I got hold of a junked Rolleiflex with (somewhat) usable Xenotar 2.8/80, with working Synchro-Compur shutter. I'm thinking about "extracting" this lens and trying to mount it on a makeshift lensboard for my Pacemaker Speed 2x3. Would it cover 6x9 format? Anyone has any experience with doing somethng like this?
Or am I being too optimistic?

BTW, I checked an old 80mm enlarger lense for this purpose, and - lo and behold - it *does* cover 6x9! So I guess this Xenotar might work!

I'm just trying to go slightly wider on a shoestring budget :smile:))

Thanks,

Denis

Quote:

On 2003-02-14 00:29, DenisP wrote: I got hold of a junked Rolleiflex with (somewhat) usable Xenotar 2.8/80, with working Synchro-Compur shutter. I'm thinking about "extracting" this lens and trying to mount it on a makeshift lensboard for my Pacemaker Speed 2x3. Would it cover 6x9 format? Anyone has any experience with doing somethng like this? Or am I being too optimistic? BTW, I checked an old 80mm enlarger lense for this purpose, and - lo and behold - it *does* cover 6x9! So I guess this Xenotar might work! I'm just trying to go slightly wider on a shoestring budget :smile:)) Thanks, Denis

Denis, the 80 Xenotar was used on the Graflex XL as a normal lens for 6x6. In theory it shouldn't cover 6x9 (really 2.25 x 3.25), but in practice just might.

When I want to find out if a lens will cover 6x9, I put it on a makeshift board (I make mine from thin cardboard) and shoot with it. I shoot at the apertures I expect to use the lens at. Then I check the results to see if the image is sharp in the corners. If yes, the lens covers, if not, it doesn't.

Lenses will often illuminate a circle larger than the circle of good definition, that's why I test on film rather than by looking at the ground glass. And yes, of course I look at the gg too, I just don't believe what I see there.

Please do the experiment and tell us what results you got.

Cheers,

Dan

Not that it's that big of a factor, but the image size of a 2-1/4X3-1/4 negative, when using cut film, is only 2X3. I discovered that when my 2X3 cut film negatives kept falling through the opening of my 2-1/4X3-1/4 glassless negative carrier of my enlarger. Roll film gives the full 2-1/4X3-1/4 image. Fred.

As for the size of negative, I use Graflex "23" roll back (knob wind), and my negatives are exactly 57 x 83 millimeters
So, it's actually closer to 6x8 than 6x9.

As for the Rollie Xenotar, I'll be taking it to a repair shop in a few days to have the lens & shutter assembly dissasembled - looks too complicated for a DIY job, and I don't want to ruin it in the process, particularly since the shutter speeds are pretty close to what they should be. I tested them with a DIY shutter tester (photo transistor, AA battery, etc.) - used a scheme found elsewhere on the Web. The thing's rather cool.

As for results, will let you know once I have the darn thing mounted on on my SG and after I take some photos.

Regards,

Denis

Quote:

On 2003-02-14 06:56, DenisP wrote: As for the size of negative, I use Graflex "23" roll back (knob wind), and my negatives are exactly 57 x 83 millimeters So, it's actually closer to 6x8 than 6x9. As for the Rollie Xenotar, I'll be taking it to a repair shop in a few days to have the lens & shutter assembly dissasembled - looks too complicated for a DIY job, and I don't want to ruin it in the process, particularly since the shutter speeds are pretty close to what they should be. I tested them with a DIY shutter tester (photo transistor, AA battery, etc.) - used a scheme found elsewhere on the Web. The thing's rather cool. As for results, will let you know once I have the darn thing mounted on on my SG and after I take some photos. Regards, Denis

Denis, the metric sizes 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9 are widely used very rough approximations to the true sizes. The true sizes, in inches, are 2.25 x 2.25, 2.25 x 2.75, and 2.25 x 3.25. 3.25/2.25 = 1.44... , so in fact nominal 6x9 doesn't have exactly the same aspect ratio as standard 35 mm. And 2.25 x 3.25 = 57.15 mm x 82.55 mm. In this case, the rest of the world is wrong and we're right.

When convenient, would you please tell us more about your shutter speed tester? The world needs a good one that can be made inexpensively from parts that are easy to find.

Cheers,

Dan

Quote:

On 2003-02-14 09:14, Dan Fromm wrote: When convenient, would you please tell us more about your shutter speed tester? The world needs a good one that can be made inexpensively from parts that are easy to find. Cheers, Dan

Heh, since I live in Croatia, I do not have an easy access to people you usually discuss here (SK Grimes, Ed Romney, and others), so I'm pretty much left to my own resources and DIY activities.

