Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: This lens for 4 x 5?

  1. #11
    Lachlan 717
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,367

    Re: This lens for 4 x 5?

    Quote Originally Posted by corbinasbill View Post
    read the FAQs.
    Maybe you should as well, given you posted a thread asking about 35mm format Canon lenses as wedding lenses...
    Lachlan.

    You miss 100% of the shots you never take. -- Wayne Gretzky

  2. #12

    Re: This lens for 4 x 5?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Gales View Post
    Like Dan said.

    Did you read the line where it said that it looks to have light fungus inside? Kodak Commercial Ektars are great lenses. I own a 14" myself. I would skip this example though. Fungus can etch the glass for decreased sharpness!
    Yes I just read it...I don't want the lens now

    Thank you

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Location
    Baraboo, Wisconsin
    Posts
    7,694

    Re: This lens for 4 x 5?

    "I'm interested by this lens supposed to cover 8 x10, but my camera is a Sinar F1 (4 x5).

    Does it mean that I can use it with a 4 x 5 camera and to have a lot of room for movement?"

    Yes
    Brian Ellis
    Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
    a mile away and you'll have their shoes.

  4. #14

    Re: This lens for 4 x 5?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm View Post
    Norm, I came to formats larger than 35 mm as a 35 mm snapshotter, long before digicams came along. I brought with me the 35 mm snapshotter ideas that fast lenses were highly desirable and that having many focal lengths available was very very good. I haven't fully shed them even though they transfer poorly to larger formats.

    I mention this because your question gives the impression that you're thinking like a person accustomed to small (smaller than 24 x 36) chip digital cameras. Put that silliness out of your mind. Read the FAQs, get a few books on LF (Steve Simmons, Stroebel, ...), read them and then come back with questions about what you still don't understand. I make this suggestion because in my experience LF photography helps those who help themselves, not to try to curb your enthusiasm.
    I read a lot.

    I just have some problem to figure what's happen, but I'm thinking that lens is OK for 4 X 5, we have a lot of room for movement, I'll discard the lens any way because there is fungus.

    If I understand right, if I have a 300mm extension of my bellows in 4 x 5 format, I'll just see a smaller part of what I can see with a 8 x 10 format. But, in 8 x 10, at this extension, the focus is on infinite (more or less). In 4 X 5, where is the focus at this extension (300mm)? Further the infinite or not ?

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    3,114

    Re: This lens for 4 x 5?

    Quote Originally Posted by norm the storm View Post
    I read a lot.

    I just have some problem to figure what's happen, but I'm thinking that lens is OK for 4 X 5, we have a lot of room for movement, I'll discard the lens any way because there is fungus.

    If I understand right, if I have a 300mm extension of my bellows in 4 x 5 format, I'll just see a smaller part of what I can see with a 8 x 10 format. But, in 8 x 10, at this extension, the focus is on infinite (more or less). In 4 X 5, where is the focus at this extension (300mm)? Further the infinite or not ?
    A 300mm lens is a 300mm lens. Period. Changing formats does not influence the lens. As has been recommended, see the FAQ section on lenses, specifically image circle vs. angle of view.
    One man's Mede is another man's Persian.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Leipzig, Germany
    Posts
    495

    Re: This lens for 4 x 5?

    Quote Originally Posted by norm the storm View Post
    If I understand right, if I have a 300mm extension of my bellows in 4 x 5 format, I'll just see a smaller part of what I can see with a 8 x 10 format. But, in 8 x 10, at this extension, the focus is on infinite (more or less). In 4 X 5, where is the focus at this extension (300mm)? Further the infinite or not ?
    Just imagine that you take a photo with this lens on 8x10" film. Then you take a pair of scissors and cut off the borders until you get a 4x5" negative. That's exactly what happens when you use a smaller camera. Bellows extension is the same. Focus is the same. There is just not as much image.

