| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
newbie
Joined: 17 Apr 2003
Posts: 17
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2003 3:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I just got 2 lenses in very good condition:
Graphex Optar 127mm f4.5, s# G55205
Astragon 135mm f4.5, s# 1015333 (in seikosha-slv)
Which lens is better? I never heard about Astragon before... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2144
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2003 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2003-04-17 20:32, newbie wrote:
I just got 2 lenses in very good condition:
Graphex Optar 127mm f4.5, s# G55205
Astragon 135mm f4.5, s# 1015333 (in seikosha-slv)
Which lens is better? I never heard about Astragon before...
|
Why don't you ask the lenses? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
newbie
Joined: 17 Apr 2003
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2003 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I want to know some information about both lenses - resolution and image circle, before i will waste film testing it. But looks like where is no info about Astragon in the internet... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2144
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2003 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2003-04-18 07:13, newbie wrote:
I want to know some information about both lenses - resolution and image circle, before i will waste film testing it. But looks like where is no info about Astragon in the internet...
|
Look, the Optar is a known quantity. The Astragon is not so well known, but it has to be another tessar type.
The Optar was sold for use on 4x5 Graphics, should just barely cover 4x5 and should allow no movements. Richard Knoppow, who almost always knows whereof he speaks, reports that the 127 Optar has relatively bad coma and has to be stopped down to f/22 before it produces good image quality in the corners. He prefers the 127 Ektar. Look for his comments on them in rec.photo.equipment.large-format.
The Astragon name was used by Sterling-Howard company for many many lenses, all bought in. It is probably a more modern design than you Optar and, since it has a slightly longer focal length, probably covers a slightly larger circle.
All of this information is nice, but irrelevant because of lens-to-lens variations in production and because there's no telling whether used lenses had hard or easy lives. What they were like when new isn't much of a guide to how well they perform now that they're old. Asking people about their lenses will get you practically nothing about the ones you own. You have to ask your lenses.
Also, you have no idea whether the people who give you information are more or less critical than you. OK by me may not be good enough for you. Terrible by me may be good enough for you. You have to ask your lenses how well they suit you. E.g., I really dislike my 250/5.6 TeleOptar. Other people say good things about theirs. And I have a 100/6.3 Luminar that's an absolute dog, by test. Good ones live up to the reputation, mine doesn't.
Even with cheap equipment, scrap film, and cut-rate processing photography isn't an inexpensive hobby. As they say about boats, if you have to ask the price you can't afford it.
Hint. If your lenses aren't on boards, set 'em up on cardboard boards for testing. I use cardboard from the back of legal pads. You're going to be shooting at only a couple of apertures, so shoot at just, say, f/16 and f/22. Shoot the same fairly detailed subject. If the lenses perform much differently, you'll see it easily in the fine detail. And the corners will be sharp enough or they won't. And then you'll know. If you don't want to spend 4 shots for information, you should have another hobby.
Welcome to the world of mystery lenses and finding out for yourself.
Cheers,
Dan
p.s., I have a couple of mystery lenses that, after I tried them, turned out to be fine, just fine. And there was no information about them anywhere in the known universe. There's no substitute for trying 'em out. I do what I suggest you do.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
newbie
Joined: 17 Apr 2003
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Dan
I think most likely I will get rid of Optar, get Ektar 127 and keep Astragon. Astragon look more modern, coating also looks better, blue and nice 
Will test lenses nex week anyway |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Les
Joined: 09 May 2001
Posts: 2682
Location: Detroit, MI
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2003 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dan has made two VERY IMORTANT points.
1. Richard Knoppow knows what he is talking about. If Richard says HIS optar has excessive coma in the corners until f22 then it does.
2. Lens performance is subjective. What is excessive to Richard is just fine with me.
I use my Optars and Ektars interchangeably. Since I NEVER put important information in the corners why the heck should I care if there's coma there? Most of the time I'm edge burning anyway, so while Richard may be right, for ME the point is moot. Is it for you? Only time and film will answer that.
Right now I'm testing three lenses, a 127 Ektar that's coated, and uncoated 127 ektar, and an uncoated ektar whose front glass surface looks like the craters of the moon under a loupe. I'm testing them in both difuse and specular light to see just how bad, bad is.
_________________
"In order to invent, you need a good imagination and a lot of junk" Thomas Edison |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RichS
Joined: 18 Oct 2001
Posts: 1468
Location: South of Rochester, NY
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2003 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Les, I do love your comments. Or maybe I read too much into them? 
Everyone is right, as far as I know. After so many years a good lens can go bad, to equal a bad lens I suppose. Can a bad lens go good?
As far as image circle, I can help with the Astrogon. It's listed as 6 elements in 2 groups for 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 with an image circle of 152mm at f/16. That just barely covers 4x5.
The Optar is listed as 4 elements in 3 groups for 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 with no listed image circle. I can attest to it covering 4x5 but I don't remember it offering much for movements.
When I get a new lens, one of the first things I do is put it on the camera and see what it looks like on the ground glass and how much movement it offers. Then, like it was said up further, take a pic with each and compare. Keep the one you like best. Or if you're like me, keep them all
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 494
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2003 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2003-04-18 14:03, RichS wrote:
Everyone is right, as far as I know. After so many years a good lens can go bad, to equal a bad lens I suppose. Can a bad lens go good?
|
Sure! Give it to somebody with different standards-)))
It's already been mentioned but I'll repeated it. When somebody tells you his lens is good/bad at most that means his lens is good/bad. Maybe the lens he got was the result of lousy QC. Maybe it's been sitting in the bottom of the local pond for the last fifty years. Maybe he got the one lens that left the factory in perfect shape.
The other point. It depends on what you want to do with the lens. If your goal is to make a 40"x50" print then your need is different then somebody who needs to make contact prints. Who is the photographer that bakes her lenses to get the look? Sally Mann I think. Read what she claims to look for in a lens.
http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/mann/clip2.html
If she told you a lens was good/bad would you agree?-))
The only real way to know if a lens will produce the photo you want is to make some photos.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2144
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2003 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2003-04-18 14:03, RichS wrote:
Les, I do love your comments. Or maybe I read too much into them?
Everyone is right, as far as I know. After so many years a good lens can go bad, to equal a bad lens I suppose. Can a bad lens go good?
As far as image circle, I can help with the Astrogon. It's listed as 6 elements in 2 groups for 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 with an image circle of 152mm at f/16. That just barely covers 4x5.
The Optar is listed as 4 elements in 3 groups for 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 with no listed image circle. I can attest to it covering 4x5 but I don't remember it offering much for movements.
When I get a new lens, one of the first things I do is put it on the camera and see what it looks like on the ground glass and how much movement it offers. Then, like it was said up further, take a pic with each and compare. Keep the one you like best. Or if you're like me, keep them all
|
Rich, coupla years ago I found a coverage table for a number of Wollensak lenses somewhere on the web. Don't remember where, and all I have now is the spreadsheet. At home, not at the office.
It says the 127/4.5 covers 159 mm. Consistent with both of our remarks.
Are you sure about that Astragon? Most cheap 135s were made for 3x4 or tight coverage on 4x5, not 2x3.
Don't know about bad lenses going good, but if you search usenet for reports on how just about any lens does, you'll find comments ranging from "passes light, doesn't form an image" to "sharper than a serpent's tooth." A few good examples of models that are generally not very good must escape. That or there are some pretty diverse ideas about sharpness out there.
About hanging on to lenses that don't please, until fairly recently I was guilty of that. My wife's convinced me to sell the ones that don't work for me and put the proceeds to better use. It hurts to send them away, but, y'know, she has a point. My lens census is falling slowly, the quality is rising.
Cheers,
Dan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Les
Joined: 09 May 2001
Posts: 2682
Location: Detroit, MI
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2003 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
There once was a poster with Ansel Adams on it that was full of sayings. One was "As man makes a sharper lens, nature makes a fuzzier subject."
My 10" Tele was never a great performer for shooting tack sharp, high contrast subjects. So now I use it for portraits.
On a bent version of "bad lens going good" There's a prevent concept of ANY Cooke triplet being less than spectacular. Now the Tri-optar/Graflar/Graftar are Cooke triplet design and are for the most part, worthy of their C+ reputation, but I have some Taylor Taylor Hobson lenses of the same design that are truly great performers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RichS
Joined: 18 Oct 2001
Posts: 1468
Location: South of Rochester, NY
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2003 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2003-04-18 15:41, Dan Fromm wrote:
Rich, coupla years ago I found a coverage table for a number of Wollensak lenses somewhere on the web. Don't remember where, and all I have now is the spreadsheet. At home, not at the office.
It says the 127/4.5 covers 159 mm. Consistent with both of our remarks.
Are you sure about that Astragon? Most cheap 135s were made for 3x4 or tight coverage on 4x5, not 2x3.
Don't know about bad lenses going good, but if you search usenet for reports on how just about any lens does, you'll find comments ranging from "passes light, doesn't form an image" to "sharper than a serpent's tooth." A few good examples of models that are generally not very good must escape. That or there are some pretty diverse ideas about sharpness out there.
About hanging on to lenses that don't please, until fairly recently I was guilty of that. My wife's convinced me to sell the ones that don't work for me and put the proceeds to better use. It hurts to send them away, but, y'know, she has a point. My lens census is falling slowly, the quality is rising.
Cheers,
Dan
|
I have a few downloaded tables of old lenses also, but who knows where? The last one I used was mostly for newer lenses and I haven't seen it ever since I got the book.
And it's the 'book' that says 152mm circle for the Astragon and 2x3. They say the manufacturer was "Commercial Astragons" which seems a bit odd? The only other Astragon lnes is a "Prince" and no 135's. They do mention something about possible inaccuracies though, so I take everything in it with a grain of salt, or a granule of balsam?
If I believed everything people said about lenses, I wouldn't own 90% of what I do and couldn't afford the rest... The best guesses I've ever make are asking here, searching the net for all the other comments I could find, then hoping for the best. I've never been disappointed, but I think my expectations are considerably lower than most. Then again, there's that 153mm that was supposed to cover 8x10. That was a slight dissapointment until I realised it would make a great lens for the 4x5...
No doubt at some point I'll get rid of some stuff. But not too soon. The collecting is just too much fun still and there's still way too much to learn. The only problem with this is that I've gotten more into the equipment than into the using and that's a bit upsetting. I'm hoping to turn that around with the warmer weather. But boy is it easy to get hooked... And did I mention the Universal dial-set shutter I keep trying to get to work? It's the only shutter that Steve Grimes called a 'dog' and not worth repairing. I agree with him... I wish he was here to agree with me... And remount the lens... Okay, now I'm depressed...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RichS
Joined: 18 Oct 2001
Posts: 1468
Location: South of Rochester, NY
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2003 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2003-04-18 20:11, Les wrote:
There once was a poster with Ansel Adams on it that was full of sayings. One was "As man makes a sharper lens, nature makes a fuzzier subject."
My 10" Tele was never a great performer for shooting tack sharp, high contrast subjects. So now I use it for portraits.
On a bent version of "bad lens going good" There's a prevent concept of ANY Cooke triplet being less than spectacular. Now the Tri-optar/Graflar/Graftar are Cooke triplet design and are for the most part, worthy of their C+ reputation, but I have some Taylor Taylor Hobson lenses of the same design that are truly great performers.
|
Now there's a saying I like, and a poster I wouldn't mind having!
As far as exacting performace, I still have vague memories of the early 70's or so when Minolta first started producing the Rokkar-X designs and making their own glass. There were all kinds of tests and a lot of bragging going on. Sharpness, trasmittance, correction, nitrogen filling... The tests were fun and 'proved' that many Minolta lenses outperformed equivenent Nikon models. People bought lenses by the test results comparing fractional numbers that could never be differentiated by the naked eye. Minolta didn't win... But that's something else... And who would know if the lens that came out of the box could compare with the lens a company sent in for the tests?
I couldn't afford the 'good' lenses back then, but did pay a lot of attention to the testing of the lower quality companies. I can't afford good lenses now, even used.
But nature is sometimes kind. As my lenses get poorer in quality, so do my eyes. So I am very happy with my Optars and hazy Ektars and the mostly hated Turner & Reichs and enjoy the whole process much more than just the final print.
Although, I have to admit that when a photographer (Dave Chare) sent me some 8x10 contact prints I was very upset after the awe slipped away. I spent quite a while with them and a loupe just being amazed at the fine details... Something I will never attempt with my own work
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
newbie
Joined: 17 Apr 2003
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2003 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
By the way, this is Astragon 135/4.5
Seems to be rare lens, no info in the internet
... i'm going to sale it on ebay soon, i need 90mm lens instead...
[ This Message was edited by: newbie on 2003-04-20 20:14 ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jdman
Joined: 13 May 2001
Posts: 302
Location: Midwest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2003 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lot of posts on google/deja's usernet concerning this brand of lens. One person wrote Congo Co, and they replied they used to make it. Also Richard K. thinks it may be a house brand for Burke and James. Russ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
