| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
aoresteen
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 67
Location: Newnan, GA, USA
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2004 11:36 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I posted a list of all the Optar lenses that I know about. If you can supply any missing information I would appreciate it. Thanks!
http://www.oresteen.com/optar_lens.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Henry
Joined: 09 May 2001
Posts: 1646
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2004 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Very useful list, thanks!
My 101 Optar is f/4.5, not 4.7. FL not marked, but = 4".
The 65 WA Optar min. aperture is f/32. FL is marked with both 65mm and 2-1/2".
The 203 f/7.5 Optar has a min. aperture of f/32 and takes a 1-9/16" (39.5mm) series VI slip ring.
The 135 Optar slip ring (Kodak) is marked 38mm - 1-1/2", not 38.1mm, although it is true that 1.5" x 25.4mm = 38.1mm. FL inches not marked (no wonder! Works out to 5.3149606299").
[ This Message was edited by: Henry on 2004-06-07 09:17 ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2144
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2004-06-07 04:36, aoresteen wrote:
I posted a list of all the Optar lenses that I know about. If you can supply any missing information I would appreciate it. Thanks!
http://www.oresteen.com/optar_lens.htm
|
The 8" TeleOptar is f/5.6, not f/5.5. Fatfinger error, very common. According to Graphic Graflex Photography, it is for 2x3 only.
Cheers,
Dan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aoresteen
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 67
Location: Newnan, GA, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks! I will update the chart.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45PSS
Joined: 28 Sep 2001
Posts: 4081
Location: Mid Peninsula, Ca.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rodenstock-Optar 135mm: f4.5-f32; uses series VI filters, large ring on front unscrews for filter insertion, provides modest lens shade, and cocks the shutter.
_________________
While a picture may be worth a thousand words, a quality photograph is worth a million.
[ This Message was edited by: 45PSS on 2004-06-12 22:20 ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aoresteen
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 67
Location: Newnan, GA, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I've updated the list with your changes. Thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Siu Fai
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2004 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nice list. I have a 15" Tele-Raptar and it should be the same as the Tele-Optar. Mine is in an Alphax shutter. Aperture goes from f5.6 to f45 and shutter times are 1/50s - 1/2s. Not sure about the exact size (#3 or #4?) but it is the largest shutter I have and it is big. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Simplify
Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't see mine.
Graflex Optar with a Graflex Shutter. 6 3/8" - f/4.5 - T, B, 1 - 200 shutter speeds.
Made by Wollensak for the Folmer Graflex Corp.
162mm
[ This Message was edited by: Simplify on 2004-07-24 11:51 ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeS
Joined: 25 Nov 2003
Posts: 71
Location: East Tennessee
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A 6-3/8" lens is a 162mm lens, which is 'normal' for a 4x5. a 50mm lens is only normal for a 35mm camera.
_________________
-Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Simplify
Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| oops! I corrected myself when i figured that out trying to search for more info on my lens. we must have cross posted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2144
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2004-07-24 11:52, MikeS wrote:
A 6-3/8" lens is a 162mm lens, which is 'normal' for a 4x5. a 50mm lens is only normal for a 35mm camera.
|
Sigh.
Another good guy falls to the underappreciated difference between nominal and actual gate sizes.
A nominal 4x5 glass plate used in a holder for it will produce a negative that is actually 4" x 5". Diagonal 6.40", close enough to 6 3/8", or 162.6 mm, close enough to 162.
A piece of nominal 4x5 sheet film used in a holder for it will produce a negative that is actually 90 mm x 120 mm. Diagonal 150 mm, or 5.91", close enough to 6".
The metric approximations to roll film formats, e.g., 645, 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9 are way off actual. This is a source of much confusion and many pointless quarrels.
As for what's considered to be a "normal" lens, on the one hand a lens whose focal length is the gate's diagonal is often called "normal." On the other, some formats, e.g., all motion picture formats, treat "normal" as roughly twice the gate's diagonal. There are conventions, and then there are conventions. So-called normal lenses for 35 mm still have been offered in focal lengths from 45 mm to 58 mm. The 24x36 gate's diagonal is actually 43.3 mm, so 45 is very nearly the normal normal focal length for 35 mm still.
