The Wee-est of wee petzval's. 96mm on 4X5

[jimgalli]

The *LGM's brought me a box of wee petzval's earlier this weekend and I promptly bathed and sold some of them.

But 2 of them were really dinkies. I guessed at about 96mm but after using one of them today I think that may even be optimistic. They may be about 85mm. So what good is an 85mm Petzval? It won't cover 4X5. Not even close. It would cover 6X9. But to get the nice petzval effect I thought perhaps it would work on half frame 4X5, or 2 1/2 X 4.

So after messing around fitting a shutter on the front I made these 6 pics earlier today. The surprise was that I think I prefer the full circle image on the 4X5. When I print them, I think I'll print the entire circle, not crop to half frame.

What think ye? (Yes, the scans suck. Epson 2450 for these) also posted at LFForum for my friends there that aren't here.

* Little Green Men

[Paul Cocklin]

Jim, some absolutely great work. I love the Nash (it reminds me of Jaws, for some reason) and the last two of the crosses. Simply amazing!

[jimgalli]

Thanks Paul.

[jimgalli]

Here's what the original antique lens looks like, it's components, and what it looked like in user mode. I only used the inner barrel with the packard mount for making the pictures.

[wildbill]

Jim, you've got one hell of an eye! Looks like a very rich area to photograph.

[Uhner]

Interesting hardware, and interesting images. I really like the photo of the Nash.

[Marco B]

But 2 of them were really dinkies. I guessed at about 96mm but after using one of them today I think that may even be optimistic. They may be about 85mm. So what good is an 85mm Petzval? It won't cover 4X5. Not even close. It would cover 6X9. But to get the nice petzval effect I thought perhaps it would work on half frame 4X5, or 2 1/2 X 4.

Jim, I am by no means an expert on brass lenses, but I recently stumbled on this, and what you may actually have is a magic lantern brass lens, look here:

http://www.luikerwaal.com/newframe_u...biunial_uk.htm

The lens image somewhere half down the page looks remarkably like yours. Actually, your's mentions "General film", so an early film projector lens might be even more likely. Probably not much difference between the two at the time. That would also explain the minor coverage, it was never intended to project an image on a large format negative, but rather the other way around, to collect an image from a magic lantern slide or film and project on a screen...

But great what you managed to get out of it!

[sdivot]

Hey Jim,
Wanna sell one of those babies? I'd like to fashion another lens mount set up for my 6x7. Come on, you know you do......
Steve

[jimgalli]

Hi Marco. Thanks! Yes, we always knew they were magic lantern lenses and what the intended coverage was.

Steve, Yes you can have one of them if you want. I'm away on vacation for a week or better. I'll PM you tomorrow with price etc. Best, Jim

[Soeren]

Damn you Jim, now I want one. My family will be starving because of you
Hmm are such a thing cheap or....?
Kind regards