Graflex.org

[hurdy_gurdyman]

I'm thinking of mouting an old 135 mm f=4.5 Optar on a board for my Century Graphic. Anyone have any experience with these lenses? I'm just wondering if they are worth bothering with. It's an uncoated lens. I've read a few comments elsewhere that they are basically junk. It's hard to picture a company like Wollensak producing a junk lens for 30 or so years. Also hard to picture Graflex using them as a standard lens for many years if they really are no good.

Dave

[Dan Fromm]

[hurdy_gurdyman]

Hi Dan,
I made this as an impulse buy without researching.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3870465754&ssPageName=ADME:B:EOAB:US:6

I assumed it isn't coated because the picture doesn't show any color in the lens. Of course, pics on epay are rarely good enough to make good judgments from.

I like a slightly long foucus lens as a normal lens. I'm thinking about cleaning the shutter and then adjusting the rangefinder of my Century Graphic for this (I hope it'll go far enough for a 135 mm). I currently have an 80 mm f = 2.8 (coated) Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar which barely covers 2 1/4 x 2 3/4. It's a bit wider then I like for most of my shots. Besides, I love the narrow depth of field of longer lenses for good selective focus.

If the Optar doesn't work out, I have a 135mm Skopar with a few cleaning marks and a broken shutter. Perhaps I'll get lucky and it will fit the shutter (and I know it's not coated).
Years ago I had a 135 Tessar (uncoated) on a small Speed Graphic and would love to get the same perspective again. I figured this Optar was a way to do it on the cheap.
Thanks for your reply.
Dave

[Henry]

Friend gave me a beat-up non-working Optar 135 in Graphex M-F-X; I had it restored by Lustig, and it is now one of my favorite lenses for my Century. It's just the right focal length for those "across the street" building façade shots so I don't have to stand out in traffic, and mine is right sharp at least up to 8x10. I shoot mostly b/w so can't testify to its color capabilities, but for my kind of work it's just the ticket. I think you'll find it a handy lens in certain situations. BTW, I always stop it down to at least f/11.

[ This Message was edited by: Henry on 2005-02-03 05:36 ]

[disemjg]

First, you can't go far wrong for your $30 bucks. I have bunches of these and they work well for 4X5, with as mentioned some edge softness. Should be fine on your 2X3. Hopefully the cleaning marks are not too bad; light ones do not matter but I have seen some pretty deep ones that need to be avoided. If you do not have a spare board for it I think you can still get one from Midwest, and they will drill it for you.

[hurdy_gurdyman]

Well, I got the lens and shutter. The shutter is a bit sticky but should clean up just fine. That I can handle. The lens, however, has some serious cleaning marks on the front. The insides and back glass seem to be ok, though. Looks like I need to start looking for another front element.

Dave

[ This Message was edited by: hurdy_gurdyman on 2005-02-05 22:21 ]

[Dan Fromm]

[Henry]

Try the lens first! You may find the marks are insignificant to the final result. My 101 Optar has marks as well as a blotchy appearance to the coating, but it functions just fine. My 135 has cleaning marks, too, and there is no problem.

For the shutter, sounds like it's Ronsonol soak time.

[ This Message was edited by: Henry on 2005-02-06 06:39 ]

[hurdy_gurdyman]

I plan on giving the shutter a good soak this afternoon. This week I'll run a roll through it and see what happens. The cleaning marks are all in circular patterns like a muti-lined target covering all the front glass. They only show up when looking through the lens at a light source. Ground glass image looks good.
I suspect the former owner used his coarse wool sweater to clean the lens during a sand storm.
Thanks for all the replies.

Dave

[hurdy_gurdyman]

The shutter cleaned up just fine. Even the 1 second sounds like about 1 second, and all faster speeds appear to be about right. I'm going to try the lens out, but the scratches are so bad I don't have my hopes up. It does look like steel wool was used on it. I don't think I'll adjust the rangefinder to this until after I try it out. I'm watching epay for a good lens with broken shutter, so maybe I'll get lucky.

BTW, the 135mm Skopar I have in a broken shutter doesn't fit this shutter, which is a disapointment, as it has pretty good glass with only a small scratch on the center element.

Dave

[Les]

find a lens shade for the lens before you test it out. Ken Hough, Deardorf expert, uses a 19" Artar on a copy stand that looks like it was cleaned with steel wool, and "single ought" at that.

By heavily shading the lens and keeping flare to an absolute minimum, it's an excellent performer.

Granted, with a studio environment you have better control of the light than outside, but without a shade, the lens won't stand a chance.

[troublemaker]

Optars are good and bad at many things. I havea few Wollenssak Optars and raptars and find that each one has its very own subtleties. They make some very stunning images. My suggestion would be to shoot up a few rolls of film with varying subject matter and lighting and get to know the lens and what it will and will not do. Some of them have a very nice glow and range from razor sharp to soft, and one that does a wierd split image that can be interesting and or frustrating. Optars also tend to be quite contrasty even though they are older single coatings. If you like shooting things that are shiny like cars and chrome, check out the star effect in bright reflecting light that one must use a special filter to achieve on a super multi coated modern lens. However, the Optar does a better job and for about the same price as the filter. If you do not have a lens shade, do so with your body, hand, grey card or hat. Also, if your film backs are as old as the Optar, it is good practice to keep everything in the shade as much as possible. All my Graphic stuff is notorious for light leak problems at the back of the camera and film backs.
Have fun....
Stephen

[hurdy_gurdyman]

[Henry]

That's good advice from troublemaker about keeping the back of the camera in the shade, especially when you wind on! It *is* possible (and, in my experience, likely) that the act of winding, esp. with lever-wind backs, exerts forces that will admit light where you don't want it to go, i.e., onto the film. I always try to remember to stabilize the back with left-hand thumb pressure while winding with the right, shading the back with my body.

If light is falling on the front of the camera, a convenient lens shade is the dark slide. Just make sure you hold it outside of the image area.

[hurdy_gurdyman]

I have some nice lens shades for slightly longer then normal lenses out of yogurt containers painted flat black. They seem to work quite well. I have one made up that fits nicely into a 58mm filter ring. I plan on trying it with the Optar.

Dave