Graflex.org

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

In May some of you guys were talking about grotesque lenses, a propos Graflex Big Berthas.

Just for interest, have a look at this 100" (2500mm) f/12.5 Kodak Infared Ektar listed on ebay. I assume this thing was for aerial photography. It's physically huge, and weighs 75lb.

Interesting that they specify the wavelengths it's optimized for. Or at least I assume that's what the designation '0.8 to 1.0 microns' means.

glennfromwy · Joined: 29 Nov 2001 Posts: 903 Location: S.W. Wyoming

Ohhhhh my gosh, I gotta have one of those!

_________________
Glenn

"Wyoming - Where everybody is somebody else's weirdo"

Nick · Joined: 16 Oct 2002 Posts: 494

t.r.sanford · Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2004 3:10 pm Post subject:

Nowadays they are, as part of the ongoing process of detaching measurements from real-world referents. Back when wolframite was tungsten, visible-light wavelengths were given in millimicrons (a "micron" is a millionth of a meter). Visible light covered a spectrum from about 380 to 700 millimicrons, thus 0.38 to 0.7 micron -- and this lens, computed for the near infrared, is optimized for 0.8 to 1.0 micron.

Does anyone know what diameter image circle the 100-in. lens produces?

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

Apparently covers 5" x 7" anyway-- says so on the lens front. Given the size of the film, this is not that extreme a focal length-- it's in the ballpark of a 500mm lens on 35mm.

[ This Message was edited by: Dave on 2004-07-17 12:05 ]

glennfromwy · Joined: 29 Nov 2001 Posts: 903 Location: S.W. Wyoming

After being confused to death about microns, millimicrons, etc in old literature about infared photography, I have come to the conclusion that somewhere down the line it was changed to nanometers. I could be wrong but that's the only explanation that made sense to me.

_________________
Glenn

"Wyoming - Where everybody is somebody else's weirdo"

Les · Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 2682 Location: Detroit, MI

I'm also guessing that given the relatively slow aperture, that this was more of a celestial lens rather than aerial.

Either that or they were VERY high up (which would explain the Infra red...cuts through a lot of clutter.

Les

glennfromwy · Joined: 29 Nov 2001 Posts: 903 Location: S.W. Wyoming

Makes me wonder if this thing is a remnant of the U-2 spy plane program.

_________________
Glenn

"Wyoming - Where everybody is somebody else's weirdo"

Henry · Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2004 8:21 pm Post subject:

I think it was a prop in a burlesque show I saw years ago in Buffalo. There was a hilarious sketch with a view camera, a comedian, and a scantily clad female. Modesty compels me to refrain from summarizing the action that followed.....

Graflex Sid · Joined: 10 Jan 2003 Posts: 221 Location: London,England

This is the NEW lens the press boys will have to use in the future when they get pushed further back behind barriers to photograph celebrities..
"Look at the lens,honey!"