Since I was eager to check the FP shutter speeds of my SG, I checked the Web and found several DIY shutter testers - and I used one found at:

http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/2131/shspeed.html

I must also say that I have almost no experience with soldering and electronics, but I was still able to put together a rather cool device - I used a housing readily available at local hobby (electronics) shops for various small electronic devices.

The tester uses a sound card - so you'll need a computer :smile:, and a sound editor - I use CoolEdit (shareware). The important thing is that it (software) has configurable views and zooming.

Anyway, I found out that my FP shutter is off, but consistently - e.g. 1/1000 is actually 1/500, etc.

However, my Ektar 101 in Supermatic was a different story: the speeds were all over the place. So, instead of doing DIY on my *only* lens, I sent it to a local photo repair guy for cleaning.

My DIY speed tester was also tested and proved rather accurate on various of my Nikon bodies

If you have any questions or info, I'd be glad to help.

Also, you can found further info by just entering "shutter speed tester sound card" into your favourite search engine: there are others, more complicated, but the one I used (from the link provided) works OK for me.

Regards,

Denis

For 3 years I hung onto my Mac Classic toaster with a 9 inch screen. I threw it out last week.
Now this comes along!!!

When I stated that image size with 2-1/4"X3-1/4" cut film is only 2"X3", I apparently mis-spoke. In measuring several holders I have, I found quite a variance. Some are 2-1/8"X3-1/8"...some are 2-3/16"X3"...etc. The cut film still falls through my glassless 2-1/4"X3-1/4" (57X82mm) negative carriers.
Fred

This is not really on topic, but in terms of the reference to the 80mm Xenotar being used on the Graflex XL as a normal lens for 6x6, all I can say is, if you have one I want to buy it from you - name your price! It must be exceedingly rare. I have never seen/heard or even had a flashback that mentioned this lens as ever being factory-mounted for the XL.

The very similar (5 element/3 group?) 80mm f2.8 Zeiss Planar is, of course, an often seen XL normal lens, for the 'standard' 6x7 XL format, and of course it's great for 6x6, as well. (and, in my opinion, good for 6x9, but I tend to be focused pretty close, seldom at 'infinity')

Sorry to be an anal freak about this, but the XL is so rarely mentioned in this forum, that I plan to jump on any reference to it and bore everyone to death!

Quote:

On 2003-02-19 03:13, antjam65 wrote: This is not really on topic, but in terms of the reference to the 80mm Xenotar being used on the Graflex XL as a normal lens for 6x6, all I can say is, if you have one I want to buy it from you - name your price! It must be exceedingly rare. I have never seen/heard or even had a flashback that mentioned this lens as ever being factory-mounted for the XL.

Hm, I suppose you misunderstood me. Check the thread name again - I found a junked Rolleiflex (!), not a Graflex XL!
I will try to take this Rolleiflex-mounted lens and dissasemble it and later will try to mount this Xenotar on a makeshift board and see what I get on my Pacemaker Speed Graphic 2x3.
So, it is indeed Xenotar 80mm, but factory-mounted on a Rolleiflex TLR, which I will try to use on a Speed Graphic 2x3.

Regards,

Denis

I wouldn't count on more than 6x7 coverage. Certainly not 6x9. Sharply anyway.

Hi DenisP...
The negs from my Hasselblad actually measure 56mm x 56mm, so your Rolei 80mm lens will probably be virtually the same. Across corners, that calculates to 79.2mm. You mention that your Graflex 2x3 actually measures 57mm x 83mm. Across corners, that calculates to 100.7mm. Me thinks that your Rolei lens will be somewhat lacking in the corners!
offset

My reference to the Graflex XL was a response to another post in this thread stating that "the 80 Xenotar was used on the Graflex XL as a normal lens for 6x6". I do understand that your original question did not mention the XL.

Quote:

On 2003-02-14 04:53, Dan Fromm wrote: Please do the experiment and tell us what results you got. Cheers, Dan

Well, since I posted my results in another thread, I thought it would be nice to wrap this up in the thread where it started.

Anyway, the Xenotar works just fine, thank you
Coverage is excellent, even on larger apertures, and sharpness is also excellent.

Now I'm off to other DIY activities: see "DIY tele lens - bellows factor?" in Speed Graphic Help forum

Regards to all,

Denis

Just read this thread.
I have a Xenotar 2.8/80mm on a century graphic. I use a 6x7 rollfilm back and it covers the 6x7 well. I also use 2x3 sheet film with this lens, and it covers OK. I usually shoot at f8-f16 for good depth of field in landscapes. I understand that the 2.8/80 xenotar won't let you use any lens movement to speak of without losing sharpness in the corners. My xenotar is the sharpest lens I use on the century graphic. Beats my ektar.