I just got a couple of lenses in a new box of stuff that are interesting. The one discussed on this post is a 6 3/8" Kodak Anastigmat, and it has some strange (at least to me) markings on it. The data ring contains this legend: KODAK ANASTIGMAT F-4.5 6 3/8 In. EM32-105K NO.32

The serial number format is strange, but I can get the date 1943 out of it (also etched on the back of the shutter, L-4-14-43 in case there was any doubt). The lens appears to be coated (weak colors), and is in a No. 3 Supermatic, marked Graphic.

Anything weird here, or routine? Seems like a nice lens, but in a rather big clunky shutter.

1 inch = 25.4mm.
3/8 = .375
6.375x25.4=161.925
Commonally called a 162mm.
Should be a good sharp lens.

_________________
While a picture may be worth a thousand words, a quality photograph is worth a million.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Les on 2004-04-29 20:01 ]</font>

The number 32 Anastigmat is indeed listed as 161mm. These are the common Tessar formula and still have a reputation of being a fine lens in their own right. The coating you observe is likely "bloom" from the minerals in the glass. It acts in about the same way as coatings and is considered a desirable thing. Be very careful when cleaning it, as it is easily damaged.

I believe that the 162 is considered the "normal" focal length for 4x5, although 135 or even 127 seem to be more commonly found.

Quote:

On 2004-04-30 14:28, Henry wrote: I believe that the 162 is considered the "normal" focal length for 4x5, although 135 or even 127 seem to be more commonly found.

152?

Cheers,

Dan

I have seen 'bloom' and I do not think I have it here. This is straw yellow and violet, and does not have any of the mottle that bloom frequently displays. It is faint and seems to be only on an interior surface. Interesting, if nothing else.

Somewhere recently I read <a href=http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/ektar.html>(maybe here)</a> that Kodak coated some of the Anastigmats late in their production and that coating was on the inner surfaces only. Slight yellow suggest it might have some HOT glass as in radioactive stuff. Set it on a sheet of unexposed polaroid B&W for 12-24 hours, yellowing side closest to film, then process. Any hint of a circle is Yes its HOT.
Charles

_________________
While a picture may be worth a thousand words, a quality photograph is worth a million.





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: 45PSS on 2004-04-30 19:15 ]</font>

Hi, Dan:

"152?" what? The diagonal of a 4"x5" rectangle measures 162mm. Isn't that what determines so-called "normal" focal length in a given format?

Did Graflex ever make a 152?

Quote:

On 2004-05-01 13:34, Henry wrote: Hi, Dan: "152?" what? The diagonal of a 4"x5" rectangle measures 162mm. Isn't that what determines so-called "normal" focal length in a given format? Did Graflex ever make a 152?

The area actually exposed is somewhat smaller than 4" x 5". 90 mm x 120 mm is more like it. Diagonal 150 mm. The difference between nominal and actual gate sizes gets everyone.

Kodak's normal lens for 4x5 press cameras was the 152/4.7 Ektar, not the 127/4.7 which was normal for nominal 3.25 x 4.25.

AFAIK, Graflex made camera bodies and focal plane shutters, bought in leaf shutters and lenses. I could be mistaken, given the ease of being wrong about what Graflex did/didn't to, but that's my understanding. Corrections welcome.

Cheers,

Dan

I have been thinking about your lens. Given the date and the strange coating colors, I would not be surprised if it was a military one off type of thing. Kodak was coating interior surfaces on the Ektars in 1943 but I have not seen this on the Anastigmats, a lot of which became part of the Ektar line. You may have a rare thing.

Yes, Dan, I was aware of the fact that format dimensions are nominal only, and that the 135 and 127 would be considered mild wide-angles on a 4x5. I also believe that Kodak didn't made press cameras comparable to our Graphics, and further I don't think that Graflex furnished a 152mm lens under its own rubric for 4x5, at least I don't find a reference to any such focal length in my copy of the Graphex shutter service manual.

I could be wrong but as I remember the Navy chapter I have on the GVII, one of the standard issue lenses was the 152mm. The other being a 90, and I can't remember the third. So Graflex did sell a 152mm with their units, but maybe only for certain applications?

Quote:

On 2004-05-01 20:21, Henry wrote: Yes, Dan, I was aware of the fact that format dimensions are nominal only, and that the 135 and 127 would be considered mild wide-angles on a 4x5. I also believe that Kodak didn't made press cameras comparable to our Graphics, and further I don't think that Graflex furnished a 152mm lens under its own rubric for 4x5, at least I don't find a reference to any such focal length in my copy of the Graphex shutter service manual.

The 10th Ed. of Graphic Graphic Photography lists lenses for Pacemaker Graphics on p. 379. Standard lenses for 4x5s are 5" and 5 1/4" f/4.7, 6" and 6 3/8" f/4.5. So I got the 152's max aperture wrong. I appreciate that Morgan and Lester didn't always speak for Graflex, but ...

There seem to be at least two working definitions of what a normal lens is. There's the one-size-fits-all "the normal focal length for the gate is the gate's diagonal" and then there are various conventions, e.g., that 25 mm is normal for 16 mm cine and 50 mm is normal for 35 mm still. These two are considerably longer than the gate's diagonal.

And then there are confusions between gates' nominal and actual sizes.

Best answer to both is probably "Shaddup and go shoot!"

Cheers,

Dan

Following my own sacred rule, "Shoot off mouth first, then do the research," I offer the following data: "Graphic Graflex Photography," 10 ed., p. 14: "...the 101mm and 162mm Graflex Optars f/4.5, which are normal focal lengths for 2-1/4x3-1/4 and 4x5 respectively...." Then on p. 30 we read, "...a 4x5-inch camera, for which a 150mm [sic!] lens is normally standard."

Mmmm...think I'll have another cup of coffee.

Right, "normal" is in the eye of the beholder, when it comes to lenses. F&H "Rolleiflex" prewar and postwar TLRs (through the "Automats," at least) used 75mm. lenses, which are a bit wide for the 2¼x2¼-in. format.

But Leitz started the tradition of regarding 50mm. as normal for 35mm. cameras, and they are long for the format!

The 3¼x4¼ "Speed Graphics" I've seen, including my "Anniversary," have been fitted with 127mm. lenses, while the convention suggests 135mm. should be normal...

Forty years ago, many people regarded 135mm. as normal for 4x5. But, just when one concludes that press-camera users liked that wider field, one runs into the almost invariable use of 100 to 105mm. lenses on 2¼x3¼ "Graphics," although there was a 90mm. "Raptar" available.

Coffee definitely is indicated.