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 

Raptar 65mm question
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Graflex.org Forum Index -> Lenses Help
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
troublemaker



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

PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I picked a Raptar 1:6.8 65mm to use on my various 2x3's. HAs anyone had experience with these older wide angles. This one doesn't offer the sharp images I am use to getting with my 103mm and 105mm lenses. In some ways it is kind of a throw back soft image, but I need sharp quality. HAve I got another junky lens, and need to drop the dough foe a super angulon or?
SO am I asking too much from this littel lens that it should be nice and sharp edge to edge (I actually loose the middle which seems wierd)
Thanks for feedback
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Fromm



Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 1892
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

On 2004-02-22 11:43, troublemaker wrote:
I picked a Raptar 1:6.8 65mm to use on my various 2x3's. HAs anyone had experience with these older wide angles. This one doesn't offer the sharp images I am use to getting with my 103mm and 105mm lenses. In some ways it is kind of a throw back soft image, but I need sharp quality. HAve I got another junky lens, and need to drop the dough foe a super angulon or?
SO am I asking too much from this littel lens that it should be nice and sharp edge to edge (I actually loose the middle which seems wierd)
Thanks for feedback
I was never happy with mine and eventually sold it. Deciding that the fuzziness wasn't my fault took a while, though.

Besides a 65/8 Super Angulon, you might look for a 65/8 Ilex. These things came with a variety of names engraved on them, often Acugon. I have one now, its much better than the Wolly.

Cheers,

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



Joined: 09 May 2001
Posts: 1446
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania

PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The 65 Raptar is "the same as" the 65 Optar, as I understand it. If so, and my experience with the 65 Optar is any indication, make sure you stop down to at least f/16 (f/22 or f/32 even better?) before you give up on this lens completely. Another point: this lens focuses on infinity far back on the bed rails. Make sure your front standard is exactly perpendicular to the rails (equidistant from the rail ends on both sides, i.e., no swing). Finally, use the loupe to focus on the groundglass with great care! I find this lens very difficult to focus and often have to resort to the "least worst" method. You are correct that results *can* be disappointing; OTOH, I have gotten some really sharp 12" x 15" digital prints from 120 roll film with the 65 Optar.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Les



Joined: 09 May 2001
Posts: 2682
Location: Detroit, MI

PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 1:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And don't for get the non super 65mm angulon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
t.r.sanford



Joined: 10 Nov 2003
Posts: 812
Location: East Coast (Long Island)

PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 4:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I made quite a few landscape/architectural photos with my 65mm. f:6.8 "W.A. Raptar" on a "Century" some four decades ago. I liked the results enlarged to 8x10, but they weren't needle-sharp.

The conventional wisdom, back then, was that the maximum aperture of a classic wide field lens -- f:6.8, f:6.3, f:6.5 or whatever -- was provided for convenience in focusing; the lenses were designed for making exposures at much smaller apertures, probably f:16 and beyond.

A 65mm. lens produces a pretty small-scale image, by LF criteria, and indeed, it's not easy to focus with the naked eye. This may have been my problem.

The advice to focus very carefully, using a magnifier, and to stop down as much as possible is very sound indeed. I'd try it before giving up on the lens.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
troublemaker



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

PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 6:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wouldn't give up on it so easy, but I did use an 8x loupe and stopped the lens down to f-22 and 32 for the images I made. The "fuziness" mentioned above is evident even on the GG, and while it was apparent from the start that this lens would require patience in focussing, it will never do for the landscapes I intended to use it for. When I do my lens/shutter testes I also take a couple refernce photos with my Trioptar or Graftar, and these, even hand held, blew the doors off the little Raptar 65mm. I bought the lens because the guy insisted it was very sharp and that he had excellent results using it. I suggest the images I have here are not worth the paper to print them on, I certainly couldn't produce sellable work with it; I might as well use my Rolleicord with the Xenar 75, which while in worse condition, performs light years better than the Raptar. Looks like I will have to drop some bucks on some newer German Glass to get a 65mm worth putting film behind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Fromm



Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 1892
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

On 2004-02-22 20:35, t.r.sanford wrote:
I made quite a few landscape/architectural photos with my 65mm. f:6.8 "W.A. Raptar" on a "Century" some four decades ago. I liked the results enlarged to 8x10, but they weren't needle-sharp.

The conventional wisdom, back then, was that the maximum aperture of a classic wide field lens -- f:6.8, f:6.3, f:6.5 or whatever -- was provided for convenience in focusing; the lenses were designed for making exposures at much smaller apertures, probably f:16 and beyond.

A 65mm. lens produces a pretty small-scale image, by LF criteria, and indeed, it's not easy to focus with the naked eye. This may have been my problem.

The advice to focus very carefully, using a magnifier, and to stop down as much as possible is very sound indeed. I'd try it before giving up on the lens.
t.r., I gave mine every chance. And I shot it against the Ilex before I gave up on it. The Ilex is only f/8, a little dimmer and harder to focus. It won the shootout easily anyway.

