I bought this lens at a flea market thinking it was the telephoto for the National Graflex Series II. After looking at several of those online, I see that it is skinnier, has a different case, comes with a tubular viewfinder, and somehow has a Leica Thread Mount.

It focuses down to about 3 meters and out to infninity on a Leica mount body. The rim identifies it as a 'Telephoto," and it looks factory-made in every respect except that a previous owner painted a distance scale near the focusing ring.

Does anyone know what Graflex camera this lens could have been made for?

I will attempt to attach an img link to a photo.

Mike

[img] src="https://www.pool2012.net/graflex/Graflex_140mm_f6.3.jpg" width="800" height="711"
[/img]

The bible, first edition, has a picture of a 140/6.3 B&L telephoto for the National Graflex that looks just like yours. Also see https://cameramanuals.org/prof_pdf/graflex_national_series_ii-large.pdf p. 23.

Your tubular viewfinder makes no sense on a National Graflex. The person who adapted the tele lens to a Leica may have needed it and found it. You should be able to separate the lens from the LTM adapter.

Dan,

Thanks for your reply on this (I was beginning to think there would be none) and for the great link to the NGII instructions.

When I bought this I assumed it was for a National Graflex II and began to compare it to those you see online (the same as in the link). I was surprised that it was clearly distinct.

The thread mount was not what was described online, and I found that in fact it was an LTM. The mount is integral to the lens, and doesn't look like it will come off unless you use a Dremel and a pipe wrench.

I made a side-by-side image of this lens and the NGII Telephoto and included a photo of the mount end. The text of a link to it is copied below. I will also try putting it into an <a> link and inserting that.

Mike

https://www.pool2012.net/graflex/Nat_Graflex_II_vs_LTM.jpg

Mike, thanks for the further explanation. All I can say is "Sorry, wrong again."

What does the set screw in your lens' barrel hold in place?

Cheers,

Dan

Dan,

I tried removing the set screw (there are two more, spaced evenly around the circumfrence). With all three out I thought something would budge, but no luck (like the surfaces were stuck together). I think it's safe to assume though that the barrel should come apart around that point.

The two lenses are the same from about 5mm below the focusing ring up. From there down the LTM lens is 3x longer than the NGII lens. This is not clear at first glance at the pictures. (See the linked image, in which the top parts are adjusted to about the same scale.)

https://www.pool2012.net/graflex/Graflex_equal_scale.jpg

Mike

Dan, I took some photos with the 140mm f/6.3:

https://www.pool2012.net/graflex/BL_example_1a.jpg
https://www.pool2012.net/graflex/BL_example_2a.jpg
https://www.pool2012.net/graflex/BL_example_3a.jpg
https://www.pool2012.net/graflex/BL_example_4a.jpg
https://www.pool2012.net/graflex/BL_example_5a.jpg

Mike

argusmike wrote:

Dan, The two lenses are the same from about 5mm below the focusing ring up. From there down the LTM lens is 3x longer than the NGII lens. This is not clear at first glance at the pictures. (See the linked image, in which the top parts are adjusted to about the same scale.) https://www.pool2012.net/graflex/Graflex_equal_scale.jpg Mike

As I wrote, adapted.

Thanks for posting the example shots. I don't want to sound snarky, but that it passes light and forms an image -- not too bad an image, to boot -- isn't surprising.

Thanks Dan for all your inputs on this.

On the subject of passing light, have a look at

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/six-element-in-two-groups-lens-design.211314/

A responder suggests the design is like an asymetric Dagor, 6 elements in two groups. It is definitely a more complex design than the usual Tessar or Cooke Triplet. I would imagine that it would be quite impressive on the larger negative of the National Graflex.

My main concern was how accurate the flange-to-film-plane distance was on an actual LTM camera, and from the results I'm satisfied that it's OK.

In the bad old days before lens coating was practical, many makers made lenses whose cells had no air-spaced elements. This reduced the number of air-glass interfaces to four, reduced flare and improved transmission over lenses with air-spaced elements.

If you're interested, see my article on Berthiot's lenses for LF. They made many similar types with unequal cells. http://www.galerie-photo.com/berthiot_anastigmats_en.pdf

Most of us confuse long focal length lenses with telephoto lenses. "Telephoto" is a design type. The 140/6.3 B&L doesn't seem to be a tele design.

I'm not surprised that your 140 B&L as adapted has the LTM flange-to-film distance. Good photographer's machinists are, well, good.

Dan,

https://www.galerie-photo.com/berthiot_anastigmats_en.pdf

An amazing work of research and documentation!

How did you get interested in Berthiot?

Well, I had a couple of their lenses, in particular a 60/14 Perigraphe VIa and wanted to know more about their lenses for LF cameras. Their lenses for cine cameras didn't interest me.

So I went looking for info. The Vade Mecum had little. I bought a copy of Pont & Princelle, didn't like it. Practically speaking there was a vacuum, such as nature abhors. So I started looking around and followed my nose. Finding the dusty old tomes I cited on line and reading them was great fun.

The job would have been impossible if I didn't know French. If you read French, you might enjoy looking at my 19th century sources. Emmanuel Bigler, who translated my English text into French remarked how beautiful it was. I've only heard spoken French like that once. Long story ... I was present when the mayor (and senator) of Boulogne sur Mer gave an oration to a visiting German cultural exchange delegation.

The difference between discussions of photography and photographic equipment in 19th - early 20th century French literature and modern US is striking. Shame on us.

Dan,

The text suggests that it was written by someone who was fluent in French. I'm a tourist speaker of a few words of French, barely enough to get me in trouble, and I envy anyone who is bilingual no matter the languages.

I'm also one of a small group of Argus collectors who did a thourough research of that company, so I know the satisfaction of fitting all the little pieces together.

Thanks for the kind words.

My spoken French was never quite fluent. However, reading doesn't require an instant response.

My spoken and written French largely vanished after I learned Spanish. When I try to say something in French Spanish comes out.

I'm still translating, though, from both languages to English.