Smallest modern 135mm lens

2F/2F · Sep 15, 2008

Do you need movements? Have you considered the common 135s and 127s that came on Graflexes for many years? They are nice and small and light, and very "thin". They are also cheaper than dirt. I imagine with how long they were made, that there were some that were sufficiently coated. I do not know whether it is coated or not, but I do know that my 1954 Ektar 127mm has taken beautiful and contrasty color prints. The drawback, of course, is no movements (unless you focus on something quite close).

Ian Grant · Sep 15, 2008

The camera has no movements, the 1932 Tessar taht came with my Graphic fits, but is not sharp enough and also uncoated. The later Jena Tessars changed to aluminium alloy mounts and are slightly higher, although the elements are the same.

2f/2f - an Ektarmay be fine, and they are coated by the 50's "ricksplace" suggested an Ektar but didn't respond when I asked about coverage. However Ole is saying I must use a 135mm lens give or take 2mm. He obviously know something I won't until my camras arrive

Ian

Besk · Sep 15, 2008

I have two Patent Etui's, one with a 135 lens and the other a 150mm lens. They both look original manufacture. Also have an 127 Ektar and a newer 135/4.7 Xenar. I will get back with the measurements as soon as I can locate
them(!)

From what I have read over the years Patent Etui's varied a good bit in terms of lenses etc.

And mine have front (vertical) rise.

2F/2F · Sep 15, 2008

Ian,

According to the Graflex fan site, the Ektar I have was originally supposed to be a lens with some movements on a 3x4 camera. It covers 4x5, and was perhaps the most common lens on 4x5 Speeds and Crowns, but does not allow movements on these 45 models. I have printed 20x24 color from a pic taken at f/5.6 and the corners are just fine. I have used the lens with movements in close-up shots. At any rate, if you frame it a tad loosely, maybe an extra 3-4 mm on all sides, any vignetting or softness that might be there will go away when you print (although I can't say I have ever noticed any). Personally, I love my Ektar, and have found it as sharp as anything else in practice. It also has pretty sweet out of focus areas when shot wide open.

If you would like, I can rig it to my 8x10 Grover, focus on the water tower across the valley, and post a pic of the ground glass at different f/stops so you can see the coverage with your own eyes.

Ole · Sep 15, 2008

The problem with using a 127mm lens on a Patent Etui set up for a 135mm lens isn't coverage, it's infinity focus. The camera extends, but it doesn't compress. Eight mm is too much to shim; staying within +- 2mm from the original lens makes everything a whole lot easier!

2F/2F · Sep 15, 2008

Ole,

All my comments re: the Ektar 127 are just to share my thoughts on the lens. The similar 135 (was it called the Optar?) was also a common press camera lens of similar size that you see on Speeds all the time, and often separately. I was thinking that Ian should see about one of these instead of the Ektar.

Besk · Sep 15, 2008

I checked my Etui's. The 15cm lens in the best one is a Tessar lens in a Compur Rim-set shutter. It stands proud of the face plate about 22.5mm. This is definitely a factory issued camera with the proper distance scale and is almost mint in appearance with case.

I couldn't open the other one with the 135mm lens. That will be a future project I guess. (I will make someone a good deal on both of the cameras BTW.)

The 127mm Ektar lens stands proud about 19mm.

And a 1960's Xenar 135/4.7 stands proud about 24.5mm by my measurement. Since the filter threads are slightly over 2mm in depth that Xenar may be an excellent bet with some of them removed. In addition, the lens design, being similar, probably has a very similar flange to back focal distance at infinity.

ricksplace · Sep 16, 2008

Hi Ian. Sorry I didn't answer earlier. As others have said, the 127/4.7 Ektar gives full coverage right to the corners (without movements). I often use my Pre-Anny Speed as a handheld rangefinder in 4X5 with this lens. IMHO, the Ektar 127/4.7 is an excellent lens, highly underrated and very cheaply priced.

bnstein · Sep 16, 2008

Ian Grant said:
...but I know the same camera was also fitted with the rim-set Compur, the shutter is similar in size & cell spacing to late Compur 1 or a modern Copal 1.

Ian

Ian I have the etui with rim set compur / tessar 4.5/135mm. I'm happy to take some measurements for you if it will help, and also to see if the 135 xenar (60s version will fit) if you would like.

ps That shutter looks bigger than a copal 1 to my memory

JPD · Sep 17, 2008

How about the Eurynar, if you get it coated? Or have the first two Tessar elements coated?

