Graflex.org

[Mark_Davies]

Hi, I like others on this forum have just purchased (from ebay) a crown and it came with a 127 Optar f4.5. I would like to get a longer lens of a similar vintage so it fits the part of being on a nice old camera but with good quality. Can I receive some advice on a 240 - 270 type lens, that wont break the bank in terms of cash that will give good performance. Whilst I mainly do B&W, there will be times for colour.

BTW, How is the 127 Optar in terms of performance? Many thanks, Mark

[ This Message was edited by: Mark_Davies on 2005-08-17 04:20 ]

[Les]

As with any vintage lens, the life it lead will have a greater effect on its performance than it's pedigree. The best thing to do is shoot it. I think you'll find its a great lens.

As to longer lenses, a 250 Tele-optar was consitantly advertised with the Graphic line, and Uncle Sam bought them my the thousands. Schneider also made tele lenses in the same range in the tele Xenar and tele-arton
All of these lenses will handle color well, but none will be as sharp as a prime lens of the same focal length until you stop way down. The benefit of the tele lenses is that they can focus closer than a prime lens.



[ This Message was edited by: Les on 2005-08-17 08:42 ]

[t.r.sanford]

There was a very nice Rodenstock 270mm. telephoto lens, in "Compur" shutter, in the Graflex line toward the end (c. 1970). There may have been two models, differing in maximum aperture.

[Mark_Davies]

The Rodenstock, do you know what model it was? How about a "Rotelar" What sort of a lens is that? I thought the Telearton onloy had minimal coverage - 158mm? Is it big enough for the 4x5? If it is, there a re a few good ones available I see.

I am in aust so I have to buy from US so it is difficult to try it first. Thanks for the help Mark

[disemjg]

You made me go and dig them out. I have the Rodenstock Rotelar 270, in Graphic Compur. It is a big impressive thing. It is not marked tele. I have not mounted or used this so someone else will have to provide feedback on whetether it is really a tele or not, and its performance.

I also have a 270 Tele-Arton, which is big and heavy. It is a good performer. Note that you cannot use the 240; that is for 2X3. I have a 360 Tele-Xenar, and it is big but relatively light weight. It requires amazingly little bellows draw for such a long focal lenght. It has good performance, despite being uncoated.

I don't think you should expect any tele lens to have extra covering power; they are not usually used with movements. Their tele design complicates using swings and tilts anyway.

"Affordable" may be an issue; I do not know what you are seeing on ebay, but dealers always seem to want a lot of money for large format teles. KEH currently has a couple for something like 300~400, and they have not moved for months.

Do not be afraid of older uncoated lenses if you can find them with good glass and cheap.

Do you expect to use the camera and tele lens on a tripod, or hand-held? You did not say whether your camera was a side or top RF model. It it is a side RF, you will be restricted to GG focusing. If it is a top RF, you MAY be able to match a cam to the lens, but that's going to take effort. I use mine hand-held, focus on the GG, and guesstimate the coverage based on what I saw on the GG. You can also use the VF masks to help.

And, finally, if you and your Crown are new to each other, I suggest you first check it out thouroughly and use it with the 127 before you chase the tele issue. That will position you much better in making your decisions and selection of more lenses.

Enjoy.

[Les]

http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/

take a look round

[t.r.sanford]

The 270mm. Rodenstock lens is, indeed, a "Rotelar." There seems to be an f:5.6 model; the one I had was rather slower, f:6.8 or thereabouts. It is a true telephoto and it covers 4x5 (but see below). I used it for Polaroid head-and-shoulders portraits, so I don't know how well its images would hold up under enlargement, but they were crisp and contrasty.

I speculate that the slower version was made specifically for use with the Graflex "XL", which may have imposed some restriction on the maximum diameter of the rear cell. If so, it need not have been calculated to perform well across an image circle greater than five inches or thereabouts -- as noted, the 4x5 work looked good to me, but I didn't try to enlarge it.

