PDA

View Full Version : longer 4x5 lens on a budget



sethlatimer
27-Dec-2011, 11:04
Dear lazyweb,
I have seen the fuji and nikkor 300 recommended all over the place but they seem a bit expensive. Is there a less expensive alternative I should be considering?

Some parameters:

I use a 4x5 field camera that extends to 450mm
I do a fair bit of hiking around with it.
I am new to large format.
I could scrounge up a copal 1 if there is some process lens/cells that would work.
I am pretty cheap, for example I don't mind messed up filter rings if the glass is clean.

Thanks for the help.
Seth

Erik Larsen
27-Dec-2011, 11:11
You might find a 14 or 16 inch goerz Artar or a similar Rodenstock apo ronar for not much cash. Think about puttIng up a wanted add in the classified section of this forum and you'll probably get many choices to choose from. Good luck.
Regards
Erik

E. von Hoegh
27-Dec-2011, 11:15
You might find a 14 or 16 inch goerz Artar or a similar Rodenstock apo ronar for not much cash. Think about puttIng up a wanted add in the classified section of this forum and you'll probably get many choices to choose from. Good luck.
Regards
Erik

There's also a 12" Artar, which is what the OP wants. But Artars come in barrels usually, and to have the cells put in a shutter won't be cheap. A 12" Artar in a shutter might turn up, but usually these command a premium. Otherwise a great lens.

sethlatimer
27-Dec-2011, 11:22
Thanks for the help,
I wouldn't mind a 360, actually I'd probably prefer it, but I am thinking that I need a copal 1 shutter. Skgrimes lists the 14in artar as fitting a #3, but the 12in in a #1. hmm

rdenney
27-Dec-2011, 12:39
It sounds like a Rodenstock Geronar 300mm f/9 is the lens for you. It's a triplet, but still quite sharp at f/22. It's light, multi-coated, contrasty, and compact (mounted in a No. 1 shutter). Because it's a triplet, it doesn't have the coverage and wider-aperture image quality of a more complex lens, and that usually drives the price down. I've seen them for sale in excellent condition for under $300. But you may have to search deeply and wait until one becomes available. I don't see any at KEH or on ebay at the moment.

Rick "who has a 150 Geronar and thinks it a fine lens" Denney

Andrew
27-Dec-2011, 12:46
g-claron ???
fujinon-c ???

Corran
27-Dec-2011, 19:38
I bought a Schneider Xenar 360mm telephoto on ebay for $125 some time ago in a working compound shutter. It was an okay lens considering the price, but it was big.

domaz
27-Dec-2011, 19:45
Be on the lookout for telephoto design lens. Graflex Tele-Optars tend to go pretty cheap if you can fit one on your camera. I really like my 12" Dallmeyer Tele-Anastigmat f/7.7. It's very compact- probably not an easy lens to find cheap though.

Fotoguy20d
27-Dec-2011, 20:42
The Graflex Tele is a lousy lens for hiking. It's big and heavy. And, if your Field Camera is like my Calumet Woodfield, the lens wouldn't fit on the board and the front locks wouldn't support it anyway.

The 12" Artar is a good thought but you would need to pay Grimes (or someone) to make adpaters so the cells will actually thread into the Copal shutter. Are you shooting color or B&W? How sharp a lens do you need/want? You could try some of the old convertible lenses in a shutter - for example, T-R Anastigmat, B&L Protar VII, Goerz Dagor. Any of those in the 5-8" range (as a pair of cells) will have a single element that's on the order of 12-14" (I've used my 5 1/2" Dagor, and 4x5 T-R triple on my Woodfield as converted lenses but a 13 3/4" Protar cell was too long for the camera). Not the sharpest thing in the world, but not bad stopped down. The problem I find with longer lenses is that they will usually cover 8x10 so command a bit of a premium price. Process lenses are inexpensive and can be quite sharp but can cost a fortune to fit into a shutter.

Dan

Joseph Dickerson
27-Dec-2011, 20:44
As RD said, the Geronar is highly under rated. You might also find it as a Calumet Caltar. The 150 and 210 Geronar lenses were sold that way and I think the 300 might have been for a short time.

I have the 300 Geronar and it's quite sharp stopped down. It should be considerably cheaper than the Fuji, Nikkor or APO Ronar.

JD

johnielvis
27-Dec-2011, 21:59
WELL...if you have one, just use part of it...want "budget" then use your existing lens as a convertable


i just saw there's a ilex convertable 215 / 14" for sale still here I think...that's in an ilex shutter, but there's also a cheaprer f5.6 version--same lens--that comes in a copal 1 verstion...2 lens for the price of one...this is how they sold them--"on a budget" type lenses....suggest you go for that or just convert your existing by unscrewing the front cell

rdenney
28-Dec-2011, 08:16
The useful notion of a convertible came up, but you don't have to go back to antiques. Just get a 60's or early 70's Schneider Symmar (not "S" or anything newer), which is a convertible. The Symmar 180/5.6 is mounted in a No. 1 shutter, and becomes a 315mm f/12 lens with the front cell removed. The original Compur will have both aperture scales. Check focus after stopping down, and stop it well down. The Geronar is a better option, but this is even cheaper and it will work. It's also much easier to find. I paid well under $200 for my 180mm Symmar Convertible.

Rick "nothing saves weight like a convertible with two useful focal lengths" Denney

Michael Jones
28-Dec-2011, 08:42
The sleeper lens you should looking for is a 300mm Rodenstock Geronar. Small & mounted in a Copal #1 shutter. The lens will cover 8x10 and on 4x5, you get to use center. More contrast than a G-Claron or Artar and with [relatively] modern coating.
A highly under-rated lens IMHO after using one for a while. They are hard to find, though.

Good luck.

Mike

E. von Hoegh
28-Dec-2011, 08:42
Be on the lookout for telephoto design lens. Graflex Tele-Optars tend to go pretty cheap if you can fit one on your camera. I really like my 12" Dallmeyer Tele-Anastigmat f/7.7. It's very compact- probably not an easy lens to find cheap though.

The main problem with a tele lens on a view camera is there is no excess coverage. The other problems are weight and difficulty in using what movements are available because the rear node is way in front of the front standard.

sethlatimer
28-Dec-2011, 10:48
Thanks for all the responses. I have been researching them all. I did not mention that I have a non-convertible 210 caltar s-II. I took the front cell off and it focussed at infinity at about 300mm. So that may work. If I have time, I'll run some film through this afternoon. I was looking for cheap and I may have found free!
Seth

rdenney
28-Dec-2011, 12:22
Thanks for all the responses. I have been researching them all. I did not mention that I have a non-convertible 210 caltar s-II. I took the front cell off and it focussed at infinity at about 300mm. So that may work. If I have time, I'll run some film through this afternoon. I was looking for cheap and I may have found free!
Seth

The Caltar S-II is a Symmar-S. Schneider gave up on the lenses being convertible with that model, but it's a matter of optimization and might still work reasonably well stopped down.

I've seen reports of the Caltar S-II coming with a shutter with both sets of aperture markings. Do you happen to have two aperture scales on your shutter?

By the way, the Symmar Convertible 210's rear cell had a focal length of 370mm. The maximum aperture (at a scale reading of 5.6) will be f/12.

Rick "be sure to check focus after stopping down" Denney

sethlatimer
28-Dec-2011, 14:27
I took some pics with my caltar s-II. I bungie corded my digital camera to the back so I wouldnt waste any film/time. These are aps-c sensor digital files compressed into jpgs I don't see much difference between the unconverted lens at 210 and the converted at 300 or so. Dont get me wrong, there is a difference, but these are only a small part of the neg, right? I only have one aperture scale so they were both taken with the scale reading f32.
I guess ill need to make a little aperture scale for the conversion.
Converted image is on the left.
Thanks to everyone for their help!
Seth