jim Galli]

In answer to the Pinkham & Smith thread I thought it might be fun to talk about the other end of the spectrum. Really REALLY inexpensive lenses that have a grand look. So yesterday I made a couple of photos with a real sleeper. Yep, I made them just because I wanted to see what the lens could do. Guess what, they are gorgeous and I plan to do a LOT of other stuff with this particular lens. What is it you ask? Later. Let me preface that if I put it on Ebay I wouldn't get $55 bucks for it.


http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/WhiteCoffeeCuo.jpg
white coffee cup



I just love the soft peaches and cream look. I only made 2 images and both are keepers. I used the Venerable Kodak 2D and Freestyle APHS Ortho film



http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/ElevationWheel.jpg
elevation wheel



Both of these are just rough and reddy scans. I did print both of these today just for a first look on 11X14 Kodak matt RC paper that is probably 25 years old. Beautiful prints and very easy, no messing around.



OOPS. Out of time. My breakfast is done. I'll have to tell ya later what the lens was....................Jim Galli

[Jim Noel]

Jim,
I am interested in the lens as I have several wich probably would not bring $5 on the web auction. I am also interested in your development of APHS.

Thanks,
Jim

[Ole Tjugen]

15cm f.6.8 Zeiss Doppel-Amatar - €25.-

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1182/787831456_35d88e4286.jpg

On the other hand I paid €30.- for my 355mm f:9 G-claron - together with a 210 and a 150mm.

The majority of my lenses have cost me less than $100, so most of my pictures fall in this category.

[Jim Galli]

Jim,
I am interested in the lens as I have several wich probably would not bring $5 on the web auction. I am also interested in your development of APHS.

Thanks,
Jim

A page with my formula for APHS is embedded in this web page (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/FreestyleAPHS/SomeNewAPHS072206.html).

BTW the second picture on that page is done on 8X10 with a $56 210mm Goerz Dagor. I think that qualifies as a mud sucker.

[Dan Fromm]

Um, Jim, you overpaid. Not too long ago I got a 210/6.8 Boyer Beryl and the Gestetner copier it lived in for Euro 12 plus postage. The seller took mercy on me, sent only the lens. It is in barrel, the cells go straight into a #1. Coated, too.

So what, you ask? The Beryl is another 6/2 anastigmat and very very similar to the Dagor. That's what. If I ever get out your way I'll probably drag it with me and try to lend it to you. All in the interests of science.

Cheers,

Dan

[Jim Galli]

Um, Jim, you overpaid. Cheers,

Dan

I know i know......these damn Goerz have such name recognition driving the price up over 50 bucks. Nice old thing though. Beryl huh? Is there a category below mud sucker?

[Brian Ellis]

"Is there a category below mud sucker?"

Yes, but in the interest of good taste (perhaps that should be bad taste if you get my drift) we won't talk about it here.

[Ron Bose]

Jim,
It just goes to show that a 'real' photographer can make beautiful images with lenses that are considered dogs !

[Dan Fromm]

Um, Jim, the word you're looking for is undervalued.

And then there are, um, anomalies in the marketplace.

One of the better examples of an anomaly I can think of is the 100/6.3 Luminar that I bought for $25 at a camera show. Yes, at a camera show infested by dealers, some of whom should have snatched it. Thing is, Luminars had been in production for years before Zeiss started engraving the name on them and it seems that not many people know that (or knew when I bought mine).

Another is the 135/5.6 convertible Symmar in barrel that I bought via eBay for $32 delivered. The seller offered it as an enlarging lens. I guess none of the other people who stumbled across it realized that Schneider uses different names for taking and enlarging lenses.

Ron, do you think that Dagors are dogs? Would you refuse one?

[Ron Bose]

Dan,
I agree with your 'undervalued' comment. My point is that almost any lens in the hands of someone who's skilled in the art of making photographs can result in a beautiful image.

I love the look of old lenses, it gives their resultant images a 'glow' or a pleasing character. I just wish that I had half of Jim's skill in finding this beauties !!

[Robert Oliver]

I got this one for free from a camera store.... Schneider Symmar 135mm convertible in compur. This probably falls into the range of the higher class semi-mudsuckers though.

[Robert Oliver]

This is from a Bausch & Lomb 12" projection lens that I bought off some guy in Nevada that is hording all of the world's cool lenses for himself....

