Depth of Field Adapter on Steroids

jogar wrote:

That heidosmat sounds very cool! I think your dimensions might be a bit off, since the outer diameter of the lens needs to be at least 300mm/f3 = 100mm, or roughly 4 inches.

Look at the lens, it has a bezel, so I am measuring the rear black part only. It's massive, and the rear tube vignettes. I think the original projector didn't use all the image circle, just the center.

Anyway, I have a 610mm f6 and a 910mm f8, both mounted in a Fairchild k-38 shutter. they weight 7.5 and 12kg respectively. My plan was to make a camera around them, but I haven't managed to put time on that. I think the 910mm would be a wonderful portrait lens for 8x10"

Yes, around 115mm (35mm) look sounds right, and f/0.8.

I have also a very old 50cm f4.5 Tessar, from 1910s. The size and the weight is much more resonable than the other beasts, but it is still a big chunk of glass.

This is a top choice. I think Tessar lenses have some of the best rendering for portrait. 5x7 may be a great compromise, save lots of space while producing a very nice image.

I think there are many options out there.

Biggest challenge is some dual camera with bellow ahead and behind, with mounting ring for the camera which one would adapt to anything else, and the gound glass in the middle. It's not even hard to do. All the effort makes most sense for very fast lenses, which are the domain of larger image sensors. The smaller the sensor, for the same look, the more the lens has to do the impossibly fast and ends up impossibly complicated or aberrated.