[Mark_Davies]

Hi Disemjg, Thanks very much for the advice. I have the Top RF model but will be using it on a tripod 99% of the time. A while ago I had an Ebony 45SU with expensive lenses, 72SAXL, 150 Sironar S, 400 Fuji T. Super system but there was so much money tied up in it I decided to cut costs sell it and hence purchased the current setup. It certainly has a lovely feel about it. The ebony did too but this is more of a warm fuzzy cuddle, whereas the ebony was of a classic erotic session. But back to lenses. I see I can wind my bellows out to about 320mm. The 270 Rotelar will give me focusing down to 5metres (15 ft) which should be just about enough.

Les, thanks for the link. Believe it or not, I have been visiting the Schneider optics site for two or three years and have never seen this yet. Thanks.

Quote "I speculate that the slower version was made specifically for use with the Graflex "XL", which may have imposed some restriction on the maximum diameter of the rear cell. If so, it need not have been calculated to perform well across an image circle greater than five inches or thereabouts -- as noted, the 4x5 work looked good to me, but I didn't try to enlarge it."


Hi T (Troy, Trevor??) Sanford. Thanks for that about the Rotelar. Are you saying the lens will cover 4x5 and more, but only crisp for the 4x5 view and fuzzy at the edges? If so, this is okay for me as I don't use movements much.

Thanks again all for the help.

Mark

[disemjg]

One of the best things about Graphics is that they can be used hand held; treat them like a giant point-and-shoot. Great fun, and lets you at least occasionally leave the tripod at home and travel relatively light. I pretty much only use mine hand held.

And my Rodenstock Rotelar is the f5.6 version.

[Mark_Davies]

Many thanks to all that helped. I have now seen a Rotelar ******* @ $290. I don't know if it is the 5.6 or 6.8 but will find out soon enough.

Many thanks for the help.

Ta,

Mark

[t.r.sanford]

If I had to guess, I'd guess that the 270mm. "Rotelar" I used would work fine for 4x5, right across the image circle. But I did not test it rigorously for that, so I don't know it for a fact.

I had mine on an early "Pacemaker Speed," and was able to get closer than 15 feet -- if memory serves, I usually worked at about 8 feet, and had some extension left over. It is an attractive focal length; in composing, it feels rather like a 75mm. lens on a 35mm. camera.

[Mark_Davies]

Thanks for that T.R.

Gents, don't mean to be a pain but looking at the site's info in "general purpose lenses" http://www.graflex.org/speed-graphic/general-purpose-lenses.html it doesn't mention a 127/4.5 optar. Was this a standard lens for this camera :crown serial number 973143 or was it possibly a later addition by a previous owner. In "http://www.graflex.org/speed-graphic/lenses.html" it suggests the Kodak WFE is the better lens. How far away from that is the 127 optar. It certainly seems to have a nice coating on it.

Ta again,

Mark

[45PSS]

127 is a standard or normal lens for 3x4 but many a newspaper photographer adopted them as their standard as it will just cover 4x5. It is reported to be one of the best color corrected lens of at least the Ektar line. Do a search for 127mm Ektar selecting "all the terms" check box, lots posted on this lens.

_________________
The best camera ever made is the one that YOU enjoy using and produces the image quality that satifies YOU.

[Les]

A 127mm ektar on an early 60s Pace should be in a syncro-compur shutter. Kodak quit making the shutter matic in '55 and I want to say LF lenses went out by '63.

Now a 135 WF Ektar is a very nice lens, but it's slow to start with and it's sweet spot is around f11 or f16... way too slow for press people. The 127 and 135 lenses were f4.7 and while not the sharpest at wide open they were sharp enough for printing on coarse toilet paper (newsprint) and by f8 or 11 they were very good. I wouldn't shun the lens until you shoot it.

[Mark_Davies]

Thanks Gents, I have the OPTAR not the Ektar. Should that be in this Graphex Shutter and should it be on the Crown. I know you can change lenses like underwear (well sort of) but was it a standard lens for the Crown when purchased new?
Ta again, Mark