on 4x5 cameras and lenses.

[Ole]

A 135mm Tessar-type lens has just enough coverage to cover 4x5" straight on - if you want to play around with the (limited) movements of the camera, get a 150mm Tessar-type or a 135mm Plasmat like the Symmar.

When I got my Anniversary Speed Graphic I just happened to have a 150/4.5 Xenar in a Speed Graphic lens board already, and another lens board just big enough to mount my smallest iris holder on. The Xenar is nice if I think I might need flash sync; otherwise I'd far rather use the tiny little 150mm f:6.8 Zeiss Doppel-Amatar.

[jacobus]

A 135mm Tessar-type lens has just enough coverage to cover 4x5" straight on

Ole,
this is true with a 4.5/135 Tessar that covers only 60° or an max.image circle of 160mm.

But there are also those 6.3 Tessars that were equally or even higher renowned for their sharpness and contrast, and which cover 70° when stopped down. A Zeiss Jena data sheet ( from the sixties or seventies?) gave a maximum image circle of 185mm for the 6.3/135mm Tessar, and 290mm for the 6.3/210. Rather small lenses BTW, and I would be surprised if their performance would be one grain below the 6.3 Xenar that has been praised so convincingly by Christopher Perez.

Cheers
Uli

[Ole]

You're right again Uli, but in this case a 135/4.5 was specifically mentioned a few posts earlier. I should have put f:4.5 in my reply.

BTW - I agree with Christopher Perez about the 210/6.1 Xenar: It's a great little lens!

[bdial]

I am sure it is not universal, but how or why does a smaller lens (aperture wise) produce a larger image circle?
Seems counter-intuitive at the very least.

[Ole]

Lens design is the art of compromise. With "simple" designs (there's nothing simple about it, but there are only for elements) like the Tessar, one of the compromises is between speed and coverage. By restricting the maximum aperture to f:6.3, the coverage can be increased a little before the image quality gets bad.

That's partly why there are no old fast wide-angle lenses - the f:6.8 Angulon was among the fastest until a very few years ago!

[Murray@uptowngallery]

If only if were as easy to find a rough 5x7 Speed Graphic as a
4x5.

A rough 4x5 is far cheaper than the choices of available 5x7 cameras.

I have a duck-taped-bellows Speed and a replacement belloes but I just don't want to put a replacement on yet...there is something about having a junker that works I enjoy.

[mjs]

Stephanie;

Congratulations on the pending arrival of a dedicated portrait subject! I haven't heard of development of a 'poop' developer yet but chemists are a creative bunch: if they can do it with coffee and tea...

If you don't end up with the Graphlex you bid on, consider a 4x5 monorail such as an old Calumet CC-400 series or its Kodak or Burke & James equivalents. They often go for around $100 on Ebay (I got mine for $36) and are extremely useable. Very nice cameras, actually, and more portable than they appear. I carried mine through hill and dale (and downtown streets and alleys,) for a couple of years before I got the Wehman 8x10. Kodak 127mm Ektars or (especially,) the single-coated Fuji 150mm f/6.3 lens also often can be bought for less than $100, in working shutters, and with careful shopping you might be able to get a camera and lens for less than $100 (I did.) The Fuji lens in particular is an extremely nice lens; the 127 Ektar just barely covers 4x5 and doesn't give much extra coverage for movements, but it has a very nice "look" all its own. A few older wooden 4x5 film holders (can be found for about $5 each, since everyone wants the more modern plastic ones,) and you are in business. Good luck!

mjs

[Stephanie Brim]

Someone else bit and I'm not about to get into a bidding war over THAT camera. I'm going to look around a bit more.

A monorail camera is a good idea, but I'd rather have the press camera. I don't see myself really doing much with movements (yet) so I can get a monorail at a later date if I'm still interested in doing 4x5 photography. One thing you have to remember is that I'll be, unfortunately, contact printing stuff for a while anyway. The enlarger I've managed to find is only good for up to 6x7, IIRC.

[Phillip P. Dimor]

I use a 4x5 speed regularly. I use the focal plane shutter most of the time as I've only one lens with working shutter. I buy used barrel lenses. Of the ones I own, I like the old Kodak Anastigmat's the most. Uncoated but sharp stopped down, I've a 7" Anastigmat from the early 50's that is excellent. Cost me a whole $12. I too use a dremel, find some scrap plastic that is opaque (old computer cases, etc) and use that for a lens board. I made a post several years ago on graflex.com explaining how I make my lens boards.
basically like /------X------\
where the X is the lens, and the ends are just tapered.

These cameras are easy to fix yourself, even if you aren't that mechanically inclined. My one major problem is that people try to align them and inevitably unalign them. Badly. If you start 'goofing with it' so to speak, be prepared to spend the time to ungoof it I've been there. I'm there right now.

I paid $90 for body. You can get a good deal, there are so many of them out there. Even if the focal plane shutter is slow, that's a simple fix usually.
There's an Ed Romney Speed Graphic guide. I'm not sure if you can still buy it but if you can it's worth it's weight in gold. I own it, I don't think i'm legally allowed to reproduce it but if I could I would.

You can contact print 4x5, that works for a while. I'm still making cyanotypes and van dykes. It's an awesome camera once you get used to it.
Sorry for the ramble!

[Nick Zentena]

Big name press cameras cost more then they are worth IMHO.

If you really must have a press camera a B&J is often a fraction of the price of a similar condition camera from anybody else. Better movements to. The only downside is no graflock back.

If you intend to leave the house with the camera I'd also advise against the heavy old monorails. Instead look at something like an Afga/Ansco woody. The 5x7s often with 4x5 reducing backs aren't that expensive. While they aren't light they are easier to pack then a big monorail. Downsides are they don't handle extreme 4x5 wide angle lenses. OTOH a 5x7 contact print is nicer then a 4x5 contact.