can anyone shed some lite on a wollensak 135 - 4.7 for a crown 4x5 -- 1 to 10? is it worth shooting with this lens or do I need to replace it?

In the absence of other replies, let me say this: I have a couple of Wollensak Raptars for my 2X3 cameras...one on a baby Speed...the other on a Busch Pressman...and they are my favorite lenses for sharpness of detail. They're 101mm...not 135...but compared to my Ektars..and 3-element Trioptars...they are definitely more than adequate. Fred.

Quote:

On 2002-12-11 14:53, sepstein17 wrote: can anyone shed some lite on a wollensak 135 - 4.7 for a crown 4x5 -- 1 to 10? is it worth shooting with this lens or do I need to replace it?

Richard Knoppow, who is very knowledgeble and posts regularly on rec.photo.equipment.large-format, regularly asserts that Wollensak's tessar-formula lenses (yours is one) have excessive coma and must be stopped down farther than equivalent Ektars to be reasonably sharp to the edges. He advises against using them wider open than f/22.

That said, I don't think he's tried every focal length and in particular not the 135. If I were you I'd shoot with the lens, if possible borrow a decent more-or-less equivalent Ektar, and then make the decision.

If you can afford to shoot 4x5 at all, you can afford to burn film to find out whether your lenses please you.

FWIW, how well the lens in hand does is not always congruent with its reputation. I have a couple of short Tominon macro lenses that are very nice, but Tominons are generally trashed in discussions of "which lens." And I have a somewhat doggy (but I have to do a serious test with it to be absolutely sure) Zeiss Luminar, and nothing comparable has a better reputation.

Cheers,

Dan

I'll add my 2 cents in here, but it will be Dan's opinion with different words.

How are you going to use it? are you making 3x4ft enlargements? or just 8x10 prints?

Richard Knoppow is an incredibly intellegent man and has years of lens design and testing experience that I would love to have.

If Richard bench tests a lens and the image is looked at with a 30x microscope and is found to have excessive coma. I won't dispute it. But I will ask will YOU notice it on an 8x10 print? I doubt it.

The next hurdle between theory/lab test and reality is the history of that particular lens. When they were new, side by side comparisons of Raptars and Ektars were revant. 50 years later, I doubt you could test 10 ektars and 10 raptars and have a trend.

I say go out and test THAT lens on THAT camera and see for your self. Do you like the resulls? And while your doing that, remember that somebody made a living and probably put somebody through college with that lens.



_________________
"In order to invent, you need a good imagination and a lot of junk" Thomas Edison

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Les on 2002-12-11 18:42 ]</font>

I have the 135mm Wollensak Optar on a Super Graphic and the 135mm Schenider Xenar on a Pacemaker Crown Graphic 45. With the Optar, I have made some very sharp 11x14 and 16x20 enlargements with the lens at f8 to f22 and can't tell much difference from prints made with the Xenar. Your best bet is to shoot a half dozen shots with the camera on a tripod and see for yourself.

I'll state the obvious. You're holding the lens. Only you know your standards. Slap some film in the camera and decide for yourself.

No matter how good/bad the average lens might be yours may be better/worse. Test it out.