Graflex.org Forum Index Graflex.org
Get help with your Graflex questions here
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

100/4.5 Projection Ektar?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Graflex.org Forum Index -> Lenses Help
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
wlewisiii



Joined: 20 Jan 2005
Posts: 55
Location: Madison, Wisconsin

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:53 pm    Post subject: 100/4.5 Projection Ektar? Reply with quote

Impulse buy on ebay got me this in barrel. Anyone know anything about it? There are a couple of Projection Ektars in the Vade Mecum but not this specific one. For $5 it'll be fun to see if it covers 4x5 on my Anniversary.

William
_________________
4x5 and a Tessar is heaven
"I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies..." Green Day
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Fromm



Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 1887
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Enlarging lens, tessar type.

The 50/4.5 and 75/4.5 are heliar types, like the 100/3.5 and 105/3.7 Ektars and 63/8 Microfile Ektar, are superb for enlarging and as macro lenses.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wlewisiii



Joined: 20 Jan 2005
Posts: 55
Location: Madison, Wisconsin

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the information. I'll have to see how it does up close then

William
_________________
4x5 and a Tessar is heaven
"I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies..." Green Day
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
R_J



Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 137
Location: Europe

PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi there,

wondering if you have had any results from your 100mm Ektar yet?

I've found a 101mm f4.5 Ektar during a lapse when I mistook it for a 100mm f3.5 Ektar. It's construction is a Tessar type - is it possible that this is a (minor) variation of the same lens as your 100mm Ektar?

Kind regards,

RJ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dan Fromm



Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 1887
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi, RJ, pardon me for jumping in.

Don't despise the humble Tessar, especially if it is a 101/4.5 Ektar. I have two,. The 1946 uncoated one is the standard lens against which I compare all others. Believe it or not, the 1948 coated one isn't quite as good.

And don't go gaga over the legendary Heliar type 100/3.5 and 105/3.7 Ektars. I've never had a 100, but I found that uncoated 101 preferable to my first 105 at the apertures I normally use on the emulsions I normally use. This is consistent with Chris Perez' tests; he found the 101 better center and edge at all apertures from f/8 down, the 105 better wider than f/8. Chris' tests make it clear that the 105 doesn't cover 2x3 as well as the 101.

This spring I'll do the experiment again with my second 105, whose shutter has recently been ungummed. Given how stringent EKCo's QC was and that my and Chris' trials agree, I fear I'm going to find that I've been a sucker a second time. In which case, shame on me.

So far I've found only two models of enlarging lenses that shoot well at distance. It turns out that both were optimized for taking even though sold as enlarging lenses. One of my friends has the prescriptions, insists they're the same.

Rather surprisingly, one of the enlarging lenses I expected to be very good at distance because it was optimized for large enlargements, a 105/5.6 Rodagon-G, was pretty mediocre as a taking lens. But my second-best 4" macro lens (not counting the 105/2.8 MicroNikkor in F mount) is an enlarging lens. 4"/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar. And it is horrible at distance.

Cheers,

Dan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
troublemaker



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

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 12:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So Dan,
How are you intending to test your lenses?
As I mentioned previously, I have two decent 101's in both versions, and also two 105's and what I believe to be a comperable 101 Wollensak tessar.
I ussusally just find some appropriate composition that will give a good account of the lens, set up my tripod, and start switching out lenses (carefully focussing each one on GG), and making an exposure at f~8 or 11 and one at f~16 or 22 each.
I think I read that the 105 Ektar is based on the enlarging lenses, was recomended for high quality copy work, and though I used to like mine, I am leaning more now towards the tessars and triplets.
As a side note, I took out my 65 Angulon and was very pleased. Along on that test run came the 101mm Graflar, and I think the Gralfar and my 105 Xenar would probably out perform the above listed tessars. So I would probably add these lenses in at the end for further comparison.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Henry



Joined: 09 May 2001
Posts: 1442
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That 101 Graflar triplet is a very decent lens! In Century (Wolly) self-cocking shutter it's great for hand-held work, and it has built-in M-X synch. Thanks to troublemaker I now have a Graflite Jr. that I can use with it, as soon as I can recalibrate the Kalart for the Graflar (I had changed over to the 101 Optar as my standard shooting lens), but right now it's too darn cold to stand outside and focus on the moon=infinity. I suspect the Graflar doesn't cover movements like the Optar, but for hand-held that won't matter much.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Fromm



Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 1887
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Troublemaker, I use a couple of targets to evaluate lenses. The edge of the lawn in my back yard; with it, the test is how much detail I can discern on negative or transparency in the blades of grass. The unpainted wooden fence at the back of my lot; again, the test is how much detail I can discern. The 6' tall stump of a sweet gum tree, also in my yard; same idea, useful only for comparing central resolution. For coverage the edge of the yard and the fence are better.