Ian Grant · Sep 17, 2008

JPD said:
How about the Eurynar, if you get it coated? Or have the first two Tessar elements coated?

That had crossed my mind, particularly now I've found I can get it coated at a very reasonable price. I'll test it first and if it's sharp enough I'll swap it over & get it coated. Not sure yet if the 1927 Tessar & Eurynar cells will swap directly or whether I'll have to swap the rim-set Compur's too.

I'm not a big fan of pre-WWII uncoated Tessar's I had a 135mm on my Crown Graphic and the edge/corner sharpness isn't that good until stopped down well past f11. Interestingly I found a comment that the Docter Optics Tessar's optimum aperture is f22, that was from the company themselves. That matches my own observations (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

Ian

Ian Grant · Sep 17, 2008

bnstein said:
Ian I have the etui with rim set compur / tessar 4.5/135mm. I'm happy to take some measurements for you if it will help, and also to see if the 135 xenar (60s version will fit) if you would like.

ps That shutter looks bigger than a copal 1 to my memory

Thanks, one Etui I've bought has the same Tessar/shutter as yours, the other has no lens or shutter. I know that after 1931 they were fitted with the rim-set Compur & 135mm or 150 mm Tessars.

You'd have to switch the shutters over to see if the 60's Xenar fits inside the case (Etui in German), I'm not going to make a decision now until I return to the UK, see the post above about the Eurynar. I can try my Compur & 60's 150mm Tessar Cells which are the same size as a Xenar on the lens-less camera. Thanks for your offer.

The Copal 1 is slightly larger all-round than an equivalent rim-set Compur 1, about 0.4mm taller and 0.5mm greater diameter.

Ian

jimgalli · Sep 18, 2008

The wee-est 135mm is the Schneider Repro Claron 135 f8. It is in a Compur 00 shutter. It would be challenged to reach the corners but it sure is a cute little devil. The Tominon 127 f4.7 polaroid lens is a pancake too, and cheap.

acroell · Sep 20, 2008

Zeiss Jena in the GDR made a coated f/6.3 135mm Tessar in the 1950's, an improved design from 1947. The coverage is larger than the f/4.5 version (70° instead of 55° according to Zeiss Jena), so its pretty close to a Plasmat like the Sironar-N in coverage. 300 were made in Compur 0 according to the production numbers plus an unknown number of barrel versions. The barrel version I have has a 30.5mm filter thread and is 27.1mm long, the Compur version has a 35.5mm filter thread and is 30mm long.

Ian Grant · Sep 20, 2008

So I need to find one of only 300 made Well I guess that's fractionally easier than finding Rocking Horse dung

I have a set of 1960/61 coated Zeiss Jena f4.5 150mm cells and they are excellent compared to the pre-War Tessars, but not destined for either Patent Etui, they now live on a Crown Graphic. I'd be very interested in a 50's or 60's coated f6.3 or f4.5 135mm Zeiss Jena Tessar in a shutter.

Ian

bnstein · Sep 21, 2008

I have tried the fit of a 60s 135/4.7 xenar in a synchro-compur size 0 my patent etui (normally lives with a 135/4.5 tessar in rim set compur). With some encouragement it will snap shut (if you were brave hiving 1mm off the filter threads would make it easy). You will need some sort jigging as the jamb nut for my synchro-compur is far from generous in width and will not cover the size 1 hole.
good luck

Ian Grant · Sep 21, 2008

Thanks for that, it's what I roughly assumed from the Schneider data on the two websites. I've yet to see the cameras, I'm a continent away until 10 days time.

Ian

ReallyBigCameras · Sep 21, 2008

It's not exactly modern (circa 1954), and I'm not sure if it will meet your other requirements, but 135mm f6.3 Meopta Largor is an extremely compact 135mm lens capable of covering 5x7 (13x18cm) with movements. It is single coated. It came in a Prontor size 0 shutter and the front to rear thickness of the lens in the shutter is 24.5mm. It doesn't have any front filter threads. So, you'll need a slip on filter adapter.

I have only shot mine at f16 - f32, where the performance is quite good. So, I can't comment on it's performance at wider stops.

This lens shows up on eBay occasionally and usually sells for about $100 - $150 (although I saw one recently top $150). It is a 4/4 wide field Gauss design. Think of it as the Post WWII Communist block answer to the 136mm Kodak Wide Field Ektar - only in a smaller shutter than has the modern speed progression (1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc.). The Prontor shutter has the same thread dimensions as the other standard No. 0 shutters (Compur, Copal, etc.). So, you can easily swap the cells into a more modern shutter. I didn't find that necessary as the Prontor shutter mine came in works just fine.

Kerry Thalmann
Reallly Big Cameras

Ian Grant · Sep 21, 2008

Thanks Kerry, I've seen a reference to the Largor before, so knew it would fit, but I've not seen one in the flesh or on Ebay yet so assumed they were quite rare but I'll look more regularly now.

Somewhere at home, in the UK, I have book I think called "Miniature Photography", (meaning 120 & 35mm photography) and it lists various late 40's camera's and Meopta were quite an active camera manufacturer, making both 35mm & 120 models. Unfortunately nothing larger is listed. The Czechs are good at precision engineering etc, the Meopta enlargers were solidly made. Usually there a few Meopta Flexaret TLR's on ebay, but mostly being sold.

I want to fit a decent lens on one of my Patent Etui's to use as a fun LF camera that I can carry around easily, in a pocket, but one also capable of making usable reasonably high quality images at a push. As I'm mainly going to be shooting hand-held I need something a little better than the pre-War Tessar's so performance at f11 is important. Shooting in Turkey often a tripod is not allowed where I'm shooting, but then light levels are rarely poor either, but the pre-War Tessar's aren't quite sharp enough. People say that the pre-WWII quality control wasn't tight enough and some Tessars are far better than others, but it's not possible to try these old lenses before you buy, and more importantly they aren't coated.

There's wonderful irony in you replying Kerry "Really Big Cameras" is the exact opposite of the wonderful little Patent Eturi's, the 9x12cm must be the smallest LF camera ever made

Ian

Besk · Sep 21, 2008

They couldn't get any smallerthan the Etui unless you eliminated the case! An ingenious design.

On the other hand my Voigtlander Vag is not much larger, weighs about the same and has front rise and shift. When I complete modifying it it will accept multiple lenses (a 90 Angulon and a 150/6.3 Fuji or Fuji 180/9.)

Next project: new lightweight aluminum and plastic, double-sided film holders.

Struan Gray · Sep 22, 2008

If you can live with an older single-coated lens, and you have access to the UK market, it shouldn't be too hard to turn up a Wray 135 Lustrar in a Kershaw shutter. Small, light and very cheap.

dhosten · Nov 16, 2010

Regurgitating thread

I'm in the same boat as the original poster, but am looking for smallest WA and Portrait lenses for the 9x12 format; I have a couple Voigtlander Avus' instead of the Patent Enuis.
Options for WA; 90/6.8 Angulon, 88mm B&L, any others? Single coating preferred.
Options for portrait; 203 Ektar, any others in the 190-220mm range?
For me the main issue is also size, and my preference is for single coating, but all options are on the table.
David

Ian Grant · Nov 17, 2010

David, I still haven't found a solution for a standard lens. The 90mm Angulon is a good option if you find a good one.

I need to see what lenses & shutters KW used after the introduction of the rimset Compur, the 135mm & 150mm Tessar's were redesigned at that point and don't fit the Patent Etui.

Ian

Besk · Nov 17, 2010

I have owned two Patent Etui's so I know your problem. One even had a 150mm lens installed by the factory.

Another option is to have the two single elements of the Tessar coated by someone. Van Stelton in the States can do it. Should increase contrast a good
bit if that is your goal.

dhosten · Nov 17, 2010

Bob Eskridge said:
I have owned two Patent Etui's so I know your problem. One even had a 150mm lens installed by the factory.

Another option is to have the two single elements of the Tessar coated by someone. Van Stelton in the States can do it. Should increase contrast a good
bit if that is your goal.

Any idea if anyone else does lens (re)coating? ..those guys are reputable but expensive for old lenses, like what I have.

Smallest modern 135mm lens

2F/2F

Ian Grant

Besk

2F/2F

Ole

Moderator

2F/2F

Besk

ricksplace

bnstein

JPD

Ian Grant

Ian Grant

jimgalli

acroell

Ian Grant

bnstein

Ian Grant

ReallyBigCameras

Advertiser

Ian Grant

Besk

Struan Gray

dhosten

Ian Grant

Besk

dhosten

Smallest modern 135mm lens

Moderator

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency