Can any mid century folder match a TLR?

[hsandler]

I have Autocord and Diacord TLRs with 4-element lenses, and I have had a succession of folders. I'd say the Super Ikonta IV was as sharp, but that camera is at the top end of folders, costing more than most non-Rollei TLRs, and I happened to get a pristine one.
Parc Olympique, Montreal by Howard Sandler, on Flickr

I have also had a succession of inexpensive folders, such as the Franka Rolfix, with 3-element f4.5 or slower front-cell focus lenses and no rangefinder. My feeling is that if you're going to get a folder, go for 6x9 to get the largest advantage of its compactness compared to the alternatives. I find the inexpensive folders fun and sharp below f8, but not nearly as versatile as a TLR in lower light. They generally have repairable issues, either pinholes, sticky or dried grease focus, non-PC shutter terminals etc, but not the way to go if you are not willing to do some repairs yourself.

National Gallery of Canada by Howard Sandler, on Flickr

Perhaps consider buying one of these inexpensive less well-known folders such as Franka, Balda or Welta and trying for awhile before jumping in to an expensive top-tier one.

 

[EdSawyer]

believe it or not, I think the Kodak Tourist II with the 101mm f/4.5 Anastar is sharper, more contrasty, and has better film/lens plane alignment and flatness than the Bessa II Heliar. Combine the Tourist with a Voigtlander shoe-mount rangefinder, and it's an excellent combo, despite the potential downside of front-cell focusing.

 

[Alex Varas]

If you can accept this gap my suggestion would go for an Agfa Super Isolette (bigger) or an Agfa Isolette (smaller) with the Solinar 75 3,5 lens.

+1 Super Isolette, very stable front lens, coupled rangefinder, EV system, it fits everywhere, the best 6x6 folder in my opinion.

 

[thuggins]

I have a number of Voigtlander and Zeiss folders. All of them produce excellent images in normal use, and most of them have uncoated lenses. But as good as they are the prize goes to the Olympus Chrome Sixes with the coated, D Zuiko (4 element Tessar type) lenses. The images have a 3D rendering that is breathtaking.

 

[Alex Varas]

I have a number of Voigtlander and Zeiss folders. All of them produce excellent images in normal use, and most of them have uncoated lenses. But as good as they are the prize goes to the Olympus Chrome Sixes with the coated, D Zuiko (4 element Tessar type) lenses. The images have a 3D rendering that is breathtaking.

Maybe I'm wrong but I read that lens is 5 elements... therefore that rendering, or was it Mamiya Six??

 

[thuggins]

Maybe I'm wrong but I read that lens is 5 elements... therefore that rendering, or was it Mamiya Six??

Five elements would be an E Zuiko. I have quite a few Chrome SIxes and am pretty certain they are all D's.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Thanks all for the advice. That is a stunning picture especially from hsandler. I think the right thing to do is to keep sampling Perkeos with color skopars until I find one that produces results that I like!

 

[Dan Fromm]

Thanks all for the advice. That is a stunning picture especially from hsandler. I think the right thing to do is to keep sampling Perkeos with color skopars until I find one that produces results that I like!

Good luck.

FWIW, I've never got a satisfactorily sharp shot with my Perkeo II (80/3.5 Color Skopar). My late friend Charlie Barringer, co-author of the Zeiss-Ikon Compendium, had one and told me his was no better than mine. Even worse, my friend and co-author Eric Beltrando (visit his site dioptrique.info) has told me, based on I'm not sure what, that the Skopar and Color Skopar aren't particularly good.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

The weird thing from my brief foray into Perkeo II was I got one gorgeous picture out of it and all the others were garbage and I'm not sure why. I assumed mine was out of adjustment, as in perhaps infinity focus was off. I've read on rangefinder forums that on one guys Perkeo, the distances marked on the focusing ring were totally off. As in, when infinity was set at infinity, everything else was wrong. It could be systemic or an issue with his lens. On the other hand, I've seen superb pictures taken with the Perkeo when I browse the Flickr gallery. And by all logic, Voigtlander should have been able to make a good 4 element lens in 1950.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I got brilliantly sharp photographs from my circa 1933 DollySport 120 folder with an Zeiss lens.

 

[Dan Fromm]

The weird thing from my brief foray into Perkeo II was I got one gorgeous picture out of it and all the others were garbage and I'm not sure why. I assumed mine was out of adjustment, as in perhaps infinity focus was off. I've read on rangefinder forums that on one guys Perkeo, the distances marked on the focusing ring were totally off. As in, when infinity was set at infinity, everything else was wrong. It could be systemic or an issue with his lens. On the other hand, I've seen superb pictures taken with the Perkeo when I browse the Flickr gallery. And by all logic, Voigtlander should have been able to make a good 4 element lens in 1950.