What makes these targets work for comparisons, as opposed to go/no go tests, is that they have detail at a range of scales so that I can tell fairly easily when one lens resolves it better than another.

For macro work from 1:4 to around 30:1, I use a couple of USAF 1951 targets, and there I worry only about central resolution.

I'm not sure how I'll do this spring's exercises. I don't want to wait for the grass to come back. The problem with using, e.g., distant scenery as I can find in a few places not too far from here is that it doesn't give a good range of scales, clarity of the air isn't guaranteed, and I can't always be sure that the target itself isn't moving. I've always had problems getting really sharp shots of distant foliage, wind is a killer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
troublemaker



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

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sounds like a very good way to test. The fence for coverage and grass for resolution.
I ussually go down to the harbor and shoot fishing boats along and across the wharfs where I get cranes and buildings with lettering and such in the distant background, lots of fine detail inthe middle and near ranges if so desired. Pretty much pick a compositon, set up the tripod and camera body next to the van, and start changing lenses, and focussing each one carefully. Two shots with each lens at mid and small apertures. If I calibrate a Kalart, I'll do some wide open and f~8 shooting at various distances hand held. The way I figure it, I try and shoot tests that are at least interesting to look at, and parallel how I would use the lenses around town and out in the counrty.
Iwas thinking to try some coverage tests later in spring and I'll keep your ideas in mind. I was actually thinking about shooting a few sheets of 4x5 with the smaller format lenses and am wondering if this will be helpful as I do use some forward tilt movement and will occasionaly use the slight swing one can get out of the front standard on the Crown 23.
I can easily turn some aluminum step washer adapters to fit just about any lens to any board so can easily get just about any lens I want on the front of a 4x5 Speed or Crown provided it will focus it.
My concerns were raised when I used slight movement with a 103mm Trioptar and got fall off in the upper corners. I don't know the angle of view with those. They certainly cover full format straight ahead. I assume the tessars are all similar formulas and therefore the intention is to compare the 101 tessars to the Trioptar, since I tend to backpack with that lens. If it starts raining money I'll simply get the 105 Nikkor and be done with it. The wildcard lens I have not taken on any trips yet is a 105mm late production Xenar. Really nice, but in a Prontor Press that I would like to replace with a Copal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
R_J



Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 137
Location: Europe

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Dan,

Feel welcome to jump in any time - I always enjoy your thoughts and comments.

I wouldn't have objected to the f4.5 101mm lens, had I not believed it to be a f3.5 and paid over 20 times what the original poster had for it. Letting that minor issue slide, I hope I do enjoy the images as much as the f3.7 105mm Ektar.

Perhaps it feels like familiar ground; I already use a legendary 105mm f2.9 Xpres along with a 10cm f2.9 Anticomar lens. Both are highly distinctive lenses sharing only the Tessar type derivation. The 105mm f3.7 Heliar-type Ektar has equally amazed me, although perhaps, wooed by the positive references to the 101mm Ektar, I've succumbed.
Quote:

The 1946 uncoated one is the standard lens against which I compare all others. Believe it or not, the 1948 coated one isn't quite as good.


That's blown it. Guess which one I've got..

This Spring when I return to England, perhaps I'll carry out a parallel test on the 101mm f4.5 Ektar versus the 105mm f3.7 Ektar. Perhaps you will be surprised by your results when you test the second Ektar 105mm, and I'll be disappointed with my 101mm. If it's the other way round....I'll be very surprised.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dan Fromm



Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 1887
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually, given the scale of my yard fence and grass both do for coverage and resolution. I'm just fickle. Or perhaps inconsistent. I'm still surprised that the results are reproducible. Rough and ready isn't supposed to work, is it?

