Graflex.org

wfhguy · Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 3:24 pm Post subject:

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.

RichS · Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 3:31 pm Post subject:

Les · Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 2682 Location: Detroit, MI

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

[ This Message was edited by: Les on 2004-09-15 08:50 ]

t.r.sanford · Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 3:55 pm Post subject:

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.

Les · Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 2682 Location: Detroit, MI

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

_________________
"In order to invent, you need a good imagination and a lot of junk" Thomas Edison

RichS · Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 4:41 pm Post subject:

t.r.sanford · Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 5:07 pm Post subject:

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.

wfhguy · Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 5:15 pm Post subject:

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.

[ This Message was edited by: wfhguy on 2004-09-15 10:17 ]

Sjixxxy · Joined: 27 Apr 2004 Posts: 109 Location: Midwest US

glennfromwy · Joined: 29 Nov 2001 Posts: 903 Location: S.W. Wyoming

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.

_________________
Glenn

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

t.r.sanford · Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 2:02 pm Post subject:

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.

danimal · Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 6:12 pm Post subject:

Hello,

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 if stopped down.
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.

Dan

[ This Message was edited by: danimal on 2004-10-29 11:15 ]

[ This Message was edited by: danimal on 2004-10-29 11:15 ]

Dan Fromm · Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2144 Location: New Jersey

danimal · Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:05 pm Post subject:

Isn't f22 "stopped down" from f9?

Dan Fromm · Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2144 Location: New Jersey