Graflex.org

[troublemaker]

Anyone got any specs on this:
Wollensak 8-1/4" (210mm) Raptar f/4.5
I got this as a surprize (nice bonus item eh) with a beat up old Speed kit along with a couple other nice lenses. This to me is a huge lens, very heavy, but sure looks impressive on my GVI ! It does not say tele, and definately requires its focal length in bellows draw. Coverage? I gave it full movements this way and that and didn't notice any apparent fall off with a loupe on GG, but not an expert on these things.
Thanks
P.S. the Alphax shutter this is mounted on is a Synchromatic without any settings, so am I safe to assume this is an X synch?

[ This Message was edited by: troublemaker on 2005-12-30 08:34 ]

[Les]

The f.4.5 means it's a tessar formula. Handbook of Photography says Wolley made Velostigmats from 3 to 16" and had a covering angle of 53°.

that means a 210mm lens will have a coverage of 208mm or just short of covering 5x7 wide open. A 210 is a good lens for a view camera and has a much more pleasing perspective for product photography than the wider 127mm or 135.

Probably not as sharp as a 203 Ektar, but a whole lot brighter under the darkcloth. I would use this lens to play with it's shallow depth of field and work the movements.

[troublemaker]

Hi Les,
Thanks. yeah I thought it was simply a big tessar, and after moving it around I questioned its coverage based on what you've all taught me about the limited covering power of standard Pacemaker tessars and many other lenses (regardless of what I see on the GG, I had some corners wiped out shooting landscape last year). Along with the other junk I received was a 7-1/2" similar lens on an Acme, and perhaps more importantly, an impressive little Optar 203mm f7.5. The 8-1/4" Raptar does not compare to this 203 in sharpness, in fact I was quite impressed because I have learned to work with the limitations of Wollensak optics,or rather make them work for me, but this little 203 wholly surprized me (came very nice with its cap).

[Henry]

Glad to have my opinion backed by so competent an authority! I've been praising my 203 Optar for quite a while here, but frankly I wasn't sure whether I just had a one-off great one until I read your post. So at least there are two of them!

Mine came with front and rear metal caps. I bought it from Columbus Camera Group about maybe six years ago. BTW, anybody know if they are still around? They used to run ads in Shutterbug; that's where I saw the 203 listed.

[ This Message was edited by: Henry on 2005-12-30 13:45 ]

[Les]

http://columbuscameragroup.com/

[woodplane]

I have a Wollensak 203 7.7 that came with my GVII. I really love it. I've had Ektar envy and wondered if it was worth buying a 203 Ektar, but having gotten some chromes processed from the fall foliage, I'll stick with the Optar unless I learn better later. I really dislike my Wolly 135 as the corners are fuzzy, but the 203 is nice.

[troublemaker]

Henry, isn't the 203 too long for your 6x9 cameras? There's nothing Tele about the one I got.

[Henry]

The 203 will just make it on the Century, at full bellows extension for distant subjects with not much wiggle room, but it works. It's definitely not a tele. Like all long lenses, the 203 exaggerates every little breeze. I often steady the camera by laying a hand on it when releasing the shutter (always by cable). The image is breathtakingly sharp---Wollensak really got it right with this one. BTW, I've had excellent results with the 135 Optar as well, in fact for my work it's about the most useful all-around lens along with the 101.

So now we have three (!) thumbs up for the 203 Optar. Any other users out there?

Thanks for the link to CCG, Les!

P.S. On second thought, WRT 203 Optar coverage on 6x9, I can't say as I shoot 6x7. I do have a 6x9 roll holder, though, and plan to run a roll of XP2 Super through it one of these days, so guess I'll have an answer eventually. Don't know if I could tell about 6x9 coverage just from looking through the gg.

[ This Message was edited by: Henry on 2005-12-31 06:49 ]

[troublemaker]

Hey Henry,
I actually set up a Speed 23 with one of my 135's The Speed body is such that a 101-105mm lens places the front standard right where the fingers hold the body and it is awkward. The 135 is one of those sharp but vintage glowy ones and I will never let it out of my sight. It does things with not only B&W but color also that are very pleasing to the eye in print. Also, while I have an 8" tele-Raptar for the 23's, I prefer to use a 135 or 127 as I do not care much for the tele performance or image quality. It rates right down there with a 135 convertable Symmar I wasted a lot of film on last fall. I am gonna test these longer lenses I just got with my Crown 45 and a roll back when the sun comes out. Nothing says "here's whatI can do" like film testing, and I need to know contrast values. I found the Wollensak coatings to require a bit of reduction on bright sunny days. The big Raptar has a coating that appears more like the Ektar luminized so curious what that will do. The reduction I refered to has been necesarry on the littel 101's. The 135 and 162's I have tested seem a littel more middle of the road.

[Henry]

I should have mentioned that the 203 is not useable much closer than infinity on the Century, although I do routinely squeeze architectural detail "close-ups" (but not really *too* close) out of it; for such use the 203 gives really superbly sharp results.

I shoot mostly Ilford XP2 Super chromogenic b/w, nominally 400-speed film which I routinely expose as 100-speed to optimize contrast and density for scanning purposes. For color I use Fuji Provia, a great slide film IMO. I have also shot some outdated (and AFAIK no longer available in 120) Gold 100 color negative stock. All my Optars seem to handle color well enough. After scanning I can play around with various settings in Photoshop, but more often than not the auto-color balance and auto-brightness/contrast features give good results; thus, I haven't had to attempt any color compensation adjustments in the camera as far as shutter speeds and apertures are concerned.

