If I took a lens from a Polaroid 110, a Rodenstock Ysarex 127mm.
Would it : A. Be suitable for a Graflex
B. Have a wider field than the std Ektar 127mm?

I think you would find that it would be the same.

Quote:

On 2003-12-21 07:40, primus96 wrote: If I took a lens from a Polaroid 110, a Rodenstock Ysarex 127mm. Would it : A. Be suitable for a Graflex B. Have a wider field than the std Ektar 127mm?

If by Graflex you mean Graphic, probably. People of unknown levels of discernment have claimed that the 127 Ysarex covers 4x5 and is very good.

Have a wider field? It may have move coverage, i.e., allow more movements, than a 127 Ektar but at the same distance from the subject and on the same film format will take the same picture.

The only ways to know for sure are to ask someone who's made the comparison or do it yourself. And take whatever people who've made the comparison say with a healthy dose of salt. You can't know their standards or the condition of the lenses they've tried out. People who've had one of the lenses can't say anything credible about the other.

Cheers,

Dan

At least one company converts 110s into 4x5 cameras. So you'd figure the lens would cover 4x5. If your goal is to find a cheap normal lens I hate to say it but those 110s aren't cheap. Every so often I keep my eye out for one to convert. Likely with the 70mm back I have. I've never seen one go for a low enough price to make sense if the only goal is to strip the lens and use it. 135mm to 150mm lenses aren't that expensive on the used market. You might get an older 150mm lens for less then the camera costs. The lenses that sell for more then the cameras tend to be fairly modern.

Both the Ektar and the Ysarex are Tessars in design. The main benefit of a Tessar is that it's fast..4.5, versus say a Dagor at 6.8 or a Protar at 7.7.

Both of those lenses will be sharper and provide more movements than a tessar, but they are slower and if your hand holding you need the speed.

The 127mm Ektar was designed to cover 3 1/4 x 4 1/4, so it performance lies in that area, this is why a lot of times the corners of a 4x5 is soft.

That said the Ysarex is 20+ years newer in design and uses hot (radio active) glass. My hunch is that while you won't get a bigger image circle, the edges of the image circle will be better on the Ysarex.

Oh and late in the game you could get a Crown Special with a 135mm Ysarex.

re: converted Polaroids. I'm not aware of anybody converted Polaroid folders to 4x5 cameras. There was a company that converted them to Polaroid pack film, but that's 3 1/4 x 4 1/4

Some company named Littman does the 4x5 110 polaroids. Cost is in the same ballpark that would buy a person a Canham or other high $$$ camera. Personally I'd rather have the Canham but all of us having different wants keeps the world turning.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nick on 2003-12-23 19:21 ]</font>

This was an oops. Can it be deleted?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nick on 2003-12-23 19:22 ]</font>

Dean (search web for Razzledog) does 4x5 conversions with 110's and even 150's or 800's. New back, new front standard. I think they start at $600. He sells them on eBay too. I saw one with bids in the $300 range.

Murray