I use just one target within a test series. Shoot at the apertures I normally use, i.e., f/11, f/16, f/22. I rarely shoot wider, never smaller. Photomacrography is different, there wide open is the rule.

I have a heap of more or less 4" lenses that I want to try out, more to see how good they are than because I expect the results to change the lenses I actually use. Of interest to you, I have a couple of triplets. A 4"/4.5 Aldis Uno (it is a triplet, not a real Uno), a 103 Graflar that I bought for $20 to get the board it is on, and a 105/4.5 Voigtlaender Helomar that I bought for its size 0, more or less, Compur.

I'm not sure why you think you'll gain by replacing a Prontor Press, top speed 1/125, with a Copal, top speed 1/400 or 1/500. But that's because I've been warped by using ISO 100 film and shooting subjects that stand still.

Cheers,

Dan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
troublemaker



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

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I do like the Prontor Press shutter. It has some issues. It didn't even work at all when I got it. I encouraged it to run by completely tearing it down, cleaning everything, and putting it back together. Now it runs very good, but has a periodic problem of not engaging the slow speed retard when it feels like it. So I intend to re-impose my will upon it. Staring at it hasn't done a whole lot thus far. When it fires properly all is good with nice exposures. I paid next to nothing for it, and bought it for the glass, which is excellent. The shutter actually has the advantage of having the shutter speed and arperture scale on the side which is a definitive plus when using filters or my Cokin adapters.
Worst case is I loose a frame of film, and I can hear when it missfires.
Moving release lever slowly from cocking to release position seems to help more often than not. The problem I think I might have when I get back into the shutter is if I can manipulate the cocking mechanism with the dial set speed control ring in place or manipulate it so I can actually see what is going on.

In the mean time, I found my other coated 101mm Ektar. So I have two of those and the one uncoated. And the coated and uncoated heliar 105's.

Also, I was trying to search last night and see if I could varify that the Graflar 101 in the SVS shutter is a triplet? I thought I read that it is a while back. But the 101mm FL led me to wonder about it; that being such a well established tessar formula. Regardless of what design, it's a very good lens, certainly better than the Wollensak 103mm formula for thier triplets.

Depending on the weather tomorrow, it's been raining and overcast, I may take some lenses out and shoot some film. So what should I use as a base standard in describing the differences I find? I am thinking to base my findings against the better of the two coated Ektar 101's.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Fromm



Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 1887
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Better of the two coated 101 Ektars sounds good to me. IMO there aren't many better normal lenses for 2x3 if movements aren't needed. My 4"/2.0 TTH Anastigmat is better, but its in barrel, can't be put in shutter, and is big and heavy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
troublemaker



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

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I got everything cleaned inspected and mounted on boards last night, but looking pretty rainy out this morning.

But along the lines of the original post. I have been thinking myself of using a couple of my enlarging lenses for a go at some close work...
I'm thinking this extra 135 Fuji EP I got the other day with a 4x5 enlarger might make an interesting and easily mounted lens for close work so long as I can get in and focus close enough with the Speed 45. First I'd probably be thinking 120 Roll back so would only be trying to fill medium format... Or should I be thinking along different avenues. Never done much close work , but have readmany times that some enlarging corrected lenses work OK.

Or would I better off looking for something like started this thread, or some other inexpensive lens of different FL? The 4x5 enlarger came with a bunch of lenses and accessories and the price was right, free...that is if you consider all the time I will spend cleaning and re-alligning free.

As for the 101 and 105 lenses. Since I had everything out, I took a look at a bunch of them on the GG. According to my GG views, the older uncoated 101mm Ektar shows a slightly sharper image, even though there is a very slight haze imperfection on the front element. One of the Ektar 101's has a few cleaning marks. The 105 3.7's are both really nice with almost perfect glass, and both show excellent sharp images on the GG at f~4.5. The 105 Xenar 4.5 is noticeably crisp and doesn't exhibit the slight flare of the wide open older optics. And one very nice Wolly 101mm Raptar I looked at appears to suggest being very good, perhaps slightly better than the Kodak tessars.
So if it doesn't start raining in the next couple hours I'll go spend a couple rolls of film...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Graflex.org Forum Index -> Lenses Help All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group