200 mm Imagon mount for Graflex

[hendrik faure]

how can I connect original Rodenstock Imagon 200 mm to Graflex 4x5 lens board? low tec preferred.
(I know lens will not cover all)
thank you for advice
hendrik

[Dan Fromm]

Not to be a complete idiot, but I don't see a problem. I believe the lens is sold in shutter, not in barrel. If so, the shutter will be threaded at the rear and will accept a retaining ring. If yours lacks a retaining ring, many sources can supply one to fit the shutter. I use skgrimes.com. I'm sure retaining rings and flanges are also available from sources in Germany.

If the lens is in barrel, again, the barrel should be threaded to attach to a retaining ring or flange. Many sources.

Drill a hole in a Graflex lens board, insert the back of the shutter, attach the retaining ring to the back of the shutter from behind, screw tight.

[Mark Woods]

I have a 200 Imagon that covers my 8x10 camera. It's a great lens.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I have a 200 Imagon that covers my 8x10 camera. It's a great lens.

Are you kidding us? Or do you simply enjoy profound vignetting on 8x10?
Can you share some examples for us, Mark?

Thank you

[hendrik faure]

8x10? Can you share some examples for us, Mark?

Imagon 200 covers at least 4x5 anyhow. This I took yesterday with green filter (have not gray unfortunately).


(scan)

[Bob Salomon]

Imagon 200 covers at least 4x5 anyhow. This I took yesterday with green filter (have not gray unfortunately).


(scan)

Yes, but now the amount of halo at the preferred aperture and print size will not necessarily be what you would expect when it is enlarged, it would be with the 250. Also the edges and corners seem to be falling off in exposure and resolution.

[hendrik faure]

Are you kidding us? Or do you simply enjoy profound vignetting on 8x10?
Can you share some examples for us, Mark?

Thank you

200mm Imagon, portrait distance, no movements, 8x10 film, uncroped V750 scan

[Jac@stafford.net]

Thank you, Hendrik, however you have considerable bellows extension there, no?
If you do, then the actual focal length is considerably longer than 200mm.

[Dan Fromm]

Thank you, Hendrik, however you have considerable bellows extension there, no?
If you do, then the actual focal length is considerably longer than 200mm.

Jac, that's a fair comment that reflects a common misconception, viz., that focal length varies with extension. Focal length is what it is. The lens' image circle varies with magnification (= varies with extension). There was a discussion of that here, see post # 3 in http://www.largeformatphotography.in...-lens-coverage

I have a different criticism of Hedrik's claim that the lens covers 8x10. As he shot it, there's no doubt that it illuminates 8x10. His subject has no detail, nothing at all, really, towards the edges. We can't evaluate how well the lens renders fine detail near the edges of 8x10 as he shot it. We can't, therefore, determine whether it covers 8x10 as he shot it.

Too many of the shots posted elsewhere to make the point that a lens covers a format suffer from a lack of fine detail in the subject towards the edges.

[hendrik faure]

Thank you, Hendrik, however you have considerable bellows extension there, no?
If you do, then the actual focal length is considerably longer than 200mm.

I must admit this was a small cat and a portrait distance of 16 inch, bellow extension about 16 inch too.
Landscape on 8x10 I will try later