The 203 has plenty of coverage for 2x3 format, including the movements available on the Century.

WRT the 135 Optar, it happens on my Century that infinity focus position is approximated if the front standard is run out beyond the infinity stops (postioned for the 101) and backed up against them from the front, i.e., *ahead* of the stops (mmm, is that clear?). Very handy!

[ This Message was edited by: Henry on 2006-01-01 11:13 ]

[Dan Fromm]

[troublemaker]

Hi Dan,
I think it is an issue of some are OK and others getpassed around until someone doesn't have anything to comapare to.
My 65mm Raptar makes better images and at 235 was laughable. at 135 or 235, the GG image was ugly. I can be creative and use lens shortcomings to be creative but this I deemed utterly useless because it wasn't even interesting, just yuck. But the whole lens thing can be very subjective. One man's junk is another man's treasure as the cliche goes...

[Dan Fromm]

[troublemaker]

I thought that might raise an eyebrow or two. I know these little Wollensaks have been bashed pretty hard too. My 65 isn't super sharp, but it makes interesting images that are pleasant to look at, and works well with color, really well. I am still looking for something a bit sharper, but hard to beat the tiny glass and shutter for backpacking. I have to compromise because I am used to travelling light in the backcounrty, so the Trioptar and Raptar tend to get the call. However, I just got a Rodenstock Heligon 80mm that is impressive, so looking at the XL line more closely.
Hey I have a question, have you ever tried the Symmar 105 convertible? That one still has my curiosity.
Oh the contrast thing. I did some testing a while back with coated and uncoated Ektars, and while I wasn't concerned with zone values at the time, the results caused me to take this into account after having problems printing, esspecially with the Optar 101 exposures. I think lens characteristics need to be, or can be factored in to the exposure and develoment process to provide better negs, and can also provide the ability to make contrast adjustment on a single roll of film. I would say the two Ektars recorded near a forty percent difference, which is huge. I ran a coated Optar alongside an uncoated 101 Ektar once also and found the gap to be only about twenty percent and gatherred that for uncoated optics, the 101 performed better than the 105 uncoated Heliar Ektar though both are beautiful glass and sharp. With color transperency film I have had good and bad results with single coated optics. That is why I got the Symmar 135 in the first place because my other Schneider lenses handle color well, and though it seemed good with color, it just did ugly things with sharpness and image quality that were unacceptable.
I shoot moonrises over L.A. Harbor from the roof here and now that they have the bridge lit up at night I am hoping to put the 203 Optar and 210 Raptar to work on that project. I calculated my own times for Delta 3200 with D-76 1:1 for an ISO 1600 exposure that produces really nice tones and grain structure better than suggested 1600 developing in stock sollution. This has also made a nice film process to use with the 101 Wollensaks for portraits. I use only a small crop from the 120 film, about 35mm size, and then add some diffusion to blend the exagerated grain, and the result is very interestly pleasing, and as noted the use of the 101 works well as a close portrait with the crop. Now I am using Optar 135 on Speed body, which is getting a new RF.

[troublemaker]

I thought that might raise an eyebrow or two. I know these little Wollensaks have been bashed pretty hard too. My 65 isn't super sharp, but it makes interesting images that are pleasant to look at, and works well with color, really well. I am still looking for something a bit sharper, but hard to beat the tiny glass and shutter for backpacking. I have to compromise because I am used to travelling light in the backcounrty, so the Trioptar and Raptar tend to get the call. However, I just got a Rodenstock Heligon 80mm that is impressive, so looking at the XL line more closely.
Hey I have a question, have you ever tried the Symmar 105 convertible? That one still has my curiosity.
Oh the contrast thing. I did some testing a while back with coated and uncoated Ektars, and while I wasn't concerned with zone values at the time, the results caused me to take this into account after having problems printing, esspecially with the Optar 101 exposures. I think lens characteristics need to be, or can be factored in to the exposure and develoment process to provide better negs, and can also provide the ability to make contrast adjustment on a single roll of film. I would say the two Ektars recorded near a forty percent difference, which is huge. I ran a coated Optar alongside an uncoated 101 Ektar once also and found the gap to be only about twenty percent and gatherred that for uncoated optics, the 101 performed better than the 105 uncoated Heliar Ektar though both are beautiful glass and sharp. With color transperency film I have had good and bad results with single coated optics. That is why I got the Symmar 135 in the first place because my other Schneider lenses handle color well, and though it seemed good with color, it just did ugly things with sharpness and image quality that were unacceptable.
I shoot moonrises over L.A. Harbor from the roof here and now that they have the bridge lit up at night I am hoping to put the 203 Optar and 210 Raptar to work on that project. I calculated my own times for Delta 3200 with D-76 1:1 for an ISO 1600 exposure that produces really nice tones and grain structure better than suggested 1600 developing in stock sollution. This has also made a nice film process to use with the 101 Wollensaks for portraits. I use only a small crop from the 120 film, about 35mm size, and then add some diffusion to blend the exagerated grain, and the result is very interestly pleasing, and as noted the use of the 101 works well as a close portrait with the crop. Now I am using Optar 135 on Speed body, which is getting a new RF.