Explain the difference between press and view lenses

[Soocom1]

When I started with LF, the camera I got is a Calumet 4x5 that had no lens.

Then I purchased a Kodak 135mm in a Copal shutter.

What I was NOT aware of at the time is that the lens was a Press lens. Not a Field/view lens.

I know the difference now but I would like the Pros to explain it in simpler terms. Especially the rear element.

For those not familiar, the Press camera is something like a Graphlex. They are 4x5, but like an SLR they are short in depth so they can be used quickly. They were made for press photographers and were not rearea intended for the landscape and portrpor pictures so common to view cameras.

Though they are fully capeable, the reality is that the lenses made for press cameras were not really intended for view/ field purposes.

 

[Ysarex]

Angle of coverage. A press lens assumes a camera without or with very limited standard movement and so has an angle of coverage appropriate to the format but limited to the format. So a 135mm f/4.7 Xenar will cover 4x5 but if you tried to shift the front standard you lose your coverage. It's not a quality issue. Schneider for example also made a 135mm Xenotar F/2.8 which was likewise a press lens -- magnificent! To be able to take advantage of a view camera's movements the lens angle of coverage has to be greater than the format the lens is used on -- the usable image circle projected by the lens has to have a diameter larger than the diagonal of the film format. To stick with the above example: you then need a 135mm f/5.6 Symar. Note the different f/stops of the lenses mentioned. The lens designs are of course different.

Joe

 

[ac12]

@Ysarex , I am a bit confused by your statement, though I understand it.

@Soocom1
It isn't the subject angle of coverage out the front of the lens, but the film angle of coverage out the BACK of the lens. Which then gives the larger image circle that @Ysarex mentioned, so that you can tilt/shift the standards.
It is just like a FF lens (view camera) vs a crop sensor lens (press camera). The FF lens throws a larger image circle than a crop lens of the same focal length.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

I'm not really understanding...

For those not familiar, the Press camera is something like a Graphlex. They are 4x5, but like an SLR they are short in depth so they can be used quickly. They were made for press photographers and were not rearea intended for the landscape and portrpor pictures so common to view cameras.

There is very little difference bar the movements, press cameras were designed to be used with the lens plane parallel to the film plane. Any movement is really there to accommodate this when the *drop bed* is utilised with wider angle lenses and is why they are a pain to use with movements. The distance between the lens and the film plane is decided by the focal length of the lens and not the camera. Typically the *press* cameras are of the field camera design where it is easy to just snap things into place. The Linhof actually has stops on the rail that you can set for specific lenses (infinity focus) and use the rangefinder cam to focus from there on, (you can have the dark slide loaded while you focus).

As far as I am aware there is no such a thing as a *press* lens. Lenses are designed for format and size/price. A 5"x 4" camera takes a 150mm standard lens which will nearly always give sufficient coverage for some movements. When you use wider angle lenses such as a 135/127mm your focus point is closer to the film and you must expect the coverage to be slightly compromised on 5"x 4", the advantage being with the simpler design they were small enough to remain permanently mounted on the camera when folded. There are plenty of wider angle lenses that offer more than adequate coverage but they are much larger and heavier. Because of this the smaller lenses with the *just adequate* coverage were favoured on *press* cameras generally of the slightly wider than normal and hence slightly less coverage than normal but which wasn't a problem because with press photography and reproduction for newsprint nobody used movements anyway...

There were however *press* shutters. Often used in cameras used by the press because they required no cocking as the action of pressing down on the cable release wound the shutter till the point it tripped, a sort of *two in one* action. This is clearly marked on the shutter and is probably why people think that they were press lenses rather than a fairly standard lens mounted in a press shutter.

 

[Soocom1]

If you have ever looked at the lens from a press camera, it can cover a 4x5 just fine, but with little actual long focus capability.
Look at the construction of a Schneider lens and compare it to a lens off a press camera.


I have tried for years to get it to focus long and it simply isnt doing it.

Movements are highly limited to say the least.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

Schnider Xenar and Angulon lenses have been used in *press* cameras for years. Lens design is not by manufacturer but by variations on standard known formula, some good for speed, some for coverage and some for simplicity and cost. A Graflex Speed or Crown was designed to be used with the film plane parallel to the lens plane and so what is the point of designing complex, heavy and expensive lenses for these cameras? Hence there are a lot of lenses with *adequate* coverage.

Focus is simply the distance between the film and the lens planes. It isn't the lens that lacks *long focus capability*. I'm sorry, I've used these cameras and lenses for decades and what you say and how you describe just doesn't make sense to me...

 

[ac12]

If you have ever looked at the lens from a press camera, it can cover a 4x5 just fine, but with little actual long focus capability.
Look at the construction of a Schneider lens and compare it to a lens off a press camera.

I have tried for years to get it to focus long and it simply isnt doing it.

Movements are highly limited to say the least.

What do you mean by "long focus capability?"

Movement is limited with a press camera lens, because the image circle is tight to the dimension of the film. Thus if you move/shift the standard, you move the image circle so the corner of the film is no longer within the image circle. I recall that some of the press camera lenses had an image circle that was even smaller and you had slight vignetting without even shifting the standard.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

Movement is limited with a press camera lens, because the image circle is tight to the dimension of the film.

It doesn't really work that way. Think of the ultimate *universal lens mounting system* for lenses that could/couldn't be used in a range of formats from 1/4 plate to full plate rather than a range of lenses related to a specific format.