Well, I checked that mine's lens was well collimated. GG in gate, lens set to infinity, check IQ of a distant subject. OK. Shots of distant subjects with the camera well-supported and lens set to infinity were still substandard.

Understand, the Perkeo II is more lovable that my 2x3 Graphics, unfortunately less capable.

As for lens design, on the one hand, you'd think that by the late '40s tessar types were as well developed as possible. Against this, EKCo tessar type Ektars seem to have about the same IQ in the corners as f/4.5 Wollesak tessar type Raptars ... when the Raptars are stopped down one stop more than the Ektars. Richard Knoppow used to go on at length about this on usenet, argued that the f/4.5 Raptar prescription reflected a computational error. This is possible, remember that digital computers weren't available to lens designers when these lenses' prescriptions were created.

See, e.g., https://www.freelists.org/post/pure-silver/Graflex-Optar-vs-Kodak-Ektar,2
and https://rec.photo.equipment.large-format.narkive.com/aGNdlcXl/wollensak-raptar-135mm-f-4-7

 

[Alan Johnson]

The UK made Ross Xpres 105mm f3.8 fitted to the Ensign Autorange 820 (Collectors Item) reportedly is a 5 element lens:
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/ross-xpress-lens-construction-4-or-5-element.10243/

 

[Dan Fromm]

The UK made Ross Xpres 105mm f3.8 fitted to the Ensign Autorange 820 (Collectors Item) reportedly is a 5 element lens:
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/ross-xpress-lens-construction-4-or-5-element.10243/

Interesting if true. False, so uninteresting. My Ensign 820 (no rangefinder, so not an Autorange) has a 105/3.8 Xpres. Four elements, perfectly normal tessar type. I've counted reflections.

There were indeed five element Xpres lenses, basically tessars but with the rear group a cemented triplet instead of a cemented doublet as in real tessars, but the 105/3.8 isn't among them.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I also have an Ensign 820 with no rangefinder with the 105 f3.8 4 elements but Hicks in my link says there was another 105 f3.8 Xpres that had 5 elements.
Are you saying he was wrong?

 

[JPD]

I also have an Ensign 820 with no rangefinder with the 105 f3.8 4 elements but Hicks in my link says there was another 105 f3.8 Xpres that had 5 elements.
Are you saying he was wrong?

The Xpres was a Tessar clone and Ross added an extra element to the rear component to get around the Zeiss Tessar patent. The patent had expired long ago when the these Ensign cameras were made. The 3,8/105 Xpres is still of a different construction than the 3,5/105 Tessar. Just compare the size of the front elements. The Xpres one is larger than the Tessar's. Excellent lens. I wish I didn't sell my Selfix.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I think he was mistaken, could be mistaken myself. But and however, the VM, which is strongest on UK-made lenses but is sometimes wrong about them, was very explicit:

Here the best known is the Q15 type 105mm f3.8 on the Selfix 820. ... A very late Selfix Autorange 820 was noted in B.J.A. 1956, p213 and still had the same f3.8 Xpres.

Q15 is VM-speak for tessar type.

 

[Pioneer]

My best folder image wise is my Voigtlander Bessa II with the Heliar lens. After that I prefer my Agfa Super Isolette with the Solinar lens. They are in great shape and have both been properly serviced so they work very well.

I also have a couple of TLRs that produce excellent images. These include an Ikoflex IIa with a Tessar which I still use a lot and a Rollei 2.8D with a Planar that has since been sold. The Ikoflex was much easier to focus.

I've never bothered to compare the two so I couldn't really say whether or not one is better than the other. In my experience all these lenses produce magnificent images when used within their sweet spots when properly focused, and not so wonderful outside of them.

Sometimes I think we worry too much about the lenses and not as much as we should about our own technique. But somehow we always seem to blame the camera. Keep them properly serviced and use them correctly and you will be happy.

If you need more then spend the money and buy more modern equipment because modern lenses ALWAYS outperform the older ones. Even my Fuji GA645 or Pentax 645Nii will almost always produce sharper results than any of my older equipment but sometimes that isn't what I want. If you need a folder buy the Fuji GF670. Still pricey but worth every penny if that is what you need.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Sometimes I think we worry too much about the lenses and not as much as we should about our own technique. But somehow we always seem to blame the camera. Keep them properly serviced and use them correctly and you will be happy.

If you need more then spend the money and buy more modern equipment because modern lenses ALWAYS outperform the older ones.

On your first point, I've taken some very good, although not as sharp as I'd have liked, images with my Perkeo II. Sharpness is over-rated.

On your second point, I'm not convinced but the source of our disagreement may be due to how I shoot. Normally f/11 - f/22, and usually with a lens that covers much more than the format. Modern lenses are often sharper nearer wide open than my old blunderbusses.

