puderse
Established
Can I put the Ektar from a Bantam on my baby Graflex or Pressman and focus on the ground glass?
How much of the 6 X 9 frame will it fill?
How much of the 6 X 9 frame will it fill?
Press cameras
- Thread starter puderse
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 9
- Views 2K
- Local time
- 1:53 AM
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2005
- Messages
- 6,267
What is the focal length?
What size camera did it come from?
Bantams were all over the place size-wise. (e.g. 828 or Super 135 as I call it)
B2
What size camera did it come from?
Bantams were all over the place size-wise. (e.g. 828 or Super 135 as I call it)
B2
goamules
Well-known
To know what the shortest lens you can use will be, you'll need to collapse the bellows on your Graflex to where they are barely on the rear of the moving rail. Measure from the lensboard to the ground glass. That's the minimum focal length you want. Will a certain lens cover at that short length? Depends on the design. A wide angle like a Protar will, but an Ektar may not. I assume you will use the focal plane shutter? What is the advantage of hacking a lens off a different type of camera, anyway?
B-9
Devin Bro
Make a lensboard, mount it and find out!
Whats the issue 😉
Whats the issue 😉
burninfilm
Well-known
I doubt you'll get much 6X9 frame coverage from a 50mm-ish vintage Ektar lens off of an 828 format Bantam camera. They simply weren't ever meant to cover such a huge (in comparison) negative size.
So, how much of the 6X9 frame will be covered? The obvious answer here is "not enough". However, when kludging stuff together like this, and adapting lenses to things they were never designed for, the best way to figure stuff out is to try it.
If you are really wanting to experiment with different lenses, I suggest you pick up some of the older Kodak folders fitted with decent lenses, like some of the high-end Kodak Tourists, Monitors, and similar cameras.
So, how much of the 6X9 frame will be covered? The obvious answer here is "not enough". However, when kludging stuff together like this, and adapting lenses to things they were never designed for, the best way to figure stuff out is to try it.
If you are really wanting to experiment with different lenses, I suggest you pick up some of the older Kodak folders fitted with decent lenses, like some of the high-end Kodak Tourists, Monitors, and similar cameras.
Dwig
Well-known
Pretty much the same area as the Bantam's image size (28x40mm), which is somewhere around 1/4rd of the area of a 6x9 image (~55x85mm).
The Tessar-like Ektar lenses can be very sharp, but like all Tessar derivitives they don't have very wide covering power.
B-9
Devin Bro
Aim for old AGFA and ANSCO "PD-16" Folders, alot of them came with decent little lenses that cover 6×12 easily, not exactly wide, but you can get a cheap Anastigmat with a self cocking shutter.
For cheap wides to cover 6x9, why not a 65mm angulon? Or a 75mm Topcon or Fuji, under 200$ and something a little more solid when it comes to clinical performance.
Wollensak even made a cheap 65mm f8? Of thereabouts. I believe it was labeled a Raptar in a Graphex Shutter.
Have fun!
For cheap wides to cover 6x9, why not a 65mm angulon? Or a 75mm Topcon or Fuji, under 200$ and something a little more solid when it comes to clinical performance.
Wollensak even made a cheap 65mm f8? Of thereabouts. I believe it was labeled a Raptar in a Graphex Shutter.
Have fun!
Dwig
Well-known
+1
Back in the day, I had the 90mm versions of both the Angulon and the Wollensak Raptar. The Angulon was distinctly better, but the Raptar was still quite servicable. I would suspect that the 65mm versions compare in much the same way as they match the design of their 90mm siblings.
@OP: If you go with an Angulon, look for a late model. The Angulon had a very very long production run going from the early 20th century (pre-WWI I think) until the very early '60s. It was designed in the days before lens coatings and even the early ones can be decent if in good condition. The later post-WWII versions will be in better modern shutters and had good coatings.
The Anglons will rival the performance of the later Super Angulons. While having some 5deg less coverage, they have much more even illumination across the field. Also, being much smaller than the SAs, they and the similarly designed Raptars don't stress the often marginal stiffness of a light weight field camera's or press camera's front standards.
B-9
Devin Bro
Ive owned 2 versions of the 90mm Wollensak, one Raptar, one Optar.
Stellar lens that can typically be found for 100$ or less!
The Graphex twin post shutters are also super easy to clean and service.
Stellar lens that can typically be found for 100$ or less!
The Graphex twin post shutters are also super easy to clean and service.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
I shot a Mamiya TLR 80mm lens on a Horseman 970 with 6x9 film. Crafted a lens board for it.
It didn't quite cover the 6x9 but the blurred edges made for a very special effect, quite dreamy.
Maybe your Bantam lens proves to be a gem when shot on 6x9 format so why not try it, even if it does not cover the whole frame? A lens board is easily crafted from several layers of photo board or something similar.
It didn't quite cover the 6x9 but the blurred edges made for a very special effect, quite dreamy.
Maybe your Bantam lens proves to be a gem when shot on 6x9 format so why not try it, even if it does not cover the whole frame? A lens board is easily crafted from several layers of photo board or something similar.
Similar threads
- Article
