| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2144
Location: New Jersey
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2013 9:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
To add to what Charles said, the 65/6.8 Angulon and 65/6.8 Optar/Raptar have different designs but are functionally equivalent. What one will do, so will the other.
IMO both are marginal on 2x3. I've had the Wolly, never got a really satisfactory shot with it. Other people have reported getting good results with theirs, so mine may have been sub-par.
I'd hold out for a Super Angulon. Not because it has greater coverage, which can't be exploited on a Century, but because it will give better results towards 2x3's corners than either of the f/6.8ers. Come to think of it, I've contradicted myself. Good coverage beats marginal coverage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joey Anchors
Joined: 18 Jan 2012
Posts: 65
Location: Silver City, NM
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2013 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
45PSS Thanks for going through the trouble and doing all that math (I have no clue how to do). I found one locally that looks pretty good and it's in a Synchro-Compur shutter.
With that being said what is the main difference between this 65mm model and Super model? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2144
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2013 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joey Anchors wrote: | | With that being said what is the main difference between this 65mm model and Super model? |
Coverage, flange-focal distance.
The Super Angulon covers a larger circle than the equivalent Angulon (f/8 SA, 100 degrees; f/5.6 SA, 105 degrees; Angulon, 81 degrees).
Flange focal distances are 65/6.8 Angulon, 63.5 mm; SA 65/8, 70.5 mm; SA 65/5.6 71 or 72.5 mm, depending on shutter. All will focus to infinity on a Century Graphic or a 2x3 Crown, but the 65/6.8 Angulon is iffy on a 2x3 Pacemaker Speed (minimum extension 61.9 mm).
The 65 SAs and similar 65s are the shortest generally available lenses that will work on a 2x3 Speed.
The 65/6.8 Wolly won't focus to infinity on a 2x3 Pacemaker Speed, will on a Century/2x3 Crown.
I've had the Wolly, have the Ilex equivalent of a 65/8 SA, won't go back. That should tell you something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joey Anchors
Joined: 18 Jan 2012
Posts: 65
Location: Silver City, NM
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I ended up passing on it as the shutter has completely froze.
Now back to saving for a Super Angulon.
Now for a long lens (something around 210mm). Which lens should I look for? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2144
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Henry will disagree, 'cos he likes his (if I recall correctly) 203/7.5 Wolly, and will suggest it or the EKCo equivalent a 203/7.7 Ektar, but I think y'r best bet is the 8"/5.6 TeleRaptar/TeleOptar. It is one of the longer lenses that's a comfortable fit on a Century, according to the catalog its flange-focal distance is only 5". The 8" and 10" TeleRaptars, both f/5.6, are recommended for the Century in the bible, tenth edition.
If you can live with something a little shorter, just about any 180 from any of the major manufacturers will work without heroic measures. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henry
Joined: 09 May 2001
Posts: 1644
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No disagreement here, Dan. I should remind everyone that my lens opinions are based only on the examples that I own and have used. I don't intend my remarks to be taken as general statements, based as they are on single examples of specific lenses. IOW, somebody else's XXX mm lens may be quite deficient compared to the one I've praised, and vice versa. In any event, I'm scarcely qualified to render technical judgements in this area. Now ask me something about music theory and I'll discourse at length....
To quote Casey Stengel, "Good pitching always beats good hitting---and vice versa." You could look it up.
I'm sure that the Tele-Optars are quite fine! It's just that I don't own any and can't say first-hand (or any hand, for that matter). Now, if anyone would like to send me one on permanent loan, I'd be happy to render an opinion.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joey Anchors
Joined: 18 Jan 2012
Posts: 65
Location: Silver City, NM
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Something I have always wondered is...
Can an enlarger lens be used on a Century?
There is a Wollensak 210mm f/4.5 Raptar on Ebay right now for $25..which is cheap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2144
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Henry, I recall your comments to the effect that y'r 203/7..5 was (a) a fine lens and (b) a bit long to work comfortably on a Century. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2144
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joey Anchors wrote: | Something I have always wondered is...
Can an enlarger lens be used on a Century?
There is a Wollensak 210mm f/4.5 Raptar on Ebay right now for $25..which is cheap. |
Nearly all of the enlarger lenses sold were sold in barrel, i.e., not in shutter. Printing exposures are long, are typically timed with a timer that turns the enlarger lamp on and then, after a while, off.
In general enlarging lenses can't be used on a Century Graphic because, in general, lenses in barrel can't be used on a camera without a shutter. That's the Century.
Enlarger lenses in shutter, e.g., my little 105/4.5 Comparon, can be used on a Century. Front-mounting (hanging the lens in front of a shutter) is possible with some, as is hanging a shutter in front of the lens.
There is disagreement about how well enlarging lenses perform at distance. I've tried more than a few, never found one that was worth using. Others say that some enlarging lenses, including ones I tried and rejected, are very good at distance.
Non-tele 210s in shutter are a bit long for the Century, require nearly all of the camera's extension to focus to infinity. Some require more extension than it has. They're at or perhaps slightly beyone a 2x3 Speed's limit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henry
Joined: 09 May 2001
Posts: 1644
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Fromm wrote: | | Henry, I recall your comments to the effect that y'r 203/7..5 was (a) a fine lens and (b) a bit long to work comfortably on a Century. |
Long, Dan, but not too long. With the front standard flush with the outer ends of the bed rails (i.e., bellows fully extended), and rails racked all the way out, it focuses to about 18 ft. +/-. "Infinity" focus is not very far away, "back" toward the film plane. It's a narrow working range, but wow! it is one sharp lens. (By comparison, it's easier to work than the 65!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joey Anchors
Joined: 18 Jan 2012
Posts: 65
Location: Silver City, NM
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK I found a super clean Schneider Kreuznach Symar 180mm f5.6 over on the 'Bay for $130 that has a Prontor Press Shutter.
Should I pull the trigger on this lens, or is there something else out there that I should be looking at? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2144
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
This one: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Schneider-Kreuznach-Symar-180mm-f5-6-/400565194745 ?
I dunno. It is a convertible Symmar, seems to be in the right shutter. But the opening bid is $125 and there's no telling how high it will go. If you can afford to lose the money, bid low and wait to see what happens. If you can't afford to make a mistake, take a cold shower.
That one: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Schneider-Kreuznach-Symmar-180-mm-f5-6-Lens-/290913438186 ? Same story, but buy it now for $199.99. I dunno.
Remember that a press shutters' top speed is 1/125.
I went looking for prontor press to find your lens, was astonished to find two with 80/2.8 Planar cells in them. Neither shutter seems to be the one the lens shipped in. What's astonishing is that years ago I was given a set of 80/2.8 Planar cells with s/n in the range of both lenses on offer. I tried to put them in a #1 Prontor Press and found that the rear cell interfered with the shutter's diaphragm. Oh, my. Snakes in the grass, alas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joey Anchors
Joined: 18 Jan 2012
Posts: 65
Location: Silver City, NM
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dan that is the lens in question. I never heard of the shutter company before |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1banjo
Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Posts: 492
Location: kansas
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hey Joey
I sent you a PM
of a lens page |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aoresteen
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 67
Location: Newnan, GA, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | "Dan Fromm"]Um, Joey, when I tested I found that the 103 Graflar was sharper than the 101/4.5 Ektar which, in turn, is sharper than the 105/3.7 Ektar. I have, have never used, a 101 Optar; it should be a little less good than the 101 Ektar." |
Dan,
My 105mm f/3.7 Ektar (1941) is a lot sharper than my 101mm f/4.7mm (1946). I thought the Graflar 103mm was a triplet (I've never used one). Is it really sharper than the 105 Ektar which is a 5 element Heliar lens?
My 105mm Nikkor M is sharper than them all. I'm using them on my Cambo 23SF view camera.
Thanks! |
|
| 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
