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 

Wollensak PRO Raptar 160mm f:5.6 Info???
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Graflex.org Forum Index -> Lenses Help
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dan Fromm



Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 1888
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2002 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

On 2002-03-18 05:44, PC wrote:
Dan, how would I post a comparison of lenses here at Graflex.Org? What about sample images? I have a website but would prefer to keep them here?

I'm running the film into town later today and my lab usually ask for three days. . .so in a week or so I will be ready to post a comparison.

Thanks,
Paul
Uh, Paul, Leigh Klotz Jr. owns and operates this site. You'd best ask him. Click on Klotz in the moderator column and you'll get a link for sending him a private message. I'm sure he'll be receptive.

Cheers,

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



Joined: 11 Mar 2002
Posts: 12
Location: North Florida

PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2002 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Will do Thanks Again. . .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
PC



Joined: 11 Mar 2002
Posts: 12
Location: North Florida

PostPosted: Sun Mar 31, 2002 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

On 2002-03-18 09:07, Dan Fromm wrote:
Quote:

On 2002-03-18 05:44, PC wrote:
Dan, how would I post a comparison of lenses here at Graflex.Org? What about sample images? I have a website but would prefer to keep them here?

I'm running the film into town later today and my lab usually ask for three days. . .so in a week or so I will be ready to post a comparison.

Thanks,
Paul
Uh, Paul, Leigh Klotz Jr. owns and operates this site. You'd best ask him. Click on Klotz in the moderator column and you'll get a link for sending him a private message. I'm sure he'll be receptive.

Cheers,

Dan


Hello Dan, I wanted to follow up and let you know that the Pro Raptar won my little test on sharpness and contrast both!

Klotz never answered my note but if you'll send me an email I'll post a couple of images on my website to review?

Thanks Agian the Pro Raptar is a definate keeper!
paul
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
renes



Joined: 13 Feb 2009
Posts: 42
Location: Warsaw

PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What would you say about sharpness and "look" that came from Graflex Optar 162mm f4.5? Could it be an alternative lens to Wollensak Pro Raptar 160mm keeping the quality? I look for short tele lens for Century (most to use in b&w landscape), wondering how good is this lens and if it has own nice look... The second one I consider is Heliar 180/4.5 (rear mount element is 47mm so it fits to front standard), gives beautiful pics of portraits with wide opened aperture but did not see any examples with hlandsape photos.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Fromm



Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 1888
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On 4x5 there's no comparison. The 162/4.5 Raptar is a middling tessar type, the 160/5.6 Pro Raptar is a first class 6/4 plasmat type and is sharper across the field.

On 2x3, with a Century, you won't get much benefit from the better lens. This because 2x3 uses so little of the circle the lens covers. And the Century has minimal movements. I use a 150/6.3 CZJ Tessar made early in 1912 on my 2x3s much more than my 160/5.6 Pro Raptar. The Tessar is much smaller and lighter.

Rear elements can be unscrewed from the shutter and screwed back in from behind after the board and shutter have been mounted on the front standard. How do you think I use my 58/5.6 Grandagon? Piotr, your concerns about whether a lens' rear cell will clear the lens throat are misplaced.

IMO, concerns about "look" are misplaced too. I've run blind tests in which people couldn't match lens to shot.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
renes



Joined: 13 Feb 2009
Posts: 42
Location: Warsaw

PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dan Fromm wrote:
On 4x5 there's no comparison. The 162/4.5 Raptar is a middling tessar type, the 160/5.6 Pro Raptar is a first class 6/4 plasmat type and is sharper across the field.

On 2x3, with a Century, you won't get much benefit from the better lens. This because 2x3 uses so little of the circle the lens covers. And the Century has minimal movements. I use a 150/6.3 CZJ Tessar made early in 1912 on my 2x3s much more than my 160/5.6 Pro Raptar. The Tessar is much smaller and lighter.

Rear elements can be unscrewed from the shutter and screwed back in from behind after the board and shutter have been mounted on the front standard. How do you think I use my 58/5.6 Grandagon? Piotr, your concerns about whether a lens' rear cell will clear the lens throat are misplaced.

