If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Wollensak-Raptar 135mm. F:4.7
I have two lenses. A Kodak EKTAR 127mm f4.7 and a Wollensak-Raptar
135mm. F:4.7. From what I have read the EKTAR is the better lens. I sent the EKTAR to Paul Ebel for a CLA. The Wollensak-Raptar looked fine to me, but I wanted to send it to Paul and have him test it out. Paul said that the shutter speeds were off and the 'T' setting did not work on the Wollensak-Raptar. The cost of the CLA is not a huge concern. My question is, is the Wollensak-Raptar lens worth saving? Is there anything special about this lens that it might be worth something as a backup or for some other use? Any comments are appreciated. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Wollensak-Raptar 135mm. F:4.7
I have two lenses. A Kodak EKTAR 127mm f4.7 and a Wollensak-Raptar 135mm.
F:4.7. From what I have read the EKTAR is the better lens. I sent the EKTAR to Paul Ebel for a CLA. The Wollensak-Raptar looked fine to me, but I wanted to send it to Paul and have him test it out. Paul said that the shutter speeds were off and the 'T' setting did not work on the Wollensak-Raptar. The cost of the CLA is not a huge concern. My question is, is the Wollensak-Raptar lens worth saving? Is there anything special about this lens that it might be worth something as a backup or for some other use? Any comments are appreciated. Since the two lenses are so close in focal length, I'd throw the Wollensak-Raptar lens in a drawer. Save the extra CLA money for film & processing, a lens with a significantly different perspective, or something more useful. my two cents only. ...pt ------------------------------- Business/Communications start at http://www.PhilipTobias.com. Grow your business using my technical and marketing communications - Effective writing, graphic design, multimedia, photos, and Web sites. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Wollensak-Raptar 135mm. F:4.7
Some of the Raptars were pretty decent lenses. They cover a bit more area
than the Ektar (which was originally designed for 3-1/2X4-1/4, but covers 4X5 adequately) and a slightly smaller angle. "Doug Joseph" wrote in message om... I have two lenses. A Kodak EKTAR 127mm f4.7 and a Wollensak-Raptar 135mm. F:4.7. From what I have read the EKTAR is the better lens. I sent the EKTAR to Paul Ebel for a CLA. The Wollensak-Raptar looked fine to me, but I wanted to send it to Paul and have him test it out. Paul said that the shutter speeds were off and the 'T' setting did not work on the Wollensak-Raptar. The cost of the CLA is not a huge concern. My question is, is the Wollensak-Raptar lens worth saving? Is there anything special about this lens that it might be worth something as a backup or for some other use? Any comments are appreciated. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Wollensak-Raptar 135mm. F:4.7
You do not specify what sort of camera you have, or what format size.
Forgive me for guessing it's a 4x5 Press camera. The 127mm f4.7 Ektar is indeed only just adequate for 4x5 with NO MOVEMENTS. You can get a 20x16 enlargement from it , but the corners may well be looking rather 'wooly'. At f11 you'd be pushing it, f16 or f22 is better. I have a Pacemaker 'Crown with the Ektar & I have tested the lens a bit. The Graflex lens helpboard on www.graflex.org/helpboard are somewhat dismissive of the Wollensak Raptar/Optar. The Ektar has a image circle of 165mm. The actual area of good sharpness is a good bit less than 165mm. You might consider another lens if you need to use any camera movements. Let us know what you have and its intended usage and i'll try to help a bit more |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Wollensak-Raptar 135mm. F:4.7
Hello,
I am new to large format photography. The camera I am building is an Alatta camera (http://www.alettaphoto.com/) and I was looking on ebay for fairly inexpensive lenses to use to get started. It then occurred to me that lenses are 40 plus years old and might not be correctly calibrated. I sent them to Paul Ebel for a CLA. I called Paul the other day and he also said that the Wolensak should be left alone. Once I get a handle on large format photography, I will look for a lens with more movement I would like to thank the people that left their comments. Thanks again, Doug |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Wollensak-Raptar 135mm. F:4.7
