Graflex.org

nickc · Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 3 Location: Birmingham UK

I picked up one of these for a song and while OK at close distances, as it has often been stated, it won't cover 5x4 at infinity. I have just bought a Miniature SG and I wondered if anyione has tried this combination out already, before I sort out a custom lensboard etc.

Thanks

_________________
Nick Clarke

“The virtue of the camera is not the power it has to transform the photographer into an artist, but the impulse it gives him to keep on looking” - Brooks Atkinson

primus96 · Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:17 pm Post subject:

As has probably been stated in this forum the Tominon lenses were intended for a Polaroid copy camera.
They are therefore only corrected for use at extreme close range. If you want to do extreme close-ups then it would be a good choice of lens.

Dan Fromm · Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2146 Location: New Jersey

Murray@uptowngallery.org · Joined: 03 Apr 2002 Posts: 164 Location: Holland MI

old post, but I am always curious about how people determine what they find good /bad etc., because there are probably objective and subjective ways to decide.

What criteria do you use, Dan?

Since I've shooting mostly pinhole lately, I might be sucker for a bad lens. My criteria is if it passes light it's worth an experiment.

Dan Fromm · Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2146 Location: New Jersey

Murray@uptowngallery.org · Joined: 03 Apr 2002 Posts: 164 Location: Holland MI

Thanks, Dan

troublemaker · Joined: 24 Nov 2003 Posts: 715 Location: So Cal

I do about the same as Dan, and test lenses according how I intend to use them. I'll shoot the same set up on the same roll with a familliar lens for comparison.
I like to do a couple shots wide open, and then something stopped down.
I agree that lens selection can certainly be subjective. How does the saying go, one man's junk is another man's treasure?

Murray@uptowngallery.org · Joined: 03 Apr 2002 Posts: 164 Location: Holland MI

& TM also

Dan Fromm · Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2146 Location: New Jersey

troublemaker · Joined: 24 Nov 2003 Posts: 715 Location: So Cal

Again I agree, esspecially concerning vintage optics. I picked up an old Wollensak 127 Velostigmat a little while back. It was sold as a junker, described as such. It came mounted on a very damaged wood Aniversary board; looked like someone actually threw darts at it and may have hit the lens once. The #2 Supermatic shutter was corroded and frozen, the glass optics all gummed up and hazy. It's no junker now, and resides on the front of a very nice Mini-Speed. I actually prefer it to the later 127 luminized Ektars I have.
Another case is the 101mm Wollensak tessars, Optar or Raptar. I have here currently five of them. Not one is the same. Two are nice and sharp, almost comparable to the more consistently good 101 Ektar series. The other three, while useable, and very clean, are noticeably less sharp on GG and film. Which brings up subjectivity. I have some lenses that have a nice vintage softness or glow at the edges, or a pleasing softness overall wide open etc... The key word being pleasing. Pleasing to my eye based on the images I shot with them. On the other hand, I have had a number of lenses that produce images that are not pleasing, not soft, not sharp, just crappy overall open or stopped down. I had a Linhof 135 Symmar (couldn't hold a candle to any one of my 135 Optars with color slide film), thought it was crappy, sold it, worried the person might send it back, and then was told they thought it was great so go figure. I know that doesn't sound very technical, but I do use some standards for testing my lenses. I have the military test patterns, but prefer to use the lens the way I would shoot it in the field. The finest grain results I have had have been with Acros, so that has been the standard for ISO 100 films to look at resolution. I always go to the same place to shoot some test rolls. I always use a sturdy support if checking lens quality.
The problem is recommending, esspecially vintage optics. Not too many folks can dissemble shutters and lens elements. Yeah, my 127 Velostigmat turned out to be a very fine lens and good running shutter, after four plus hours of careful work. The 135 Symmar showed up in excellent condition, glass perfect, Linhof synchro shutter running like new. But nothing I ever shot with the Symmar was anything but a waste of film and energy. But when I acquired the lenses I would have certainly thought the results would have been the opposite.

Murray@uptowngallery.org · Joined: 03 Apr 2002 Posts: 164 Location: Holland MI

while we're on Tominon's, I found my lost Tominon 127, oh wait, could it be a 135? that came with a really rough SG.

Is this an evil Tominon, or not?

Dan Fromm · Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2146 Location: New Jersey

troublemaker · Joined: 24 Nov 2003 Posts: 715 Location: So Cal

Dan isn't the Tominon 127 another tessar with the same limited coverage.
The Ektar 127 makes a fine lens on my 2x3's.
I would think mount it and see what it does, I doubt it is an "evil" lens. IIRC the tommy is the standard lens for one of the popular Polaroid land cameras that folks still collect and use, so I wouldn't think it to be corrected for close copy work only.

Dan Fromm · Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2146 Location: New Jersey

troublemaker · Joined: 24 Nov 2003 Posts: 715 Location: So Cal

The old Symmar 135mm 5.6 is said to have a 70 degree view angle, a little better then the Tessars. The Symmar I shot 4x5 covered easily, but the Optar 135mm I shot the same composition with at the same time made the Symmar look very bad indeed. Which surprized me since I had an excellent condition matched front and back group Linhof. I even thought I heard the lens bark as I packed it up and sent it away...
Based on the narrow angle of view of the Tessars, it makes sense that the 135 would cover nicely, the 127 would do so OK stopped down, and when moving into the shorter Tessars like the 105 or 101 they are definately 2x3 lenses, but then allow for slight movements. The Planar 80's and similar types like the Heligon and Xenotar wont cover 6x9. I have read hear and there that they will, but I prooved it on a number of stopped down exposures last summer with the Heligon that the corners fall off, and the Xenotar similarly around town here. So looked up the angle of view and it is less than the Tessars so no surprise there.
Thus I think if someone wanted to play around with the movements on the little Graphic cameras, A decent 127, be it the Tominon, Wollensak, or Kodak etc,should make a very nice slightly long normal lens for such purposes. Otherwise one might try fitting something like the very nice Angulon 90 which are sharp and would provide movements beyond the scope of Graphics at 2x3.
Personally I am still contemplating trading up to the Nikkor 105mm 5.6 W lens for my color field work for the backpacking 2x3 Crown kit. Also been checking the airwaves for 58mm Grandagons to replace the 65mm Raptar. Might have to break the piggy bank?

[ This Message was edited by: troublemaker on 2007-04-06 18:17 ]