Graflex.org

perrycas · Joined: 30 Mar 2005 Posts: 48 Location: Sydney Australia

At the moment i have a huge gap between the 375 tele and the 135 xenar that i have. While i dont mind zooming with my feet, water has a tendency to make this difficult so I am looking for a lense that would be longer than the Xenar and shorter than the Wollensak tele. About half way perhaps. WOuld the Ektar 210 be reasonable? or would someone like to reccomend another.
Perry

RichS · Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:01 am Post subject:

Many people here are more experienced and informed than I, but what the heck

I like the 210 for two reasons:

First, it's about the longest lens you can get that will work with infinity stops and a cam-able rangefinder. You say you have a "late Crown", so this may be a plus?

Second, it does seem to be a nice FL between the 135 (that I also use and like and the 380/15". It is also a seemingly favorite length for portrait work.

In Ektars, the Commercial Ektar comes in 8 1/4" (210) and also an 8 1/2" (216) which I have no idea if it would work with stops and cam? Either would be a great lens!

Les · Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 2682 Location: Detroit, MI

Rich can you give me the specs on your 210 Comm Ektar? I have yet to find any Kodak information on it.

the 8 1/2" is the shortest Comm Ektar I can find. Then there's the 203 f7.7 ektar.

Other companies made 210s, but I don't know about any production 210 Ektars.

Les

perrycas · Joined: 30 Mar 2005 Posts: 48 Location: Sydney Australia

Thanks for this Rich, very useful. Would you r 380 be similar to my 375 tele? The diff between tele and non tele lenses has me a little confused. I know that you dont have to extend the bellows as far with a tele and that they arent as sharp as a non tele ( or so I have been told). So I am a bit curious as to where ( half way, 2/3?) the 210 might fit between the two lenses I mentioned.
Thanks again.
Perry

RichS · Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:54 am Post subject:

Les:

Sorry I didn't specify. My 210 is a 5.6 Symmar. I certainly wouldn't mind have a 210 Com Ektar but I'm happy with what I've got

The info I have on Com Ektars comes from the LF Optical ref book. It lists:

5 1/8 (130mm) for 4x5.
7 1/2 (190) for 4x5.
8 1/4 (210) for 5x7.
8 1/2 (216) for 5x7.
10" (254) for 8x10.
12" (304) for 8x10.
14" (356) for 8x10.

All f/6.3 and 53 degrees of view.

Perry:

I have no doubt my 380 (15") tele and your 375 are at least very similar. I believe I have an Optar? (packed in a case).

I hvae seen no sharpness problems with mine and have heard similar report from other Tele users. They are great lenses and really the only way you can go that long on most 4x5's. If you don't mind carrying them

Lets see. The 135 have an angle of view, landscape, of 50+ degrees. The 375 has 19+ degrees. The 210 has 33.6 degrees. So, roughly 20 to 50 is a 30 degree difference. 15 for the half way mark. That would be about 35 degrees for a half way point between the two. Very close to a 210. For a 35 degree abgle of view, it comes out to be roughly a 201mm. Oddly enough there was a 201 around at some time. I have no idea what it was but KEH has been trying to sell the cam for it for the longest time

The 203 Ektar would be right there and a great lens from what I've heard.

However, these are just numbers and don't always correlate to vision. Either way, I'm happy with my 210 and you'd probably be happy with anything from the 201 through the 210?

perrycas · Joined: 30 Mar 2005 Posts: 48 Location: Sydney Australia

thanks Les that was very helpful. My 375 is a wollensak maquerading as a hugo whatsi, and, Yes carrying it about is...trying.

Les · Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 2682 Location: Detroit, MI

How very interesting, My 3rd edition of "Kodak Lenses" only shows the 8.5, 10,12, and 14" Comm Ektars. I'd love to find a copy of that book you have. What's the name?

Les

perrycas · Joined: 30 Mar 2005 Posts: 48 Location: Sydney Australia

Actually i have to confess that i misread the add. Its a 203 7.7. Now thats an odd aperture. It says that its coated.
My understanding of lenses needs some reminding for as i recall that the 'tele' means that you don't have pull the bellows out so far.
would appreciate someone explaining this to me again as i have forgotten.

RichS · Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:05 am Post subject:

Les:

"Large Format Optical Reference Manual" by J.L. "Woody" Wooden.
See: http://jlwoodywooden.com/
under 'reference manual'. I hope he's still available as I don't see anything new since 2002? It's a great reference that I've found invaluable at times...

Perry:

203, 201, 210... All good

Yes, a "tele" lens means the lens uses less bellows for a particular focal length. I think it's somewhere's around 2/3 or so. Oddly enough, this was all explained to me by Les some time ago

A search on the forums might bring up that old discussion?

perrycas · Joined: 30 Mar 2005 Posts: 48 Location: Sydney Australia

yes, youre right i should have. Sorry.
but look thanks for the info it was good.
Perry