cooke apochromatic process 25" is good for what?
I have access to a Cooke apochromatic process 25" series IX. I don't own it and it is not for sale. What are good uses for such a lens? I shoot my own Horseman 8X10 and have access to a Levy process camera and a Fotar 10 X 10 vertical enlarger. There will be more old lenses to try. The owner may be interested in it's worth, but so far he sells nothing. It look pretty clean to me. My longest lens is a Rodenstock APO-Ronar 480mm f:9. Is there anything to gain or learn in mounting the Cooke up? Obviously I am new to 8 X 10.
I do like shooting portraits with 4 X 5 and a 300mm. Perhaps I will need a the 25" to be happy at 8 X 10.
Random plinking welcome!
I wonder how big the image circle is on that lens? I used to run a process camera in a print shop, and we could expose film up to either 16" or 20" wide (can't remember which, it's been 18 years). That camera used a Nikkor 480mm f/9 Apo. I'd assume a ~625mm process lens would have serious coverage and could possibly be used on a camera larger than an 8x10.
“For me, the camera is a sketch book, an instrument of intuition and spontaneity.”
― Henri Cartier-Bresson
Isn't the rule of thumb that a process lens has a coverage area two times the diagonal of the film used?
I seem to recall that factoid being mentioned in a large format book.
If you have the coverage, then you could guess on the size of film it was intended for.
That way, you could use plenty of movements with it as well.
"Isn't the rule of thumb that a process lens has a coverage area two times the diagonal of the film used?"
Nope. Most process lenses have relatively small coverage. Published coverages are usually at 1:1, and are twice the coverage at infinity. For Apo-Nikkors' coverage, see http://www.galerie-photo.com/apo-pro...ikkors-en.html
In addition, the angle covered is smaller for long lenses than for short ones.
That said, there are wide-angle process lenses, e.g., G-Clarons, G-Claron WA, Apo-Gerogons, ... These typically cover at most 70 degrees.
The Cooke Ser. IX should cover 8x10 at infinity, but no more. It is certainly worth trying as a portrait lens on 8x10. Randy, what will you use for a shutter with it?
Portraits with a 25" lens will require 35"+ of bellows draw, depending on how close you like to work. If you have sufficient bellows, go for it!
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Do bear in mind that 8x10 portraits and 4x5 are different, in that a life size head shot that fills the frame on 8x10 will be close to 1:1 in magnification. Not so in 4x5...
If your 300mm lens covers 8x10, then you might want to see how that might look on 8x10, provided of course you remain at the correct position / distance from the sitter.
A tight head shot on 8x10 would be 1:1 magnifications. However the subject distance would be about the same. But it does give you the bellows draw needed. For a 600mm lens you would need 1200mm of bellows draw, and the subject distance would be, of course, 2.4 meters. Now you know why they did not do tight head shots on 8x10 or 11x14; but used a reducing back, usually the 4x5 back. After enlargers became generally available more options were available, but then they also used smaller cameras.
Hey guys, thanks for all your replies. Johnielvis, obviously I am thinking ULF, perhaps Harman DPP 16x20.
I thought I had an email trigger here, so I missed these replies until now.
I have a lot of experimenting to do...
I got some crazy ideas after reading the last View Camera magazine. The wild west 20x24 portrait camera.
Last edited by Randy Moe; 07-21-2012 at 11:47 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: fix name spelling
I just bought a Packard 6x6 80mm bulb on the auction site, like new. I also have a 3 1/2 almost 90mm Packard very used with a weak 120 volt solenoid.
I am pretty good with a lens cap...
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
I have enough Horseman frames and bellows to easily do 35"
Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh