A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Large Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Lenses that satisfy



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 1st 10, 09:20 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default Lenses that satisfy

On 10/1/2010 9:35 AM, Cheesehead wrote:

So the ? is:
What are the lenses you have which you find (a) satisfying and (just
to get another perspective) (b) not satisfying.


I use these on a super graphic..

Likes:

90 f8 SA

It's an old chrome one in a 00 shutter but works great in a recessed
board I found for this camera. It's the only lens I have that won't fold
up inside the camera. Never had any issues with the shutter.

135 F6.3 WF Ekatar

This lens always produces great images. Not crazy about the supermatic
shutter but it's been pretty reliable. Small size and light for the
coverage.

210 f6.8 Geronar

Great lens for the money and size with more than enough coverage for use
on my camera. Good coatings and shutter + folds up inside the camera.


Dislikes:

135mm f4.7 xenar

Maybe I just had a bad sample but this lens was disappointing. It was my
first 4X5 lens and almost gave up on 4X5 after seeing the results from this.

8.5 inch f6.3 commercial Ektar

Again, maybe it was a bad sample but I never got images that did much
for me from this lens. The lowly Geronar I replaced this with was a MUCH
better performer.

Stephe
  #4  
Old October 5th 10, 09:17 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Thor Lancelot Simon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Lenses that satisfy

In article ,
Cheesehead wrote:
On Oct 4, 8:56*pm, " wrote:
On 10/3/2010 4:39 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:



On 10/1/2010 1:20 PM spake thus:


Dislikes:


135mm f4.7 xenar


Maybe I just had a bad sample but this lens was disappointing. It was
my first 4X5 lens and almost gave up on 4X5 after seeing the results
from this.


This seems to jibe with what I've heard, which is that these lenses are
nearly all dogs.


Which is strange, given the Xenar's vaunted reputation in other form
factors. But for some reason, these particular versions just aren't very
good.


Right. I have a rolliecord with a 75mm f3.5 xenar that is amazing. I
wrongly assumed this 135 would be the same. It wasn't. On the commercial
ektar, I have to assume I just had a bad one as most reports on them are
glowing.

Stephe


When I started 4x5 about 7 years ago, my first lens was a Wollensak
Raptar. Dissatisfying to say the least.
Not long after that I got an Optar, which I understand to be the
Ektar. Average, just ok.


Not unless you're talking about the 190mm one from the Super-D, in
which case it's only rumored that it might be the Ektar. Otherwise
"Optar" just indicates a higher-end Wollensak lens.

I have never seen any good Wollensak lens, ever at all (and I've tried
many) except that one 190mm example from the Super-D, which has
suspiciously Kodak-like coatings...

--
Thor Lancelot Simon
"All of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot present them all
at once." -Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On The Social Contract
  #5  
Old October 25th 10, 06:52 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Richard Knoppow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 751
Default Lenses that satisfy


wrote in message
...
On 10/1/2010 9:35 AM, Cheesehead wrote:

So the ? is:
What are the lenses you have which you find (a)
satisfying and (just
to get another perspective) (b) not satisfying.


I use these on a super graphic..

Likes:

90 f8 SA

It's an old chrome one in a 00 shutter but works great in
a recessed board I found for this camera. It's the only
lens I have that won't fold up inside the camera. Never
had any issues with the shutter.

135 F6.3 WF Ekatar

This lens always produces great images. Not crazy about
the supermatic shutter but it's been pretty reliable.
Small size and light for the coverage.

210 f6.8 Geronar

Great lens for the money and size with more than enough
coverage for use on my camera. Good coatings and shutter +
folds up inside the camera.


Dislikes:

135mm f4.7 xenar

Maybe I just had a bad sample but this lens was
disappointing. It was my first 4X5 lens and almost gave up
on 4X5 after seeing the results from this.

8.5 inch f6.3 commercial Ektar

Again, maybe it was a bad sample but I never got images
that did much for me from this lens. The lowly Geronar I
replaced this with was a MUCH better performer.

Stephe


Xenars seem to vary all over the place. I never liked
the ones made for Graflex and I think you have one. Not
sharp at the corners until stopped down almost all the way.
Not as bad as the Wollensak Raptar/Optar but not so good.
OTOH, the f/3.5 Xenar used on the Rolleiflex and Rolleicord
is an excellent lens.
Your Commercial Ektar has some problem, these should be
exceptional lenses. However, I have found some Kodak lenses
have an odd sort of problem with the cement in the rear
component. If you look at it using grazing light it will
have an orange-peel look. That will cause a lack of
sharpness and loss of contrast. The lenses can be recemented
and, if this is the trouble with this lens, it might be
worth doing.


--

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL



  #6  
Old October 25th 10, 06:57 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Richard Knoppow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 751
Default Lenses that satisfy


"Cheesehead" wrote in message
...
On Oct 4, 8:56 pm, "
wrote:
On 10/3/2010 4:39 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:



On 10/1/2010 1:20 PM spake thus:


Dislikes:


135mm f4.7 xenar


Maybe I just had a bad sample but this lens was
disappointing. It was
my first 4X5 lens and almost gave up on 4X5 after
seeing the results
from this.


This seems to jibe with what I've heard, which is that
these lenses are
nearly all dogs.


