Looking for Lens/shutter for Century Graphic

FWIW: See
http://www.medfmt.8k.com/mf/polaroid45.html








"jjs" wrote in message
...
"Bandicoot" wrote:

I've always wondered if the Rodenstock Ysaron 127mm is the same design as
the Ektar. [...]

Interesting. I have a couple of those, too, from the Polaroid MP cameras
that were thrown away around here. They were free so (silly me) I never
seriously thought about actually _using_ one on a view camera!

Perhaps Richard K. knows. Ektar design?

"Bandicoot" wrote in
message ...
"Nicholas T" wrote in message
...
Richard Knoppow wrote:

"ATIPPETT" wrote in message
...

I have recently been given a Century Graphic minus a

lens/shutter. I would

like to build up a fully function system. What

recommendations are there for

Lens and where might I find a good selections?
Mid-West

comes to mind any

suggestions would be appreciated.

Alan Tippett


When I restored a Miniature Speed Graphic recently I
got a
lens from one of the local camera sales so I can't
comment
on sources. The best of the older lenses for these
cameras
are the Kodak Ektar 101mm, f/4.5 and the Kodak Ektar
105mm,
f/3.7. I've had a bad experience with a very early
101mm
Ektar but the later coated one is what I expect from
this
lens. The 105mm lens is a version fo the lens used on
the
Kodak Medalist, a Heliar type with Lanthanum glass, in
fact,
I think the Medalist lens was the first one Kodak made
with
Lanthanum glass. Both of these are exceptionally sharp
lenses. There are some more modern lenses which should
be
considered, The Rodenstock Sironar or Schneider Symmar
and
others of the right focal length. Avoid Wollensak
Raptar and
Wollensak made Optars like the plague, they are dogs.
Kodak
Supermatic shutters can be brought to life and are
quite
accurate and reliable when properly cleaned. The 101mm
Ektar
is fairly common and should not be too expensive. The
lenses
offered originally on the Century were Triplet types
made, I
think, by Wollensak. They also offered the Optar (a
Tessar
type) on the more expensive model.



A second vote for a Kodak Ektar (127mm). I have one on
my Crown Graphic
and it's sharp as anything. It compares favourably with
my Nikkor 90mm
F8, not that I've done any tests. A bonus with my ektar
is that it will
fold into the camera.

I've always wondered if the Rodenstock Ysaron 127mm is the
same design as
the Ektar. It looks much the same, and is the same size -
and seems the
sharpest of the Ysaron / Ysarex range of lenses. (Mine
lives on a stand
copy camera and only ever gets used for macro, I've never
got round to
trying it at infinity.)



Peter

I doubt it is the same design other than being a Tessar
type. Considering its a much newer lens than the Ektar it
may very well be excellent. Rodenstock made the last series
of "Optar" lenses for Graflex. These say Rodenstock and
"Made in Germany" on them. The earlier Optars made by
Wollensak are poor lenses. Wollensak was capable of making
good lenses and made some excellent ones but there is
something wrong with both the Optar series used on Speed and
Crown Graphics, their commercial Raptar equivalents, and
with the Enlarging Raptar series. I am pretty sure this is a
design error rather than a QC problem. I have no idea how
such inferior lenses could have been chosen by Graflex. The
190mm, f/5.6 Optar, used on the Super-D Graflex camera is an
exception, its a very good lens. The Tele-Optar and
Tele-Raptar lenses are also quite respectible but the others
are junk. AFAIK, Rodenstock has always made excellent
lenses.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

"Bandicoot" wrote in
message ...
"Nicholas T" wrote in message
...
Richard Knoppow wrote:

"ATIPPETT" wrote in message
...

I have recently been given a Century Graphic minus a

lens/shutter. I would

like to build up a fully function system. What

recommendations are there for

Lens and where might I find a good selections?
Mid-West

comes to mind any

suggestions would be appreciated.

Alan Tippett


When I restored a Miniature Speed Graphic recently I
got a
lens from one of the local camera sales so I can't
comment
on sources. The best of the older lenses for these
cameras
are the Kodak Ektar 101mm, f/4.5 and the Kodak Ektar
105mm,
f/3.7. I've had a bad experience with a very early
101mm
Ektar but the later coated one is what I expect from
this
lens. The 105mm lens is a version fo the lens used on
the
Kodak Medalist, a Heliar type with Lanthanum glass, in
fact,
I think the Medalist lens was the first one Kodak made
with
Lanthanum glass. Both of these are exceptionally sharp
lenses. There are some more modern lenses which should
be
considered, The Rodenstock Sironar or Schneider Symmar
and
others of the right focal length. Avoid Wollensak
Raptar and
Wollensak made Optars like the plague, they are dogs.
Kodak
Supermatic shutters can be brought to life and are
quite
accurate and reliable when properly cleaned. The 101mm
Ektar
is fairly common and should not be too expensive. The
lenses
offered originally on the Century were Triplet types
made, I
think, by Wollensak. They also offered the Optar (a
Tessar
type) on the more expensive model.



A second vote for a Kodak Ektar (127mm). I have one on
my Crown Graphic
and it's sharp as anything. It compares favourably with
my Nikkor 90mm
F8, not that I've done any tests. A bonus with my ektar
is that it will
fold into the camera.

I've always wondered if the Rodenstock Ysaron 127mm is the
same design as
the Ektar. It looks much the same, and is the same size -
and seems the
sharpest of the Ysaron / Ysarex range of lenses. (Mine
lives on a stand
copy camera and only ever gets used for macro, I've never
got round to
trying it at infinity.)