To be fair about it, I used to shoot mine at f/16 and f/22, never used f/32. By definition, f/32 guarantees < 50 lp/mm, which can be plenty sharp for 8x10 but is a bit marginal for 2x3.

I'll bet that not all 65/6.8 Raptars were created equal. I can't speak for mine's creation, but since it appeared to be new old stock when I got it I don't think post-sale abuse was its problem.

Finally, we all have to remember that one man's "very sharp" can easily be another's "unacceptably fuzzy." Especially when the one man is selling. But without objective testing, there's no easy way to compare two individual's working concept of sharpness.

Cheers,

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



Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 15
Location: Massachusetts, USA

PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mine must be a mutant because it's very sharp and, against my own expectations, using it in a kit with my new 100 apo-sironar it holds it's own! I never expected that and even felt a little foolish the first time I took it out along with my new wonderglass. The Wolly's colors aren't as stunning (a little too yellow?), but high res scans of the same scenes shot with both lenses show impressive sharpness. I love my little 65mm WA Raptar.

_________________
My wife asked me what I gave the urchin begging in the street. "f8 at 1/125th," I replied.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Fromm



Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 1892
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

On 2004-02-23 11:36, Alfie wrote:
Mine must be a mutant because it's very sharp and, against my own expectations, using it in a kit with my new 100 apo-sironar it holds it's own! I never expected that and even felt a little foolish the first time I took it out along with my new wonderglass. The Wolly's colors aren't as stunning (a little too yellow?), but high res scans of the same scenes shot with both lenses show impressive sharpness. I love my little 65mm WA Raptar.

Alfie, Wollensak wasn't famous for quality control. Sort of like Schneider used to be. Good for you that you got a good 'un, not so good for those of us who didn't.

To get an idea of how variable Angulons can be, go to http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html
Disillusioning, eh?

Cheers,

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



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

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2004 3:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

THanks all for the feedback on the 65mm Raptar. After reading these comments and working with the lens a bit more, I have decided it is a good adition to my working collection, and may have some limited use for it. I can always sell it becuase it is very clean and functional. I have a Raptar 90mm that is about the same proportionately and comapared to a 90mm Angulon, not as bad as I thought. The 65 is not easy to focus, and I dislike the narrow adjustment between f22 and f32, but it works, and the shutter is working very well. I can use it as a tool in deciding if I wish to spend the money later for a newer lens, and or if I even will need one. Someone raminded me I could set up an 80mm off of an XL, and I think that mey be wide plenty wide as an alternative to 103-105. And I am thinking the 80mm may work with the RF. The 65 will not as has been well documented.
So thanks again for sharing expereince and fedback.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Fromm



Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 1892
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2004 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

On 2004-03-03 19:26, troublemaker wrote:
THanks all for the feedback on the 65mm Raptar. After reading these comments and working with the lens a bit more, I have decided it is a good adition to my working collection, and may have some limited use for it. I can always sell it becuase it is very clean and functional. I have a Raptar 90mm that is about the same proportionately and comapared to a 90mm Angulon, not as bad as I thought. The 65 is not easy to focus, and I dislike the narrow adjustment between f22 and f32, but it works, and the shutter is working very well. I can use it as a tool in deciding if I wish to spend the money later for a newer lens, and or if I even will need one. Someone raminded me I could set up an 80mm off of an XL, and I think that mey be wide plenty wide as an alternative to 103-105. And I am thinking the 80mm may work with the RF. The 65 will not as has been well documented.
So thanks again for sharing expereince and fedback.

If you're looking for an 80, don't rule out the 80/6.3 Wide Field Ektar. I'm much happier with mine than I was with my 65/6.8 Raptar. And don't forget that the XL's 80 mm lenses don't cover 2x3; the 80 WF Ektar does.

Cheers,

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



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

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2004 12:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, I had thought the XL lens would cover, thanks. I prefer to have the full 2x3 available since I have backs for 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9. However, does the Ektar WF 80mm cover 4x5 also?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Fromm



Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 1892
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

On 2004-03-07 16:39, troublemaker wrote:
Oh, I had thought the XL lens would cover, thanks. I prefer to have the full 2x3 available since I have backs for 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9. However, does the Ektar WF 80mm cover 4x5 also?
6x9 si, 4x5 no.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
t.r.sanford



Joined: 10 Nov 2003
Posts: 812
Location: East Coast (Long Island)

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2004 4:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The 80mm. "Wide Field Ektar" was designed for the 3x4 format. Its image circle may cover 4x5, but the definition at the edges is unsatisfactory.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Fromm



Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 1892
Location: New Jersey

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2004 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

On 2004-03-07 20:34, t.r.sanford wrote:
The 80mm. "Wide Field Ektar" was designed for the 3x4 format. Its image circle may cover 4x5, but the definition at the edges is unsatisfactory.
Another explanation of the difference between "illuminates" and "covers."
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 1, 2  Next
Page 1 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