lf-photo.org.uk

Hi everyone, And happy new year! I bought a grahlex speed graphic which has been rather badly restored but as it was cheap, I thought perhaps it would be a good starting point. when it turned up, the lens had very obviously had its chips,( The petals of the iris were completely shot) and the seller was honourable enough to give me a part refund when I sent him the lens. So then, off I went to wolverhampton camera fair, to buy a replacement lens, after an hour of fruitless foraging, I managed to pick up three random lenses which I just assumed would fit the bill, as well as one other which cost me quite a bit, The guy who sold me it seemed fairly knowledgeable and said it would do a 5x4. I got home and mounted the lens and perplexed at the way the camera wouldn't focus, I thought i'd resolved the problem initially, but when i tried some exposures of the landscape, I ended up with profoundly vignetted images. I replaced that lens with one of the others. and it seems to be ok now. My question basically is this, was the lens I tried initially for an even larger format camera? it is a schnider-kreuznach radionar 1:2,9/80 which I understand to be a wide angle lens , which was what I wanted (im interested in landscape ), is there a way I can use this lens with the graflex?,also, how can I avoid making this mistake again, I am only used to 35mm stuff and really a total novice in this field, all replies greatly appreciated, many thanks, sven.

I think almost for sure that lens is from a 50's 6x6 cm folder.

The Radionar design was a triplet and is listed in The Lens Vade Mecum in several focal lengths and formats. Almost all of them seem to be for either 35mm to 6x6cm formats in a different focal lengths but I haven't found a 90mm one listed.

There was a Radionar 105mm listed for a 5x4 passport cameras (4 shots on a 5x4 negative possibly on a Polaroid Back?) and one of 90mm f4.5 listed as being manufactured for a 6.5cmx9cm camera in 1938. I cannot find an 80mm Radionar listed - but there again The Lens Vade Mecum could have missed out a short production run.

I think someone saw you coming - I had the same problem when I first started with large format. The best thing you can do in the future until you learn is to look in all the large format forums for advice and make sure you purchase from someone who will give you a refund if you are not satisfied or more likely they have given an incorrect description.

For anything Graphlex or speed graphic manufacture go to http://graflex.org/helpboard/ where you will fined a lot of advice regarding cameras and lenses.

nn

Hi Sven

I recommend you take a good look at the site below, which I found very useful. It should fill those gaps in your knowledge and give you greater confidence when buying secondhand kit.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/

If you come along to one of our workshops you can also see what lenses others use.

Steve

Here is a spreadsheet listing all of the 'usual' lenses that work with 4x5 cameras. (sorted by weight at the moment)

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key= ... E&hl=en_GB

Mr Thalmann's future classics page is also infliential

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm

As is his 'lightweight lenses' page,

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/lightwei.htm

That lens market sounds good fun if you know what you are after though!

Tim

There is a fairly complete list on Ebony's site.
What causes the vignetting is the small image circle - see content of link for an explanation. In a nutshell, the lens needs to form an image on the ground glass that is bigger than the ground glass, or you will get vignetting. So for 5x4, you need at least 170mm image circle. The bigger the circle, the more room you have for movements. As this is one of the big reasons to use LF, ample image circle is useful. However, for wide angle lenses, that is technically difficult to implement, so expect to pay good money for a large image circle.
You'll find plenty of advice scattered about the forum (and others) for which lenses are advisable.
I hope that helps. Best regards,
Charles