Graflex.org

RichS · Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:05 am Post subject:

I'm back with another great question

I'm getting very close to having a fully functional 8x10 Century Universal. And after replacing screws, gluing, cleaning, tightening, adjusting, etc, I've hit a snag...

My favorite lens-on-camera for my B&J 8x10 is a Symmar 240mm. Nice angle and converts to 420 if I need it. Naturally, I thought I'd just put that lens on the CU and be done. Of course it fits and works fine, until I try to close the cover... Not even close! Right now I think the only lens I own that may alow the cover to close is the Wolly 159? (haven't tried it yet).

So I thought I'd tap the ever flowing river of experience here...

Anyone know of a good leave-it-on-the-camera-lens for a CU? It's got about 2 inches behind the lens board and only about 1 1/4 inches in front. Not much room at all...

Being the bit odd person that I am, I would love to find a convertible... But if I had to settle for a straight lens in something between 240 to 300mm I could bring myself to do it just to have a lens on the camera with the cover closed.

I never thought there would be anything about a CU that I didn't like, but I suppose nothing's perfect? Did Weston & Adams carry them with no lens attached? More reading in order I suppose?

Thanks for any suggestions, as usual

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

----------------------------------------

t.r.sanford · Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 8:36 am Post subject:

I haven't seen a great many 8x10 lenses, but I'd think that one of the early anastigmats might be shallow enough to work. I have a 75mm. f:9 "Wide Angle Dagor" that some hardy soul mounted in a minuscule "Compur" shutter evidently scavenged from a '50s 35mm. camera, and the front element is pretty much recessed. It seems reasonable that a 150mm. specimen wouldn't protrude more than an inch or so from the lensboard.

worldphoto · Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 7:52 pm Post subject:

Hi
Can you reverse the board and lens for storage?
Harry

[ This Message was edited by: worldphoto on 2004-03-01 11:55 ]

RichS · Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:08 pm Post subject:

T.R., a 150 wouldn't do me much good (although I certainly wouldn't pass up the opportunity to grab one). 150mm is extremely wide on the 8x10. I know the angles, but 150 on 8x10 just seems much wider than 75 on 4x5.

Reversing the lens board may be an option, but not with the convertibles. They're the same front & back...

Luckily, the Wolly 159 fits perfectly. Since it would always travel with the camera, there's option number one. Leave that on and bring a convertible seperately.

I also have an Ilex 10" Acutar in my 4x5 kit. This looks promising. It _may_ fit, and it's supposed to cover 8x10. A 10" would be a nice sized lens being just over the 240 and still far enough down from a 300. But I have to remove it from the Pacemaker board and put it on a 4" board to see if it will fit, The measuring is very cloe, although I think this lens is shorter in the rear than the front, so the reversal may be an option here too.

The main problem with 8x10 lenses is arperture. To get even a 6.x, the lens has to be large. I haven't seen one, but the Protars in f18 look very small, and very expensive which is why I haven't seen one

Since I have f7 T&R and Gundlach convertibles, I have a feeling the only option there would be the Protar. And I doubt I'll ever find one in both good condition and my price range...

If the Acutar works, I'll move that over and be done with it for a while. If not, the search will continue...

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

----------------------------------------

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

A 190WF ektar would work. a 250 WF ektar is magic on an 8x10. Pick up a copy of "Cape Light" and you'll agree. But I don't think it will quite make it. maybe reversed.

Up the $$ ladder would be a Dagor. A lot of them, even the 12" are pretty flat. And in a pinch it is convertable. Yes lots of people will tell you the single cell isn't corrected for this or that, but it was good enough for Ansel. Just stop down to f22 or so.

Keep searching ebay for the protars. I got a series V designed to cover either 11x14 or 16x20 for $150 a couple years back because it was listed as a PHotar and everybody thought he was selling filters.

_________________
"In order to invent, you need a good imagination and a lot of junk" Thomas Edison

RichS · Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2004 3:42 am Post subject:

Thanks Les. But how did poeple get hooked on the short lens idea? My mention of the 159? Or that short lenses are, umm, shorter?

My ideal lens would be something similar to my T&R 12-21-28 that would fit inside the closed case. That's what I'd like to find. Second choice is a single lens in the 240 to 300 range.

I've been keeping my eyes peeled for a protar ever since I got the 8x10 bug. They always go out of my range, Too many people seem to want them...

I always wanted a Dagor. Something about the name grabs me. Doesn't make any difference how it works, I like the name!

I'll have to start watching for one seriously now.

Now on to the good news, also known as "boy what a dummy I am"...

Harry gets the prize. Thank you Harry (again)! I took it for granted that my T&R wouldn't fit reversed because both sides are identical dimensionally. So I didn't even try it. What I didn't think about was that only one side has a shutter! To compound my stupidity, after I realized this and tried to fit it, I saw that the shutter was larger than the 4 inch board it's mounted on so there was no way to fit into the hole on the 6 inch adapter board..... Yeah, mount it to the adapter board and then reverse it... Sounds simple when you're not sitting there, lens in hand, thinking that it can't fit

Some days the brain just don't work....

So, the whole problem has been solved. With the lens mounted on the 6 inch board, it reverses and fits perfectly. I may have to give it a good check because it may still be just a bit too close, but it looks good and I could always arrange a little bumper for shock resistance if needed. And after today's splurge at the hardware store for screws & washers, this camera should be ready for some film. Or at least a test to see if it all holds together

Thanks guys!

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

----------------------------------------

RJL · Joined: 13 Dec 2004 Posts: 10 Location: Redwood City CA

Rich, its nice to hear somebody else using a Century Universal. I was looking for the same thing and came up with the following solution.
I use a Taylor Taylor & Hobson series III, Cooke 7 1/2 lens, for which I made a 1" recessed lensboard. The camera closes up quite nicely and I can leave the lens in it all the time. I have a small packard shutter behind the lensboard since it a barrel lens. The Cooke is a f6.5 so focusing is a lot easier than the f18 protar, and although the lens is meant for (6 1/2 x 4 3/4) it covers 8x10 without a problem. I usually use it stopped down to f22-32, images are sharp.

Cheers
Rob

Henry · Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 1:44 pm Post subject:

I know nothing about 8x10 format so this may be way off base, but have you thought about the Optar 203? I picked up a dandy one in Graphex shutter for under $200 ($169 to be exact) a few years ago and have been astonished by its optical quality. Don't know about coverage for 8x10, though.

RichS · Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:06 pm Post subject:

RJL,

Back when I was searching for lenses, I found the TTH lenses went for a pretty high price and were rather hard to find. I sure wouldn't mind having one, along with a nice protar, but I'm not sure how many more lenses I'll be buying. I did get kind of hooked on the T&R convertibles

I'm suprised to hear that the 7 1/2 covers. Nice to know!

Henry, I doubt the 203 would cover 8x10. If it would, I'd grab one since they get talked about so much...

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

The 203 covers 5x7, so while it would make an "interesting" image, it won't come close to covering.