[Dan Fromm]

Dan,
I agree with your 'undervalued' comment. My point is that almost any lens in the hands of someone who's skilled in the art of making photographs can result in a beautiful image.

I love the look of old lenses, it gives their resultant images a 'glow' or a pleasing character. I just wish that I had half of Jim's skill in finding this beauties !!Ron, I couldn't agree more strongly with your first point. In most situations, especially with formats larger than 35 mm, the photographer's vision is much more important than his equipment.

I don't agree that much with your second, on the "look" of old lenses. By and large I can't see it. But then my most ancient lenses are f/6.3 tessars, the oldest from 1912, and Aldis Unos. These and a 1940 203/7.7 Kodak Anastigmat excepted, all of my lenses are post-WWII. Maybe if I tried really old lenses I'd see a big difference.

[Jim Noel]

A page with my formula for APHS is embedded in this web page (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/FreestyleAPHS/SomeNewAPHS072206.html).

BTW the second picture on that page is done on 8X10 with a $56 210mm Goerz Dagor. I think that qualifies as a mud sucker.
Thanks Jim, I will give it a try.
Jim

[Daniel_Buck]

I got this one for free from a camera store.... Schneider Symmar 135mm convertible in compur. This probably falls into the range of the higher class semi-mudsuckers though.
I picked up the same lens for free, from someone who was getting rid of a beat-up old Calumet 4x5. I used the lens a few times so far (just got it) and it seems to be good! the front glass has odd streaks on it, like some sort of coating has been rubbed off (or applied :confused: ) it takes decent pictures though! I haven't tried it with out the front lens off, which actually might be a good idea to try because the front element is the worst looking of the bunch! the others look clear accept for the very edge of the glass. Can't really see it in the photographs though, as far as I can tell anyway. Actually, you can't even see much wrong with the glass in the photo of the lens itself either. But against the light it's got some odd swirls and 'oily' look to it.

Seems to be fairly sharp, even wide open. The f22 version got some flare up in the right hand corner, but that might have been due to branches moving in the wind that blocked the light from the lens in the first shot. Have to shoot with it some more!

http://404photography.net/gwm/2007_07130081 copy.jpg


wide open at 5.6
http://404photography.net/wip/4x5/4x5_dodge_truck_01.jpg



wide then again at F22
http://404photography.net/wip/4x5/4x5_dodge_truck_01a.jpg

[eddie]

i can not remember where i go tthis old 12" projection lens from. it was either free or very close to free.

here (http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5161350)

eddie

ps. how do i load a picture so it shows up in the thread?

[Jim Galli]

i can not remember where i go tthis old 12" projection lens from. it was either free or very close to free.

eddie

ps. how do i load a picture so it shows up in the thread?

Eddie, that is a great shot. You can load them by going below the reply box where it says manage attachments. Click there and it will get you to a box where you can browse for the file in your computer. Upload them as an attachment.

[Gene McCluney]

Well this was shot with an old Rapid Rectilinear rescued from an old rotting Kodak Autographic roll film folder. Cost nothing. I mounted it on a board for my Super Graphic. Shot on Forte 200, processed in HC-110b. Scanned from negative.

[BrianShaw]

... an old Rapid Rectilinear rescued from an old rotting Kodak Autographic roll film folder. Cost nothing. ...

Me 2. Mine is B&L RR in a Kodak shutter. Once shutter was cleaned and lubed it runs like a Swiss watch (well, like a Rochester clock, maybe). Myy shutter realease needs refinement - at the moment it consists of a baby nose sucking bulb and a piece of automotive vacuum hose - a real ugly set up but one that works. I can't post picture due to scanner currently disconnected, but I have many great shots from this lens.

Also having great success with a Kodak Anastigmatic in dial-Compur that came with a 1940 Anniversary Graphic. Also an old Gundlach Radar, courtesy of a very nice chap on this forum!

[Lightbender]

Now this is is my kinda thread!
Heres one taken with a 135mm componon mounted in a Tempor shutter from a folder.

[Lightbender]

heres another with the same lens.. needed a lens hood theres some flare.
I think i paid $20 for the lens and less than 10 for the shutter.

