I want a longer lens for my Crown. What are my options?

[Pirate]

The 135mm on my Crown Graphic is just too wide angle for me. I'd like something over 210mm. What choices do I have in the stock types of lenses without making a new cam? (I'm not worried about the cam). What lenses came on these stock above the 135?

 

[Frank Petronio]

I don't think longer lenses were stock but many photographers used Wollensak Telephotos because you only have 12" of bellows to work with so the 10- and 14" Teles worked. The 203/7.7 Ektar was also popular and will fit into a folded camera. Even if you found or made a cam it wouldn't be as accurate due to the length, better to ground glass focus. Rodenstock Rotelars and Schneider Tele-Xenars and -Artons are also from that period, modern Schneider Teles are still made.

The longest modern lens that folds up would be a Rodenstock 210 Geronar or 180 Sironar on a Copal 1 shutters. I think 58mm filter sizes are the widest that will fit and the lenses must be squat. I wouldn't bother with a non-tele design over 210.

Because the shutters on the larger Tele lenses must be larger, most photographers used barrel mounted Teles on Speed Graphic bodies instead.

 

[Nokton48]

As I recall I think the 360mm F5.5 Schneider Tele-Xenar (in compound shutter) was a stock Crown lens. It's mighty big, but I think it can fit on it. Because it is a true telephoto design, it uses less bellows draw than a 360mm not of true-telephoto design.

I have a barrel-mounted version of this lens, and I like it. I use it on my three 9x9cm Plaubel Makiflexes.

 

[Dwig]

...What choices do I have in the stock types of lenses without making a new cam? ...

Your existing cam will not work with any lens of any other focal length.

As others have noted, when you use longer FL lenses you'll probably need to focus on the ground glass.

One thing to keep in mind is the relatively small opening on the front of the bellows. Most true telephoto lenses will usually fit fine. Longer FL lenses intended for larger formats will sometimes have rear elements larger in diameter than the opening in the front standard.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Your Crown may not need a different cam if it is old enough and you have a side-mounted Kalart RF. In that case, you can just adjust the RF to your new lens.

A lens 210mm will nearly extend the bellows all the way out. I've used a 10" Naval Reconnaissance lens on a Speed Graphic and it stretched the bellows to its limit just a touch closer than infinity.

You might look for a 180mm Nikkor. They aren't too expensive and have ample coverage for the camera if you want to use movements. The image quality is quite a step up from the 135mm stock lens.

Phil Forrest

 

[Dwig]

...
A lens 210mm will nearly extend the bellows all the way out. I've used a 10" Naval Reconnaissance lens on a Speed Graphic and it stretched the bellows to its limit just a touch closer than infinity. ...

This will be the case with "normal" and wide-coverage optical designs. While they are somewhat more scarce, true telephoto designs (e.g. the Schneider Tele-Xenars) will avoid this problem, requiring only a modest increase in bellow extension despite their noticeably longer focal length.

 

[Pirate]

I'm not worried about the cam, I can get or make one. Right now I want to focus on lenses that they made cams for. I want to worry about finding a lens to use first.

And I have the top mounted rangefinder, but I'm not worried about that right now.

I like that f/5.5 lens. Have to keep an eye out for one of those for sure.
Thanks

 

[Nokton48]

See discussion here:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/archive/index.php/t-98459.html

Apparently the 360 Tele-Xenar only focuses to 20+ feet on a Crown. That may be a factor for you. Not really for tight portraits and close-ups


Here's mine, see below. I mounted it onto an extension cone, so I could focus closer with it.

 

[Pirate]

Wow, I didn't think about that, but it makes sense. Ok, maybe something in the low to mid 200's.

 

[Dwig]

Wow, I didn't think about that, but it makes sense. Ok, maybe something in the low to mid 200's.

200-240mm is the common "portrait" choice with 4x5. When used for tight portrait framing these lenses require significant extension from infinity. This effectively narrows their field of view much more that is experienced with relatively comparable FLs on smaller formats.

To fill the frame with an 8x10 area a lens on a 4x5 camera has to be extended from infinity an amount equal to 50% of its FL. A 210mm lens ends up 315mm from the film and has the same angle of view of a 315mm lens at infinity.

With 35mm, the 8x10 framing is achieved with only about a 5% extension. This means that to get "portrait" framing from an appropriate shooting distance (necessary to achieve the proper perspective) when shooting 35mm you need a lens 2-3x "normal" ("normal" = diagonal of negative = 43mm). With 4x5 you generally only want to use a lens about 1.5x normal (normal = neg diag = ~135mm).

 

[mdarnton]

You don't say which Crown you have. If it's got the top RF, is that the same as on the Super, using the same cams? If so, here's a list of cams that were made for the Super:
http://www.graflex.org/speed-graphic/super-graphic-cams.html

Even if not, it might give you an idea of what Graflex was thinking at the time.

I had a Tele-Rotelar for my 2x3 Century, and it was a nice lens. As mentioned, with the real teles the bellows draw is minimal, but you can't close the camera with the lens on--all the teles are huge.