For Sale A very ugly Speed Graphic with Kodak Ektar lenses

submini house

A
submini house

  • 0
  • 0
  • 20
Diner

A
Diner

  • 4
  • 0
  • 75
Gulf Nonox

A
Gulf Nonox

  • 9
  • 3
  • 100
Druidstone

A
Druidstone

  • 8
  • 3
  • 138
On The Mound.

A
On The Mound.

  • 1
  • 0
  • 78

Forum statistics

Threads
197,811
Messages
2,764,819
Members
99,480
Latest member
815 Photo
Recent bookmarks
0
Trader history for dkreithen (1)

dkreithen

Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2018
Messages
59
Location
USA
Format
Medium Format
I'd like to sell this as a single lot.

FS: the ugliest camera I've ever seen. It's an old, pre-Pacemaker era 4x5 Speed Graphic, with Graflex spring back, that has been completely stripped of it's focal plane shutter. Then someone must have taken a black spray paint can and gone over it, just for fun. It's ugly, really butt-ugly. But, the bellows look clean and are probably sound (I haven't tested it - if you do find a pinhole then electrical tape should do the job), the ground glass is not broken, and there's a lensboard that's drilled for a #0 shutter. The only movement on the camera is front rise, in addition to the focus knob. It's about as basic as a camera gets. I'm also including three standard 4x5 film holders with dark slides. These are known good as I've used them recently.

Along with the camera are four (!) lenses. Two are more or less junk because of their shutters, which are both broken. One lens is a Kodak 127mm Ektar (coated), the other is a 203mm Ektar (also coated). The two other lenses are in good shutters, or at least they operate and are consistent. I've marked them with the actual shutter speeds. One is a relatively clean 203mm f7.7 Kodak Ektar (coated). The glass is decent, but not pristine. The other is the 100mm f6.3 Kodak Wide-field Ektar (also coated). The glass again is decent but not pristine. This lens includes a filter adapter that allows mounting 46mm filters. Both of these lenses are excellent performers, really sharp with modest contrast. You will be surprised by how good they are given that they were made in the late 1940s or early 1950s. None of these shutters fit the camera's lensboard presently, you'll have to enlarge the hole in the lensboard to accommodate the shutters, which should be easy to do since the lensboard is made of wood.

Also included is a Paterson 3 reel tank with the MOD54 insert for developing 4x5 film. I'm also throwing in six plastic reels for the tank which are adjustable for 35mm or 120 film. I never could get the hang of loading these reels. I think the tank came with a swizzle stick which can be used for agitation, but I've lost it, so that's not included. Agitation can be done by inverting the tank. The center column, which is included, is necessary for proper functioning.

Note that all of this is most of what is necessary for a decent 4x5 film outfit. You'll have to add film and dark (a very dark closet will do) so that you can load the holders and the MOD54 insert. You'll also need some chemicals (developer and fixer), of course. Maybe a tripod, dark cloth or jacket, loupe (can use any old 50mm lens), and light meter or cell phone with light meter app as well. I guess you'd also need to scan the negatives if you want to use the pictures on your computer.

It's an ugly outfit, but it should produce great negatives if you know what you're doing. And the negatives should beat any modern digital camera short of a medium format system.

I think the asking price is very fair, given that the Wide Field Ektar is actually a pretty sought after lens. Asking $300 + shipping/insurance for the entire lot. First PM to me saying "I'll take it" is first served. Please don't ask me to break this up, just to get the Wide Field Ektar. If you buy the lens then you've also bought all the other stuff. The idea is to get rid of stuff! Thanks.

_DSF0284.jpg
_DSF0284.jpg
_DSF0285.jpg
_DSF0286.jpg
_DSF0287.jpg
_DSF0288.jpg
_DSF0295.jpg
_DSF0292.jpg
_DSF0290.jpg
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,139
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Just a nitpick -- if those film holders fit and lock into the camera as they should, that's a Graphic back, not a Graflex back (which has the reverse ribs and grooves -- rib on the camera, grooves on the film holders). Otherwise, I think that's an Anniversary, one of the workhorse cameras of the 20th century.

Any lens marked Ektar is excellent, as long as it's in a correctly fitted shutter (correct spacing between front and back element sets). Even without a focal plane shutter, this is a bargain at $300. If I didn't already have an Annie with working focal plane shutter, I'd have to think hard about this...
 

Cholentpot

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
6,669
Format
35mm
I'd like to sell this as a single lot.

FS: the ugliest camera I've ever seen. It's an old, pre-Pacemaker era 4x5 Speed Graphic, with Graflex spring back, that has been completely stripped of it's focal plane shutter. Then someone must have taken a black spray paint can and gone over it, just for fun. It's ugly, really butt-ugly. But, the bellows look clean and are probably sound (I haven't tested it - if you do find a pinhole then electrical tape should do the job), the ground glass is not broken, and there's a lensboard that's drilled for a #0 shutter. The only movement on the camera is front rise, in addition to the focus knob. It's about as basic as a camera gets. I'm also including three standard 4x5 film holders with dark slides. These are known good as I've used them recently.

Along with the camera are four (!) lenses. Two are more or less junk because of their shutters, which are both broken. One lens is a Kodak 127mm Ektar (coated), the other is a 203mm Ektar (also coated). The two other lenses are in good shutters, or at least they operate and are consistent. I've marked them with the actual shutter speeds. One is a relatively clean 203mm f7.7 Kodak Ektar (coated). The glass is decent, but not pristine. The other is the 100mm f6.3 Kodak Wide-field Ektar (also coated). The glass again is decent but not pristine. This lens includes a filter adapter that allows mounting 46mm filters. Both of these lenses are excellent performers, really sharp with modest contrast. You will be surprised by how good they are given that they were made in the late 1940s or early 1950s. None of these shutters fit the camera's lensboard presently, you'll have to enlarge the hole in the lensboard to accommodate the shutters, which should be easy to do since the lensboard is made of wood.

