Press camera lenses: need opinions

[ragc]

I have a 'new' Anniversary Speed Graphic, wartime all black, SN 331001 (1943?). It came with a 13.5 Voigtlander Anastigmat 1:4.5 Skopar on a dial-set Compur (slow speeds sticky) mounted on solenoid-equipped B&J lensboard. I have mounted a 127mm f4.7 Kodak Ektar with a Graphic Supermatic (X) shutter (which is original to the Graflex press cameras, I believe) on a home-made lensboard (wood, routed light trap edge, well made and good-looking), to use with it.

I know the answer to my question is to go out and shoot with both. However, I was wondering if there is a quality or coverage difference in the lenses making one superior to the other. I have shot with the Ektar before, on a view camera with more movement, and have been somewhat dissapointed in it's coverage and edge sharpness.

As for the shutters, there is no question that the Graphic is a better shutter, and looks best on the camera.

Please let me have your opinions.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

I would think coverage about the same, the Ektar sounds as if it is post-war and may therefore be coated (I think, if it is coated, the mount should have an "L" for "Lumenized" on it). Also, the Ektar shutter has more convenient flash sync and doesn't need servicing!

 

[ragc]

I would think coverage about the same, the Ektar sounds as if it is post-war and may therefore be coated (I think, if it is coated, the mount should have an "L" for "Lumenized" on it). Also, the Ektar shutter has more convenient flash sync and doesn't need servicing!

Yes, I left that out; the Ektar is coated.

 

[waynecrider]

I think it depends on what you consider superior? The 127 is not known for coverage; Your other lens can be determined. The Ektars, according to written statements, are suppose to be superior lenses to what was placed by so called alternate manufactuers. I myself have a 135mm coated Optar in a perfect shutter that I love and will not sell; well at least not right now, ha. Regardless, and as attributable by many members around here buying vintage lenses, the superiority of a lens is in the eye of the beholder. Personally I think it's all about the picture and not the equipment.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Lessee, now, Rafael. You have two lenses and want to know their coverage. Old lenses, one of them clearly pre-1939. Instead of trying the lenses out and applying your own concept of coverage to the images they produce, you ask total strangers. Somehow this doesn't seem the best way to proceed.

Save your small monetary units and when you've saved enough buy a modern plasmat type 135 or 150, and don't look back. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.

 

[Terence]

The 127mm was not meant to be used with movements. It was purely for a "press" type market shooting straight on and at close range (where coverage increases a little with the bellows racked out), and was marketed as such. It is not really a view camera lens. At least not for 4x5.

I am unfamiliar with the Skopar, so I'll leave that to others.

 

[ragc]

Lessee, now, Rafael. You have two lenses and want to know their coverage. Old lenses, one of them clearly pre-1939. Instead of trying the lenses out and applying your own concept of coverage to the images they produce, you ask total strangers. Somehow this doesn't seem the best way to proceed.

Save your small monetary units and when you've saved enough buy a modern plasmat type 135 or 150, and don't look back. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.

Of course, Dan! I expected that answer because it's the answer I would have given myself!

Note: The Ektar I had around for a long time. Can't remember why I bought it, but it was obviously not suited to my 5x7 uses. I know I got it cheap. The Skopar came with the camera, for $65.00 total including camera, lens, lensboard with solenoid, 6 filmholders and two cable releases. I looked at it and discounted it, because it was totally clouded. As a project this morning I unscrewed the elements and cleaned them, and alas! not a defect or cleaning mark can be seen now. It is mint! Apparently it had gotten wet and someone had dried the inside badly, and it was coated in dirt.

I will test and determine if I like it, but today I cannot. Hence the question: I was trying to get some info from the vast experience here.

A 150 or longer is what I would like. A Plasmat sounds great. I will keep your recommendation handy should I come accross one! Thanks for the input.

 

[Anscojohn]

The Skopar came with the camera, for $65.00 total including camera, lens, lensboard with solenoid, 6 filmholders and two cable releases.

You made out like a real bandit, methinks. The holders alone are probably worth about fifty bucks.

IIRC, the Skopar is an Agfa lens, of Tessar formula.

