Wollensak Raptar 135 - What a nice surprise!

[Scott Edwards]

Last year I purchased a Busch Pressman off Ebay and it came with a Wollensak Raptar 135 f4.7 lens that looked scuffed and nasty. The slow shutter speeds were off and I just removed it and put it aside in favor of my Rodenstock 150 Sironar S. I have also shot my Schneider Super Angulon 90 f8 on this camera as well. This is the camera that I recently took with me on my walk to the Grand Canyon this summer. Love it, and of course the Sironar S is a spectacular lens and the only one I took with me. After having developed all of the negatives from that trip, I decided to give the Raptar a try.
I developed the negatives from the Raptar yesterday and they are quite astounding! Using an 8x loupe for a very close look, the negatives from this lens are as sharp as those from my Sironar S!!! AND exhibit great contrast and bokeh also.
All this from glass with a dodgy reputation that is beat up and marred with cleaning marks.

I just had to share.

 

[Alex Hawley]

When I bought my first LF kit a few years ago, it came with a 135 Raptar, probably close in appearance to the one you describe. I've taken some of my best photos with it. The cable release has never worked on it, so I have to trip the shutter with my finger. Big deal. Haven't lost a neg to a jittery finger yet.

It also works quite well for 1:1 macro shots. In fact, its my favorite for that.

 

[glennfromwy]

Wollensak lenses as a whole are largely under rated. Not that it matters much now, as they're pretty much forgotten or even unknown. I love the old Rapid Rectilinears they made. I use a couple of Enlarging Raptars and Velostigmats. I have a Busch Pressman 2X3 camera with a 103 Raptar that is very good.

 

[Russ Young]

Much like you, my first Speed Graphic (a pre-war model bought in 1975 or so) came with the same Raptar. Since I couldn't afford a new lens AND film, it was the only lens I had for about three years. After saving for a year, I bought a new, modern lens to replace it - and was severely disappointed. Took it back for a refund.

You're really dead-on about the bokeh- it was marvellous.

Deeply regret having parted with it. Maybe I need to go looking on fleaBay for another one...

Russ

 

[cperez]

If you shoot the Raptar wide open you might get some interesting effects in the out of focus areas or toward the edges of the field of view.

Similarly, this weekend I shot an ancient uncoated 15cm Heliar against several modern lenses. Surprise! The old beast is just wonderful.

Other than coverage, what are we buying modern lenses for?

 

[Paul Howell]

I have several Wollensaks, the 135, a 77, and a 210. All of my lenses work well with black and white, razor sharp, but the newer lenses are much better with color. I also have a very old Zeiss uncoated 135 that I had coated for less than $50 at a local optical shop (makes glasses on site), UV glare and antireflection, much improved with black and white, I have not shot any color. I also use the enlarging raptors, the 50, (which I just replaced with a 60mm) the 135 and 162, all very good lens.

 

[Ole]

... Similarly, this weekend I shot an ancient uncoated 15cm Heliar against several modern lenses. Surprise! The old beast is just wonderful.

Other than coverage, what are we buying modern lenses for?

Have you checked the coverage of that ancient uncoated 15cm Heliar too? I did, and discovered that only the last few mm in the corners of a 13x18cm negative are noticably soft. That's enough coverage for me in most cases.

If I should need more, there's always the newer 165mm f:6.8 Angulon (to 18x24cm), or the even more ancient Busch WA Aplanat Ser. C No.2 - 150mm, covers 24x30cm.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Chris, I'm an enthusiast of old or at any rate inexpensive but ok lenses, but I think I understand why others strongly recommend modern. Coverage. Better flare control. Modern/newer shutters. Better, sometimes, image quality centrally. Not all of my old lenses are that sharp. But then, neither are some of my newer ones.

Paul, I have some relatively old uncoated lenses. 1911-2 CZJ 150/6.3 Tessar and 1946 101/4.5 Ektar, for example. Also some slightly newer coated lenses. 47/5.6 SA, 65/8 Ilex, 80/6.3 WA Ektar, 4"/2.0 Taylor Hobson, 135/5.6 Symmar ("convertible"), 160/5.6 Pro Raptar, and more. They've all produced sharp contrasty color transparencies for me, even shooting against the light.

I believe that people mistakenly blame old lenses, not old shutters that run slow, for over-exposed color shots. I sometimes overexpose images taken with my 101/4.5 Ektar against my better judgement and then I consistently get the classic faded "old lens" look. Can't blame that on the lens.

