Rolleiflex-like lenses for Crown Graphic?

[trondsi]

I have a Crown Graphic with the original 135mm Optar lense. It is OK, but seems a bit soft to me.

I also have two Rolleiflex 6x6 cameras, one with a Tessar 75mm the other Xenotar 80mm. These are both very sharp lenses that I love.

If I want that "snappy" quality, and perhaps equivalent coverage for the Crown Graphic, which lense would you choose? Bonus points if it is not too expensive and can be folded inside the camera.

 

[Ian Grant]

The Optar is a Tessar type lens but it will be soft at the edges and corners on a 5x4 camera until you stop it down to f22, you'll see slight softness at f16. A 135mm Tessar (type) only just covers 5x4.

You'd be better with a 135mm or 150mm Symmar or Sironar, they are equivalent to the Xenotar and will fold up into a Crown Graphic. All 5x4 LF lenses though are best at f22.

Ian

 

[gone]

I assume your Graflex is 4x5? If so, what you're after doesn't exist. 35mm and MF lenses are not overly designed for sharpness like the smaller formats, they're usually a compromise between that and coverage. Then there's the long distance on a bellows camera between the lens and the film plane. This is why rangefinder cameras usually are sharper than SLR cameras. As you go up in format, you go down in "snap", but gain in detail.

All I can suggest is to buy a 127 Kodak Ektar lens as they are really sharp, or opt for a Heliar (won't be cheap). The Heliar is not hella sharp, but this lens design often gives a sense of "thereness", for lack of a better word, to your photos. More of a 3-D effect. Heliars and Summicrons are my favorite lens designs.

 

[trondsi]

Yes it is a 4x5 camera.

I looked up Symmar lenses and found that some are convertible (e.g. Linhof Symmar Convertible). Not sure exactly what that means. Are they any good?

 

[trondsi]

Oh, and will all of these fit on the same lense board? Thanks again folks!

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I'd recommend a 135/5,6 Fujinon-W lens. Terrific performer. I've used it on my Speed Graphic, and also with an adapter on my Rollieflex SL66 and it compared very favorably to the 150/4 Sonnar lens for the SL66. I own about 7-8 Rollieflex TLRs so am familiar with your expectation. It's quite compact too and not expensive.

 

[Ian Grant]

The converible Symmars are older they aren't that good split using just the rear cell, excellent for normal use, they are Copal #0 shutters so a common lens board, the OPtar maybe slightly different as US lens makers didn't use the common standard sizes.

The 127mm Ektar is a poor choice it's not up to modern standards, it's a Tessar type lens.

Ian

 

[Alan Gales]

I know that you are asking for a replacement for a 135mm lens but I thought I would let you know that the Rodenstock Geronar 210mm f/6.8 lens or the Caltar version will just fold up inside a Crown Graphic. Stopped down they are plenty sharp. They are modern multicoated lenses in Copal shutters. A 135 and 210 are a great combination and I've seen the 210's go for less than $100 on Ebay.

 

[shutterfinger]

If your 135 Optar is soft you may have a bad copy. Mine have always been sharp.
Schneider Symmar are listed as Convertible. A convertible lens is one that the front and rear groups can be used separately for a less sharp image but greater magnification or together for less magnification but greater sharpness. The Symmar S is not convertible. https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/index.htm
The 127 Ektar was optimized for color and 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 format. It will cover 4x5 with no movements and soft corners.

If you are buying new lens then manufacturer may have bearing. Used lens may or may not preform as well as they did from the factory so its buy, try, and sell if you don't like.

 

[trondsi]

My Optar is soft-ish I suppose. The sharpest images taken with it are actually quite sharp, but when I compare to the rollei images I see a difference. I also wonder if it is a bit less contrasty than the rollei lenses, and that can make the impact a bit different. Maybe I could try using more contrasty film (Velvia 50 here I come)

 

[trondsi]

How do I fit a German (say Linhof) lens on the Crown? Should I use a lens board from the lens manufacturer or a Crown Graphic lens board? Sorry for the basic questions here, but I have never changed LF lenses before.

 

[Ian Grant]

My Optar is soft-ish I suppose. The sharpest images taken with it are actually quite sharp, but when I compare to the rollei images I see a difference. I also wonder if it is a bit less contrasty than the rollei lenses, and that can make the impact a bit different. Maybe I could try using more contrasty film (Velvia 50 here I come)

The Tessar on your Rolleiflex is optimised for best sharpness at f8 - f11 it's also a standard lens, your Optar is optimised for best results at f22 it's also slightly wider than the more usual 150mm normal lens used on a 5x4 camera.

You have to work differently with LF cameras so it's like comparing apples to orages. I use a Crown Graphic or Super Graphic with a 135mm Caltar (rebadged Symmar-S) or a 150mm CZJ f'4.5 Tessar (T coated) ir 150mm f5.6 Xenar. I'm often working hand held but with HP5 I can use 1/25 sometines 1/250 at f22.

You maybe expecting too much from your Optar it's onlt a 135mm so needs very careful use to get then most from it. I had a 135mm Tessar and it was very sharp at f22 but the corners & edges started going very slighly soft at f16, noticeably at f11.

I'm frequently using front tilt to control sharpness through the image, that helps enormously. The results with my Tessars at f22 are equal to those fom my 135mm Caltar (symmar S) and 150mm Sironar even with 20x24 prints.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

How do I fit a German (say Linhof) lens on the Crown? Should I use a lens board from the lens manufacturer or a Crown Graphic lens board? Sorry for the basic questions here, but I have never changed LF lenses before.

New Pacemaker boards are really cheap from Heavystar on Ebay.

Linhof sold lenses from other manufacturers Zeiss in Wst Germany, Voigtlander and later selected lenses after testing from Schneider.

Ian

 

[shutterfinger]

How do I fit a German (say Linhof) lens on the Crown? Should I use a lens board from the lens manufacturer or a Crown Graphic lens board?

You have to remount the new to you lens/shutter onto a Pacemaker lens board. In addition to post #13 KEH Dead Link Removed or Pacific Rim Camera http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/ frequently have some on hand. Finding one with the right size mount hole may be time consuming. You can make one from black acrylic or birch plywood from a hobby store.

 

[Ian Grant]

You have to remount the new to you lens/shutter onto a Pacemaker lens board. In addition to post #13 KEH Dead Link Removed or Pacific Rim Camera http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/ frequently have some on hand. Finding one with the right size mount hole may be time consuming. You can make one from black acrylic or birch plywood from a hobby store.

The second hand boards sold in the US are usually more than the new ones from Heavystar, it's a bit of a no brainer - often the used boards aren't in good condition, have screw holes and need work before they can be used I buy buy 3 at a time as they are so inexpensive and also well made. I should add I have quite a few cameras & lenses using these boards.

Ian

 

[Jim Jones]

Trondsi, is the lack of sharpness with the Optar apparent only in the prints or in the negatives also? If in the prints, make sure the enlarging technique doesn't contribute to the lack of sharpness. If in the negatives, remember the 4x5 negatives (and any lack of sharpness) have to be enlarged only about 1/3 as much as the Rollei negatives for the same size prints.

 

[BrianShaw]

The "apparent" lack of sharpness.

There are many postings claiming the Optar to have a lack of sharpness yet many factors other than the make/model/age may be in play. I use two Optars of various vintages and notice lack of sharpness primarily related to technique rather than design. My experience with the Optar goes back to the 1990's. Pressmen used them quite successfully for quite some time before me. Granted, their application was different and had different criteria than we may have today.

Once I felt the need to experiment with a "better" lens and swapped the 135 Optar on a SuperGraphic with a 135 Symmar-S. Very easy swap - take one off and mount the other. The rangefinder was reasonably accurate too. But the only significant OBSERVABLE difference I could tell was a bit of contrast. It wasn't enough or significantly better to incentivize me to keep the Symmar on the Graphic and I went back to the Optar.

T... is this apparent lack of sharpness observed when shooting with the Optar on tripod and GG focus with a loupe, or in other situations like handheld, rangefinder focus? Using a lens shade/hood?

 

[Ian Grant]

The heyday of the 135mm Tessar and type lenses was between WWi & WWII with 9x12 plate cameras, when yo see contemporary prints (made at the time) most were never printed larger than about whole plate (8.5"x6.5") so quite small enlargements. Any slight softness whether from lack of DOF and/or use of wider apertures was less noticable.

