lens/format for dummies

[Murray@uptowngallery]

Time zzzones, gentlemen. It's hard to read intent on the Web.

HB - good info on avoiding very wide angle lenses with little 4x5 experience. I will keep that in mind, unless I find one I can't refuse. I won't give up on it prematurely.

Haris, if you ever run into the Kodak 3A postcard size cameras, they typically have a 170 mm lens. They can be very inexpensive. I have no idea what your market would be like, or if you'd find it easier to shop on eBay. Since they have been around so long, they may be easier to find. Don't pay alot, because one week they may command good prices, and the next week, the guy who won on eBay won't be overbidding as he doesn't need one that week.

Many variations, my general rule on trying to discern on the Web which lens one has is that the one that has a sloping metal disc around the lens and no glass visible (iris & shutter in front of the glass) has a meniscus (probably achromat) lens. I think they are f/11. Not sure

The next level up that I can recognize on the web has a Bausch & Lomb Rapid Rectilinear lens. Distinct glass visible, often in Kodak or EKCo Ball Bearing Shutter (good and bad; they seem to work as found, just not well, 2 speeds, sort of, plus B + T). If there is a good photo, there is a mechanical vignette disc limiting the clear diameter of the glass. Some say US 4 for aperture minimum which is f/8.

The next level of lens is an anastigmat, f/7.7 is a common one. Usually found in a multi-speed shutter. One of the better lenses supplied on this type of camera. The camera variation that carries this often has the additional descriptor 'Special' in the camera name.

There are even more variations and exceptions to the above, but the above helped me ID two by sight.

I ran into someone here and on largeformat...P.info who used a 3A anastigmat lens on a 4x5 Speed Graphic successfully & happily.

All three of these should cover 4x5 easily.

DannL here has made some nice 8x10 images with a 170 mm Rapid Rectilinear with one cell removed, making it roughly 350 mm, f/16 I think, and an achromat in that form of deconstruction.

I hesitate to suggest using lens reflections to recognize lens designs, because it takes experience and known samples on-hand to confirm what you think you see.

I got very confused with some known samples.

I also had an unfair sample...I expected a 6 element plasmat and was told later it was 8-element so I was very baffled.

[haris]

HerrBremerhaven, Murray,

And all,

Thank you for all your help

Enjoy life