Graflex.org

primus96 · Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:15 am Post subject:

I am considering two lenses of this focal length.
Lens #1 is a Schneider Symmar 210mm f5.6 in Synchro Compur
Lens #2 is a Rodenstock Sironar N 210mm f5.6 MC in a Copal #1

Now, I have seen images of the Sironar & the lens is symmetrical. Theres a fair size of rear cell assembly going to be inside the camera.
I assume this means the lens cannot stay on the camera when I fold it up.
However will the bellows on a Pacemaker allow me to focus down to 5-6ft or so?
On occaision I may well find myself taking portraits at this sort of distance, maybe in a studio.

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

With 30cm of total extension and a 21cm lens, your film should be about a meter from your subject.

t.r.sanford · Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 7:54 am Post subject:

Viewed another way, the "Pacemaker" track can be racked forward just under 4 inches. With a 210mm. (8-1/4-inch) lens, you can focus on a subject 38 inches in front of the film plane, just under 1 meter. If you slide the lens forward on the track, you can get a bit closer than that -- in either case, closer than you'd want to be, for portrait work.

The angular coverage of an 8-1/4-inch lens on 4x5 is very close to that of a 58mm. lens on 35mm. (like the Zeiss "Biotar" on an "Exakta"). This would be a very good choice for head-and-shoulders portraits.

primus96 · Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 3:24 pm Post subject:

The Symmar is marked as being f 5.6 210mm, but there is additional engraving in green: It suggests the lens is convertible to a 370mm f12.
How do you do that & is the image really ropy.
I know i would not be able to focus really close.

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

You do it by removing the front cell and using the second scale. Best used by stopping WAY down f22, etc. No its not the greatest image in the world, but if you're out on the trail and that longer lens is 3 miles back at the car.....

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

primus96 · Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 6:54 pm Post subject:

I had found the figures for the Rodenstock 210mm on the site you mention.
There is a test of the 135mm standard Optar, which doesnt do too badly.
They didnt test the 127mm f4.7 Ektar, which my Graphic has.
The 135mm Wide Field Ektar does damn well considering its put up against lenses made thirty years after. This is the lens I would like to have. Trouble is everybody else seems to know it as well.

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

t.r.sanford · Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 6:56 am Post subject:

If portraits are what's wanted, 370mm. may be a bit more focal length than many might think desirable, even if the camera's bellows extension would allow use of a lens that long. A low-cost alternative would be to look around for a Kodak "Telek" -1 negative supplementary lens, which would extend the focal length of a 210mm. prime lens to about 265mm. at the cost of about 2/3 of a stop; you ought to be able to focus down to a bit under 9 feet.

That focal length is more or less comparable to a 65mm. lens on a 35mm. camera -- and, of course, it is not so urgent to "fill the frame" when using a 4X5 as it is with a miniature camera. Most portrait work does not involve making large prints, either, and enlarging to a modest 3X or so can make even an imperfectly corrected lens look good, if it doesn't deliver images too low in contrast.

Whether you do something like this, or use one group of a convertible lens, the increase in aberrations of course will be greater at the edges. In historic times, this sometimes was thought to be an advantage in portrait work -- the idea was to focus sharply on the eyes, near the center of the composition, and let field curvature, etc. impart a pleasing diffusion to the rest. Fifty years ago, Youssuf Karsh made his name by producing portraits on the opposite principle, but the older approach still has its advocates, and often is very pleasing to the subjects.