[Jim Galli]

Now this is is my kinda thread!
Heres one taken with a 135mm componon mounted in a Tempor shutter from a folder.
Gorgeous tones in that. Don't you know better than using an enlarging lens for taking photos!! I had a Componon in a little Polaroid shutter for a long time until my little Fuji 125 came along. Mine came in a piece or 2" allthread with a bunch of other industrial junk. $12 IIRC

[Lightbender]

Heres one done with a caltar 210mm (symmar-s)
This counts cause the rear element has a chip in it about 1/4th of the rear element. I covered the chip with a piece of black cardboard.

[Lightbender]

heres one in 2x3 format.. a 103mm graflex tri-optar (triplet)

[dominikus bw]

old version Componon-S 100/5.6, won't cover 4x5 except at 1:3 ratio or more and it shown a little bit soft at the edges...

[dominikus bw]

Forgot to tell, it's a $20 lens...

[Dan Fromm]

Dominikus, you seem to be using your Componon-S as a macro lens.

Per Schneider, the Componon (predecessor of your -S, a Symmar tweaked for enlarging) was best as an enlarging lens from 6x - 10x, the Comparon (a Xenar tweaked for enlarging) was better from 2x to 6x. Used as taking lenses, those ranges are 1:6 - 1:10 and 1:2 - 1:6 respectively. I expect that the Componon-S has the same optimizations as the Componon.

So what else is new? We've beaten the idea of using enlarging lenses for closeup work to death and then some. The interesting question about them is whether they're good replacements for serious dedicated macro lenses.

By an odd coincidence, I've asked that question for 100/6.3 Zeiss Luminar, 100/6.3 Reichert Neupolar, and 4"/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar. The Luminar is recommended for use from 1:8 to 8:1 and is easily reversible. No recommendations on the Neupolar or Enlarging Pro Raptar, and neither is reversible.

On 2x3, the Neupolar is best from 1:8 to 1:1 at marked f/11, f/16, f/22. The Luminar and Enlarging Pro Raptar are tied. From 1:1 to 4:1 wide open, the rankings are the same. Reversing the Luminar made no difference.

Neupolar, $14 delivered. Enlarging Pro Raptar, about the same. Luminar, borrowed from my neighbor the Zeiss collector. My own 100 Luminar, sold long ago, wasn't very good. And old lens' present condition matters at least as much as its reputation when new.

[Lightbender]

I picked up the same lens for free, from someone who was getting rid of a beat-up old Calumet 4x5. I used the lens a few times so far (just got it) and it seems to be good! the front glass has odd streaks on it, like some sort of coating has been rubbed off (or applied :confused: )

I have a conv symmar with the same problem! I wonder if some of the old symmars were soft-coated.

[athanasius80]

Nice gams!

[Wimpler]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/106/317074204_5038f42b68.jpg

4x5 arca swiss, paper negative, 300mm f3 lens from magnifier (1$).

[Miguel Coquis]

Here is a "needle lens". For the price of a needle you can make as much lenses as you like !!!
TMAX 100
f:wo
t: 1 hour, 45 min

[Glenn Thoreson]

I have a conv symmar with the same problem! I wonder if some of the old symmars were soft-coated.

I have a 210/5.6 Symmar that was never coated. I'm going to guess that it's from the mid 30's judging by the Compur rim set shutter, which is as dead on accurate as the lens is perfect. A lovely thing.

[Ole Tjugen]

Glenn,

If your Symmar is that old it should be a Dagor-"clone". They were changed to Plasmat some time after the introduction of coating.

[Jon Wilson]

Here is a scan of a shot taken with a 180mm Goerz at f16 in an old shutter. First attempt at using this lens. I think the lens cost $65, but its personality is priceless:D

[Glenn Thoreson]

Glenn,

If your Symmar is that old it should be a Dagor-"clone". They were changed to Plasmat some time after the introduction of coating.

Well, now, that's interesting. I'm guessing at a date by the shutter, which has a top speed of 200, if I remember. Another one I need to look at. It's a good, sharp old sucker, though.

[Ole Tjugen]

There's never any need to guess at the age of a Schneider lens: http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/age_of_lenses/index.htm

(Except Schneider Göttingen lenses, but I believe they were only marked with that during WWII - so there's no need to guess either way.)

