Graflex.org

[troublemaker]

I have a what appears to be a nice 101 Ektar 4.5 lens in a Graphic/Flash Supermatic.
My questions relates to the soft images it has produced. It appears to focus reasonably sharp on the GG, but the negs and prints are very soft, and do not even compare with the excellent images I have been getting from a 103mm Trioptar and 105 Ektar. I am wondering if this would be normal. I had the same experience with a 127 Ektar which also has decent looking glass, but produced poor quality, and for me unuseable negs.
regards,
Steve

[t.r.sanford]

My experience is limited to the 101 f:4.5 "Ektar" in "Synchro-Rapid 800" shutter that came with a used "Century" I bought in 1960, but that is a very sharp lens. It tends to impart a cool cast to color photos if used unfiltered, but I've never had any reason to complain about its resolution or contrast.

In their day, "Ektars" were well-respected, and the larger ones still seem to command premium prices.

[Dan Fromm]

[Les]

One of two things are happening.

1. you gotta dud lens. Hey softness happens.
2. Something's out of alignment.

To prove 1. right, you have to prove 2. wrong.

If it's sharp on the ground glass, but soft on the film, then it SHOULD be alignment. But you say you do well with the 105.

How can this be?

Maybe you're stopping down the 105 and the depth of focus is masking the problem Try shooting both lenses wide open, critically focus with a loupe on the center of the subject--a strongly lit textured wall is good for testing. If both images show a pronouced softness compared to the ground glass, then it IS alginment.

Then I'd shoot the fence shot. Find a nice fence that you shoot "down the line" on and can mark distances ...something over 10 feet.

Focus at a specific distance, then check the neg to see what IS in focus. All alignment problems shift the focus, not just throw it out completely.
Again shoot these at wide open or slightly stopped down. Shooting at F32 won't help.

If this test shows that you focused at 10' 6" and the 11' target is sharp, then you do have an alighnment problem.

I have to assume your using the same camera, same back (either sheet or roll holders) and ground glass focusing. Range finder focusing is a no no for this.

If the fence test again shows the 105 to be good and the 101 to be mush, then I'd take a quick look at the lens....Is it mounted squarely? are the cells screwed in all the way?

If nothing is obvious then the auction title should read "Very rare 101 Ektar portait lens!" min bid $150. nobody ever got rich being honest on ebay.

And if you've got a 105 what the heck are you doing fiddling around with the 101? The 105 is a much better lens

[troublemaker]

I am afraid to take the 105 out of the house!
The 101 Ektar came on a late model grey finished Century that has a very good RF, and and cleaned up into very nice cond. I just wondered if this was common to these older Ektars since i have a couple of different lengths lying around now.
Thanks for the fence suggestion. I am going to use that for testing my RF's and scales out since I need to reset three of my Graphics. When you say alligment, you mean to say between the lens board and the GG correct? I have been cursed with enlarger problems in this way. And yes, I understand about doing some testing without stopping down but just a little. That is why I get good results with my Graftar and Trioptars no doubt, I run them at f22 or 32, but will be checking them at faster speeds against the 105 soon.
On the 101, the glass looks good, but on further inspection,looking through into a light source, there does appear to be some odd hazing, but the lenses on my, and excuse the reference, rolleicords are in much worse shape including fungus and they do very nice stuff. My Brownie Flash six-20 is full of dust and what not and just produced excellent(too good)images.
Perhaps I will do a couple portraits I have an order for and see how I like them. Wont need a diffuser filter
I'm lovin the comments regarding ebay. However, a few weeks ago I got a nice opperable 135 Optar for 35 bucks, and only was charged 5.00 for shipping. What's up with all the inflated shipping?
Anyone know how to date the Optars by the way? I have 135's, and 162mm, and curious as can be when they were produced.
regards,
Steve

[glennfromwy]

This is something that is virtually unknown these days: Ektar lenses often had spacer shims betwen the cells and the shutter. This was done to fine tune the cell spacing, which is critical with these lenses. Over time, the shims get lost from removing the cells for cleaning, etc. Also, you should check to make sure all the lens elements are in their proper position and centered in the cell groups. If someone took it apart and got something in backwards, cocked, or off center it would render the lens useless. These are very high quality lenses, even by today's standards, but it sounds like someone has been into it. Instructions for these specifically said "Never remove the lens from the shutter and do not attempt to disassemble them". It should be a good lens, even if it has cleaning marks or dust in it. Within reason, of course.

_________________
Glenn

"Wyoming - Where everybody is somebody else's weirdo"

[Dan Fromm]

[troublemaker]

The shutter is mounted correctly and is flush etc... I removed the cells and there were no shim washers, but was this something used on every lens or for intermitten corrects on some but not all Ektars?
THe lens and shutter, while they look nice, have been apart before, and perhaps not by someone with the aptitude for such an undertaking.
As for the 105, I have assembled a small alter, a shrine if you will, on top of my work table. On the first Thursday of every month I leave an offering of Hasselblad parts I pilfer from the local camera shop prior to heading out and smoojing in the art world on that most sacred night. There I light a candle that burns until I come home later and put the 105 back in the front standard of little speed graphic. Then I put the camera, as a whole, on a pillow next to where I sleep, in the hopes that, the graflex fairy will put a new mirror in the RF while I sleep so I can use the thing for what I intended it for, hand held medium format photography. (the RF works, but is a little faded and needs minor adj. I have been studying the site for info)
I will use it soon, I have an order for some sailing photos for a couple people here local.
regards,
steve

[glennfromwy]

Shims were only used as needed when the lens / shutter assembly was put together at the factory. I have never run across one with the shims but I have a couple of 127mm f:4.7 Ektars that don't perform quite as well as they should. I suspect that may be the problem with them, too. I have been going to do some tests by unscrewing the front group a tiny bit at a time to see what difference it makes. It's only thousandths of an inch, I suppose. Like everything, though, other stuff keeps getting in the way of this project.

_________________
Glenn

"Wyoming - Where everybody is somebody else's weirdo"

[Bud]

My 101mm Ektar is from 1946, in the Flash
Supermatic shutter. I've found it to have
excellence sharpness and good contrast. Some time back, I even chronographed the shutter and found all but the top speed pretty much on the money. I agree with most that if the negs aren't sharp, the lens/shutter has a problem.

[troublemaker]

hey Bud,

I looked through this lens backlit into a desk lamp (a while back) and found it to be hazed with fungus. I could not see it otherwise, and it looked clear. I am wondering if a couple lenses I have like this could be separated and cleaned along with a CLA of the shutters.
have a good day,
stephen

[Les]

Yes it can be done, I had a 105 3.7 Ektar done for the same reason.

but it's not easy with the later Ektars. Earlier B&L lenses were threaded together, so disassembly was easy.

These lenes were assembled and the the rear edge of the metal cell mount was rolled over the edge of the glass. They were never designed to be removed.

So separating the elements it costly. I'm not sure what mine ran now but I think it was in the $70 range, from Ken Hough. and he had a devil of a time to get the elements out.

[troublemaker]

it is the front element. I will give it a look see later on this evening
stephen

OK, I got the front element out with a rubber chair tip I sliced off for this purpose, and it cleaned up very nice.
This is an older 1942 uncoated lens in a Kodak Flash Supermatic.
I agree with Bud in that the later lenses are very contrasty and sharp based on a comparison of my older 105 and later 1947 coated 105. But now I have a clean 101mm that I can dedicate to one of my 2x3's and with the scale help from another post I can match it all the way around with the scale, RF, and so on.
Thanks for all the assistance...
regards,
Stephen

[ This Message was edited by: troublemaker on 2004-04-14 19:13 ]

[Rangemaster]

I am an honest ebay seller....and I don't rip people off on shipping....heck I just lost money on two items I shipped on Monday...but agree, there is quite a crew over there right now that thinks the only way to make money is give it to you up the yazoo on shipping, I got what I thought was a great deal on a crown and the guy said shipping was around (watch out for around!!!) $8.50, when he finally invoiced me, the shipping had all of a shudden become $18.50 and I saw one guy trying to get $16.50 for shipping on a focus ring for a Bronica, that is pretty interesting, $16.50 to ship something that weighs exactly 2.5 oz......awe to be a business person!

Dave

[troublemaker]

One learns quickly after a couple bad experiences. Based on descriptions alone says a lot about many items. I have just about everything I want now, but certainly learned a few things along the way. after sticking myslef with a couple junky lenses a while back I just kept them to learn how to take them apart and so on. This post series varifies that one is now very useable, and maybe another one. I just sent a nice rear element to one of this site's posters since I will never use it. My experience has been that there are some good sellers out there, but there also some knuckleheads. the first Graphic I got was supposed to be in working condition. It was so bad I coudn't believe it. Holes in the bellows, broken Graflok, useless shutter etc... It took some agressive writing to get it resolved, and my funds were returned before I could even get the thing back in the mail !
For now I am happy to hang out here and continue to learn and experience these neat old cameras.
Stephen

_________________
Anyone can buy tools...

[ This Message was edited by: troublemaker on 2004-04-15 17:00 ]