Anscojohn, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

 

[ragc]

The Skopar came with the camera, for $65.00 total including camera, lens, lensboard with solenoid, 6 filmholders and two cable releases.

You made out like a real bandit, methinks. The holders alone are probably worth about fifty bucks.

IIRC, the Skopar is an Agfa lens, of Tessar formula.

Anscojohn, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

John: Exactly my point... Dan recommended I save my pennies, but I didn't set out to buy the lens. The camera without lens or goodies was worth the money! Now, when checking out the filmholders (while loading film in my clean holders) I found them all loaded with film. The white flags were out, so it's probably unexposed, but who knows! It felt pretty dusty in the dark. The notches were few and square. Any ideas anyone?

 

[ricksplace]

I use my ektar 127/4.7 regularly on my pre-anny speed. My camera was a real-life press camera with "Times-Journal" inscribed on the wood inside the camera. The 127/4.7 Ektar was the lens used by the newsy. It gives good results and I often use it handheld (the rangefinder is set for the Ektar) with a bagmag like a rangefinder on steroids.

 

[Ole]

Since the Skopar is also a Tessar-clone, it will likely have a little bit more coverage. About 8mm - the difference in focal length.

The dial-set Compur shutters I have have all proved to be remarkably reliable. Besides - they're easy to fix; mostly it's the slow times running fast due to gunk under the slow speed escapement.

 

[k_jupiter]

IIRC, the Skopar is an Agfa lens, of Tessar formula.

Anscojohn, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

Did Agfa make lens for Voigtlander? I had always thought they had their own glasswerks.


tim in san jose

 

[Curt]

I think it depends on what you consider superior? The 127 is not known for coverage; Your other lens can be determined. The Ektars, according to written statements, are suppose to be superior lenses to what was placed by so called alternate manufactuers. I myself have a 135mm coated Optar in a perfect shutter that I love and will not sell; well at least not right now, ha. Regardless, and as attributable by many members around here buying vintage lenses, the superiority of a lens is in the eye of the beholder. Personally I think it's all about the picture and not the equipment.

I have a Graflex Optar f/4.7 135 in a Graphex Full Synchro shutter also. The lens is great and the shutter is one of the most reliable of the older shutters I have. You can tell by looking and feeling the shutter that it was built with some lasting precision. It's not noted or listed as a great lens but then it's true about the purpose intended. I am going to use mine on my Busch 23 and maybe my new Shen Hao. I have a bunch of Ektars also and they are really fine lenses.

 

[sharpnikkor]

Rafael,
What is the barrel lens in the photo to the left of the camera. An old Bausch and Lomb Tessar perhaps? Have you tried that on your Speed Graphic with the focal plane shutter?
Scott

 

[ragc]

That is a very large Kodak Anastigmat f4.5 8 1/2" 5x7 lens. As you can see I mounted it on a lensboard for the Speed Graphic, but still must figure out how to secure it because it doesn't have a jam nut, and it is very heavy! Suggestions are welcome!

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

I'm fond of the Kodak Anastigmats, especially cheap ones in barrel. I've a 7.5" one and it's fantastically sharp stopped down to f8 or beyond. A lens hood is a great thing to have.
I've a 135mm optar as well. It's surprisingly sharp. I use mine for macro shots with the bellows racked all the way out. Mine looks like it's been cleaned with steel wool, very scratched.
I've also since picked up a Yamasaki Congo 135mm lens in seiko shutter. It's coated, very nicely coated actually. Very sharp but the edges aren't as sharp as i'd like. I think it's a 1970s lens but it's definitely the most modern 4x5 lens I own.
I think that with 4x5 you can get away with a lens that isn't as perfect as you'd need on 35mm. The center part of the image on an old unmarked petzval from the early 1900s is as sharp as anything else I own.

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

Your 8.5" Anastigmat probably has the most coverage i'd guess.

 

[ragc]

Your 8.5" Anastigmat probably has the most coverage i'd guess.

No doubt. I want to use it with my 5x7s eventually, but I sprung the $65.00 for the Speed Graphic instead of a Packard shutter. It was a better deal!