Graflex.org

[Ronin]

Hi,
I own a Super Speed Graphic camera with a 135mm Rodenstock lens. I'm planning for the future to expand to a wide-angle lens. Is it true that with this camera you can't focus to infinity with lenses wider than 90mm? No hope for a 75 or 65mm lens?

bye,

Fulvio

[Les]

The "no wider than 90mm" rule certainly applies to Speed Grahics with a Focal Plane shutter.

But if I recall, the Super Speed is about the same dimentions as a Crown, and I can focus a 58mm on my crown and have been told that a 47mm can be successfully focused at inf.

But there's a hitch. The Super Graphic doesn't have linked rails inside the bed, so any lens that sits inside the bed when focused will have to be pushed or pulled on the standard, then locked down and hope it didn't shift when you did it.

Somewhere on web somebody had published a workaround for this, but I can't recall where.

[t.r.sanford]

I don't have a "Super," but I suppose its body is about the same depth as a "Crown," and that both cameras' beds drop to about the same extent.

Rough measurements of my "Crown" suggest that you could mount a 75mm. or even a 65mm. lens on it, and focus at infinity, without needing a recessed mount. The back focus with the bellows fully retracted would be about 45mm.

The problem is more likely to be getting the bed out of the way! Again, rough measurements suggest that the angle formed by the optical axis and a ray grazing the front of the bed, when dropped, is about 33°.

A 75mm. lens covers just under 65° on the short dimension of the film, so the semi-angle formed by the optical axis and a ray striking the upper edge of the film is a little less than 32.5°. Thus, a 75mm. lens might just avoid getting the front of the bed into the picture.

A 65mm. lens covers a bit more than 72° on the short dimension, so the equivalent semi-angle is about 36°. This suggests that you could not use a 65mm. lens on a "Crown" without imaging the end of the bed.

I'll be interested in hearing from someone who has a "Super" and has done these calculations.

[Les]

Despite what all of my math professors say, sometimes the math just doesn't add up.

Here's pic of my Super Graphic with a 65mm SA on it. Now this SA is in a helical mount. While this mount doesn't say Graflex on it, I suspect that's how they wanted Super Graphic owners to handle wide lenses.

In any case I open the lens up, pointed it to the sun (hazy day) and by moving the camera could see the sun from the top edge down to the bottom edge of the frame. The bed is not shown. Nor does the bed show up with my 58mm Grandagon on my Crown.

[t.r.sanford]

No doubt! According to legend, mathematics proved that the B-25 couldn't fly, either!

...but keep in mind the design of the lens. I think you might get different results with an old, small lens like the "Wide Angle Dagor," whose entrance pupil is farther back.

Would not your helical mount solve the problem of the fixed rear track? Schneider made such mounts for many of its WA lenses; I never thought about why, until just now.

[Les]

But a WA Dagor is a 90 (92.075mm)
a Regular Angulon is ...90mm
and a WA protar (Series V) for 4x5 is....90nm

so all of the pancake type lenses that I can think of that can cover 4x5 are right around 90, there isn't an intereference problem. I suspect there wouldn't be an intereference problem with a normally mounted 65mm SA.

There is the 60mm Hypergon, but that isn't really a viable lens for a graphic is it?

And yes the helical mount does solve the problem with SG focus rails, and I suspect that's how Graflex wanted you to use them, but I haven't found any proof of that in old brochures, etc.

[t.r.sanford]

I have a 75mm. f:9 "Wide Angle Dagor" that somebody mounted in a '50s-era "Compur" shutter. I've not heard of a shorter focal length than that, but I would not be flabbergasted to learn that one existed. I never have been able to figure out what series of "Protars" corresponds to which angular coverage, but I think "Protars" were made in focal lengths as short as an inch and a half or thereabouts...

...which is beside the point. I'm glad to learn that the 65mm. "Super Angulon" will work on a "Crown," which is something I've wondered about when considering purchase of that lens. The old f:8 ones seem plentiful, have a good reputation, and can be had for $400 or so.

The answer for Ronin, then, appears to be that he can certainly use a modern 65mm. or 75mm. wide angle lens on his "Super," but he would be well advised to find a helical focusing mount for the one he wants to use.

[RichS]

I am suprised that this subject continues to come up, and be answered... Although I didn't answer this time because I can't (yet) speak for a Super and I didn't know if the drop was the same.

But for a Pacemaker Crown or Speed, a 65mm f8 Super Angulon in a standard shutter works just fine as I and many other can attest. Unfortunately the only 75mm I have is mounted for the GVII so I can't try it on my Speed, but if the 65 works so sould the 75. And of course the 90 (Optar)was made for the Speed.

Sometime I would love to hear a deffinitive answer about a wider lens being used like a 58 or 47? I've heard people say they should work, or knew someone who did use them, but never first hand (as I remember anyway?).


_________________
----------------------------------------
"Ya just can't have too many GVIIs"
----------------------------------------

[ This Message was edited by: RichS on 2004-05-16 18:42 ]

[t.r.sanford]

In the discussion above, Les mentioned that he uses a 58mm. "Grandagon" on a "Crown." I'd be glad to know whether that lens fully covers a 4x5 field; the published specifications I've seen suggest that it shouldn't, but they probably are conservative, and Rodenstock makes very good stuff.

One of these months, when I get my act together, I'll cobble up a way to mount my old 47mm. f:8 "Super Angulon" on a "Crown," and I'll let you know what happens. The back focus ought to be adequate, but I still think it would include the front of the bed in the image area. It would be nice to know defninitively about the infinity focus; I can imagine using that lens with a rollfilm back on a "Crown."

[Les]

RE: Protars
Series IV is "wide angle" today we'd call it a moderate wide angle

Series V is"extreme wide angle" these lasted the longest but I haven't seen anything shorter than a 90mm. They are good, even great for their era, but modern glass beats them in every way except weight.

Series VII. one cell of a convertable set, shortest lenght is 7" in '39

Series VIIa. A pair of Series sevens.