Cheers,
Dan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 494
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pentax sells a 43mm normal lens for 35mm. The difference betwen say 127mm and 162mm on a 4x5 camera isn't any bigger then the range of 43mm to 58mm on a 35mm camera. Actually smaller isn't it? But isn't the reason 35mm cameras tend to have longer "normal" lenses very much related to the small negative. You want to fill the frame with 35mm. With 4x5 you could crop out half the negative and still have a fairly large piece of film to work with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2144
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2004-07-25 07:26, Nick wrote:
Pentax sells a 43mm normal lens for 35mm. The difference betwen say 127mm and 162mm on a 4x5 camera isn't any bigger then the range of 43mm to 58mm on a 35mm camera. Actually smaller isn't it? But isn't the reason 35mm cameras tend to have longer "normal" lenses very much related to the small negative. You want to fill the frame with 35mm. With 4x5 you could crop out half the negative and still have a fairly large piece of film to work with.
|
Nick, I can't address Leica's reasons for fitting their thread mount bodies with 50 mm lenses, but the reason relatively early "modern" 35 mm SLRs got 58 mm "normal" lenses is that nothing shorter would clear the mirrors. That's why the "normal" lenses for Graflex SLRs are on the long side.
Most modern 50s for 35 mm SLRs are a tiny bit retrofocus.
5" is approximately normal for 3.25 x 4.25, 5" is very nearly to 6" as 35 is to 43, i.e., a 35 (really, 36) mm lens on 35 mm still sees about the same horizontal angle of view as a 5" lens on a 4x5 camera.
And very little of all this has anything at all to do with the wonders, or lack thereof, of lenses engraved as Graflex' house brand "Optar." I hope that Tony will widen his scope to include Kodak, all of Wollensak, and Ilex lenses. In short, lenses made in and around Rochester, NY before the end of Graflex.
Cheers,
Dan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
t.r.sanford
Joined: 10 Nov 2003
Posts: 812
Location: East Coast (Long Island)
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The clear area in the "Fidelity" holder before me measures 96mm. on the short dimension, 119mm. on the long dimension; or 3-3/16 x 4-11/16 ins. The diagonal of this space is 153mm., or 6 ins.
Zeiss made a 43mm. lens for the "Contax", too; being Zeiss, they didn't make too many of them, and they're fabulously expensive when you can find one.
Herbert Keppler explained, in "Modern Photography" many years ago, that the 58mm. lenses often found on 35mm. SLRs in the '50s and '60s were made in that focal length to provide a viewfinder image approximately the same size as what you see with the naked eye. He was certainly right; "Exakta" cameras could be purchased with 50mm. lenses, as could most others.
The "Contaflex" and the forgotten Aires "Penta," which should have had more of a mirror-clearance problem because they used leaf shutters, came with 45mm. normal lenses.
There always were two sheetfilm formats out there: 2¼x3¼ (5.7x8.3 cm.)in this country, and 6.5x9 cm. (2½x3½ ins.), primarily in Europe. This "6x9" (and "6x6") nonsense started about 40 years ago, and I've often wondered why: people were using portable typewriters without fraction keys? The metric system is so cool??
When you could get filmpack for 2¼x3¼ cameras, you could make images of three distinct sizes! As I recall, the filmpack films were largest, 120 rollfilm was in the middle, and sheetfilm (masked by the holders) was smallest. That didn't mean that 101mm. wasn't "normal" for all of them!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2144
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2004-07-25 12:22, t.r.sanford wrote:
The clear area in the "Fidelity" holder before me measures 96mm. on the short dimension, 119mm. on the long dimension; or 3-3/16 x 4-11/16 ins. The diagonal of this space is 153mm., or 6 ins.
Zeiss made a 43mm. lens for the "Contax", too; being Zeiss, they didn't make too many of them, and they're fabulously expensive when you can find one.
Herbert Keppler explained, in "Modern Photography" many years ago, that the 58mm. lenses often found on 35mm. SLRs in the '50s and '60s were made in that focal length to provide a viewfinder image approximately the same size as what you see with the naked eye. He was certainly right; "Exakta" cameras could be purchased with 50mm. lenses, as could most others.
The "Contaflex" and the forgotten Aires "Penta," which should have had more of a mirror-clearance problem because they used leaf shutters, came with 45mm. normal lenses.
There always were two sheetfilm formats out there: 2¼x3¼ (5.7x8.3 cm.)in this country, and 6.5x9 cm. (2½x3½ ins.), primarily in Europe. This "6x9" (and "6x6") nonsense started about 40 years ago, and I've often wondered why: people were using portable typewriters without fraction keys? The metric system is so cool??
When you could get filmpack for 2¼x3¼ cameras, you could make images of three distinct sizes! As I recall, the filmpack films were largest, 120 rollfilm was in the middle, and sheetfilm (masked by the holders) was smallest. That didn't mean that 101mm. wasn't "normal" for all of them!
|
T.R., all kidding aside, which of the Kodak rollfilm sizes was used for 2½x3½? Can't have been 120.
Cheers,
Dan |
|
| 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