    This list gives you the film to flange distance for a lot of lenses: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenseslist.html

    Michael

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    San Joaquin Valley, California
    Posts
    9,093

    Re: This lens for 4 x 5?

    Quote Originally Posted by norm the storm View Post
    Hi everybody

    I'm interested by this lens supposed to cover 8 x10, but my camera is a Sinar F1 (4 x5).

    Does it mean that I can use it with a 4 x 5 camera and to have a lot of room for movement? Is it a idea to use it for this format.

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/130636256365...84.m1438.l2648

    Any advise appreciated.
    How much bellows length do you need to focus the lens and does your F1 will accomodate that ? And will it fit on an F1 lensbard? These are the questions that need answers. If "yes" you're good to go!
    I steal time at 1/125th of a second, so I don't consider my photography to be Fine Art as much as it is petty larceny.
    I'm not OCD. I'm CDO which is alphabetically correct.

  8. #18
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    5,439

    Re: This lens for 4 x 5?

    Quote Originally Posted by norm the storm View Post
    I read a lot.

    I just have some problem to figure what's happen, but I'm thinking that lens is OK for 4 X 5, we have a lot of room for movement, I'll discard the lens any way because there is fungus.

    If I understand right, if I have a 300mm extension of my bellows in 4 x 5 format, I'll just see a smaller part of what I can see with a 8 x 10 format. But, in 8 x 10, at this extension, the focus is on infinite (more or less). In 4 X 5, where is the focus at this extension (300mm)? Further the infinite or not ?
    The distance from the film to the lens will be the same no matter what the size of the film. A 300mm lens on 4x5 will need exactly the same bellows draw as the same lens on an 8x10. The difference will be that the 8x10 will be built to provide that bellows draw in the middle of its range, while some 4x5 cameras might have to stretch to focus that lens, especially if it is focused closely.

    For example, I use a 12" Ilex-Caltar (quite similar to the Kodak Commercial Ektar you were considering) on my 4x5 Sinar. To focus it at infinity, I use a standard bellows and the base rail plus a 6" extension rail. To focus it at 1:1, I would need at least two 6" extensions (maybe a bit more), and probably two sets of bellows connected in the middle using an intermediate standard. An 8x10 camera would generally stretch that far without breaking a sweat.

    You need a mental concept. Let's try this one. Take the lens in your hand, and hold it above a sidewalk. Focus the sun on the sidewalk. Remember back when you were ten years old and fried ants with a magnifying glass. Now, with that sun focused on the side walk, it's focused. You don't have a piece of film at all behind that lens, and yet you can still focus it. The lens would not care if you laid an 8x10 piece of film on the sidewalk, or a 4x5 piece of film. It would still be focused. You would just see more of the sky with the 8x10 frame.

    Stated another way, let's say you set up an 8x10 camera to focus that 300mm lens perfectly. Now, you install a 4x5 reducing back on the camera. It will still be focused, right? Or, focus your 4x5 camera on the scene, and then slide in a 6x7 roll-film holder. It will still be focused. You'll just see a smaller piece of the scene.

    A lens means what it means with respect to shorter-than-normal, normal, and longer-than-normal, only in reference to normal. And "normal" is defined not by the focal length, but by the diagonal of the image frame. The focal length is a physical property of the lens, while "normal" is a convention related to the size of the format.

    So, we choose a lens because it encompasses a given amount of scene from the spot we think provides the view we want to photograph using whatever format. We make sure we buy lenses that provide a large enough image circle to allow the movements we might need on that format. If the lens provides too large an image circle with respect to the format, we might minimize camera reflections by cutting off that excess scene using a compendium shade.

    Once you separate format-size attributes (particularly the meaning of "normal", and thus what is shorter or longer than normal) from lens properties (focal length, image circle, design--as in wide-angle or telephoto), it becomes far more intuitive to mix and match lenses designed for a different format than we are using. We mess up our thinking with years of small-format training that confuses format-related terms like "shorter than normal" and "longer than normal" with lens-design-related terms like "wide-angle" and "telephoto".