Doug joseph: I have two lenses. A Kodak EKTAR 127mm f4.7 and a Wollensak-Raptar 135mm. F:4.7. From what I have read the EKTAR is the better lens. I sent the EKTAR to Paul Ebel for a CLA. The Wollensak-Raptar looked fine to me, but I wanted to send it to Paul and have him test it out. Paul said that the shutter speeds were off and the 'T' setting did not work on the Wollensak-Raptar. The cost of the CLA is not a huge concern. My question is, is the Wollensak-Raptar lens worth saving? Is there anything special about this lens that it might be worth something as a backup or for some other use? Any comments are appreciated. -- I have another approach ... *keep* anything you have in glass. Always. never give up any of it unless it is cracked, or sanded down, or is full of pits and gouges. It just isn't worth selling at a low price if it will give you an image on [media] at all. That lens is probably perfect for abstract, rough or otherwise grainy art in alternative processes and papers, whether black and white or color. It's how something of technical insignificants can be of a higher personal value and as a resource. Only my thoughts, Alex |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Wollensak-Raptar 135mm. F:4.7
"Doug Joseph" wrote in message om... I have two lenses. A Kodak EKTAR 127mm f4.7 and a Wollensak-Raptar 135mm. F:4.7. From what I have read the EKTAR is the better lens. I sent the EKTAR to Paul Ebel for a CLA. The Wollensak-Raptar looked fine to me, but I wanted to send it to Paul and have him test it out. Paul said that the shutter speeds were off and the 'T' setting did not work on the Wollensak-Raptar. The cost of the CLA is not a huge concern. My question is, is the Wollensak-Raptar lens worth saving? Is there anything special about this lens that it might be worth something as a backup or for some other use? Any comments are appreciated. The Ektar is a much better lens. While the Wollensak Raptar (also sold as the Graflex Optar) is very sharp in the center of the field it has very excessive coma requiring it to be stopped down to around f/22 to get anything like sharp corners even for its normal format. I think the problem is with the design rather than a quality control issue. I've observed this problem with both 135mm f/4.5 Raptars and 101mm f/4.5 Raptars. The Kodak Ektar series is of unusual quality. I've encountered only one Ektar with which I have had optical problems. This is a very early 101mm, f/4.5 lens. Actually, its not at all a bad lens but has too much focus shift making it unsuitable for use on a range finder camera although it works fine where it can be refocused at the working f/stop. I am pretty sure the problem is a small error in the cell spacing. I have at least three 127mm, f/4.7 Ektars all of which are very sharp lenses. One is an early uncoated lens, another is a much later single coated lens. The performance is similar except that the uncoated lens has a weak ghost image of very bright objects in the field. Neither of these lenses has significant focus shift. I have some other Wollensak made lenses which have good to excellent performance. For instance, the Tele-Optar series they made for Graflex are excellent as is the 190mm, f/5.6 Optar on my Graflex-Super-D. I don't know what is specifically wrong with the Raptar/Optars made for press cameras but they are not very good. Nor are the Enlarging Raptars I've tried. As far as shutters, the Wollensak Rapax/Graphex is a good shutter. I don't think it is as rugged as the Kodak Supermatic. The Supermatic was designed in the mid 1930's as an alternative to the Compur. Kodak began using them exclusively when Compur shutters became unavailable on the outbreak of WW-2. My experience with the Rapax is that they can be very accurate but have no real adjustments. If the shutter is way off it one must replace springs and balance the springs to get it into tollerance. Actually, Kodak shutters do not have adjustments other than the tension of the retarder spring. With good springs either shutter should be reasonably accurate and repeatable but factory adjustment was in the form of filing and swaging the speed cam, something you want to avoid if at all possible. Wollensak's original business was shutters and they made quite good ones. Their lenses are highly variable. -- --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|