Wollensak Raptar

[Nikanon]

i need a Wollensak Raptar lens, probably about 150 mm at least so i can print 4x5 negatives on my omega D2, are all wollensak raptars the same screw mount size? will i need a special lensboard for it? Mostly, where can i buy the lens i need other than ebay?

 

[Ralph Javins]

Good morning, Nikanon;

Let me give a guy a call. I know he had one, and he was trying to sell it. Let me see if he still has it. He was getting discouraged at not having any nibbles on it.

 

[Nikanon]

That'd be fantastic if it's the right one

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

i need a Wollensak Raptar lens, probably about 150 mm at least so i can print 4x5 negatives on my omega D2

Any special reason for wanting a Raptar? And I take it you are looking for an "Enlarging Raptar". They also made a "Pro" series.

I think the standard focal lengths were 135mm and 162mm.

Not generally regarded as a very good lens - sample-to-sample variation is rather great with Raptars, so test or get return privileges.

 

[Nikanon]

Not knowing much about enlarging raptars im trying to get one that wont give me abberations or falloff (i ususally use them at the smallest f-stop anyway so thats not much of a problem) i saw the 162mm online at places and it seemed in great condition and should be ok for darkroom work

 

[Mike1234]

Are you trying to save money? If so, a Raptar should do just fine. Just don't pay too much for one. If money isn't an issue you're better off with a Nikkor or Rodenstock.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Not knowing much about enlarging raptars im trying to get one that wont give me abberations or falloff (i ususally use them at the smallest f-stop anyway so thats not much of a problem)

Unless you have some compelling reason, a Raptar should not be your first choice in an enlarging lens. You can find Rodenstock Rodagons, El-Nikkors and Schneider Componons selling for very little money - any of these lenses will serve you for a lifetime and supply you with performance that leaves nothing to be desired.

You should never use an enlarging lens at the smallest f-stop unless there are extenuating circumstances. Stop down 2 stops, 3 at the most.

 

[BradS]

I have a 162mm f/4.5 Enlarging Raptar...I don't use it much but, it is a very nice lens. Obviously, there is no comparison between it and the more modern offerings from Nikon, Schneider and Rodenstock...in fact, there's nothing quite like it. I had trouble finding a decent one. The first one looked like somebody had played Ice Hockey on the front element and the second had something growing in it. The third is pretty good. Always looking for a better one though! I didn't pay more than $10 for any one of them but...had to buy three to get a decent one...so, they aren't really cheap either.

I agree with the other posters. I would not recommend this as your only or first enlarger lens....if you need cheap, there are much better alternatives...look for a 135mm Rodenstock Omegaron (which I think is the same lens as the Rodenstock Rogonar-S).

 

[Wade D]

I use an old 135mm Tominon lens on my Beseler 45m. It's in a Polaroid MP4 shutter which is not needed so I just set it to open. They were used on copy cameras and have a nice flat field for enlarging. Not the greatest but for 5 bucks well worth it.

 

[Ralph Javins]

Good morning, Nikanon;

Well, after a nice trip to Eastern Oregon for the SolWest Renewable Energy Fair (solar, wind, mini-hydro, bio-diesel, electric vehicles, and other things, www.solwest.org ), I am back at home with only a couple of glitches. The 2002 Subaru idler pulley bearing died and we lost the serpentine belt. Needed to be carried only 30 miles further to arrive back at home. Bought the parts yesterday, and the car is back in operation.

Bruce did call me back while I was gone, and he does have at least a 135 mm Wollensak Raptar. I admit that I did ask only about 135 mm or 150 mm. I will add 162 mm to the list. I will be down there this coming Friday morning to check with him.

There is also another shop I need to stop by. He is holding a pair of EL-Nikkors for me; 50 mm and 80 mm.

 

[Larry Bullis]

I've used lots of enlarging raptars, and they've generally been pretty good. I just lost a 75 or 80mm which I used regularly due to element separation. It worked great for a long time.

I am curious, though. Is there some reason why you need a raptar, in particular, instead of the many other lenses out there?

 

[Ralph Javins]

Good morning, Nikanon;

You did ask about the mounting for the Wollensak 135 mm, 150 mm (?), and 162 mm lenses. I do have two of those; the 135 mm f/4.5, and the 162 mm f/4.5.

In measuring my 135 mm Wollensak Enlarging Raptar, the mounting threads are 40.5 mm in diameter. I am not yet sure about the thread pitch, but it is close to 0.75 mm.

In looking at the 162 mm Wollensak Enlarging Anastigmat, the mounting threads are 50.7 mm in diameter. The thread pitch again seems to be about 0.75 mm. The interesting thing is the diameter, which is right at a nominal 2 inches in diameter.

