Graflex.org

[primus96]

As the 90mm Optar is pretty soft unless stopped down.
What would the 100mm f6.8 Wide Field Ektar be like on 4x5? Am I right in thinking that it is a better alternative to a 90mm Optar or Angulon?
Comments please!

[t.r.sanford]

All the "Wide Field Ektars" had excellent reputations for sharpness and coverage, and for quality control in the figuring and assembly processes. The 100mm. is designed for 4x5. If you find one in good condition, my guess is that it would outperform the typical 90mm. "Optar."

[Les]

You might 'gain a stop" ie, able to shoot sharp at f11 with the WF instead of f16 iwth the optar, but my experience is that they, well, they aren't optimized for wide open.

[t.r.sanford]

I once read an honest book on lenses, by an English author, which stated that the maximum apertures of f:6.3, f:6.5, and f:6.8 provided on classic wide-angle lenses are there as an aid to composing and focusing, and were never intended for making exposures. In general, the more you can stop down, the better the overall sharpness.

[Les]

Just my opinion But for 4x5 the 100 wf is the worst of both worlds..... it's not as wide as the raft of 90mm lenses out there for architectual shooting, and i't not as fast as a 127 Ektar for hand held shooting.


I've shot a lot of 4x5 and quite a bit of 8x10 in my life. I own WAY too many lenses. The 250mm WF Ektar is the best lens for the money on an 8x10

I've sold all of my 80mm because I was hand holding and needed to shoot at something wider than f11 all the time, I still own a prototype 100wf but not for shooting.

For Tripod shooting a 90 Angulon, 88mm B&L or a 3*" Dagor will give a wider and a sharper image faster than a WF. If I"m hand holding, I'll grab the 127 Etkar as I can get sharp images at f5.6



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

[Nick]

I keep thinking a 105mm would be a pretty good length. I only know of 1 or 2 105mm lenses that cover 4x5 and I don't think they have a great deal of coverage. 105mm is about 28mm to 30mm in 35mm terms. Not super wide but plenty wide enough for me. Plus 105mm would fit on my monorail without a recessed board.

[primus96]

I arent really bothered about the speed of the lens. As has just been said the wider apertures are for focusing anyhow.

I already have a 127mm f4.7 Ektar, (equivalent to around 40mm) and I was looking at lenses with a wider angle of view.
I need an opinion based on someones actual usage.
I can use the 127mm @ f11 & its a bit soft at the edges but acceptable but im not sure about the corners. F22 is better of course. What apertures could you use on the 90mm Optar and 100mm Ektar and still get a fair print.
Disregarding angle of view differences which is better optically?

[Dan Fromm]

[Nick]

You're asking for a quality answer. Even if you are buying the lens from somebody here the only person that can answer your question is you. You can go to the large format lens tests done by Chris Perez. The problem is those tests are only accurate for the units he tested. The one you get can be better/worse. The tests showed the 90mm congo being okay if stopped down to f/32. The congo is widely considered a soft lens. The Graflex looks like it has soft corners at all F/stops. The Kodak 100mm looks better. But like I said the one you get can and will likely vary.

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html#65mm_thru_125mm

[Nick]

I need to type faster-)

[t.r.sanford]

Yes, indeed -- before about 1970, when you bought a lens, you never quite knew what you were getting. The quality makers, like Kodak and Zeiss, were prized as much for quality control and close adherence to the design specification as for the designs themselves. (And this may still be true with the "Congo" line; many people find them soft, some rave about their sharpness.)

There also is a strong subjective factor: I've not had good luck with the Ilex "Paragon," but there are people who love them.

With a used lens, you also are more or less in the dark about its history and its handling by a previous owner or owner.

That said, if you want something wider than 135mm. or so that will be sharp from corner to corner, and you don't necessarily want to go as wide as 90mm., you might look for a 125mm. "Dagor." For some reason, the shorter focal length "Dagors" don't seem to command the premium prices that the 180mm. and longer ones do.

But there were "Dagors" and there were "Dagors" -- a guaranteed return privilege is always a good idea!

[disemjg]

Is the field open only to classic lenses? If you really care about image quality there is no substitue for something modern, like a Super Angulon. The only drawback aside from cost is that you will not be able to close the camera with the lens mounted. While there has been a lot of discussion about inconsistent quality (including Schneider) I think the lenses made in the last few decades are OK. At least mine have been good. I sure was disappointed in my 90 Optar, although I will admit that I have not tried it stopped down beyond 16 yet.

[Nick]

Factory duds are only part of the story when buying used. I guess it's actually possible that somebody bought a lemon and had it fixed so it might be better then when it left the factory. The problem with using one used lens to judge a different used lens is you never know what sort of life they've lived. Maybe one was babied the other abused? Maybe one was tinkered with?

Only sure way to know how good a lens might be is to use it. Using it will also solve the problem of each of us wanting something different. What works for the baked in the oven crowd doesn't work for the hyper sharp crowd.

[Dan Fromm]

[Nick]

But that's my point. A lens with a great rep isn't always a great lens. Some one may have driven over it with a tank. Who knows? Until you actually have the thing and can test it some how the rep is at best a guide.

Maybe you can find a Holga user to buy it? Call it broken in? Well aged?