A Tessar design is quite *standard* and will provide adequate coverage for the format of which it's focal length is *standard to* with movements. But a 150mm Tessar is in no way a wide angle lens, it's coverage is linked to it's focal length and basic design. So a 135mm Xenar (a Tessar design) will cover 5"x 4" with no movements but is in fact the standard lens for a slightly smaller format and not a wide angle for the larger formats. If you want wide angle lenses you have to use the specific wide angle designs such as the Super Angulons.

Press cameras were often hand held, light(ish) and easy use because they were designed to be used without movements. Hence they were often used with *standard* lenses that equated to around the FF 35mm equivalent because they did just cover without moments and were small, light and folded with the camera. There were no specific 5"x 4" press lenses to my knowledge that weren't also very useful and standard lenses when used with 6x9 backs.

There were *press* shutters in which these lenses were sometimes mounted.

 

[Soocom1]

So let me start this over.
This is not really about the movements of a LF camera.

The movements are def. an issue with shorter lenses.
But lets go this route:

Both of these adapters are to attach diff. brands to an EOS mount.

But, one is for a Minolta MD mount (which requires a magnifying lens), while the other is a Pentakon 6 Med. Format adapter.


WHY are they different depths?

For the record, if you attach a Minolta lens without the magnifying lens, you'll get horrible vignetting.

On the other hand attach a Kiev 88 P6 lens onto the EOS with a short adapter, it wont focus at all.

 

[Ysarex]

If you have ever looked at the lens from a press camera, it can cover a 4x5 just fine, but with little actual long focus capability.
Look at the construction of a Schneider lens and compare it to a lens off a press camera.


I have tried for years to get it to focus long and it simply isnt doing it.

Movements are highly limited to say the least.

Not understanding what you mean by long focus capability.

As for Schneider "press" lenses on press cameras -- this is what I was referring to:

The Xenar lens design covered 4x5 but with scant room for movements -- definition of a press lens. A lens from the same time period that supported view camera movements would have been a Schneider Symar. Here's a 135mm f/5.6 Symar on a Linhof board:

If you went Rodenstock instead of Schneider then the lens pair would have been Ysarex (hey that's me!) and Sironar.

The salient point being that with two lenses of the same focal length the different designs produce lenses that project different diameter image circles. It's the diameter of the image circles that is the defining characteristic and that's a function of the lens design. This is for modern Schneider lenses:

https://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/photo/LensCharts.pdf

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

So let me start this over.
This is not really about the movements of a LF camera.

The movements are def. an issue with shorter lenses.
But lets go this route:

Both of these adapters are to attach diff. brands to an EOS mount.

But, one is for a Minolta MD mount (which requires a magnifying lens), while the other is a Pentakon 6 Med. Format adapter.


WHY are they different depths?

For the record, if you attach a Minolta lens without the magnifying lens, you'll get horrible vignetting.

On the other hand attach a Kiev 88 P6 lens onto the EOS with a short adapter, it wont focus at all.

The adapters take into consideration the flange/film plane distance of the camera that originally was used with the lenses you want to mount to the Canon. Consider that your Canon camera has a lens mount and that flange distance is fixed and never changes. Yet you can mount all different focal length Canon lenses to the camera. The Canon lenses are designed to that flange distance so that they will infinity focus. Same was done for the Minolta lenses and the Pentakon lenses that you have adapters for.

Joe

 

[Soocom1]

The adapters take into consideration the flange/film plane distance of the camera that originally was used with the lenses you want to mount to the Canon. Consider that your Canon camera has a lens mount and that flange distance is fixed and never changes. Yet you can mount all different focal length Canon lenses to the camera. The Canon lenses are designed to that flange distance so that they will infinity focus. Same was done for the Minolta lenses and the Pentakon lenses that you have adapters for.

Joe

^^^^THIS!


That is my point I have been making.
The press camera uses a lens designed for a maximum distance based on the focal plane of the camera.

A view lens is a diff. beast.
The rear cell of a LF lens is designed to do what.......

 

[Derrel]

A large format photography home page

 

[Ysarex]

The adapters take into consideration the flange/film plane distance of the camera that originally was used with the lenses you want to mount to the Canon. Consider that your Canon camera has a lens mount and that flange distance is fixed and never changes. Yet you can mount all different focal length Canon lenses to the camera. The Canon lenses are designed to that flange distance so that they will infinity focus. Same was done for the Minolta lenses and the Pentakon lenses that you have adapters for.

Joe

^^^^THIS!


That is my point I have been making.
The press camera uses a lens designed for a maximum distance based on the focal plane of the camera.

A view lens is a diff. beast.
The rear cell of a LF lens is designed to do what.......

Project a larger diameter image circle. The Nikon lens you show here is the same design type as a Rodenstock Sironar or Schneider Symar and they all perform similarly relative to thrown image circle. A "press" lens of the same focal length would be smaller and possibly faster and project a smaller diameter image circle out the back.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

image circle/angle of coverage/covering power...all terms I have heard to refer to the same thing...

Years ago it was somewhat common for lenses to be described by the largest format they would cover, such as, "covers 5x7 with limited movements".

telephoto vs long focus lenses: an issue in view camera work, especially with camera that do not have a longer bellows needed to focus "long focus; lenses like 360, 450, 700mm,etc..