Peter

I doubt it is the same design other than being a Tessar
type. Considering its a much newer lens than the Ektar it
may very well be excellent. Rodenstock made the last series
of "Optar" lenses for Graflex. These say Rodenstock and
"Made in Germany" on them. The earlier Optars made by
Wollensak are poor lenses. Wollensak was capable of making
good lenses and made some excellent ones but there is
something wrong with both the Optar series used on Speed and
Crown Graphics, their commercial Raptar equivalents, and
with the Enlarging Raptar series. I am pretty sure this is a
design error rather than a QC problem. I have no idea how
such inferior lenses could have been chosen by Graflex. The
190mm, f/5.6 Optar, used on the Super-D Graflex camera is an
exception, its a very good lens. The Tele-Optar and
Tele-Raptar lenses are also quite respectible but the others
are junk. AFAIK, Rodenstock has always made excellent
lenses.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

"jjs" wrote in message
...
"Bandicoot" wrote:

I've always wondered if the Rodenstock Ysaron 127mm is
the same design as
the Ektar. [...]

Interesting. I have a couple of those, too, from the
Polaroid MP cameras
that were thrown away around here. They were free so
(silly me) I never
seriously thought about actually _using_ one on a view
camera!

Perhaps Richard K. knows. Ektar design?


Standard lenses on 4x5 press cameras were usually slightly
wide angle. The standard lens for this format is 150mm but
most press cameras came with 127mm or 135mm lenses. 4x5 is a
bit of a stretch for Tessars of this focal length but both
the Kodak Ektar and Zeiss Tessar make it when stopped down
to about f/8 and are quite sharp all over at f/11. The
Rodenstock Ysaron and Ysarex (I don't know the difference)
are very good or excellent lenses and should do fine.
Graflex's last gasp for the Speed Graphic was the Super
Graphic and Super Speed Graphic, both came with Rodenstock
lenses although I think some earlier versions of the Super
Graphic may have had Wollensak lenses.
A well designed Tessar type lens has about a 65degree
coverage at maximum, they are not really wide angle lenses.
For press use they were preferred to other lenses available
at the time partly because of their greater speed (useful at
least for the center of the image) and probably because they
were a little cheaper. Any lens used on a rangefinder camera
has to be essentially free of zonal spherical aberration and
the attendant focus shift. Otherwise the rangefinder will
not be accurate at all f/stops. I don't have a Rodenstock
lens to check but the best of the others is the Kodak Ektar.
A note: Ektar was used by Kodak as a trade name for its
permium quality lenses, it is not a particular design. The
Ektars used on press cameras and the Commercial Ektar series
are Tessar types. The Wide Field Ektar is a double Gauss
lens. The 105mm f/3.7 Ektar and the Ektar on the Medalist
camera are modified Heliar types. The very first Ektar dated
from 1936 and was the 45mm, f/2 lens used on the Kodak
Bantam Special. This is a Biotar type lens. The 203mm, f/7.7
Ektar is a Dialyte (four element air spaced) type. There are
Ektars of other generic types. Virtually all of the Ektar
lenses are designed for color photography and are
exceptionally well color corrected. Kodak was trying to sell
color film and insuring its cameras would produce top
quality pictures with it.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

"jjs" wrote in message
...
"Bandicoot" wrote:

I've always wondered if the Rodenstock Ysaron 127mm is
the same design as
the Ektar. [...]

Interesting. I have a couple of those, too, from the
Polaroid MP cameras
that were thrown away around here. They were free so
(silly me) I never
seriously thought about actually _using_ one on a view
camera!

Perhaps Richard K. knows. Ektar design?


Standard lenses on 4x5 press cameras were usually slightly
wide angle. The standard lens for this format is 150mm but
most press cameras came with 127mm or 135mm lenses. 4x5 is a
bit of a stretch for Tessars of this focal length but both
the Kodak Ektar and Zeiss Tessar make it when stopped down
to about f/8 and are quite sharp all over at f/11. The
Rodenstock Ysaron and Ysarex (I don't know the difference)
are very good or excellent lenses and should do fine.
Graflex's last gasp for the Speed Graphic was the Super
Graphic and Super Speed Graphic, both came with Rodenstock
lenses although I think some earlier versions of the Super
Graphic may have had Wollensak lenses.
A well designed Tessar type lens has about a 65degree
coverage at maximum, they are not really wide angle lenses.
For press use they were preferred to other lenses available
at the time partly because of their greater speed (useful at
least for the center of the image) and probably because they
were a little cheaper. Any lens used on a rangefinder camera
has to be essentially free of zonal spherical aberration and
the attendant focus shift. Otherwise the rangefinder will
not be accurate at all f/stops. I don't have a Rodenstock
lens to check but the best of the others is the Kodak Ektar.
A note: Ektar was used by Kodak as a trade name for its
permium quality lenses, it is not a particular design. The
Ektars used on press cameras and the Commercial Ektar series
are Tessar types. The Wide Field Ektar is a double Gauss
lens. The 105mm f/3.7 Ektar and the Ektar on the Medalist
camera are modified Heliar types. The very first Ektar dated
from 1936 and was the 45mm, f/2 lens used on the Kodak
Bantam Special. This is a Biotar type lens. The 203mm, f/7.7
Ektar is a Dialyte (four element air spaced) type. There are
Ektars of other generic types. Virtually all of the Ektar
lenses are designed for color photography and are
exceptionally well color corrected. Kodak was trying to sell
color film and insuring its cameras would produce top
quality pictures with it.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA