possible lens to use for 4x5

[anthonym]

I have a KODAK 126 mm f 4.5 anastigmat from a KODAK MONITOR 616.Can it be used for 4x5?

[pepeguitarra]

Can you confirm if the lens is 126mm or 125mm? If 125mm, yes, I have used one on my Super Speed Graphic. It does not allow for movements. If 126mm, I think that was made for a 6x9 camera. You will not be able to successfully use on 4x5.

[Dan Fromm]

Try it and see.

Pepe, the Monitor 616 shot 2 1/2 x 4 1/4 on 616 film. The format called 6x9 is really 2 1/4 x 3 1/4.

[pepeguitarra]

Try it and see.

Pepe, the Monitor 616 shot 2 1/2 x 4 1/4 on 616 film. The format called 6x9 is really 2 1/4 x 3 1/4.

THanks. I am not familiar with those smaller cameras. Pepe

[John Kasaian]

Open it up and hold it about 5" away from a light colored wall in a darkened room and aimed at a light source (open window or table lamp) and see how large of an image you can project on the wall.

[Pfsor]

Take a piece of paper, design a 4x5 rectangular on it, open a window and aim the lens at photographic infinity (a view, landscape far away) and focus it on the paper design. That will tell you the answer at your question. A table lamp is not a good example of photographic infinity, it would lead you astray as a lens has wider coverage when focused on closer subjects.

[Jim Jones]

The Kodak Lenses booklet from probably 1943 lists a Kodak Anastigmat Special f/4.5 127mm used on the Kodak Monitor and Vigilant models. Similar lenses were often used on 4x5 press cameras in their heyday by newspapermen, even though the lens was intended for the smaller 3.25 x 4.25 sheet film and 116 roll film. Any slight loss in corner sharpness was tolerated in that application. As Dan (who knows!) said, "Try it and see." We can cite books and hear-say forever, but your own personal experience counts for more than all of that.

[Dan Fromm]

Jim, thanks for the kind word. It sparked a rant. [RANT]I have no idea how old the OP is. I've read many times in many places that today's youngsters (nowhere defined) are terrified of making mistakes and would rather follow authorities than try things and fail. I don't know whether to believe this. I've also read that old folks (nowhere defined) are fearful. I don't know whether to believe this. I haven't measured either or found credible measurements.

I'm old. You're older. We try things. I can't speak for you, but I don't always succeed. That's life, and onwards we go.[/RANT]

Anthony, documentation on Kodak lenses isn't good enough, in spite of, in particular, Brian Wallen's work on pulling it together, organizing and posting it nicely. See his work at http://www.bnphoto.org/. I did my best to look up your lens, and lenses like it, on his site and I'm a bit confused. I'm not the only poster here who's sometimes confused or just plain mistaken. None of us knows the standard to which you work. None of us has your lens. You do. Some used lenses have been abused and are no longer as good as when they were new.

That's why asking for advice on a lens in hand is a bad idea. Asking it whether it works well enough for you to want to use it is the best way to find out.

[Jim Jones]

. . . I've also read that old folks (nowhere defined) are fearful. . . .

Perhaps some old folks are fearful, but I continue to blunder ahead and sometimes learn from many mistakes as I've done for maybe 70 years.

[anthonym]

Thanks DAN,I was hoping that you would respond. As one "old guy" (78) to another this is my initial try at 4x5 and I didn't know if this lens would work or if I should look for another.I will try it,it's in great condition,glass clear,no haze,fungus,speeds all work including delayed timer. It's going to be fun trying 4x5,I have used my LEICA M-3 since 1970,not tired of it at all just thought I would have a go at something larger,the intended use is landscape photography.Thanks again,TONY