Graflex.org

[Dave]

Graflexers, I just wanted to get some general advice on long lenses for my Century, so please let me know your thoughts.

My Century has a bellows draw of about 175mm without straining it (that's from the flange to the film plane). The only lens I currently use on it is a 105/5.6 Symmar. (I also have a couple of prewar Tessars, which I never really use anymore.)

I'd ideally like to get something like a 180/5.5 Tele-Arton, or failing that, a 180 Tele-Xenar. These things have about the same flange focal distance as the normal lens, and the 180 would be ideal for some of the tripod work I do. The downside is that nice 180s don't come up that often, and when they do, they're fairly expensive.

The alternative would be a lens with a little shorter or longer focal length. The options could be either (i) a lens of conventional (non-tele) design a little shorter, like a 150 Xenar, or (ii) a longer tele like a 240 T-A or T-X. (I think these longer teles are more commonly available.) With either of these, I'd be able to get similar reproduction size on the film (around 1:6 to 1:8 at full bellows draw).

Anyone have any advice or ideas about this? Thanks in advance.

Dave

[Dan Fromm]

[Henry]

Dave, as you can see from my profile on the left, I have the 203mm Optar. My particular lens is tack sharp, so I guess I lucked out there. On the Century you will be at or darn near full bellows draw at infinity so any close focussing would be problematic. Also at that extension it seems that every passing air molecule wants to leave its impact, in the form of dreaded vibration. Use at least 1/100 shutter speed (preferably higher) to control this, and *gently* squeeze that cable release!

[Dave]

OK, Graflexers, here's the update, and a couple more questions.

First off, I got a very good deal on a pristine 150 Symmar for my Century. This isn't very long, but it should be fine for not-too-tight portraits on 6 x 7 rollfilm, and as a longer lens for general stuff. The upside is I got it for less than half what a 180 T-X or T-A usually goes for.

The downside? Well . . . (1) the Symmar has a flange focal length of 146.5mm, according to the Joe Schneider site. This means a lot of bellows extension for a Century, but I should still be able to make 1:5. (2) It's gonna dump a lot of extra light in the camera, so I'll have to use it with the compendium shade routinely. (3) It's got a #1 shutter, so I'm going to have to mutilate one of my existing boards.

So bear with me. Here's a couple more questions-- please tell me your thoughts.

(1) To use the 150, I have to get it on the other side of the metal focusing scale for my 105, which is screwed on the bed in the usual manner. Options are (a) disengage the front standard and hang it on the end every time I want to use the 150, or (b) get rid of the focusing scale for my normal lens, so I can slide the carriage out in the usual way. Either solution is a moderate pain. What do you guys do with your long lenses?

(2) Second, if I'm gonna bore the board out to a bigger hole for the Symmar, I may make an eccentric hole, like some photogs used to use with WA lenses. I guess I'd get an extra 5 - 7mm of front rise, fall, or shift, which isn't much. I know, a Graphic's not a view camera, but does anyone see a reason not to do this?

Maybe trivial questions-- just thought I'd throw them out and see if anyone had comments. Dan's probably right-- I need another Graphic, but when I break down and get that 4 x 5 Super, I can use the 150 on that, too. Thanks again--

Dave

[Dan Fromm]

[Les]

RE: Drilling Boards.

you said, "elliptical".

Did you mean oval or did you mean off set?

graflex actually made a board for the 4x5 that fit the 90 Optar that had a curious L shaped hole in it . It gave almost a full diameter of the shutter hole rise, and since Pacemaker boards are not square they had to make it L shaped to give shift too. But it also carried a huge, felt covered washer to keep the dark from leaking out.

Now on the Century with that tiny board you wont get much at all. You could simply drill the hole offeset and always have a bit of rise built in, but I'm more concerned about what's going to happen with the rear end of the Symmar.

It's entirely possible that the rear cell sticks out so much that any shift will be limited to where the rear cell hits the bellows or the frame, etc.

[Dave]

Thanks for the replies to what were rather minor issues.

To Les: actually I didn't say 'elliptical'; I said 'eccentric'. Sure, by that I mean an offset lensboard. I've seen this on a couple of Graphic lensboards a long time ago, and on other lensboards. In some kinds of wide-angle camera, this was the only way to effect front rise/fall/shift.

The back element of the convertible Symmar is remarkably skinny-- only 38mm diameter, and actually narrower than the lensboard hole. It wouldn't bind on the bellows straight on-- it could if I tilt the lens a lot, but I never tilt more than a few degrees anyway. The offset hole would double the amount of lateral shift, and increase available front rise by about 30%, but you're right: on the little Century, it may not be worth it.

To Dan: collegial regards from one cheap bastard to another. Maybe I'm missing something. The half-vernier focus scale on my early Century has two parts: a little fixed plate that screws in the bed, and another moveable inner plate that sits in the groove in the focusing rail. This inner plate limits placement of the front carriage on the rail, just like an infinity stop. Is there a different way to install it? It looks like a design flaw, and maybe they changed it later.

[Dave]

I take that back . . .

Went and actually looked at the camera: the focus scale is in the same track as the infinity stops, but the front carriage glides right over it, as it should. What was happening was that the little piece of spring steel under the front carriage lock was bent, so it was running into the crosspiece at the front of the rails.

I've had the darn camera for 20 years, and I never knew this was the problem. It continues to reveal its mysteries to me.