Mix and Match lens parts from Sinar/Rodenstock

[crackerjax]

I have an apportunity to buy a front/shutter from a Rodenstock grandagon 90mm f/4.5 at a very cheap price that is supposed to have a damaged rear element. I can also get a perfectly good Rear section from a Sinar Sinaron W 90mm f/4.5.

Should these two work together? I know these lenses should be similar if not identical, but I haven't heard if the threading is even the same. This may be the only way I can get a bright and wide lens in my limited budget without begging the wife.

[rdenney]

I have an apportunity to buy a front/shutter from a Rodenstock grandagon 90mm f/4.5 at a very cheap price that is supposed to have a damaged rear element. I can also get a perfectly good Rear section from a Sinar Sinaron W 90mm f/4.5.

Should these two work together? I know these lenses should be similar if not identical, but I haven't heard if the threading is even the same. This may be the only way I can get a bright and wide lens in my limited budget without begging the wife.

If they are both fitted to the same type of shutter (and I'm sure they are--a Copal/Compur No. 0), then your scheme will work, at least mechanically. The threading is dictated by the shutter, and all large-format lenses these days are designed around the same series of shutters.

Optically, a Sinaron-W is just a rebadged Grandagon. There are two possible sources of problems. One is that the two cells may come from slightly different versions of the Grandagon design, assuming that design underwent generational refinements over the years. The other source is that some lenses are shimmed to fine-tune them in a given shutter, and you may lose that tweaking.

This is one of those "price is right" experiments. If it's cheap enough, the risk is manageable and you might end up with a good lens. But quality 90mm lenses of the Grandagon and Super Angulon types are not rare or even really expensive, so I would make sure you can't just buy the real thing for nearly as cheap. I'd probably do this if I got the parts for under a hundred bucks, if I needed a 90mm lens. Even if the lens didn't work, the shutter would be useful to have. Others might have a different price threshold.

Rick "who has been known to attempt goofy stuff like this" Denney

[crackerjax]

I think thats the answer I needed even if its not the one I wanted. I also called Focal Point Lens and they said it'd cost at least $200 and possibly $400 (depending on lens design) to repair the Grandagon. Still, if I can get the damaged lens for $100 it comes with a good shutter so I might consider it. Better chance than buying a replacement and possibly mismatched rear element for $300+.

Next question, is the repaired version as good as a new one? No sense polishing a turd. Though I don't expect to buy a $2000 lens I'd rather not shoot through wide junk when I have a usable but too long lens to use instead.

[rdenney]

Next question, is the repaired version as good as a new one? No sense polishing a turd. Though I don't expect to buy a $2000 lens I'd rather not shoot through wide junk when I have a usable but too long lens to use instead.

A proper repair by a factory-approved facility should be able to get the correct part and also perform the correct alignments and any shimming needed.

But the real question is: What's a reasonable price? You aren't comparing it with a $2000 lens--I see several 90mm f/5.6 Super Angulons, in the later multi-coated versions, from KEH in the half a kilobuck range or a bit more. There are also f/6.8 Grandagons for less than that, and Caltar II-N's for still less (these are also Grandagons). And if you are on a budget, there are some 90/8 Super Angulons in the range of three bills. Any of these in usable condition (and KEH has a return policy) would be a safer choice and would perform excellently. I seriously doubt any used lens could be expected to outperform a 90/5.6 SA MC, except maybe an SA XL, and they have one of those for a hair over a thousand. That's about as good as it gets at any price. Good 90mm wide-coverage lenses for 4x5 use are not rare or expensive on the used market.

Rick "whose 90/5.6 Super Angulon MC is superb" Denney

[crackerjax]

Thanks for brining up KEH. I've used them occasionally over the years, and though I swear I looked at them recently somehow I didn't find this great assortment of lenses. I stick to bright lenses because I'm doing a lot of night shooting and have had a really tough time with my Caltar 210/5.6 and don't want to go even darker. The Calumet Cadet seems to have a dark ground glass, or at least dark for me. I've resorted to using a laser pointer to get correct focus and its worked out pretty well. Composing... well thats harder.

I think I've decided on a Grandagon 90/4.5 for the large image circle and not having a ridiculously wide angle to fight with. I'm just starting in LF and sold my 35mm about 3 years ago so am way out of practice.

Thanks for the help Rick

[rdenney]

Thanks for brining up KEH. I've used them occasionally over the years, and though I swear I looked at them recently somehow I didn't find this great assortment of lenses. I stick to bright lenses because I'm doing a lot of night shooting and have had a really tough time with my Caltar 210/5.6 and don't want to go even darker.

KEH is constantly rebuilding its list. I always look right before taking any other deal.

An f/5.6 90 won't be any darker than the f/5.6 210, at least in the bright spot between your eye and the rear nodal point. And it's only a half stop faster than f/4.5.

You'll accomplish much more in terms of being able to see the image in marginal conditions with a cheaper lens and then spending what you saved on a Maxwell focus screen.

Rick "f/5.6 is pretty fast for large format" Denney

[crackerjax]

Okay, I'll bite. I was interested in a Maxwell ground glass but I didn't think that they were interchangable. I don't do any studio shooting and could really use a field camera more than view camera I have now. It just didn't seem prudent to invest in a camera I found too cumbersome to fit in my car. No really, it won't fit anywhere but the trunk. So the question now becomes could I take the GG from the Cadet and move it to a Toyo 45CF or some light field camera?

[Oren Grad]

Ground glasses on different 4x5 cameras sometimes vary a bit in size and in other specifications such as whether the corners are cut; you'd have to measure the specific cameras to know whether you could move a screen from one to another.

I'd do some more homework before investing in a Maxwell screen. It may be exactly what you need, but it's pretty expensive, and there are other GG options - plain screens from different vendors, fresnel screens - that may be helpful at a much lower price. FWIW, I don't care much for Maxwell screens. I find that the brightness comes at the expense of focusing acuity - that is, the point of best focus becomes harder to judge. Many users are very happy with them, though. But they are pricey, so investigate a bit more before you commit to one.

Also, I wouldn't invest much in a Cadet. I had the opportunity to handle one at a Calumet store when they were still being sold new; on the whole it's fairly crude as monorails go, and I found it difficult to adjust with much precision. If you're tight on budget for now, by all means make the most of what you have. But when you're in a position to move on, there are many reasonably priced monorail and field cameras that will improve on it in one way or another.

[rdenney]

FWIW, I don't care much for Maxwell screens. I find that the brightness comes at the expense of focusing acuity - that is, the point of best focus becomes harder to judge. Many users are very happy with them, though. But they are pricey, so investigate a bit more before you commit to one.

A 4x5 Maxwell screen is priced at around $300, which is a pricey addition to a Calumet Cadet. I agree completely about the Cadet--it was a budget camera and now nearly all monorail 4x5 cameras are budget cameras. So the Maxwell screen will be a pricey addition to any monorail camera, but for the application of night-time photography, it might mean the difference between usable and not usable.

I have not found that the Maxwell made it any more difficult to focus. Quite the opposite--I can now see what I'm focusing, which makes focusing quite a bit easier. As to acuity in bright conditions, I have not noticed that the Maxwell is any more difficult to focus than the stock Sinar screen without the Sinar Fresnel, which makes focusing, especially with really short lenses, all but impossible.

Rick "noting the specific requirements of the OP" Denney