This has probably been addressed here before but I think I have a simple yes or no question: Will a 127mm Optar cover a 4x5 neg if I don't use any lens movements? Thanks.

Quote:

On 2004-09-15 08:24, wfhguy wrote: This has probably been addressed here before but I think I have a simple yes or no question: Will a 127mm Optar cover a 4x5 neg if I don't use any lens movements? Thanks.

Yes...

But wait a minute! I thought it was a simple answer till I looked in the book.. And I never knew there were TWO 127mm Optars!

The f/4.7 was designed for 4x5, and just barely covers...
The f/4.5 was designed for 2 1/4 x 3 1/4...

Now the odd thing... They're both listed as 4 elements in 3 groups with 55 degrees of coverage. Doesn't that mean that the f/4.5 would also cover 4x5???

Okay, so I'm just getting 'wordy' cause there haven't been many posts lately, but if someone knows the answer, let us know

Two 127's?? covers 2x3???

Where?

What book? (okay I'm assuming Graphic Graflex Photo, but edition?)

And the pat answer for the common f4.7 version is yes it covers 4x5 wide open with no movement, but the corners may be soft. Stopped down to f11, f16 and you're golden.

Les


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Les on 2004-09-15 08:50 ]</font>

The conventional answer, as given to me almost half a century ago, is that a 127mm. "Tessar" formula lens will cover 4x5 adequately, more or less, if well stopped down; the edges will go fuzzy at apertures of f:4.7 or f:5.6 or even f:8.

It was thought to be pushing your luck to use a 127mm. lens rather than a 135mm., but a lot of people did it. I always have used 135mm. lenses on 4x5 "Speed Graphics," so I can't speak from experience. This was not so much a matter of choice as of expediency.

I haven't seen many 127mm. "Optars" or "Raptars," but I do have a "Raptar" of that focal length on an old Polaroid "110" (which made 3¼x4¼ prints). The 127mm. lenses I have seen on 4x5 cameras were "Ektars."

I know that a 127mm. lens was supplied with the non-rotating back "Series B" 2¼x3¼ reflex; perhaps that is the f:4.5 model mentioned in the Book.

My old 3¼x4¼ "Anniversary Speed" came with a 127mm. "Ektar." I was pleased to discover that 135mm. is close to the diagonal measure of 3¼x4¼ sheetfilm, and so "normal" by the classical criterion, just as 152mm. is for 4X5. People who used these cameras for press work preferred a wider field.

I"ve been told from old press photographers that the 135 guys were at a disadvantage as they ended up having to step back and the rest of the photogs with their 127s would rush in

Quote:

On 2004-09-15 08:48, Les wrote: Two 127's?? covers 2x3??? Where? What book? (okay I'm assuming Graphic Graflex Photo, but edition?) ... Les <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Les on 2004-09-15 08:50 ]</font>

The 'book' is "Large Format Optical Reference Manual" by J.L. "Woody" Wooden. I use this book constantly for lens specs, but it comes with no guarantees!

There may be a discrepancy with the listing for the 127?
It lists the 101mm as 3.98". Next lens is the 127mm, but at 3.98". My first guess is that the 3.98 for the 127 is wrong? As the f/4.5 lenses (Optar) are listed as: 101, 127, 135 and 162. F/4.7 lenses as: 127 and 135.

The f/4.5 135 and 162 are listed as 4x5 coverage.

There are no other 127's listed...

Ya got me?

Probably a misprint, an error in editing. 101mm. is very close to 4 ins. (3.98 ins. sounds right), but 127mm. is 5 inches.

There was a 90mm. "Raptar", though I don't know whether it had a maximum aperture of f:4.5 or f:4.7. Something called an "Omicron" (90mm.) by Wollensak was supplied on the Simmon "Omega" 120 rollfilm camera; I suspect this was a "Raptar" with a Simmon Greek-letter designation affixed to it. The 90mm. "Raptar" was sold in its own right, too -- for some reason, people do not seem to have mounted them to 2¼x3¼ press cameras as a wider alternative to the 100-105mm. lenses that were about "normal" for that format.

hmmm...a can of worms? Thanks for the interesting discourse. I think for my purposes it will work out fine, I'm sure I'll be able to stop down. I don't have it right in front of me, but I believe it is the 4.7.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: wfhguy on 2004-09-15 10:17 ]</font>

Quote:

There was a 90mm. "Raptar", though I don't know whether it had a maximum aperture of f:4.5 or f:4.7.

My price list from the period has the 3.5" raptar listed as F:6.8, and the 4" at F:4.5.

I don't have either of the lenses personally but I can tell you from my constant vigil for Graflex goodies that I have seen 4X5 Graphics equipped with both versions. I think it's safe to say your lens will work fine.

The 3½-in. f:6.8 design was a "Wide Angle Raptar" that could cover 4x5. There also was a 90mm. lens of conventional design, about normal for 2¼x2¾. It had a maximum aperture of f:4.5 or f:4.7; one of these days I'll look it up.

<blockquote> Hello, </blockquote>the qusestion isn't yes/no with classic lenses, because in the days of yore lenses' circle of sharp focus was not controlled. With the 127mm lenses, the circle of illumination would cover 4x5 straight on, but the circle of sharp focus would not unless stopped down to f16-ish. So, the answer is yes, the 5" lens will cover 4x5 <b>if</b> stopped down.<br>     From what I hear, modern lenses have built-in limiters that restrict the circle of sharp focus to approximate the circle of illumination. Classic lenses didn't have this so you could end up with out of focus corners if you weren't careful. The 127mm/5" was really a 3x4 normal lens that could be used as a 4x5 short lens with care. <blockquote><blockquote> Dan </blockquote><blockquote>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: danimal on 2004-10-29 11:15 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: danimal on 2004-10-29 11:15 ]</font>

Quote:

On 2004-10-29 11:12, danimal wrote: <blockquote> Hello, </blockquote>the qusestion isn't yes/no with classic lenses, because in the days of yore lenses' circle of sharp focus was not controlled. With the 127mm lenses, the circle of illumination would cover 4x5 straight on, but the circle of sharp focus would not unless stopped down to f16-ish. So, the answer is yes, the 5" lens will cover 4x5 <b>if</b> stopped down.<br> From what I hear, modern lenses have built-in limiters that restrict the circle of sharp focus to approximate the circle of illumination. Classic lenses didn't have this so you could end up with out of focus corners if you weren't careful. The 127mm/5" was really a 3x4 normal lens that could be used as a 4x5 short lens with care. <blockquote><blockquote> Dan </blockquote><blockquote> <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: danimal on 2004-10-29 11:15 ]</font> <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: danimal on 2004-10-29 11:15 ]</font>

Dan, it depends on the lens. If you read, for example, Schneider's documentation on the G-Claron, you'll see that they claim a larger circle at f/22 than at f/9. Also that they say coverages grows on stopping down because stopping down reduces aperture-sensitive aberrations.

Cheers,

Dan

Isn't f22 "stopped down" from f9?

Quote:

On 2004-11-03 11:05, danimal wrote: Isn't f22 "stopped down" from f9?

There's no limiter, and its a modern lens.