Graflex.org

jjwalker · Joined: 05 Sep 2003 Posts: 29 Location: upper midwest

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??

Dave · Joined: 05 Dec 2003 Posts: 78 Location: Canada

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

t.r.sanford · Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2004 12:14 pm Post subject:

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

clnfrd · Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2004 1:31 pm Post subject:

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

jjwalker · Joined: 05 Sep 2003 Posts: 29 Location: upper midwest

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

jjwalker · Joined: 05 Sep 2003 Posts: 29 Location: upper midwest

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!

Dan Fromm · Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2144 Location: New Jersey

t.r.sanford · Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 5:15 am Post subject:

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.

Nick · Joined: 16 Oct 2002 Posts: 494

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.

jjwalker · Joined: 05 Sep 2003 Posts: 29 Location: upper midwest

Thanks everyone for the explanations and help with everything! Johnnie