Graflex.org

[audiomystery]

HI,

I distroy and rebuild cameras. Lately I have been using the aluminium bodies from the old polaroid 250 as a starting point. I have been using either the graflex roll film back or building a back for 2x3 film holders.

Here is the problem. I began by installing a Wallensak 127 lens stolen from polaroid 110 camera. Once I got the infinity focus point set it worked really well I thought.

Then I made another one using a Baush/lomb rectilinear. The B/L was scavenged from a kodak cheap folding camera from the 1900s Ie Kodak autographic 2c.

Im sure it is something I did wrong but both lenses perform remarkably the same. The Wally is better only because of the shutter being more versitile. I find the sharpness of both lenses close if not equal.

So my question is, was the Wallensak lens only so so, or was the B/L lens under rated. Or am I just crazy (quite possible. The BL was f4 with a max shutter of 1/100. The B/L has a focal length of somewhere around 135mm.

My test wasn't very scientific. I shot a flower pot with a flag. Twice with each camera. I used a large and small aperture, then compared the results.

Thanks for any advice. (ps) Im retired and experimenting on a shoestring.

[Les]

I could be wrong, but I suspect that the RR lens is actually a US4 and not f4. US was for the Unified System where the number doubles every time (f-stop system it doubles ever other time).
OTher than looking at the numbers, small apertures of 128 and 256 are a big clue it's the US system.That said the RR lens is actually an f8 lens.

Anytime we get into vintage lens testing I have to make my caveat: The performance of any lens depends on how it was taken care of much more than its pedigree. Lenses are massed produced and there is variablility. Mint lenses can be terrible because they were a dud from the factory (and a good reason why they are mint). Others look like craters of the moon and perform amazingly well.

Now that said, I would expect a Tessar formulated lens to outperform a rapid rectilinear in low light conditions, or when a very bright object is in the scene (flare) and probably has better and also in color work. The Tessar should be contrastier in flat light as well. Images at the fringe should be noticeably different between the two lenses, and the Wolley should walk away the winner when enlargements of 8x or greater are made. But for moderate enlargements in black and white when both are stopped down two stops and on tripods, it is amazing what an RR lens can do.
This is one of the reasons why my 8x10 case does not have extremely expensive lenses in it.

[glennfromwy]

I use a B&L Rapid Rectilinear a lot. It is a very good lens and largely forgotten and under rated. Les is right about the f/stop scale. It is an f/8 lens, in all probability. To approximate modern stops, count up and down from f/16, which is the same as the modern f/16 stop, but thinking in modern progression sequence. Is it in a Kodak Ball Bearing Shutter?

[t.r.sanford]

"Rapid Rectilinear" lenses are, indeed, often overlooked because they are not anastigmats. That failing did not prevent them from making excellent photographs (Edward Weston used one on an 8x10 camera, with memorable results). As they only have two internal air/glass surfaces, they are less prone to flare than some later, more sophisticated designs.

A writer on photography in the 1920s suggested that the supersession of the R.R. design by knockoffs of the Cooke triplet was something of a marketing coup. You could sell the atribute, "anastigmat" -- and the triplet was a lot easier and cheaper to make, as it only had three elements, and none of them mated!