OK I am not bragging here but hey I retro- fitted a RH10 back to a 1924 Auto graflex jr. and it works like a charm. Now that I have made it painfully obvious that I am not a purist.....If I lens hack a 127mm 4x5 speed graphic lens to this 2x3 camera will it indeed have a telephoto effect or am I just crazy. I don't mind if you tell me I am nuts!! But I am looking to find a telephoto alternative to this baby. Any ideas??

127 is a 'long normal' lens on 6 x 7. It's comparable to a 50 - 60mm lens for 35mm.

Indeed, a 127mm. lens was standard for the 2-1/4x3-1/4 "Series B Graflex," and a 135mm. was supplied with its rotating-back sibling. The "6x7cm." (2-1/4x2-3/4 inch format has a diagonal of just over 90mm., about 10mm. less than 2-1/4x3-1/4 ins., so a 127mm. lens would give you pleasing perspective for head-and-shoulders portraits, but would hardly be considered long-focus.

For rough comparisons, you might regard the 90mm. diagonal as twice that of a 35mm. frame (diagonal 43+mm.). So a 127mm. lens would be about equivalent to a 63mm. lens on a 35mm. camera; a 135mm., about the same as a 67mm., a 150mm. about the same as a 75mm., and so on.

Why not look for a classic telephoto design like the 8- or 10-in. "Tele-Raptar" in barrel mount? Schneider "Tele-Xenars" also were made in a very wide range of focal lengths, for a long time, and you might find a 240mm. at a reasonable price

Okay, jj, I'll bite. I have an RH10 and an AutoGraflex Jr. How did you retrofit the back to it? Thanks. Fred.

Fred contact me at walkerjdub@yahoo.com and I will send you some pictures and text on how I did it.

Thanks to everyone for the explainations, I was also wondering about this: what is a process lens? and can enlarging lenses be hacked into shooting lenses? I am a neopythe at photography but I hope you will be patient with me on this subject. Thanks everyone!

Quote:

On 2004-02-21 16:42, jjwalker wrote: Thanks to everyone for the explainations, I was also wondering about this: what is a process lens? and can enlarging lenses be hacked into shooting lenses? I am a neopythe at photography but I hope you will be patient with me on this subject. Thanks everyone!

Process lenses are lenses made to be used in process cameras, e.g., plate making cameras. They are typically slow, cover narrow angles, and optimized to be best at magnifications in the range 1:5 to 5:1. Many are apochromatic, i.e., bring the three primar colors to focus at the same point. Many are very sharp.

This said, dialyte type (4 elements in 4 groups, sort of triplets with the middle element duplicated) process lenses, e.g., Goerz Artars, Rodenstock Apo Ronars, some Apo Nikkors, hold their corrections very well to infinity are are useful for general photography. But because of their narrow coverage, one needs a longer than normal lens to fill the frame; a 150 mm Apo Artar shouldn't cover 4x5.

There are also six element plasmat type process lenses, e.g., Schneider G-Clarons, that are symmetrical and do well at normal distances. And there are tessar-type ones too, e.g., some Apo Nikkors, that are reported to be outstanding at normal distances.

Process lenses are typically sold in barrel. Some, e.g., some, not all, G-Clarons, have cells that will screw right into normal shutters. Others don't.

There's considerable disagreement about whether it is worth the expense to have a process lens' cells put in shutter. This can be quite expensive. Although Rodenstock has claimed that Apo Ronars are better for general photography that tele lenses of the same focal length, there's disagreement about whether this is really so. To get an idea of costs, visit http://www.skgrimes.com. Note that if a process lens can be put on a board and isn't too long, it can be used on a Speed Graphic.

FWIW, I have a small collection of process lenses that I use in front of a Copal #1 shutter on my 2x3 Speed and Century. Adapters for my 6"/9 Cooke Copying Lens and 210/9 Konica Hexanon GRII cost around $75, one for my 260/10 Process Nikkor will cost $125 if I have it made. My trick -- front-mounting on a #1 -- works ok on 2x3, won't do for 4x5 because of vignetting.

Opinions differ about whether setting up an enlarging lens for general photography is worth the trouble. The problem is that enlarging lenses are usually designed to be best at magnification higher than 1:10 while general photography is done at lower magnifications. But some Schneider Coponons have cells that go right into standard shutter and its been done.

I use an enlarging lens, a Wollensak 4"/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar, as a macro lens on 2x3. Its great. I've tried it for general photography and won't do that again, my 101/4.5 Ektar is much much better at normal distances. Other enlarging lenses may work better. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

Cheers,

Dan

If the idea is to mount a process lens on a Graflex reflex for use as a longer-than-normal lens, the principal difficulty probably would be the typically small maximum aperture and consequent dimness of the image on the groundglass screen. You can get 10-in. and 13-in. f:10 Wollensak process apochromats for very little money. I've had a 10-in. one for years and years, which I sometimes use on a "Graphic View" with an intricate but crude "Ideal" shutter adapter. It's a good choice when you need a longer-than-normal lens with a nice flat field and very good color corrections, for closeup work. I don't know that I'd find much use for it in the field.

The astronomical fraternity has spoken favorably of very long process lenses as objectives for refracting telescopes, and I've not seen complaints about difficulties in obtaining sharp images at infinity. However, of course, they are accustomed to f:16 or f:22 objectives, they are examining a magnified real image, and they're usually looking at luminous objects.

The process lenses that mount easily in shutters [G-claron and a few others] are relatively expensive. I've been keeping an eye out for a 240mm Claron. One sold last week for well over $100. If a person didn't already have a shutter that would add $300 for a new one plus the cost of having the F/stops marked and shipping. You end up in the $500 neigbourhood. Problem is you can buy a brand new Claron in a shutter from the factory for not much more money. Or some other brand new lenses. Of course used lenses are even less.

OTOH you've got some lenses that don't fit shutters and aren't well known. These tend to be very cheap. The Agfa lenses have fairly large coverages circles. My 105mm will cover 4x5 with movements. The 210mm will cover 8x10. The two cost me a total of not much more then $30.

I think the most interesting process lenses are the really long ones. New long lenses aren't that common so getting one of the big lenses mounted can make sense for those using the ultra large formats. The problem is these lenses usually aren't that cheap. I was lucky enough to get an OEM version of a 19" Artar for very little. It should cover 11x14" if I ever totally lose my mind. Even with me paying only $20 for the lens it's borderline on making sense to pay for mounting it.

Thanks everyone for the explanations and help with everything! Johnnie