That diameter makes me think that these mounts may be American threads, and not metric. At least the 2 inch one looks like it. The 40.5 mm for the smaller 135 mm lens is just about 1 and 19/32 inch for its equivalent American fractional inch mounting diameter, which is an unusual size even for us. It might be possible that it is intended to be a loose fit in a 1 and 5/8 inch diameter hole with a threaded ring to hold it in place from the other side of the mounting hole.

Perhaps someone with more experience can advise us of the mounts for Wollensak enlarging lenses.

 

[Larry Bullis]

Hi Ralph,

Given that these are rather old lenses made in Rochester -- before America even really heard there was a metric system, I suspect you are right about the threads. It also seems likely that if made today, they'd still be American threads, since now that we know about the metric system, we continue to ignore it. I asked a friend of mine who's a (now retired) physicist from NASA JPL about that. He informed me that they continue to use inches, etc. even up till then, which was about 6 years ago. I doubt it's changed. Maybe there's hope though. More lenses have adopted the LSM thread.

 

[Lee L]

The Leica screw mount is only half metric. The thread diameter is 39mm, but the thread pitch is 26 threads per inch. I've read that this was used because it was a common microscope thread pitch, which E. Leitz made before cameras.

Lee

 

[Larry Bullis]

I bet keeping competitors parts from working had something to do with it.

 

[nworth]

The Raptars that came with Omega enlargers were not bad lenses. The modern Rodagons and Componons and the EL-Nikkors may be a shade better. I don't know about the threads on the old Omegas, but I know that lens boards are available for them that accept the Leica threads that are more or less standard on modern enlarging lenses. Rather than specify the old lens, try shopping a bit.

 

[Ralph Javins]

Good morning, Nikanon;

Well, I was not able to find a Wollensak 150 mm enlarging lens, but there are Wollensak 135 mm f:4.5 Enlarging Raptars and Wollensak 162mm f:4.5 Enlarging Velostigmats. My calling the 162mm "Anastigmat" is an error.

What would you like?

If you still need one, contact me using the Private Message (PM) option and provide a mailing address.

 

[holmburgers]

(thread resurrection) LIVE!

I've got an Enlarging Raptar, 135mm f/4.5. Indeed, it uses a 40.5mm thread and I'm curious about getting a jam nut and/or lens board.

Anyone got a tip?

It might be cheaper to just buy another lens, but I'd like to explore this option first.

If a hardware store would having anything that would act as a jam nut, I'd take it and just make a lens board myself.

 

[Rick A]

I have a Wollensak 135/4.5 enlarging Raptar Anastigmat that is 39mm LTM. I like it for my 4x5, gave a Schneider Componon 150mm away that I didn't like as much. I have other Wollys that I prefer as well, especially a 90/4.5 that was designed to cover 6x9cm negatives. I actually have two of those, one came with a LTM adapter, and another that is new in the box unused.

 

[holmburgers]

See, that's what I thought. And so I ordered 39mm retaining rings and a 39mm lens board, but the lens won't fit in either accessory and so I popped out my calipers and sure enough, it's about 40.5mm in diamater.

 

[Rick A]

Have you tried looking up the lens in question on Camera Eccentric. They have a very good set of catalogues from nearly every lens maker.

 

[Ian C]

See this thread for a possible explanation.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[holmburgers]

Thanks guys, I checked both resources and none has specific information regarding my lens, though that thread perhaps gives the thread size (aptly enough).

 

[Ian C]

From my experience and those of others I can state that buying an old lens without the correct mounting flange or retaining ring is risky, as the required parts might be difficult or impossible to find 50 or more years after the lens was made.

Threading standards have changed and old sizes haven’t been made in many years.

While it’s possible for a custom machine shop, like S.K.Grimes, to fabricate a mounting flange, it’s not practical in most cases. A custom flange would likely cost $160 and take 4 months before it’s delivered.

That can be the case for a relatively modern lens too. For example, the original 240/5.6 and 300/5.6 EL Nikkors require 82 mm x 1.0mm and 100 mm x 1.0 mm mounting flanges respectively. Those are not regularly stocked sizes at S.K.Grimes or anywhere else so far as I know.

I’ll repeat the warning I gave in the Elgleet lens thread: Given the scarcity of flanges in these older, unusual sizes, it’s advisable to buy a lens if, and only if, the proper flange or retaining ring is included.

 

[holmburgers]

I agree, and the only reason I want to use this lens is because I was given it.

But, if I can take it into a hardware store and find some nut that will fit, no matter how ghetto it looks, it'll be worth making a lens board.

If not however, what are some cheap but good 4x5" enlarging lens?