A very appropriate combination (periodwise) - the shutter looks like a very solid design.
A very appropriate combination (periodwise) - the shutter looks like a very solid design.
I agree with Steven and the rest. Don't chance putting this on a 2-D. Lenses like this are hard to come by. I've got a smaller one a Series III Portrait Euryscop 16 1/4" and only use it on my Century 8A 11x14 studio camera or my solid 14x17 camera. I built the front of the 14x17 to take a beast like that.
Is there something wrong with my remedy for large lens support?
Jac - I don't think there's anything at all wrong with your solution and I would use it if I had a rail camera.
For now I'm going to find a way to rig up a thread to this thing so I can put a separate tripod under it AND I'm going to try simply using the camera on a table - I think that's going to be the safest, but not most convenient. Well, I doubt that anything connected to 8x10 and lenses of this size can be called convenient to begin with.
And yes, how I wish I had some funds to get me an 11x14 or 16x20 camera.... I'll just keep my eyes open and fingers crossed for now.
Jason, I guess I learned it from reading the 1871 catalog that has descriptions of voigtlander lenses - as I recall the front and rear lenses were different sizes in each description. I guess it would be incorrect to say ALL petzval designs followed this deduction, but it appears it applies to voigtlander petzvals?
G
Well, thanks for the help guys - I think I have given up on putting this lens on my 2D (unless I'm actually in a position to use a table for a tripod). I'll work with the Goerz 24in instead for now - it's just a shame that that one is f11 and this beauty is f6. Someday I'll make me a 20x24 camera and then this piece of brass will come in handy indeed.
Strange co-incidence! There is another Benster in good working order. They must have been over-engineered!
This time in Fowlerville, Michigan - but not on a Voigtländer.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks