Graflex.org

puderse · Joined: 08 Mar 2005 Posts: 10 Location: dallas

Have a chance to buy a pretty nice kit but it only has this one lens on a 2 1/4 crown. Seller says that price is especially nice since it has this "rare" lens (Jena w/red *). The camera and all the equipment is in tip-top condition.

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

puderse · Joined: 08 Mar 2005 Posts: 10 Location: dallas

Doah!!

Is this lens indead "rare" and worth any premium over another lens of the same design but manufactured in another place by another maker? Image quality being the bottom line not the lenses "collectability".

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

Top · Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:10 pm Post subject:

I never saw a 101mm Tessar. Sure it's not a 105mm?
Tessars are good lenses within their design limits (not much coverage), but for press cameras it's not a factor. I have a 13.5cm Tessar on a pre-war Anny that's quite good, but no better in actual use than the 127mm Ektar on my late war Anny.
IMO, the best 'normal' lens offered for any 2x3 Graphic was the 105mm Ektar based on the lens fitted to the Kodak Medalist. The 90mm Schneider Xenar would be #2, but it cropped the corners a tad wide open. There's nothing wrong with the the 101mm Ektar, and my '46 Mini mounts one.
How much dough are you talking about for this outfit, and what else is included?
Top

puderse · Joined: 08 Mar 2005 Posts: 10 Location: dallas

Your correct!!! Went back to see the camera and it indeed was a 3.5 Tessar 105 (w/ted T) 3772XXX carl zeiss jena. on a Crown 715XXX. It has a '23' 8 exp lever roll film back with rollers (the guy said the rollers at the ends of the frame were important) as well as the ground glass & hood w/3 cut film holders. It also has an undrilled lens board. The thing looks near perfect. The seller again tried to impress the premium lens even though it is not original.

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

puderse · Joined: 08 Mar 2005 Posts: 10 Location: dallas

While I'm looking, what would constitute a good or great lens? For me, I think the wider the better. Tripod use mostly, not as press camera. Don't even mention new lenses that are worth more than my truck

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

The kit you describe is a perfectly good outfit but the price is high. I have two mini Speeds with the 105 Ektar and they are very capable performers. If you want a bit wider lens for 2X3, the 101 or 103mm lenses that came with these cameras provide some pretty good options. Have a look at the lens articles on this site for info. Or you could do as I do. Look for old folding cameras on eBay with good 75 or 80mm lenses. They go cheap and you can transplant the lens/shutter and toss the rest.

_________________
Glenn

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

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

Yes a Carl Zeiss Jena T or lens in the 105 range is an uncommon lens, at least in the states. That's because Eastern Bloc lenses couldn't be sold here. I'm guessing the lens is from the 50s or 60s

This lens will be more contrasty and probably perform better on resolution tests than an Ektar, but you probably won't see it in prints of 11x14 or smaller. It will probably do slightly better on color transparency work than an Ektar.

You didn't mention what kind of shutter it's in. I have a couple of these lenses (an 8" and a 10") and both are in barrel. If this is in a Copal, then I think it will out perform an Ektar, just on shutter accuracy. On the other hand if its in a barrel mount on a Crown then you'll be doing the "boler hat flop" as a shutter and negating any gains in lens design.

So if you're an experienced photgrapher that can make accurate consistant exposure and can develop film to a specific C.I, then yes you can do very well with this lens.

If you're a beginner with medium format and he wants a $100 premium for the lens, then you'll be better off buying a camera with an Ektar and spending the money on film and paper.

djon · Joined: 05 Nov 2004 Posts: 174 Location: New Mexico

Don's pricing seems reasonable...don't pay a premium for the lens.

DO not buy the camera without the focusing panel..they're expensive and hard to find afterwards (this is the ground glass back...you'll want it).

IMO IF you plan on printing full frame, that RH-8 may be worth a premium Vs the more common RH-10 because a 6X9 neg has the benefit of being noticably bigger than a 6X7 negative unless you intend only to print to fill standard paper sizes, in which case they'd be equal...

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

troublemaker · Joined: 24 Nov 2003 Posts: 715 Location: So Cal

I second the above comment, "It depends on the individual lens." This can not be understated. Time and previous handling or mishandling, and or quality control issues have given each and every one of the vintage lenses the characteristics they now have when we get our hands on them. If one wants tack sharp perfect images they may be better served to spend the money and get a later Nikkor, Fujinon, or Schneider etc... But if willing to test a lens and let it inform the user as to its characteristics they may well find it to be quite useful for any number of projects.
I have the 65mm Raptar (Also known as Optar) and at f6.8 it isn't the easiest thing to focus at five in the morning in the freezing high sierra, and for sharpness it is rather blunt; you wont be poking your eye out with the images it produces. However, knowing what it will and will not do make a big difference in the kind of images I make with it. At first I hated it, wanted to send it back, said all nasty things. You will now have to pry it out of my dead hands to get it, wierd lens that it is.
Stephen