Graflex.org

[troublemaker]

I shot some lens test yesterday on some of the items I have mentioned recently.
These were shot at long distance to check for fine detail resolution for my own purposes for big landscapes as opposed to closer in product, portrait or still life, which I will do as time allows.
2x3 lenses:

Mamiya Sekor 65mm 3.5 ~ nice except for an abundance of cleaning scratches on front. Lens did not perform as well as expected. Front element may be the issue, but muddy contrast even if a littel sharper than, pretty flary.

Wolly Raptar 65mm 6.8~ very contrasty but sharpness is an issue with these. Resolving power limits enlargement of med format negs. Expect finished results similar to enlarging 35mm negs. Useable but limited. Much better performance than Mimiya even if not quite as sharp (I have used this lens extensively in the Sierra with good results with color and B&W within its limtis.

Rodenstock Heligon 80mm 2.8~ Good resolving power at distance, contrasty and expect reasonable enlargement capability as compared the smaler 65's, and still pretty wide, esspeciialy in the verticle

Rodenstock Graflar 101mm 4.5~ Very nice results for an entry level lens. Resolving power equal or better than Heligon if not taking into account magnification and still pretty wide for 2x3. Very useable lens for reasonably sharp work. Superior to the wollly triplet Graftar.

These were all done at f16 and 22 using support, cable release and same film back, body and so on as I use in the field to offer real results at common apertures I use for landscape. I made one f32 with mamiya which did not help.

4x5 lenses:

Raptar 210mm 4.5~ As expected, a little soft, but not so much as the Tele-Raptars of equivalent focal lenth. Excellent contrast and provided nice image wide open also. But certainly not as sharp as

Ektar 203 7.7~

Very good resolution, good detail at distance with a good conrast. Good enlarging capability.

Optar 203 7.7~

Also very good sharpness. Perhaps only slightly less than the Ektar, but still superior to the Teles and very nice contrast like the Ektar. Very useable lens for fine detail.

Ilex 7-1/2" Paragon~

Softest lens tested. No where near the resolving power of the above listed lenses, and rate about the same as 8" Tele-Raptar. A very useable lens, but limited. A little less contrasty than the coated Ektar and Optars, but still very nice.

For these longer lenses I focussed on LA lighthouse abot three miles away, and palm trees at about a mile. Ektar and Optar 203 showed fine detail worthy of big enlargement whereas the Ilex and Raptar did not and would therebty make better optics in my opinion for subjects at close distances but still may be abraisively sharp for portraiture work.

All lenses tested at f11 and 22, with the Ilex and Big Raptar also shot at 4.5, 5.6, and 8.9 to check also an FPS I rebuilt at 1/250, 1/500, and 1/1000. No difference in resolving power distinguished at distance, but my shutter sure worked good...

[Henry]

Interesting results. My experience is similar WRT the 65 and the 203 Optar, although my 65 is an Optar (probably the same as the Raptar, with allowance for sample differences). With the 65, for me the issue may be as much a tricky focussing thing as it is a lens quality problem. On occasion I've had good results with the 65 with prints enlarged out to 11x14 (this is with b/w chromogenic, scanned into Photoshop and printed on an Epson 1270).

As for the 203 Optar, it is usable on the Century. My results with it have never been less than excellent.

[ This Message was edited by: Henry on 2006-01-21 19:31 ]

[troublemaker]

Yikes,
Henry you must be using 203 on Century at about infinity and not much more if that.
I tried running a 8" Tele-Rap for one of my trips and have since given up on it for lack of image quality. How close aretyou able to focus with the 203?

I am looking for something in the 210 mm range with better image quality that is light like the Ektars and Optars but not much available.

[Dan Fromm]

[troublemaker]

Hi Dan,
Well I do not know about giving up, as I have plenty of 4x5 cameas to try them on soon. I also mounted my General Scientific 210mm (we discussed on another thread) on the board for the Ilex 7-1/2 and it seems really sharp but requires a lot more bellows draw than the 210 (8-1/4) Raptar, and would just be too big and heavy. Even the Ilex that I set up yesterday on the Speed 45 seems really heavy to me, and I do not wish to stress any of my 2x3 bellows trying to do what I can with a 4x5 and a 120 roll back. I took the Ilex Paragon out and shot a roll of Delta at 1600 so I could test the fast speeds on the FPS and was quite pleased with the results close in, distant shot over harbor was terrible, but close in I liked the results and this was the idea. As far as longer lenses for 2x3, I think I am going to look more closely at the XL series as I like that they are small and light. I just got a Xenotar 80mm to compare to the Rodenstock XL which is smaller lighter, and I am really happy with so far.

[Henry]

Trouble, the 203 Optar on Century will focus down to about 15 feet, +/-. I use it primarily for architectural details, typically 25-100 feet from the lens, so everything works fine for that. It's amazing how much extension you can get on the bellows! I pull out the front standard to be level with the ends of the tracks, lock it down, and take it from there with the focusing knobs. Camera shake can be a problem, but that's true with any long lens. Of course I'm on a tripod, with cable release and gg focusing. Works great, and sharp as the proverbial tack.

[troublemaker]

Henry,
out of curiosity, I had one of my Speed 23's on the tripod so I fitted a 203 Optar on the Graphex #2 lens board and it made 8' without placing undo stress on those bellows. On the Speed I think we get the added extension of the longer body so yeah I could see it as a viable option if one has nice bellows and coverage sure wouldn't be a problem. However, for 120 roll film I would just use my 4x5 roll film back on one of the bigger bodies I have. Nice to know it works though. And being light it may be the long lens that goes to the summit of Black Giant this summer to photograph a moonrise over the Palisades. I'll need at least a 200mm and have been looking for a longer Tele-Xenar thinking they may be sharper than the Wollensak Tele lenses. I'll have to try a moonrise here from my roof to see how I like the potential

[Henry]

Trouble, ya done good! I find that with the lenses in my kit (see list at left) I'm ready for most situations. At one time I was interested in the 10"(25cm) Tele-Optar, which according to "Graphic Graflex Photog."(10th ed., p. 15) will work with 2x3, but reports here lead me to believe that the Teles aren't as sharp as the equivalent long-focal lenses, even if a 25cm would work on the Century.

I guess if I need to get closer than ~15ft. with the 203, I'll just switch to the 135 or 101 and step in closer!

BTW, my 135 shutter is now with Lustig for a little problem with the shutter blades not opening fully. Talked with Mr. Lustig on the phone today and am happy to report that he sounds fine!

[ This Message was edited by: Henry on 2006-01-30 12:54 ]