Graflex.org
Get help with your Graflex questions here

Wray Special Copy Lens 127 mm f/4 - 16
Graflex.org Forum Index -> Lenses Help
AuthorMessage
Murray@uptowngallery.org
Joined: 03 Apr 2002
Posts: 164
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 6:07 am   Post subject: Wray Special Copy Lens 127 mm f/4 - 16

Anyone know anything about this lens...what might have made it SPecial as opposed to an 'ordinary' copy lens or CRT copy lens?

Thanks

Murray
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2165
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 9:56 am

The Vade Mecum says: "3.0, 5.0in. These were made for printed circuit reduction at 10:1 and 25:1 in each size. This was the beginning of the business all makers have (or seek!) in reduction of master drawings
for printed circuits and more recently for chips and integrated units."

If you're going to use it for general photography, i.e., with subject larger than the negative, reverse it. Or use it mounted normally for high magnification photomacrography, if you can get the extension needed. Should be very sharp at its intended magnification (subject 1/25 the size of the image on film).
Murray@uptowngallery.org
Joined: 03 Apr 2002
Posts: 164
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 12:21 pm   Post subject: Wray

Thanks Dan...it kind of irritates me to have the f-stop ring inside the bellows...I haven't figured out a way around that yet...
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2165
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 1:38 pm

Um, Murray, if the front of the lens is threaded for a filter, perhaps you can cobble up or buy (horrors!) a double-threaded ring that will screw in. If so, then attaching the lens to a board is pretty trivial.

Or perhaps you can cobble up a clamp that will hold the lens and that can be held, somehow, to the board. This is basically how my 1.75"/2.8 Elcan is attached to a board.

Good luck, have fun,

Dan

Now do you understand why I've never chased a Wray Special Copying Lens?
Murray@uptowngallery.org
Joined: 03 Apr 2002
Posts: 164
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 3:49 pm   Post subject: why

No, I must have missed sumthin'...

Now, fromyour previous details, wouldn't it also make a usable enlarger lens for large ratios, oriented 'conventionally'?

The only lens I have ever dealt with that mounted normally was the Xenar 135 that came with my Crown.

Murray
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2165
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 4:52 pm   Post subject: Re: why

Murray@uptowngallery.org wrote:
No, I must have missed sumthin'...

Now, fromyour previous details, wouldn't it also make a usable enlarger lens for large ratios, oriented 'conventionally'?

The only lens I have ever dealt with that mounted normally was the Xenar 135 that came with my Crown.

Murray
No no no. An enlarging lens, like the typical taking lens, when mounted as intended wants a big (image in) front and a small (image) behind. Y'r little doorstop --if it is much like the roughly comparable S-Sonnar it weighs > 20 pounds -- wants a small (image in) front and a large (image) behind. And it probably has minimal coverage.

To put it another way, your elephant of indeterminate color was made for reductions, not enlargements.

Cheers,

Dan
Les
Joined: 09 May 2001
Posts: 2682
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 2:55 am

Dan Fromm wrote:
The Vade Mecum says: "3.0, 5.0in. These were made for printed circuit reduction at 10:1 and 25:1 in each size. This was the beginning of the business all makers have (or seek!) in reduction of master drawings
for printed circuits and more recently for chips and integrated units."

If you're going to use it for general photography, i.e., with subject larger than the negative, reverse it. Or use it mounted normally for high magnification photomacrography, if you can get the extension needed. Should be very sharp at its intended magnification (subject 1/25 the size of the image on film).

Dan,

Now you've got me confused. if this is a reduction lens, then shouldn't the subject be 10 times (or 25X) the size it is on film? Big in front, small in back. ??
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2165
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:53 am

Les, think of enlarging. Small negative, larger print.

Now think of reducing. Large microchip template, small image on the silicon.

Cheers,

Dan
All times are GMT