[Dan Fromm]

Ole, I've handled a coated Schneider Göttingen 125/2 Xenon with s/n, IIRC, 621xxx. Göttingen's anomalous serial numbers ran for at least a couple of years after the war.

[Ole Tjugen]

Ole, I've handled a coated Schneider Göttingen 125/2 Xenon with s/n, IIRC, 621xxx. Göttingen's anomalous serial numbers ran for at least a couple of years after the war.

Schneider Göttingen's serial numbers are continuous with ISCO, which is the same company.

[Glenn Thoreson]

Now I know how old mine is. I dug out my old Symmar to check the serial number. Low 1,000,000 = 1936. I thought I remembered it as 210/5.6, but it's 21cm/6.8. I was correct in estimating the date, anyhoo. I find it interesting that there doesn't seem to be a serial number on the front group, only on the rear. The shutter, which I'm fairly certain is original to the lens, only has one aperture scale. Thanks for putting up the link, Ole.

[eddie]

here is a shot using a 10 3/4 (i think it is 3/4) in wolly raptar f10. hat shutter.
i got this lens for free. mounted it to my 4x5 korona and shot this wide open at f10

[Ole Tjugen]

... Low 1,000,000 = 1936. I thought I remembered it as 210/5.6, but it's 21cm/6.8. ...

Yes, that's the "Dagor-clone" Symmar. F/6.8 is 6 in 2 groups (Dagor), f/5.6 is 6 in 4 groups (Plasmat). :)

[Kino]

There's never any need to guess at the age of a Schneider lens: http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/age_of_lenses/index.htm

(Except Schneider Göttingen lenses, but I believe they were only marked with that during WWII - so there's no need to guess either way.)

Ole,

Thanks! Now I know my $85 Linhoff Technika Symmar 210 f5.6 convertible was born a few months before I was; Late 1960!

No photos to show, just got her...

Frank

[Darryl Baird]

shot with un-named brass lens bought at Portabello Road Saturday Market in London,while (whilst) on holiday... paid 20 pounds or about 40 USD, waterhouse stop f6

[Glenn Thoreson]

Beautiful shot, if you ask me. At f/6, my guess is it's a Rapid Aplanat. Possibly by Emil Busch, but I'm no expert. I'm often wrong, too.

[Paramat]

Hi,

I’m new to this forum and came upon this thread while researching a lens.

If cheap denotes mudsucker then mine fits the bill and it may also fit in another way :). Several years ago, late one night I picked up a lens off the big auction sight. The seller had no idea what it was, and neither did I. But I figured for 15.00 "buy it now" (10.00 for the lens and 5.00 shipping) it looked cool and was quite old.

Since then it has just sat on a shelf in my darkroom, as I never could find any information on it. Several weeks ago I came across a thread mentioning a Synthetic lens and hence I came across this thread.

Since then I made a lensboard and mounted it in my RB Graflex...............WOW....this lens is pretty cool.............reminds me of those great Pictorial photos from the teens of the last century.

Image below of lens and image taken with lens (please keep in mind I don’t have a film scanner)

Cheers
Rob

http://web.mac.com/flowers4julie/iWeb/Site/Auction_files/PS%20Synthetic%202%20RS.jpg

http://web.mac.com/flowers4julie/iWeb/Site/Auction_files/PS%20Synthetic%205%20RS.jpg


http://web.mac.com/flowers4julie/iWeb/Site/Auction_files/Pinkham%20004.jpg

[Dan Fromm]

Paramat, google Pinkham & Smith.

[Jim Galli]

Hi,

I’m new to this forum and came upon this thread while researching a lens.

If cheap denotes mudsucker then mine fits the bill and it may also fit in another way :). Several years ago, late one night I picked up a lens off the big auction sight. The seller had no idea what it was, and neither did I. But I figured for 15.00 "buy it now" (10.00 for the lens and 5.00 shipping) it looked cool and was quite old.

Since then it has just sat on a shelf in my darkroom, as I never could find any information on it. Several weeks ago I came across a thread mentioning a Synthetic lens and hence I came across this thread.

Since then I made a lensboard and mounted it in my RB Graflex...............WOW....this lens is pretty cool.............reminds me of those great Pictorial photos from the teens of the last century.

