Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,768   Posts: 1,484,182   Online: 808
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20
  1. #1
    EKDobbs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    NC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    124

    35mm Lens for LF

    I recently disassembled a Kodak Signet 35, and I'm too lazy to figure out how the lens goes back on. So I was thinking, why not just slap it into a light proof box and make some paper negs!

    So I was just curious, would such a thing even work? It's a 44mm f/3.5 lens, with about 10mm of focus movement. I'm looking to do 8x10s, but I'd be happy with 5x7.

    Thanks!
    In other worlds he has
    darker days, blacker swells.
    Strokes that mix noir revenge
    on waves of grey.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,203
    Won't work. The Signet's lens has to cover 24 x 36 mm, i.e., a 43 mm circle. It probably just covers that. Lenses for 5x7 have to cover 210 mm, for 8x10 have to cover 300 mm.

    There's a reason why LF shooters don't use lenses for small formats, and it isn't love of spending more than necessary.

  3. #3
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,574
    Images
    25
    This is with an 80mm lens on a 4x5.

    http://www.apug.org/forums/members/r...brom-8x10.html
    Rick A
    Argentum aevum
    BTW: the big kid in my avatar is my hero, my son, who proudly serves us in the Navy. "SALUTE"

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Bavaria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    30
    If you'd make a very close close-up picture it might work.

  5. #5
    BetterSense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,750
    My favorite LF macro lens is from an RB67. It easily covers 4x5 at most 'indoor' ranges, covers with movements at macro ranges, and stops down farther than most LF lenses.

    A lens for 35mm is probably pushing it, though.
    f/22 and be there.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,169
    Quote Originally Posted by EKDobbs View Post
    I recently disassembled a Kodak Signet 35, and I'm too lazy to figure out how the lens goes back on. So I was thinking, why not just slap it into a light proof box and make some paper negs!

    So I was just curious, would such a thing even work? It's a 44mm f/3.5 lens, with about 10mm of focus movement. I'm looking to do 8x10s, but I'd be happy with 5x7.

    Thanks!
    Not even close. That lens has a sharp image circle of about 45mm, you will need a 160~mm IC for 4x5.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,169
    Quote Originally Posted by swchris View Post
    If you'd make a very close close-up picture it might work.
    Yes, if you reverse the lens and work at 5 or 6 times lifesize.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    752
    I have an extra Kodak Signet 35 lens+shutter assembly (along with two complete cameras). I've long had this idea that I would mount it on a board for my bag-bellows baby Gowland and try using it to make circular pictures on 120 roll film. One of a grillion projects that haven't advanced beyond concept, alas. So many ideas, so little time...

  9. #9
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,444
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Yes, if you reverse the lens and work at 5 or 6 times lifesize.
    Don't need to reverse it if you can move it far enough away from the film.


    Steve.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    Don't need to reverse it if you can move it far enough away from the film.


    Steve.
    You do need to reverse it if you want a reasonably flat field.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin