Graflex Super D - 3x4 Lens Choices

[Takizawa]

I have heard that you need a 7.5" (190mm) or greater lens to reach infinity focus on a Graflex D 4x5 camera. What would be the equivalent thinking on a 3x4 version? Or what would definitely not work.

Also, any advice on lenses? Since it is essentially a portrait camera I hear people often go with high speed lenses such as the Pentac F2.9... I'm knew to the world of antique lenses so appreciate any guidance.

I'm psyched to receive a Graflex Super D 3x4 camera this weekend. First I plan to shoot photos with the Ektar lens it comes with. In the future I would like to add a collection of brass lenses. Maybe then my wife will 'understand' my hobby.

Thanks!

[Roger Hesketh]

The camera was generally sold with a 152mm Ektar which is a fine lens. It could be considered to be a little bit long for the format particularly if you are using a roll film back. I believe you can use a 135mm lens without fouling the mirror but have never tried. I suppose it depends on the design of the lens and whether or not it mounts in or on the lensboard.. For portrait use most people use longer lenses 190 - 240mm often with wider apertures than the Ektar. The Pentac you mentioned could be a good choice but they are now becoming expensive. It is large I am not sure how easy it is to mount on a board for this camera. Others who know more I am sure will chip in. Welcome to the forum.
Good luck
Roger

[Takizawa]

Thanks Roger for the advice. Yes, I will be using this with a roll film back. I didn't know that influences things. Others, I'm looking forward to your suggestions as well.

[Roger Hesketh]

When you look down through the viewing hood and look at the ground glass screen the view that you see will be comparable to the image formed on a 3.25x4.25 sheet of film. If you were to make an exposure on 3.25x4.25 inch film loaded in a holder at the rear of the camera.
Now you are looking to use roll film presumably 6x9 cm using a roll film holder so you will only be utilising the central part of the image formed by the lens and displayed upon the focusing screen. If it has not already been done you will need to remove the viewing hood and pencil onto the ground glass two rectangles 6x9cm One horizontal and one vertical. None of the image on the screen outside those penciled marks will appear on the film.
If you do not do this and compose using the whole screen you will have framing problems. Another way to do this perhaps better is to use black card to mark areas that will not appear in the photograph.
A lens which gives a normalish angle of view on 6x9 is around 100mm so the 152 mm lens on the camera is a medium long focus for that format and a length which is pretty good for portraits. I suspect you may find the lens that came with the camera is adequate for your needs.An aperture of f4.5 on a 152mm is wide enough to give good separation from backgrounds at portrait distances and that Ektar lens is very sharp

[Jiri Vasina]

Very important and useful info from Roger. And as Roger says, the 152mm lens when used wide open with a 6x9cm roll-film back is pretty good for portraits. Here are my shots with the Kodak Ektar 152mm (http://www.vasina.net/?page_id=762) and here with the Kodak Anastigmat 6⅜″ (http://www.vasina.net/?page_id=1811). Most of them are shot on 6x9cm film, only very few are on 3x4" sheets. Also, most are shot wide open, or close to it.

Jiri

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. The bible, 10th edition, says that the standard lenses for the 3x4 RB Super D are 6" and 6 3/8" f/4.5 and that the standard telephotos are 10" and 12" f/5.6. A Wollensak catalog on cameraeccentric.com says that the 10"/5.6's back focus is 6 1/8". This gives an idea of what's usable on the camera.

The camera's maximum extension, per the bible, is 8 1/4". So now you know the longest focal length (non-telephoto) that will make infinity on it without heroic measures such as a top hat lens board.

The normal lens for 2x3 (6x9 is a really poor metric approximation) is 100 mm.

[Jim Galli]

Back in the pleistocene age, movie projectors were giant ungainly machines with a brass lens hanging out in front of the film, in the dark projection room, out in thin air. Some of them were of the petzval type and of a focal length useful to you for portraiture. The best of the lot were modified petzval's that had a front group that actually magnified the rear group and they could thus get effective f2.4 - ish apertures.

The 'sleeve' that these projection lenses fit in was a common denominator and so most of them are small enough at the back to fit small Graflex lens boards.

Finally, if you remove the rear group altogether, and just use the front group alone, you increase the focal length by 1/2 or so and have the most glorious soft focus image imaginable.

Why do I feel like an evil old man dangling candy in front of an innocent child?

[Roger Hesketh]

Jiri It is good to know what the lens can do in the hands of someone who knows what they are are doing. Hats off to you Sir.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

The Ektar is a nice sharp lens. If I were looking for something smoother I would get a 6" f4.5 Heliar, for something faster I would put a 162mm f2.9 Cooke XIII or a 150mm f2.8 Xenotar. A 6" Pentac may fit into the space, but i am not sure.

[Leonard Robertson]

Many years ago I shot a couple of rolls with a borrowed 3X4 Super D and roll back. Great camera and wonderful results from the 152mm Ektar. I still regret not buying it at what was a good price at the time.