Also included is a Paterson 3 reel tank with the MOD54 insert for developing 4x5 film. I'm also throwing in six plastic reels for the tank which are adjustable for 35mm or 120 film. I never could get the hang of loading these reels. I think the tank came with a swizzle stick which can be used for agitation, but I've lost it, so that's not included. Agitation can be done by inverting the tank. The center column, which is included, is necessary for proper functioning.

Note that all of this is most of what is necessary for a decent 4x5 film outfit. You'll have to add film and dark (a very dark closet will do) so that you can load the holders and the MOD54 insert. You'll also need some chemicals (developer and fixer), of course. Maybe a tripod, dark cloth or jacket, loupe (can use any old 50mm lens), and light meter or cell phone with light meter app as well. I guess you'd also need to scan the negatives if you want to use the pictures on your computer.

It's an ugly outfit, but it should produce great negatives if you know what you're doing. And the negatives should beat any modern digital camera short of a medium format system.

I think the asking price is very fair, given that the Wide Field Ektar is actually a pretty sought after lens. Asking $300 + shipping/insurance for the entire lot. First PM to me saying "I'll take it" is first served. Please don't ask me to break this up, just to get the Wide Field Ektar. If you buy the lens then you've also bought all the other stuff. The idea is to get rid of stuff! Thanks.

View attachment 260221 View attachment 260221 View attachment 260222 View attachment 260223 View attachment 260224 View attachment 260225 View attachment 260226 View attachment 260227 View attachment 260228

How do you use a 50mm lens as a loupe? Never heard of this, sounds intresting...
 

BradS

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
8,115
Location
Soulsbyville, California
Format
35mm
How do you use a 50mm lens as a loupe? Never heard of this, sounds intresting...

just as you would expect...hold it up to your eye and look through it. A 135mm lens works better.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,139
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Depends what you're trying to look at, @BradS -- for closer distances, shorter focal lengths work better (and provide more magnification -- a 50mm is close to 20x, while a 135mm is more like 8.5x or 9x), and they're more compact as well. @Cholentpot When I've done it, I've looked into the end with the filter thread, and put the mount end (of an SLR lens) toward the object to be examined (ground glass, negative, etc.). If not an automatic diaphragm, you're usually ahead to open to maximum aperture.
 

Cholentpot

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
6,669
Format
35mm
just as you would expect...hold it up to your eye and look through it. A 135mm lens works better.
Depends what you're trying to look at, @BradS -- for closer distances, shorter focal lengths work better (and provide more magnification -- a 50mm is close to 20x, while a 135mm is more like 8.5x or 9x), and they're more compact as well. @Cholentpot When I've done it, I've looked into the end with the filter thread, and put the mount end (of an SLR lens) toward the object to be examined (ground glass, negative, etc.). If not an automatic diaphragm, you're usually ahead to open to maximum aperture.

Thanks! I have a plethora of 135 and 50mm lenses that can be put to good use.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,139
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Just don't spend hours and hours, several times a week, for years, using a thoriated lens (like a Super Takumar) as a loupe. A short time isn't a problem -- but cumulatively, especially as the thorium decays into products that produce radiation that can get through the glass or housing, it could become one.

It is a bit more convenient to get an actual loupe -- I have one around here somewhere that I got for about ten bucks, fifteen years ago. Really easy -- just plunk the open end against the ground glass and look into the lens; it'll automatically be in focus (for "normal" eyes; only works for me when I have my distance glasses on).
 

BradS

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
8,115
Location
Soulsbyville, California
Format
35mm
@Donald Qualls and @Cholentpot ,
I find a pair of fairly strong reading glasses to be far easier to use than any loupe. I have fairly good uncorrected vision and use +3.5 reading glasses which cost me a whopping $10 at the drug store. Put a leash on them and your all set - I use a long shoe lace.
 
OP
OP

dkreithen

Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2018
Messages
59
Location
USA
Format
Medium Format
Just a nitpick -- if those film holders fit and lock into the camera as they should, that's a Graphic back, not a Graflex back (which has the reverse ribs and grooves -- rib on the camera, grooves on the film holders). Otherwise, I think that's an Anniversary, one of the workhorse cameras of the 20th century.

Any lens marked Ektar is excellent, as long as it's in a correctly fitted shutter (correct spacing between front and back element sets). Even without a focal plane shutter, this is a bargain at $300. If I didn't already have an Annie with working focal plane shutter, I'd have to think hard about this...

Thanks for the correction. Yes, the film holders are usable with the camera. The two Ektars in functioning shutters do indeed produce good sharp negatives.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,157
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Please PM me. Thanks.
That poster has such a small number of posts that they are probably blocked from starting a PM. You may be in similar circumstances.
If you Report your own post, then you can request moderator help.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,139
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
@Donald Qualls and @Cholentpot ,
I find a pair of fairly strong reading glasses to be far easier to use than any loupe. I have fairly good uncorrected vision and use +3.5 reading glasses which cost me a whopping $10 at the drug store. Put a leash on them and your all set - I use a long shoe lace.

After I stopped wearing contact lenses, I discovered the easiest way of all: I just take my glasses off. My glasses are about -6.5 or so correction, so my naked eyes are like an 8x loupe when i get close enough to see well (around 5 inches).
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom