Petzval and Linhof Technika (once more)

[p-trick]

I'm aware this topic has already been discussed, but here I'd like to link it to a more specific question:

How realistic would it be to use a smallish Petzval-lens like this, or that to a Linhof Technika III?

I know that a Speed Graphic would make things easier, but I happen to own the Technika (which I bought several years ago at a good price) and have no desire to buy another 4x5" camera to satisfy my desire to try a Petzval at least once.

(my plan would be to use a hose clamp to secure it to a lens board)

[Bill_1856]

It would be easier and just as good to use the lens that you've got now, and kick the tripod during the exposure.

[Mark Sawyer]

As long as it fits on the lensboard, there's no problem; it's just another barrel lens. But note that without a flange, most of these lenses require you run the focus all the way back to put enough of the barrel behind the lensboard for a hose clamp to grab onto. That means you lose the tangential-drive focus option. If you want to maintain that option, you might consider other mounting methods, like a bead of glue from a hot glue gun or, more permanently, a bead of epoxy, around the threads behind the lensboard. (Note: I wouldn't trust those options with a larger, heavier lens.)

It would be easier and just as good to use the lens that you've got now, and kick the tripod during the exposure.

Or use a Petzval and kick Bill during the exposure!

[Greg]

As long as it fits on the lensboard, there's no problem; it's just another barrel lens. But note that without a flange, most of these lenses require you run the focus all the way back to put enough of the barrel behind the lensboard for a hose clamp to grab onto. That means you lose the tangential-drive focus option. If you want to maintain that option, you might consider other mounting methods, like a bead of glue from a hot glue gun or, more permanently, a bead of epoxy, around the threads behind the lensboard. (Note: I wouldn't trust those options with a larger, heavier lens.)
Or use a Petzval and kick Bill during the exposure!

I've used plenty of hot glue many times with oversize lenses and never had one fall off the board, just use a lot of hot glue. Once used epoxy and the lens didn't work out... removing the epoxy was bordering on not damaging the brass threads on the barrel lens. Possibly coating the brass threads with an ultra thin spray of oil? would make removing the epoxy later easily possible?

[Mark Sawyer]

I just err on the side of caution with the big, heavy lenses. I've seen so many with huge dents in the front hood. And note that I called the epoxy a "more permanent" option. Never tried the thin spray of oil method, so I can't say...

[p-trick]

It would be easier and just as good to use the lens that you've got now, and kick the tripod during the exposure.

While I have some sympathy for the general idea that there are probably less expensive and cumbersome ways of achieving a given effect, I strongly doubt that adding motion-blur is the right kind of alternative.

[p-trick]

As long as it fits on the lensboard, there's no problem; it's just another barrel lens. But note that without a flange, most of these lenses require you run the focus all the way back to put enough of the barrel behind the lensboard for a hose clamp to grab onto. That means you lose the tangential-drive focus option. If you want to maintain that option, you might consider other mounting methods, like a bead of glue from a hot glue gun or, more permanently, a bead of epoxy, around the threads behind the lensboard. (Note: I wouldn't trust those options with a larger, heavier lens.)

Thanks! This is a very helpful clarification and warning.

Guess I should be extra careful with buying lenses without being able to assess in person whether they would fit, and the kind of compromises I would have to make.

[seezee]

As long as it fits on the lensboard, there's no problem; it's just another barrel lens. But note that without a flange, most of these lenses require you run the focus all the way back to put enough of the barrel behind the lensboard for a hose clamp to grab onto. That means you lose the tangential-drive focus option.

I had a flange made for mine & focus via the bellows. I actually find the tangential drive focus annoying because I have to avoid moving it after I've locked focus on the camera!

p-trick, how do you plan to control exposure? Are you going to have it mounted in shutter, or use a Packard shutter, or a black card or hat & count off the seconds?

[p-trick]

p-trick, how do you plan to control exposure? Are you going to have it mounted in shutter, or use a Packard shutter, or a black card or hat & count off the seconds?

If I move along with this, I'd just go without shutter. The initial goal is just to see if this is useful and pleasant. If I like it, I may search for a more permanent option (which may not be based on the Technika) and include a real shutter.

[Steven Tribe]

I have looked at the "this" and "that" listings mentioned in the Original Posting. The lister is the same and a member here!

"this" and "that" look suitable and, knowing the lister in connection with other similar lenses, I am sure the coverage he gives are OK.

"this" has lost it's lens hood and has no aperture, but has it's flange. "that" is a very interesting early lerebours, with a facility for aperture control, but no flange. It has been used with a direct solder onto a plate - you could do the same onto a board that fits on the Linhoff.