Image below of lens and image taken with lens (please keep in mind I don’t have a film scanner)

Cheers
Rob



Rob,Your Pinkham and Smith was the last in a line of lenses that run the gamut of pictorial lenses. If you ever decide to sell it I want to be first in line :D I have some things done on my web pages with P&S lens.

[wfwhitaker]

Geez, friggin' Louise! 15 bucks for a P&S! This is killing me...

The photo is gorgeous, by the way.

[Caracalla]

Geez, friggin' Louise! 15 bucks for a P&S! This is killing me...

The photo is gorgeous, by the way.

That is what I've been thinking, gorgeous photo but $15 :p, because everywhere I look for P&S they are over $1000. One other fellow picked Nicola Perscheid also for few bucks, and all the ones I can find are priced over 1,000.

So, I am sorry I don't believe in P&S, Nicola Perscheid, etc. $15 Deals. However, there are exceptions! :)

[Paramat]

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the input on the lens. :)

I remember I bought something on ebay 5-6 years ago from Jim......I think it was a lens.....not sure though. Jim you have done some amazing work on your web site, I love the Bristlecone Images and the 40 Ford coupe images are wonderfull.

When I saw the lens on ebay I thought it was missing one of the elements, but figured maybe I was wrong. Then when I got it, I thought it was some sort of adaptor or add on lens. Several times I thought about putting it up on fleaBay but didnt know what I'd call it. Im really glad I finally got around to digging a little deeper on its identity, its now my favorite.

Please excuse my ignorance, but wouldnt it be easy to build one of these lenses, say with a surplus achromat mounted in a pvc tube with an aperture from a old enlarging lens......as you can probably tell I like to tinker and build stuff. So what am I missing??

Cheers
Rob

[Mark Sawyer]

Rob ~

It's not hard to assemble your own soft-focus lens. In fact, if you're assembling a lens yourself, it's rather difficult to make one that's not soft focus...

But there are differences in the effects, some subtle and some that whack you in the head like a mallet. Whether the effect of a $2000 P&S is better than that of a $500 Verito or a $10 home made lens is in the eye of the beholder. But the P&S can produce beautiful images, and has a wonderful history behind it.

I posted this one quite a while back, but from one of my hand-assembled 12" IWSWG lenses, parts value under $50 (mostly for the shutter), sentimental value, priceless...

[Daniel_Buck]

this is about as cheap as it gets, a $3 plano-convex lens taped to a cardboard box with a 3" hole cut out of it, taped to the front standard :D

I'm working on better designs to get a large aperture dreamy lens, this was the very first attempt, using only one lens element and a very crude mounting 'system' haha!


http://404photography.net/wip/4x5/lens_fun_04.jpg

http://404photography.net/wip/4x5/lens_fun_02.jpg

[Darryl Baird]

Mark can you share info on air space and which lens elements/sets you used? I love this idea almost as much as finding a P&S for $15 bucks...at least I have a fighting chance of making a reasonable and cheap lens versus a one in a million accident. I have a small box full of lenses I bought years ago from Surplus Shed.

[Mark Sawyer]

Mark can you share info on air space and which lens elements/sets you used? I love this idea almost as much as finding a P&S for $15 bucks...at least I have a fighting chance of making a reasonable and cheap lens versus a one in a million accident. I have a small box full of lenses I bought years ago from Surplus Shed.

This one is pretty crude, an achromatic doublet from Surplus Shed (!) in back, 500mm focal length (I think), and a #1 diopter (1 meter focal length) in front, spaced about 4 inches apart by trial-and-error/guesswork. The spacing didn't seem too critical for the center, but made a visible difference at the corners. All screwed into an Ilex #3, with stacks of 58mm filter rings for spacers. (The local camera shop saves me the scratched and broken filters just for the mounting rings...)

I need to get back into those home-made lenses...

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Really nice Mark, and by your description you made a Verito!

[Mark Sawyer]

Really nice Mark, and by your description you made a Verito!

Yes, I was thinking Verito/Petzval/P&S Visual Quality at the time. I don't know much about what achromats they have at the back, but the designs are all quite similar... I want to try another one, only longer. Time to start watching Surplus Shed and Edmund Scientific again...

[Paul Metcalf]

Nice shutter, Daniel!

[Jon Wilson]

Here is a shot taken this morning of our Dog Chance peaking through the fence. The shot was taken with Goerz Kaliostigmat f6.8 cells installed in a betax 2 shutter. I have no information on the lens except they were thrown in on another purchase and I found they directly fit my betax 2 shutter....don't know about the spacing. This is one for the first exposures taken with this set up.

[Paramat]

Thanks Mark, great litle skeleton image.

I hate to sound stupid but "12" IWSWG lenses" what is IWSWG?

Looks like you guys have a handle on making your own soft focus lenses....Ive gotta give this a try.

Cheers
Rob

[Matus Kalisky]

I hate to sound stupid but "12" IWSWG lenses" what is IWSWG?
Rob

I guess it is something like .. I do not Want to See What I Get .. :D

[Jim Galli]

My guess was "Its What See What Get" but Mark informed me it is for "I wish she woouldn't go."

[Mark Sawyer]

Well... I was trying to think of the right name for my lenses, and I noticed the factory names of some of the others in the lens cabinet. Ultragon, Rodagon, Hypergon, Imagon, Planigon, Metrogon, Astragon...

So I called mine the "I-Wish-She-Wasn't-Gon".

[Darryl Baird]

I got busy trying to make a lens from scratch, but went in a somewhat different route in the end. I'd bought what I thought was a magic lantern lens (an thus a Petzval design) on the eeeboy! site for 40 bucks. It looks like the front lens from an Optimus ML (Image One). I couldn't get much from the lens... very wide angle and didn't cover 4x5 at infinity. I got to toying with the lens and unscrewed the rear and found I could get a fairly ok closeup (Image Two) with just the front group (there were two groups, front and rear with about two inches between).

Following the info from Mark Sawyer, I began to look at other possible configurations. I re-inserted the the rear group and substituted a diopter +1, then a double +1 (x2), and a +3 in the front. Things started getting interesting. I shot several images of a simple flower still life and a head shot indoors. (Images Three & Four) ...continued in the next message (four image limit :( )

[Darryl Baird]

...continued from early post:

Outside in stronger light (wide open) the lens got a bit unmanageable -- the bokeh (+1X2) was wacky... but interesting (Image Five). I retried the lens with a +3 and stayed away from multi-depth compositions (and hard light) and got a few nice results (Image Six and Seven). If I have time this weekend I'll make a few portraits outdoors too. I taped the lens into a Betax #4 and stopped down to approx. f/16 (??) for the later images. (Image Eight)

Thanks Mark, it was so much fun to try these tests and I think I could live with most of the results. I'm still trying to acquire a long Verito or Cooke for my 8x10 full-face portrait project. But in the meantime I can switch between this mudsucker and my Velostigmat and learn to use the soft focus quality to my advantage.

[Mark Sawyer]

Darryl ~

I think those images are beautiful. And there's something wonderful in the universe if we can fumble around with our own designs and come up with lenses that work so well...

[Jim Galli]

Darryl, Bravo. I especially like 5 and 7. 5 is just plain weird which is a good thing, right?

[Darryl Baird]

weird, yes, good, maybe if I can put it to good use... something like neo-cubism!

Believe me, I've been thinking about it. :D

[Brian Bullen]

Darryl, excellent results with this concoction and I think you have already put it to good use.

[Darryl Baird]

thanks all
...my wife brought home some cosmos flowers today and said. "I though you might like to photograph these," and she's right of course. I'll try a few more lighting situations too.

[Daniel_Buck]

Latest test of mine, this time on the new body with no light leaks! I found this piece of glass to be multi-coated of some sort, which I think has helped the quality of the image! There is much less blur on the outsides of the image, so just about all of the blur is coming from DOF, which is what I have been looking for in my 'home-made' lens testing.

The lens is roughly a 400mm f4, and metered as such. (30 seconds for this exposure)

http://404photography.net/wip/4x5/lens_fun_06.jpg

http://404photography.net/wip/4x5/lens_fun_05.jpg

[Ole Tjugen]

I was looking for something else, and found this on my computer - I had completely forgotten that I had scanned it!

Shot with a 3 1/4" Holborn WA Rectilinear f:16 at f:11 (! I forgot to stop down to shooting aperture) on a 4x5" Anniversary Speed Graphic. Full shift applied, and camera held sideways to get drop. My (t)rusty little iris mount to the rescue yet again.