    Rick "seeking a paradigm shift" Denney

  9. #19

    Re: This lens for 4 x 5?

    Quote Originally Posted by rdenney View Post
    The distance from the film to the lens will be the same no matter what the size of the film. A 300mm lens on 4x5 will need exactly the same bellows draw as the same lens on an 8x10. The difference will be that the 8x10 will be built to provide that bellows draw in the middle of its range, while some 4x5 cameras might have to stretch to focus that lens, especially if it is focused closely.

    For example, I use a 12" Ilex-Caltar (quite similar to the Kodak Commercial Ektar you were considering) on my 4x5 Sinar. To focus it at infinity, I use a standard bellows and the base rail plus a 6" extension rail. To focus it at 1:1, I would need at least two 6" extensions (maybe a bit more), and probably two sets of bellows connected in the middle using an intermediate standard. An 8x10 camera would generally stretch that far without breaking a sweat.

    You need a mental concept. Let's try this one. Take the lens in your hand, and hold it above a sidewalk. Focus the sun on the sidewalk. Remember back when you were ten years old and fried ants with a magnifying glass. Now, with that sun focused on the side walk, it's focused. You don't have a piece of film at all behind that lens, and yet you can still focus it. The lens would not care if you laid an 8x10 piece of film on the sidewalk, or a 4x5 piece of film. It would still be focused. You would just see more of the sky with the 8x10 frame.

    Stated another way, let's say you set up an 8x10 camera to focus that 300mm lens perfectly. Now, you install a 4x5 reducing back on the camera. It will still be focused, right? Or, focus your 4x5 camera on the scene, and then slide in a 6x7 roll-film holder. It will still be focused. You'll just see a smaller piece of the scene.

    A lens means what it means with respect to shorter-than-normal, normal, and longer-than-normal, only in reference to normal. And "normal" is defined not by the focal length, but by the diagonal of the image frame. The focal length is a physical property of the lens, while "normal" is a convention related to the size of the format.

    So, we choose a lens because it encompasses a given amount of scene from the spot we think provides the view we want to photograph using whatever format. We make sure we buy lenses that provide a large enough image circle to allow the movements we might need on that format. If the lens provides too large an image circle with respect to the format, we might minimize camera reflections by cutting off that excess scene using a compendium shade.

    Once you separate format-size attributes (particularly the meaning of "normal", and thus what is shorter or longer than normal) from lens properties (focal length, image circle, design--as in wide-angle or telephoto), it becomes far more intuitive to mix and match lenses designed for a different format than we are using. We mess up our thinking with years of small-format training that confuses format-related terms like "shorter than normal" and "longer than normal" with lens-design-related terms like "wide-angle" and "telephoto".

    Rick "seeking a paradigm shift" Denney
    Thank you for the informations, it is more clear now.
    Thank you

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    21

    Re: This lens for 4 x 5?

    The only drawback of using a lens that far exceeds the camera's format is that there will be an excess amount of light entering the bellows and bouncing around...possibly causing flare.

    Vaughn[/QUOTE]

    True enough that extra light hitting the bellows instead of the film from a big coverage circle will flare the dark areas, especially from hot skies, snow fields, etc. Not much of a problem on low-key subjects such as shooting at night.

    A lens shade, if possilble a square matte box or compendium is a good idea, especially on older glass with less sophisticated coatings. Any fungus or separation would make this worse.

    The rumor is blue and UV light kicks around in there more than longer wavelengths do, so a UV or Skylight filter is helpful, too.

    Skip Roessel

    "If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly." --Alec Guinness on acting

Similar Threads

  1. Can bellows "stretch" lens?
    By Ken Grooms in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 25-Oct-2006, 19:35
  2. When to switch to a macro lens?
    By William Mortensen in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 22-Jun-2006, 08:46
  3. Picking ideal lens and fl, for flat copy work
    By bglick in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 8-Feb-2006, 21:49

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •