Graflex.org

[f6point3]

Just joined and have a question about a particular lens I recently purchased for my Pacemaker Speed Graphic 3x4:

Some backstory: I bought my PSG a couple of years ago for $20. It had a lens board but no lens, and it's been sitting on a shelf for all that time, unused, due to financial constraints and lack of a darkroom. In the meantime, I'd purchased some new, Croatian-make 3x4 sheet film, so the only thing missing was a lens.

I got one from ebay (for $1!!) just last week and it's pretty small in diameter, and here is the only info I have, from the lens ring:
Wollensak Velostigmat Series II f/4.5 Focus 3-1/2" No. 248026(? the last # may be a 5, there are scratches).

O.D. is 1", I.D. is 3/4".

It has no shutter.

I am able to focus thru the ground glass, and align the lens pretty close with the Kalart RF.

My main question is, while I think this might be an enlarger lens, can it still be used, and provide sharp images, with this camera?

Any assistance will be greatly appreciated.

_________________
Pete Lutz
f/6.3 Studio, Corpus Christi
www.f6point3studio.com

[Dan Fromm]

[ImageMaker]

Let me say, from recent experience, you might still find that 3 1/2" Velostigmat (that's about 90 mm) useful in 3x4. I've recently been shooting my 4x5 Annie Speed with a 105 mm f/4.5 Agnar, a similar triplet (but postwar and coated) from a 6x9 cm folder. I've found that, stopped down to f/22 or smaller, it covers 4x5 with only a hint of softness in the corners and almost no light fall off; even better, I can focus to 10-12 feet, by eye on the ground glass, then lock the shutter open and stop down to f/32 and shoot hyperfocal with the FPS -- anything from about 5 feet to the horizon is sharp (sharp enough to almost read a license plate in a 2400 ppi scan at a range of about 100 feet, with best focus at 10-12 feet).

If my 105 mm triplet will do that, it's possible your 90 mm triplet will similarly cover 3x4 (there's about 10% difference in their diagonals, so you're at a little disadvantage and will likely see more soft corners or light fall off than I do, but it's still worth trying, since you have the lens).

What I find the biggest challenge with this is composition -- I have no viewfinder that comes close to the wide angle of this lens. The tubular is only good to about 127 mm with the mask removed, and though the wire frame barely clears the body with the focus locked at 10-12 feet, it's so wide I can't see it through the peephole with my glasses on. OTOH, I don't have to drop the bed...

_________________
Is thirty-five years too long to wait for your first Speed?

[f6point3]

Thanks for your help! I'll try it out and let you know what happened. I also have another, newer lens (also from an enlarger) - it's a 75mm, f/3.5 EL-OMEGAR, which I may try out as well.

Who knows? Maybe I'll start a new trend...the actual lenses for these things are soooo expensive.

_________________
Pete Lutz
f/6.3 Studio, Corpus Christi
www.f6point3studio.com

[ImageMaker]

The El-Omegar is an enlarger lens, and supposedly a so-so one (though I'm happy enough with the 50 mm f/3.5 El Omegar I use to enlarge 35 mm negatives). It'll work on a Speed if the focal plane shutter is usable, but you might find it's at its best at very close distances, say within ten feet (maybe WELL within). I'd be pretty surprised if a 75 mm lens that isn't a special design, hyper-expensive "wide angle" or "super-wide" (an an Angulon or Super Angulon) would cover 3x4 -- a 90 mm would be pushing pretty hard, based on my experience with a 105 mm on 4x5. OTOH, if it doesn't cover, what you'd get would be a circular image clipped by the edges of the film gate. I've seen images made with lenses intentionally chosen to produce a circular image on larger film than they could cover -- it's kind of a cool effect with the right subject and composition (works well for portraits, except for the unpleasant effects of a too-short lens tending to make the nose look too big -- back off a bit, make it a full body portrait instead).

Again, all it costs is some time and materials to find out what it can do, and whether you like it. If you don't, you can probably get $10 to $15 for that El Omegar on eBay, for someone to enlarge 6x6 cm negatives (or use it for that yourself, when you branch out a bit and have the darkroom setup for it).

BTW, relative to costs of lenses -- I'd seriously suggest looking for a 116/616 or larger folding roll film camera on eBay, with a bad bellows or ratty body. The shutter will most likely be retained with the same kind of ring as modern LF lenses, the lens will have enough focal length to cover 3x4 nicely (maybe even leave room for a little rise or shift if needed); the shutters are typically easy to clean, and you can get the whole camera for a lot less than a bottom end "large format lens" to fit your Speed.

It was pretty common to see lenses around 120 mm on 116, and postcard format 3A cameras would have lenses up to 165 mm (which is overkill for 3x4, almost a portrait lens). Do also look for the 127 and 135 mm lenses, which barely cover 4x5 and thus would cover 3x4 easily. You can often find those in a working shutter, or one that needs a little basic cleaning, for under $50.

_________________
Is thirty-five years too long to wait for your first Speed?

[ This Message was edited by: ImageMaker on 2006-06-28 21:46 ]

[Murray@uptowngallery.org]

I've had a run on $5 and hand-me-down cameras lately...B&L & Wollensak Rapid Rectilinears,

keep an eye out for Kodak 1A 2A 3A autographics...don't overbid, be patient, they'll show up cheap. Collectors seem to get scared off by scuffed camera bodies - they look worse in auction photos and kids these days don't know what shoe polish is.

I've seen imagemaker's Agnar image (on the web) & I was impressed (but I'm easily amused by web and ground glass images, which is not a critical inspection of an in-hand print).



_________________
Murray