IMO, concerns about "look" are misplaced too. I've run blind tests in which people couldn't match lens to shot.


Dan,

I check ebay for 160/5.6 Pro Raptar but have not seen it yet.

I look for the lenses that I won't need to unscrew (the rear cell) every time from the board and mount it at the back of the camera to board. I want them to be always combined with lens board for readily changing. Therefore I so concerned about the rear diameter. Century' standard is 49x49mm, so the rear mount should fit it.

My research shorten my lens list to these ones:

Heliar 18cm f/4.5 - 47mm
Heliar 15cm f/4.5 32mm
Fujinon W 180mm/5.6 (MC) 49mm (1 coating wersion 42mm?)
Schneider Symmar 180mm f5.6 - 45mm
Horseman 180mm f/5.6 P.T - 37mm
Horesman 75mm f/5.6 Pro Tokyo Kogaku (?)
Mamiya Press 75mm f/5.6 49mm
Mamiya Press 50mm f/6.3 (should fit)

Could you explain me one issue: does it matter for photographing that the rear diameter is much smaller than standard width or close to it (do I have any benefit from it) ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Fromm



Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 1888
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The 160/5.6 Pro Raptar is very rare. You'd do better to look for a 150/5.6 Symmar (just plain Symmar, i.e., convertible) or Sironar.

I understand why you don't like the idea of removing a lens rear cell to attach it to a camera. I don't agree with you at all. When used as field cameras, Graphics are very slow-working.

You lack experience, value theory too high. Just get lenses you can afford in the focal lengths you think you need and go shoot.

FWIW, I'm happy with my 180/6.3 Saphir (in SynchroCompur #1), also with my 180/10 Apo Saphir (front mounts on a Copal #1). I prefer the Apo Saphir, it is smaller and lighter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
renes



Joined: 13 Feb 2009
Posts: 42
Location: Warsaw

PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dan Fromm wrote:
The 160/5.6 Pro Raptar is very rare. You'd do better to look for a 150/5.6 Symmar (just plain Symmar, i.e., convertible) or Sironar.

I understand why you don't like the idea of removing a lens rear cell to attach it to a camera. I don't agree with you at all. When used as field cameras, Graphics are very slow-working.

You lack experience, value theory too high. Just get lenses you can afford in the focal lengths you think you need and go shoot.

FWIW, I'm happy with my 180/6.3 Saphir (in SynchroCompur #1), also with my 180/10 Apo Saphir (front mounts on a Copal #1). I prefer the Apo Saphir, it is smaller and lighter.


150mm is a bit short. I prefer 180mm, 160mm is a minimum I would like to have. And there is a wide selection of 180mm lenses that fit to Century' standard.

You are right, I lack experience in field bellows camera and photography. I still gather basic tools - just few days ago I received Singer rollfilm 23 back and have not yet bought tripod. Now I have much time to learn theory :) but soon will go to field.

By the way: if you would buy your first 180mm lens for your Century and have to choice form 2 examples: with the same quality, mark, f stop, weight and size and price, but with different diameter of rear lens cell - let say 36mm or 47mm - which one would you take? And why?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Fromm



Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 1888
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The difference between the angle a 150 sees on 6x9 (37 degrees) and a 160 sees (35 degrees) is trivial, except perhaps to a theorist. A 180 sees 31 degrees. IMO, a 160 is too close to a 180.

Remember that I own and have used, among others, 127 mm (43 degrees), 130 mm (42 degrees on 6x9), 135 mm (41 degrees), 150 mm, 160 mm, and 180 mm lenses. These days I carry 130, 135, 150, 180. The 135 is very small and light, is used for macro.

Given a choice between two functionally equivalent used lenses in shutter at the same price, I'd choose the one in better condition. With used lenses condition usually matters much more than anything else.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
renes



Joined: 13 Feb 2009
Posts: 42
Location: Warsaw

PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dan, thank's a lot for explanation. I will focus on 150mm lens too. Schneider Xenar 150/4.5 seems to be the smalest and gives some movemetns too.
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
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
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