To add to all the great information already posted : The lens board size for the 3X4 Super D is 3 1/4" X 3 1/4", which is a smallish board, and may limit your lens choice a bit. The board must fit into a recessed area on the front of the camera, and this may also restrict physical lens size. But don't worry, there are enough available lenses to keep you entertained for a long while.

The "closest working distance (Normal Lens)" is 20"-24" according to "Graphic Graflex Photography" 11th edition. I wouldn't be afraid to try close-up diopter lenses on the Ektar if you find you want to focus closer. May reduce your quality some, but may not be noticeable to you.

Is your Super coming with a roll film back? If not, it may taking some searching to find one. If you aren't familiar with the Graphic/Graflok/Graflex back differences we can explain which you need for your Super.

Len

[Takizawa]

First off, thanks all for the great information. It really shows the depth of this forum.

Len, yes, I do have a roll film back. It took me longer to figure out how to use this out than the camera!

Jason, I like the idea of a Heliar. I'll first spend some quality time with the Ektar the camera comes with. It never hurts to look though:)

Jim, would these fall under the category of 'magic lantern lenses'? Or is there other terminology to look out for?

Dan, great to know the maximum extension.

Jiri, love the photos. If I can take a photo that is 1/10th as good I'll be happy.

Roger, using the ground glass as reference would I need to create a border that is .25" around the edge to account for the difference due to using a roll film back?

[Jim Galli]

First off, thanks all for the great information. It really shows the depth of this forum.
Jim, would these fall under the category of 'magic lantern lenses'? Or is there other terminology to look out for?

Only magic if you buy them from me. Other ones are just ordinary. ;)

[Roger Hesketh]

To reiterate when using a a roll film back on this camera you are only making use of the central 2.25x3.25 inch section of the ground glass. You need to differentiate between those parts of the ground glass screen which are useful to you and those which are not. The back rotates on this camera so you need to do so for both orientations landscape with the screen horizontal and portrait with it vertical.To rotate the back you depress a little silver coloured knob at 4 o'clock on the edge of the back. It is behind the large silver shutter tensioning knob. You press the button and rotate the back with your other hand.

Their are two ways I suggested to do this for each you will need access to the ground glass. If you open up the viewing hood and look down the front of it you will see a little catch if you press that the front of the viewing hood will detach from the front edge of the ground glass screen surround .To remove the hood completely from the camera their is a similar catch attaching it to the hinged camera back. Try not to detach that if you can manage without as It can be a pita to reattach afterwards. With the front catch disengaged you can push the hood out of the way and gain access to the ground glass . You can either draw two rectangles in pencil 2.25x3.25 inches upon the ground glass. One rectangle in portrait format the other landscape. Or you can cut a cross out of the middle of a piece of black card. The cross being those two 2.25x3.25" rectangles going across each other. The outer dimensions of the card obviously should correspond with the outer dimensions of the ground glass frame. Stick it down somehow.
Their are advantages and disadvantages to each method. If you use the penciled rectangle framing method. The non picture forming image in the outer part of the ground glass can be distracting. Also their is a natural tendency to compose using the whole of the ground glass. You have to kick against that tendency which can be difficult as most scenes fall naturally into a normal view and you will if you are anything like me end up resenting your inability to utilise all of the image in front of you on the ground glass. Of course the answer is to walk back and recompose but that can be a pita too. I use this method of masking as I use roll film for colour and mainly quarter plate for black and white when using one of these cameras.
Using the card to mask you end up looking at a pokey looking cross on the ground glass screen. The non picture forming part of the image from the other rectangle is distracting and you cannot readily switch back to using the whole of the ground glass screen for quarter plate use.
This camera is a quarter plate camera and is best used as a quarter plate camera. If you use it with roll film you just have to learn to live with these small mainly psychological disadvantages in use. A lot of the time I find it is better to use one of these smaller cameras though rather than use a 4x5 Series D which is significantly bulkier. I prefer to use the 4x5 camera though.

[Takizawa]

Thanks Roger. I get how it works now.

[spacegoose]

What's the appeal of roll film backs? Easier to process 120/220, format / aspect ratio, film choice, too hard to find 3x4 Graflex holders????

I prefer the larger sheet film negative, and also the 4x5 version for this reason, and wouldn't consider roll film for this camera.

The 3x4 camera is definitely more portable and easier to carry and use than 4x5 or 5x7.

I really like the 152mm and 190mm Ektars that come on Super Ds.

I have an 8" / 203mm f/2.9 AM Pentac mounted on a 4x5 Series D (via top hat board) that would probably be too unwieldy on 3x4.

I also have an 8" f/4.5 Dallmeyer Serrac that mounts on a normal Series D board that would probably work for 3x4.

Some of my Graflex SLR photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gothambill/sets/72157632201868794/

Graflex SLR Group on Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/graflexslr/pool/

[Bill_1856]

Edward Weston made woderful portraits with his 3.25x4.25 Graflex. Something bad seemed to happen when he switched to a 4x5. He could no longer easily hand hold it, and shot with it on a tripod (and was so short that he had to stand on a box to see over the hood).
Dorothea Lange used a 4x5, and I'll be darned if I know how she managed it (she was a tiny thing).