| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Corbyfan
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 2
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:43 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I recently saw one of these lenses *******, but I don't know if it will cover 4X5. It does not say that it is a WF or anything, and so far I haven't found out anything else about it.
I am using a Speed Graphic, and mainly do landscape work, but I want something wider than the 127mm that is on it. I don't have the money for one of the really good Nikkor's or Schnieder's, and was wondering if this would be worth trying? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
troublemaker
Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Posts: 715
Location: So Cal
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 4:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The 101 Ektar is one of the standard lenses found on many 2x3 series Pacemakers and other medium format cameras. If I am correct it will not cover 4x5 and was never intended to, nor is the 127 as it was the primary mount on 3x4 cameras, but witout movement will cover 4x5 ok if stiopped down and being a good sharp lens it appears pressmen and others favored it even on the 4x5 cameras. I will try and get back later on some viable budget wide angles for ya, or maybe someone else will chime in... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45PSS
Joined: 28 Sep 2001
Posts: 4081
Location: Mid Peninsula, Ca.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
100mm Wide Field Ektar around $300, 90mm Super Angulon around $425, 90mm Angulon around $200, 90mm Optar around $150 are the ones I know of. Assumition is Goood Glass and functioning shuter.
_________________
The best camera ever made is the one that YOU enjoy using and produces the image quality that satifies YOU. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2146
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2006-01-27 18:43, Corbyfan wrote:
I recently saw one of these lenses *******, but I don't know if it will cover 4X5. It does not say that it is a WF or anything, and so far I haven't found out anything else about it.
I am using a Speed Graphic, and mainly do landscape work, but I want something wider than the 127mm that is on it. I don't have the money for one of the really good Nikkor's or Schnieder's, and was wondering if this would be worth trying?
|
Short answer, no. I like my 101/4.5 very much, but on 2x3 it is a tiny bit softer in the corners than in the middle. It absolutely positively won't cover 4x5.
There's a law of nature to the effect that there are no inexpensive wide angle lenses for formats larger than 6x6.
Save your pennies, look for a 100/6.3 Wide Field Ektar or a 90/8 Ilex Acugon. Acugons were also sold as Accuwides and as some flavor of Ilex Caltar. Or save fewer pennies and look for a 90/6.8 Angulon or Raptar/Optar. Neither is as good as a WF Ektar or Acugon, but many people have used them and survived. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djon
Joined: 05 Nov 2004
Posts: 174
Location: New Mexico
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The 90 Super Angulon is overkill on a Graflex, though makes sense with a Linhof... you might prefer a 120 Angulon: cheap, fairly wide and allows significant movement, Vs the 90 Angulon which doesn't.
There's also the 88mm Wollensak, which is IMO equal to the Angulon and may be in a better shutter...I had one, used it for food photography: not as sharp as my Nikons (surprise!..neither were Schneiders or Fujis) but it was good enough for demanding professional work.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Corbyfan
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 2
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks to alll of you who took the the time to reply to my question.
I have some good info to use now, thanks for the suggestions!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2146
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2006-01-28 08:00, djon wrote:
The 90 Super Angulon is overkill on a Graflex, though makes sense with a Linhof...
|
Arrrgh! NO lens that will fit and focus on a Graflex is too good for it. Why aim low?
Snarls aside, my crappy old 65/8 Acugon (?) is very much better than the crappier old 65/6.8 Raptar that it replaced. Les has commented that filling the corners with good image isn't always important, and of course he's right. But central sharpness is nice too -- there the Acugon beats the Raptar -- and sometimes one wants good image quality in the corners.
Cheers,
Dan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djon
Joined: 05 Nov 2004
Posts: 174
Location: New Mexico
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
fyi I wasn't saying SA is too good for a Graflex, I said it was overkill. Graflex doesn't have enough movement capability to take advantage of SA90 but can (as I recall) make good use of 120A, whereas 90A has little movement potential (as I recall).
By "Raptar" I think Dan was responding to my Wollensak suggestion. I've never seen a 65 Raptar, but my 88 was reasonably sharp, attractive. It did offer a little movement, probably same as Angulon.
Acugons do make sense, cheapwise: they were mainly sold to students, so take advantage: the seller may be quitting photography or desperate to go digital. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2146
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2006-01-28 19:09, djon wrote:
fyi I wasn't saying SA is too good for a Graflex, I said it was overkill. Graflex doesn't have enough movement capability to take advantage of SA90 but can (as I recall) make good use of 120A, whereas 90A has little movement potential (as I recall).
By "Raptar" I think Dan was responding to my Wollensak suggestion. I've never seen a 65 Raptar, but my 88 was reasonably sharp, attractive. It did offer a little movement, probably same as Angulon.
Acugons do make sense, cheapwise: they were mainly sold to students, so take advantage: the seller may be quitting photography or desperate to go digital.
|
Perhaps I went a bit far, but at least on 2x3 the difference between an ok wide angle like my former Raptar and a pretty good one like my Acugon is enormous. You're right that on a Graphic an SA's obvious advantage over the equivalent Angulon/Raptar/B&L -- more movements -- can't be used, but an SA is so much better than an A centrally and especially at the edges of the frame that given the choice and the budget I'd rather have one.
Don't despise Acugons. They were designed by Manny Kiner of Ilex and made in Rochester, but practically speaking the 47/8, 65/8, and 90/8 Acugons are equivalent to 47/8, 65/8, and 90/9 SAs. Same coverage, at least as sharp.
Cheers,
Dan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djon
Joined: 05 Nov 2004
Posts: 174
Location: New Mexico
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't despise Acugons, but I do recall published tests Vs SA. Of course, I also totally disbelieve published lens tests, so my recollection is self-cancelling 
My main thought about Acugons is that being known as student lenses keeps the price down. Further, if you can find a former photo student who owns one, he's probably selling it cheaply for digital or to get something with more snob appeal. I recall advertising art directors saluting my Nikon view camera lenses...they were good for flaunting...even non photogs know the names "Schneider" and "Nikon" but few know "Acugon" or "Raptar."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