Which is strange, given the Xenar's vaunted reputation
in other form
factors. But for some reason, these particular versions
just aren't very
good.


Right. I have a rolliecord with a 75mm f3.5 xenar that is
amazing. I
wrongly assumed this 135 would be the same. It wasn't. On
the commercial
ektar, I have to assume I just had a bad one as most
reports on them are
glowing.

Stephe


When I started 4x5 about 7 years ago, my first lens was a
Wollensak
Raptar. Dissatisfying to say the least.
Not long after that I got an Optar, which I understand to be
the
Ektar. Average, just ok.
My #2 son has a 2.8D Rolleiflex. IIRC it's the Xenotar. It
is as
good as was my 135/235 Symmar.

The earlier Graflex Optar is a Raptar built for them on
contract by Wollensak. At some point they switched to
Rodenstock. Rodenstock Optars say "made in Germany" on them.
They are quite good lenses but the Wollensak ones are dogs.
One exception is the f/5.6 Optar on the Graflex Super-D.
Evidently this is a different design than the f/4.5 ones and
is a very good lens. The Tele-Raptar and Tele-Optar series
are also very good lenses. Wollensak knew how to build good
lenses but something happened with their post war Raptar and
Enlarging Raptar series, they are mostly awful and should be
avoided.
Kodak never built any lenses that were not sold under
their own name.


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



  #7  
Old October 26th 10, 12:35 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default Lenses that satisfy

On 10/25/2010 1:52 AM, Richard Knoppow wrote:

Your Commercial Ektar has some problem, these should be
exceptional lenses. However, I have found some Kodak lenses
have an odd sort of problem with the cement in the rear
component. If you look at it using grazing light it will
have an orange-peel look. That will cause a lack of
sharpness and loss of contrast. The lenses can be recemented
and, if this is the trouble with this lens, it might be
worth doing.



That likely was the problem as the contrast is what was the real issue
with it. The geronar I replaced it with was MUCH better which shouldn't
have been the case given it's a cheap, 3 element lens.

Stephey

  #8  
Old October 27th 10, 09:28 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Richard Knoppow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 751
Default Lenses that satisfy


wrote in message
...
On 10/25/2010 1:52 AM, Richard Knoppow wrote:

Your Commercial Ektar has some problem, these
should be
exceptional lenses. However, I have found some Kodak
lenses
have an odd sort of problem with the cement in the rear
component. If you look at it using grazing light it will
have an orange-peel look. That will cause a lack of
sharpness and loss of contrast. The lenses can be
recemented
and, if this is the trouble with this lens, it might be
worth doing.



That likely was the problem as the contrast is what was
the real issue with it. The geronar I replaced it with was
MUCH better which shouldn't have been the case given it's
a cheap, 3 element lens.

Stephey

The Ektar may also be hazy inside. This is a common
problem with old lenses. Even a slight amount of haze will
destroy image contrast. Fortunately, the inner element
surfaces are easy to get to. I think all of the Commercial
Ektars have back caps. First, shine a flashlight through the
lens and look at it from the other side. If you see any haze
inside it is the cause of the low contrast. To clean it
remove the front element from the shutter or barrel. Then
look at the back of the cell, there should be a threaded
cap. Remove the cap and the center element will come out.
Clean both of its surfaces and the inside of the front
element with any window cleaner, I find the "streak free"
kind to be best. That should take off any haze and leave the
glass perfectly clear. Also clean both surfaces of the back
cell. Unless the cemented surface in the back is bad this
cleaning should improve the contrast noticably even on the
ground glass. Don't worry about centering, the lens mount is
designed to automatically center the elements.
To check the cemented surface remove the rear cell and
shine a flashlight obliquely at the lens and use a
magnifying glass to see the cemented surface. Do this from
both sides since it may be easier to see it from one of the
sides. The surface should be invisible. If it looks hazy or
you can see a sort of orange peel texture, the cement has
begun to separate and the lens needs to be recemented. Note
that all of the Commercial Ektar series have synthetic
cement so it does not yellow or become crystalized at the
edges. It _should_ last forever but I've seen the above
effect in a couple of lenses. I don't know what caused it
but the early synthetic cements were thermosetting and may
not have been cured exactly right. These lenses are all
getting on to be sixty or more years old and probably did
not exhibit any problems for decades. I think Commercial
Ektars are worth the cost of re-cementing. John van Stelten
at Focal Point is the fellow to contact about the work. He
can give you an estimate on the cost. Hopefully, the lens is
just dirty.
Let me know what you find.


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




  #9  
Old October 27th 10, 11:35 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default Lenses that satisfy

On 10/27/2010 4:28 PM, Richard Knoppow wrote:
Let me know what you find.



I actually sold this lens years ago when I saw the results I got with
the geronar. So at this point it's only a guess what it's problem was. I
did clean the surfaces as you noted in your post so maybe was the
cement? No way to no at this point what it was.

Stephey

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Promaster Spectrum 7 50mm lenses compatible with Nikon lenses mount? [email protected] 35mm Photo Equipment 3 January 9th 08 10:00 PM
FA: Minolta SRT-101 with 3 MC Rokker lenses, hoods, manuals macro lenses, MORE Rowdy 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 August 28th 06 10:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.