Graflex.org

[Stang1968]

I'm pretty new at all this, but I'd like to expand the versitility of my Graflex Century some. Right now, It's got a Graflar 101mm/f4.5 in a prontor-svs mounted to it. My main interest is in landscapes, rusted cars, barns... and from what I've done so far, this lens isnt for anything were a clear field of depth is needed ( a portrait lens perhaps?)
So what do I want? I see several 4x5 lens/shutter combos on the auction site often, but i dont know what i'm looking at.
Also, are lensboards interchangeable from the 4x5 to the 2x3?

[Dan Fromm]

[glennfromwy]

The Glaflar lens is the "economy" lens, if you will. Bottom of the line. If you want a lens of normal focal length that desn't cost much, there are several options for some really good ones. Wollensak Raptar 103mm (I think) f:4.5 - Kodak Ektar 101mm f:4.5 - Kodak Ektar 105mm f:3.7 - Kodak Ektar 107mm f:3.7 and for a bit longer focal length, Kodak Ektar 127mm f:4.7. All excellent lenses that will all fit your 2X3. There are also telephoto lenses that fit your camera. Telephoto designs take less bellows draw, so you can use a focal length a bit longer than bellows length. Keep your eye on ebay for lenses. You will need the 2X3 boards, also. There are, of course, other lenses that will work but this should give you some ideas.

[Henry]

Stang, take a look at my lens list on the left side of this post. I've always had excellent results from the Optar line, and the Graphex shutters are reliable and easy to use. My Century is also gray/red. BTW, Optar and Raptar are the same lenses AFAIK.

[t.r.sanford]

It's worth keeping in mind that other 4-in. lenses may be more or less satisfactory than the "Graflar," in various ways -- but, at the same aperture, all will provide the same depth of field.

Before I chucked the "Graflar," I'd try to find out what it can do, when it is well stopped down.

[Stang1968]

Lots of good advice! I've got a few rolls of film to play with to test the lens on different subjects. I think I would like a wider field of view. I did some math and was thinking a 65-68mm w/a lens would be usuable on this camera,and that about 135mm would be about 1.5 zoom.
I've been watching ebay for different lens/shutters but I dont want to end up with one that is too big for the camera i.e. a size 3 shutter or something.

[Top]

I had a 90mm f2.8 Xenotar on a Century I liked a lot. Stopped down past f8 it would cover 6x9 to the corners.
Top

[Henry]

With my 65mm Optar, movements are very limited before vignetting sets in. Even so, this is not necessarily a disabling shortcoming. Often those darker upper corners are very pleasing in landscape or architectural subjects. Be aware that infinity focus with the 65 puts the front standard so far back in the camera box that the "sports finder" frame further limits front rise.

[troublemaker]

Do some searches here on site. There are a lot of discussions regarding these cameras, and a couple on the Graflar. IT is thought by some to be a better lens than the triplets like graftars and trioptars, which all seem to do good stopped down and I have had good results with the triplets. IF refereing to plain ol' sharpness in the older lenses I possess from the fifties and sixties, I tend to lean on my coated Ektar 105, Xenar 105 (late model also) and for a longer normal lens I use a 135 Optar. I have never cared much for the results I have obtained from the little 65 Raptar or the longer 8" Tele-Raptar, but both produce useable images even if a bit soft, and the 65 is light for backpacking. The bottom line is personal preference. Most of these older lenses seem to produce varrying characteristics, and coated and uncoated optics can produce pretty wide differences in contrast. I like to keep a few around and enjoy testing them on local subject matter. Check out the latest thread in Speed Graphic help on the 105 Xenotar, which has a couple scans.
Anyway, keep looking and reading. And keep in mind, care and handling over ther years effects all these lenses and shutters, and in the end, most lenses can be made to work for something provided you are familliar with its characteristics.
OK, enough form the peanut gallery,
Stephen

[Dan Fromm]

[Henry]

Hi, Dan. Been there done that. I re-installed it because I wanted to do some hand-held shots, and I don't trust what I see through the optical finder (not that the sports is more accurate, but I find it easier to use). Anyhow, the way I work---scanning the 120 negs into Photoshop---I can do the PC stuff in the computer. Very convenient, although it's much more satisfying fun to do it with the camera.

[Dan Fromm]

[Henry]

Dan, I never claimed that front rise corrects perspective. You wrongly read that into my remarks. When you level the camera and don't see the top of your subject, you can use front rise to "recompose," as it were, the subject so it's in the frame. BUT if you don't have enough front rise to do this (as might happen in the conditions previously mentioned, i.e., frame finder bumping into case limiting rise), then you must tilt the camera, thus introducing the distortion of converging verticals. THIS is what you can easily correct with the perspective tool in Photoshop.

[Dan Fromm]

[Henry]

Hey Dan, next time you're over this way going to Cabella's to get your buffaloburgers, stop by my place and I'll give you a little demonstration of that cool Photoshop perspective tool. Then we can hit the Yuengling tour in Pottsville (free beer!) and kick off the holiday season!