"best" 127mm

On the edge of town.

A
On the edge of town.

  • 2
  • 1
  • 35
Peaceful

D
Peaceful

  • 2
  • 11
  • 163
Cycling with wife #2

D
Cycling with wife #2

  • 1
  • 3
  • 72
Time's up!

D
Time's up!

  • 1
  • 1
  • 66
Green room

A
Green room

  • 5
  • 2
  • 125

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,253
Messages
2,771,670
Members
99,580
Latest member
byteseller
Recent bookmarks
0

jjstafford

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2004
Messages
731
Location
Minnesota Tr
Format
Multi Format
Interesting! An associate has asked for a drop-dead simple 4x5 to handhold. Well, I have four Printex cameras, two with rangefinders, and they are best used with a 127mm lens, but my 127mm lenses just suck at wider apertures.

Is there a good 127mm lens?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MikeS

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
222
Location
Newport, TN
Format
4x5 Format
You say your 127mm lenses suck wide open. I guess the next question is: What 127mm lenses do you have?

-Mike
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,833
Format
Hybrid
i have/use a 127 tominon in a prontar (polaroid) press shutter.
works very well - large or small apertures.
 

John Kasaian

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Messages
1,021
Theres nothing wrong with the ubitquitous 127mm f/4.7 Ektar of Jimmy Olson and Sped Graphic fame :smile: The 127 Ysaron is pretty slick too, but I bet the Ektar would do better wide open (just a guess, considering the Ektar was made for "F/8 and be there" while the Ysaron was used in a Polaroid copy camera) Come to think of it a 127 f4.5 Optar/Wollensak should fill the bill too.
 

jimgalli

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
4,236
Location
Tonopah Neva
Format
ULarge Format
Most any old coated Kodak 127 f4.7 will resolve 80lppm in the middle at f8 but any of the old press tessars is going to suck out in the edges on a 4X5. Get a Caltar IIn 135 f5.6 if there's budget for it.
 

BradS

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
8,119
Location
Soulsbyville, California
Format
35mm
The three most commonly available 127mm LF lenses are probably the Wollensak Raptar, the Kodak Ektar and the Rodenstock Yasaron. The Graflex Optar is almost always a rebadged Raptar - although somtimes, a Yasaron can be found too. Each of these lenses was pressed into service on Speed/Crown Graphics only reluctantly. That they seem to have lived up to this role is a testament to their chivalry and courage as none of them really covers 4x5 very well - especially at infinity. Actually, I suspect that the fact the the lenses didn't, strictly speaking, cover 4x5 was overlooked due to practical considerations related to the nature of press photography in the 1940's and 50's coupled with the fact that most lenses of the tessar design have a much larger circle of illumination than their circle of good definition.

As jimgalli said, a modern, coated 135mm plasmat is far superior. They're not really significantly bigger or heavier and need not cost a lot more either. The Tessar formula lenses do have a characteristic look though.

Hmmm, I think I just decided to sell that lovely old Xenar that came on my Crown Graphic....
 

John Kasaian

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Messages
1,021
Hey Guys, the reason why I mentioned grand-pa Ektar & pals is because this is for a handheld camera which, unless you're blessed with an extra pair of hands, kind of prevents using swings and/or tilts, so the size of the image circle probably isn't an issue. I agree with Jim Galli though, if its feasible just about any good "real" 4x5 lens will give you the option of moving up to a more sophisticated camera (which WILL happen, once you get hooked!) FWIW I think Peter Gowlands 4x5 handheld aerial camera is designed around a Nikkor 120. For a drop dead simple camera fix focused for infinity with a flip up sportsfinder thats about as simple a handheld as it gets.
 

MikeK

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2003
Messages
556
Location
Walnut Creek
Format
Large Format
I have a Wollensak 127mm f4.5 Raptar. It performs very well indeed. Here is an example Dead Link Removed

Pretty good definition across the whole image. There is some mottling in the sky, not a problem with the lens but due to the fact I developed the negative in a Patterson developing tank.
 

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
19,974
Location
Honolulu, HI
Format
Large Format
And if a 135 Caltar II-N isn't in the budget, consider a 135 Symmar convertible.
 
OP
OP

jjstafford

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2004
Messages
731
Location
Minnesota Tr
Format
Multi Format
MikeS said:
You say your 127mm lenses suck wide open. I guess the next question is: What 127mm lenses do you have?

-Mike
Silly me - Raptars, Wollensaks - IMHO not very good.
 

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
19,974
Location
Honolulu, HI
Format
Large Format
Oh, well.
 

Nick Zentena

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2004
Messages
4,666
Location
Italia
Format
Multi Format
Will it work with a 125mm? Fuji sells one and it doesn't seem to be that expensive used.
 

John Kasaian

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Messages
1,021
None of my lenses suck. Or blow. Or levitate, gyrate, rumba or funky chicken. In fact they don't do much of anything except hang out there on the lensboard. The 127 Ektar gives me pretty good service at f/8 which certainly isn't "wide open" on a 4.7 lens. If your associate must shoot wide open I suggest getting one and painting out all the numbers for apertures larger than "8" before letting him/her have at it. My 2-cents!
 

Jim_in_Kyiv

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
231
Location
Ukraine
Format
Med. Format RF
Dangerous question - define 'suck'. What is it in particular about them that you don't like? Is it a sharpness fall-off issue? I lurked around here before I started posting, and learned here about those lenses and Bokeh, so none of them were designed to be really sharp near the edges.
Is it a contrast issue instead? What would you like to see different?
 
OP
OP

jjstafford

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2004
Messages
731
Location
Minnesota Tr
Format
Multi Format
JiminKyiv said:
Dangerous question - define 'suck'. What is it in particular about them that you don't like? Is it a sharpness fall-off issue? I lurked around here before I started posting, and learned here about those lenses and Bokeh, so none of them were designed to be really sharp near the edges.
Is it a contrast issue instead? What would you like to see different?
Look, I am not disrespecting the lens. I said mine suck, and they do. Maybe yours are better. There are variations among lenses, you know, some because age/condition. Mine don't deserve to be on a 4x5. It's a waste of film. Soft as heck, plenty of flare, poor cross-frame rez/falloff. If I want soft, I know where I can get better soft. If I want bokeh, I know where to find better bokeh. It is not in the 127 Wollensaks I have.
 

Jim_in_Kyiv

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
231
Location
Ukraine
Format
Med. Format RF
Ah, good. Details. Thanks!
 

Dan Fromm

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
6,806
Format
Multi Format
JG Motamedi said:
if you can deal with an uncoated lens, the 5" f/4 Ross WA Xpres is (or can be) amazing.
And it can also be terrible. I have one, ex-MoD, that's very flary and soft at all apertures. A bust, but for only $10 I can't complain much.
 
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