I have a few old clunkers that take nice saturated trannies but that just aren't as sharp as my better lenses. A couple of Aldis Unos, for example. And I have an uncoated nameless, except for Doppel-Anastigmat, Goerz dialyte that's just lousy. Its flary and unsharp. But uncoated dialytes don't have to be horrible; my 1940 203/7.7 Kodak Anastigmat (no mention of Ektar, thank you) is better than good enough.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[Ole]

My 1910 photography books claim the dialytes are capable of being the sharpest of all anasigmats, but warns about low contrast from flare. Guess what: It's absolutely correct! I happen to have two 135/4.5 Rodenstock Eurynar of about the same vintage (1930), one uncoated, one coated. The difference in contrast is dramatic, the difference in sharpness not. They are both very, very sharp. I have compared with the legendary Zeiss Planar 135/3.5, and I can't tell which is sharper.

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

I've a similar lens that I use for 1:1 macro, a 135 Graflex Optar. Possibly the same lens and just rebadged? It looks like it has been cleaned with steel wool. And for some reason it's still nice and sharp. Contrast suffers a bit though it still surprises me now and then.

I recently picked up a Petzval. Built some waterhouse stops. With a stop inserted, it's just as sharp as anything else that I have.

 

[MenacingTourist]

...I recently picked up a Petzval. Built some waterhouse stops...

Phillip,
I would love to hear how you built your waterhouse stops and how they're working out. I have an E. Sutter Basel Aplanat B No.6 (16x13) that came with one stop with the number 4 on it. I'd like to make more to fully use this lens.

Alan.

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

Black phenolic plastic and a drill bit
I removed the elements, placed the plastic inside the slot and marked the inside diameter.. Then I just eyed the center and drilled. I even used a handheld drill. Not very accurate, but it works for me! As far as the f-stop goes, I don't even know the focal length of my lens.

I also used these wood drill bits, sorry for my lack of knowledge in this area. They bore out a hole 1" in diameter.. shaped like --v-- on the bottom.
I used some fine-grit sandpaper to smooth out the hole.

The black phenolic plastic that I used was obtained from my work. We use them to sort picture packages by name, like dividers.

 

[Ole]

Phillip,
I would love to hear how you built your waterhouse stops and how they're working out. I have an E. Sutter Basel Aplanat B No.6 (16x13) that came with one stop with the number 4 on it. I'd like to make more to fully use this lens.

Alan, I have that same lens but with iris aperture. The Suter (not "Sutter", I hope) Aplanat B No.6 is a 480mm F:8 lens. Great lens, very sharp too. One of the best Aplanats.

 

[MenacingTourist]

Thanks Phillip.
I guess the question now is how does one figure out the f/stops? I wonder if it's relative in that if I have the f/4 insert I can figure out the rest... This may involve more math than is safe for someone like me

 

[Eric Rose]

just goes to show people shouldn't get all bent when it comes to MTF charts and all that geekie stuff. Just get out and shot. Old or new, it doesn't matter for the most part. Just get a good sun shade.

 

[Ole]

Alan, I could take some measurements for you...

BTW, the one you have is certainly not f:4 - it's an f:8 lens. It could be 4 stops down from f:8, making it f:32. Is the hole about 15mm across?

 

[MenacingTourist]

Ole,
Yes it is a Suter rather than Sutter
Have you used yours? I'm guessing the insert labeled "4" is f/8. Do you know any other characteristics of this lens? Is it sharp all over or just the center? I finally have a camera worthy of such a beast. At least the lens board will be big enough.

Alan.

 

[MenacingTourist]

Alan, I could take some measurements for you...

BTW, the one you have is certainly not f:4 - it's an f:8 lens. It could be 4 stops down from f:8, making it f:32. Is the hole about 15mm across?

The hole is about 56mm. Basically wide open. Maybe this stop isn't from this lens but still fits.

I'll post some pics of the items in question.

 

[Ole]

It's an f:9 stop then - Stolze no. 4. That fits. Stolze no. 1 was F/SQRT(10), or f:3.16. It then doubles for each step.

I know that most German manufacturers (except Zeiss, who used Rudolph's system) used Stolze at one time; I didn't know that the Swiss used it too!

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

I've attached some results.. These were taken with a 4x5 speed graphic.
I used graflex rh10 6x7 back, developed them at the lab and scanned them in using the noritsu film scanner.. Sorry if i've hijacked this thread

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

The first one is the petzval with no stop.
Second one is with the f8 (roughly) stop.
Third is the 7.5" uncoated Kodak Anastigmat (nice lens!)
Fourth is the Aero Ektar wide open.
Fifth is a jml process lens (astro-goodkin)..

 

[MenacingTourist]

Ohhhh...I like number 4.

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

Gotta work on the content, I know