 

[nosmok]

On the subject of the Ross Xpres lenses on the 6x9 Selfix 820 Special and 820 Autorange: for at least some samples, they both have 5-element lenses, if a reflection count is to be believed (I have one of each and I just checked). The lens on the Autorange also has red, green and blue dots after the name and focal length, indicating it is apochromatic (similar to the bands on the Voigtlander Apo Lanthar on some old Bessa II's, which had red, green and blue bands on the lens rim.). FWIW, the lens on the Autorange 820 is the sharpest MF lens I have ever used-- I have a picture of my SiL's family walking away from the camera, and you can clearly see the laces on her backpack in the scan; she was barely as tall as my thumbnail on the negative. I have another APO lens that has great "pop", but have only shot black and white with that one.

 

[JPD]

The lens on the Autorange also has red, green and blue dots after the name and focal length, indicating it is apochromatic (similar to the bands on the Voigtlander Apo Lanthar on some old Bessa II's, which had red, green and blue bands on the lens rim.).

Do you have a source for that? As far as I know the dots just mean that the lens is coated.

 

[nosmok]

Do you have a source for that? As far as I know the dots just mean that the lens is coated.

Unfortunately, not in the form of a checkable link-- I read it in a couple of places in articles about the camera, when I was knocking around the intertubes looking for reviews and info about the camera . But it does jibe with my experience and some nomenclatural knowledge: 1) the Autorange's 105mm f/3.8 Xpres is a "better " lens than the Selfix Special's 105mm f/3.8 Xpres; 2)the Selfix's lens certainly seems to be coated to me; and 2) Any non-Apochromatic coated lens only brings 2 of the 3 base colors to focus on the same plane ("achromatic"), so you wouldn't boast about all 3 base colors being in focus. It's currently a circumstantial case, I admit, but it's a strong one AFAIAC.

 

[Alex Varas]

The weird thing from my brief foray into Perkeo II was I got one gorgeous picture out of it and all the others were garbage and I'm not sure why. I assumed mine was out of adjustment, as in perhaps infinity focus was off. I've read on rangefinder forums that on one guys Perkeo, the distances marked on the focusing ring were totally off. As in, when infinity was set at infinity, everything else was wrong. It could be systemic or an issue with his lens. On the other hand, I've seen superb pictures taken with the Perkeo when I browse the Flickr gallery. And by all logic, Voigtlander should have been able to make a good 4 element lens in 1950.

My answer for this is the Skopar lens, it's not the sharpest but it has something unique for me.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

No need to crop your negatives .
If you composed square , print square .

Most formats aren't an exact mach for the paper you print on , use the full negative on the print , and mount & frame to suite .

+1

 

[cooltouch]

Probably my all-time favorite medium format camera is the Zeiss Super Ikonta B, a 6x6 folder that is easily pocketable into a typical jacket pocket. In fact, I call it my pocket Hasselblad. Image quality is superb. I also own a Moskva 5, a 6x9 folder, which is almost as convenient. It also produces outstanding images. I don't own any, but the Zeiss Super Ikonta A (6x4.5) and Konica Pearl (also 6x4.5), especially the Model III, are great pocket cameras that are very compact.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Probably my all-time favorite medium format camera is the Zeiss Super Ikonta B, a 6x6 folder that is easily pocketable into a typical jacket pocket. In fact, I call it my pocket Hasselblad. Image quality is superb. I also own a Moskva 5, a 6x9 folder, which is almost as convenient. It also produces outstanding images. I don't own any, but the Zeiss Super Ikonta A (6x4.5) and Konica Pearl (also 6x4.5), especially the Model III, are great pocket cameras that are very compact.

I actually picked up an Ikonta A and B after making this thread. Slowly working through them to figure out which one of my exemplars is the best. They are both superbly crafted, even compared to Voigtlander which has nice craftsmanship. What lens do you have on your ikonta B? Any pictures to share?

 

[timmct]

When I worked at Sprint Systems of Photography, in Pawtucket, RI, I took on the responsibility for testing films; attempting to verify, or modify, the development chart that was supplied to users of that system. There were some really good cameras there, before I ever got there, and the principals were generous; allowing me to use them to test different film formats. There was nothing in the 4x5 range so I got a Speed Graphic (on eBay as I recall). I think there was a Voigtlander folder but I wound up tracking down a Zeiss Super Ikonta and it came with the "mask" for portraits (6x4.5: half of full frame).

I came to embrace that camera as a "pocket 4x5"...one had to get used to it if quick shots were desired but it was really good (better than I could ever be) when one got to know what it could do best and what you brought to the plate when you were using it.

Bye the way...one of the principals at Sprint was Roy Zimmerman and he had something to say about an approach to composition and printing. He had been at Alfred and later RISD...he filed out his negative carrier so that it would be apparent that his composition was made in camera and NOT a crop that might sweeten up a less than ideal composition...I'm just sayin'.

I filed out the negative carrier for the Zeiss 6x9 and tried to do my best.