Graflex.org

BobBlakely · Joined: 07 Oct 2004 Posts: 5 Location: Southwest USA

I am the new, proud owner of a 2.25x3.25 Century Graphic (silver face vs. the black shown in this site's pic's and maroon bellows). It came with range finder and paralax adjusting site. It also came with 3 120 roll backs and this lens: "Carl Zeiss Planar 1:2.8 80mm." Lens is also marked "GRAFLEX". No scratches, coating perfect, no fungus. What can you folks tell me about this lens?

_________________
My photos steal your soul!

Gammanine · Joined: 11 Aug 2001 Posts: 46 Location: Brooklyn NY

Nice lens. Barely covers 6x7 though. Coatings are soft so don't go rubbing it with your tshirt every time you see a dust speck on it. Tends to flare a bit if you try to use it wide open. Nice palate, a bit muted. Sharp enough, and faster than everything else.

Henry · Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 1:19 pm Post subject:

Nice palate, a bit muted? Is it a white or a red?

alecj · Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 853 Location: Alabama

The "pedigree" of your lens is as follows:

Graflex developed the XL line to try and compete in the MF format [LF was going down fast]. They made a rough copy of the Mamiya/Linhof cameras of the times, and chose excellent lenses. But, it just didn't work. When the XL line was closed out, lots of lenses hit the market in bulk, and the mounts were removed. Yours is one of those.

That's why the shutter is engraved Graflex. I had one just like yours and loved it. True, it will NOT cover 6x9 sharply. And it is in a Compur shutter [which I detest]. But, it will make excellent pics. Enjoy.

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

From what Tim Holden told me, it was packaging that caused the XL to fail. This was the time Singer took over and styrofoam was the new in thing.

The system was modular, so they packaged each individual piece. A body, 2 backs, a flash, and a couple of lenses would take up an entire counter. Most mom & pop photo places just didn't have the room to stock the system.

By the time upper management heared the screams and produced a complete package, the market had passed them by. But I'm always amazed at the pedigree of the lenses available in the XL line.

Les

alecj · Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 853 Location: Alabama

Packaging? Now who would have ever thought of that as having such an impact? I remember how popular these cameras were with the wedding photographer group, among others. And, I later heard about the poor design of the focusing mount tips which prematurely failed. I thought they just priced the units wrong. But I never heard anybody blame the failure on that aspect of the sales process. What a story [have no reason to doubt it]. Just goes to show how not paying attention to the "little things" can have such big impact.

I do remember what a glut of equipment suddenly hit the market. I bought my 80mm Planar for $79 from Olden Camera. It came new in the Zeiss Box it was originally shipped in. I also picked up a 47mm Sup. Angulon, f/5.6 for less than a $100. That was 1975.

[ This Message was edited by: alecj on 2004-10-08 21:14 ]

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

Many XLs served in Vietnam. Many others were used as wedding cameras. They were more awkward than Koni-Omegas but less inclined to jam and more interchangable (polaroid, 70mm, 220, sheet etc). Most of their optics were far better than Koni's (although the Noritars were so contrasty that photogs dumped them...I know this because I ran sales for a big custom photo lab at the time.

The breaking focus lugs were an excellent design feature, according to the Graflex factory shop repair man who replaced mine in 1970+, following a drop squarely on the rugged lenshood.

The repair cost only $45 and the camera/Planar came back to me with absolutely perfect focus and alignment (I tested).

They were reportedly designed to break on impact so as to make repairs quick and cheap, especially protecting the lens.

Henry · Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 6:39 pm Post subject:

That approach works fine until the company tanks, and you find yourself holding several hundred $$-worth of useless equipment. Ouch!

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

BTW the Planar, in a different shutter and better coatings is/was the main lens for the Hasselblad. 500 series cameras.

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

I'd question the "better coating" of Hass Planars of the era...though years later the T-Stars were arguably a step ahead.

Hass's shutter had no advantage over the Graflex's Compur, other than cocking when the film advanced (re: walking and chewing gum). XL was MUCH tougher, had cheap and much more reliable roll backs.

XL tolerated dirt, Hass didn't. Graflex didn't have a compact 70MM motor driven version but did have the better wide angle version (6X9, for one thing). Hass was SLR so was congenial to longer lenses. Hass was comparable to Nikon, XL to Leica.

XL's bright frame viewfinder was MUCH more suitable to journalism than the Hass's screen: Leica-like vs dark and Rollei-like.
Hass was better for illustration, XL for action.