graflex optar lens scratches 135mm f4.7

[jvo]

i was gifted this lens... i have no idea about it. it was made by wollensak for graflex, is it any good? also it has minor scratching on the front lens - like someone was very enthusiastic in cleaning, i think. is it worthwhile for see what it can do?

thanks

 

[BrianShaw]

Yes, what you describe is typical. Those lenses got hard work more often than not. I’ve never seen negative impacts of such scratches, or cleaning marks, or whatever one wants to call them. My Optar sound very much like yours! A lens hood...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Minor scratches are usually not a problem.

 

[BradS]

Yes, it is indeed a very good lens and as others have already said, some minor scratches on the front element generally do not matter - at worst, you may want to use a lens hod with it.

It is definitely worth trying/ using!

 

[shutterfinger]

Wollensak "reportedly" did not use as tight a tolerance on their lens as other manufacturers did resulting in an occasional dud so mount yours on a good body and ask it what it will provide you by exposing a few sheets f film.

 

[Pioneer]

I have only used three of the Wollensak Optar lenses so my experience certainly does not reflect in-depth testing. However all three of mine were very good lenses, upgrading to excellent lenses.when stopped down to f/11. If I were left with only a 135mm Optar in a decent shutter, a Crown Graphic, a couple of Grafmatics and all the TriX I could shoot I am convinced that I would not be handicapped in the slightest.

 

[GKC]

If the scratches cause mischief, just fill 'em with black India ink. That usually takes care of it.

 

[Whir-Click]

Wollensak "reportedly" did not use as tight a tolerance on their lens as other manufacturers did resulting in an occasional dud so mount yours on a good body and ask it what it will provide you by exposing a few sheets f film.

I haven’t seen credible information to support this. Sure, some designs are better corrected than others. But as to quality control, if you find a poor example of a Wollensak lens today, is it more likely that it came out of the factory a dud (then was purchased and used without complaint by the original owner), or that it has been abused in the intervening decades?

I trust a jury of Wollensak’s peers, and here’s what Rudolf Kingslake had to say: “Wollensak was one of Rochester’s finest companies. . . Their lenses, shutters, and other products were considered to be excellent.” “For almost seventy years the name Wollensak represented some of the finest lenses and shutters made in Rochester.”

I am in full agreement with shutterfinger‘s suggestion: try the lens out and, as Wollensak would say, “let the user judge.”

 

[Dan Fromm]

To read: https://www.freelists.org/post/pure-silver/Graflex-Optar-vs-Kodak-Ektar,2

 

[removed account4]

and, as Wollensak would say, “let the user judge.”

YES !

 

[Pioneer]

To read: https://www.freelists.org/post/pure-silver/Graflex-Optar-vs-Kodak-Ektar,2

Thanks Dan, this was an interesting read.

I am reminded of an interesting phenomenon of the internet. In most cases you can find completely opposing viewpoints/opinions about the same exact thing.

That is probably why the internet is so popular. If you look long enough you can find support for just about any opinion you want to express about just about anything.

Over the years I have found that if I am seriously trying to get an answer regarding whether a particular lens/camera/film/developer/process/etc. fits my needs I am usually best served by trying it out for myself. I have also learned that there really is very little difference between a particular lens/camera/film/developer/process/etc. when it comes to the final print. One reason for this is that none of us are really applying serious scientific method to our testing.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Dan, when usenet's rec.photo groups were active Mr. Knoppow was a highly respected contributor. I rate him much higher than I rate most of the people who post on this forum's LF section.

That said, for most people's applications any lens that passes light and forms an image is good enough.

 

[Pioneer]

Thanks.

I find Rudolph Kingslake to be a pretty reliable resource as well and his opinion of Wollensak's products differed a bit from Mr. Knuppow.

I also find the ability to pass light and make an in-focus image to be a very good start for any lens. In fact that may be the most important criteria.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thanks.

I find Rudolph Kingslake to be a pretty reliable resource as well and his opinion of Wollensak's products differed a bit from Mr. Knuppow.

I also find the ability to pass light and make an in-focus image to be a very good start for any lens. In fact that may be the most important criteria.

Rudolph Kingslake's books on optics and lenses are not too shabby either. Exactly how many optics books did Mr. Knuppow write?

 

[Dan Fromm]

Dan, Mr. Knoppow made a strong distinction between Wolly tessar types for Graphics and those made for Graflex' reflex cameras. He didn't condemn them all.

 

[Whir-Click]

Dan, thank you for the link to Mr. Knoppow’s post, which I found nuanced and thoughtful. There’s plenty of room for informed debate based on firsthand experiences, I just felt moved to defend Wollensak’s honor against the broad charge of poor quality control.

I find Kingslake’s esteem, as both a scholar and direct competitor to Wollensak, noteworthy.

 

[Pioneer]

That is true. I did find his write up to be interesting and I am glad that you posted it. It adds to the information regarding these wonderful old lenses. Since Mr. Kingslake's background and expertise is well documented and respected I may give his written opinion a bit more weight.

However, in my humble opinion, it is usually best to test and determine if any given product, in this case a 135mm Optar with a scratched front objective, serves your own needs. An old, imperfect, Optar may turn out to be your perfect lens if you give it a chance and do some work with it.

Just a thought.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Dan, Richard Knoppow tested the lenses he reported on. Rudolf Kingslake reported general impressions of an entire product line.

 

[Paul Howell]

Back in the late 90s, while at the Heard Museum during a native american dance competition I met a guy who said he retired from Wollensak. He told me that the problem with late model Wollensak lens was related to labor issues, work stoppages, stikes, quality control suffered.

I have both the 127 and 135, no issues with sharpness, issue is lack of coverage, the reason I replaced the 135 on my Crown with a Zeiss 135mm. I was lucky as the Zeiss matched the rangefinder.