Brian's comments above are mirroring what I've already said above, it really is about mastering an mentirely different mindset when shooting LF, you have to work quite differently compared to MF or 35mm, it's not difficult rather just a slight learning curve.

Ian

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Thinking back to the question of keeping the lens mounted when the camera is closed, with some of the lenses mentioned, it would work IF you reverse the lens board before closing (most of the examples in modern shutters will stick out too much if you leave the lens mounted in the user position). If you want to leave a lens on the camera when closed, you need to stick to some of those vintage optics in vintage shutters, like a Kodak Ektar 127mm, the Optar, or if you're going wide, a Schneider Angulon (not the Super Angulon). If you want some telephoto action, there's a Kodak Ektar 203mm f7.7 that will also fit nicely as it's a virtual pancake lens.

 

[Ian Grant]

There's no need to go looking for small lenses.

The 150mm f5.6 Sironar N and the 135mm f5.6 Symmar S or their Caltar equivalents definitely allow a Crown Graphic camera to be closed when the lens is fitted nornmally, as does a Linhof Carl Zeiss (West Germany) 150mm f4.5 Tessar which is a much larger lens in a Compur #1 shutter (it's larger than the East German CZJ 150mm f4.5 Tessar).

I use all 4 of those lenses on a Crown Graphic or Super Graphic, also a very nice 90mm f6.8 Angulon.

Ian

 

[Paul Howell]

I have the 135 optar and a Zeiss 135 4.5, neither are not really sharp until F 22, at F 22 of the examples I have the Zeiss gets the nob. Long ago, maybe in the 60s I was told that the optar was designed soft for wedding photographers, not sure of that as my lens came on a Navy Surplus Speed. I usually keep the Zeiss 135 on a crown body with the coupled rangefinder, on my other view cameras I use a Kodak 152 commercial ektar which at F22 is outstanding as my normal lens, but for landscapes a Nikon 210 is my lens of choice.

 

[btaylor]

I have Rollie tlr's and Graphics. They are all old. I get sharp pics from either of them if I am using them properly and they are adjusted correctly. I think there is a good possibility your Graphic may have a film plane/groundglass plane lack of agreement or the rangefinder could be out of adjustment if you are using that to focus. Changing lenses won't change anything if this is the case. There are many stories about fresnels improperly installed or missing putting the gg on a plane out of agreement with the film plane. The Graflex.org forum is a great place to get answers.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. OP, at what aperture(s) did your Optar give you negatives that you consider unsharp? Also, where in the image was sharpness less than you want?

I ask because of discussions about the relative merits of Wollensak's Optars and the equivalent Kodak Ektars on the usenet that used to be. Richard Knoppow, who knows whereof he speaks, said many times that whoever computed the tessar type f/4.5 Raptars (possibly identical to earlier Velostigmat Ser. II) made a bad mistake whose consequence was that the lenses suffered from worse coma, an off-axis aberration, than the equivalent Ektars. He said, again many times, that an Optars' far off axis image quality matched that of the equivalent Ektar open two stops wider.

All this assumes that y'r Optar was made by Wollensak. Late 4x5 Graphics were offered with 135/4.5 tessar type lenses badged Optar but made by Rodenstock. Is y'r Optar engraved Made in Germany or Rochester?

 

[trondsi]

Thanks everyone!
Hmm, not sure what to say to all of this. I don't think the ground glass is in the wrong position, since I checked this previousy. I have some pretty sharp photos taken with both ground glass focusing (it is true that I forgot the loupe on the last trip) and with the rangefinder. The softness is in the negatives and positives. A bit less visible in prints. So it is true that the larger format helps for sure. It is quite possible that I am being very picky here, apart from a number of photos in which something clearly went wrong. My tripod is a bit flimsy, so maybe that's a factor. But I do think that the Rollei lenses are extraordinarily sharp (they beat my Minolta camera as well), so it would be fun to try something similar on the Crown, if possible.

 

[Alan Gales]

But I do think that the Rollei lenses are extraordinarily sharp (they beat my Minolta camera as well), so it would be fun to try something similar on the Crown, if possible.

If you want extraordinarily sharp then look at the Rodenstock Sironar S series. Many consider them to be among if not the sharpest lenses for 4x5 large format. They also have plenty of coverage for 4x5 and way more than you can use on a Crown.

On the downside, they are expensive and will not fold up into your camera.