Graflex.org

disemjg · Joined: 10 Jan 2002 Posts: 474 Location: Washington, DC

I just got a couple of lenses in a new box of stuff that are interesting. The one discussed on this post is a 6 3/8" Kodak Anastigmat, and it has some strange (at least to me) markings on it. The data ring contains this legend: KODAK ANASTIGMAT F-4.5 6 3/8 In. EM32-105K NO.32

The serial number format is strange, but I can get the date 1943 out of it (also etched on the back of the shutter, L-4-14-43 in case there was any doubt). The lens appears to be coated (weak colors), and is in a No. 3 Supermatic, marked Graphic.

Anything weird here, or routine? Seems like a nice lens, but in a rather big clunky shutter.

45PSS · Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2004 1:51 am Post subject:

1 inch = 25.4mm.
3/8 = .375
6.375x25.4=161.925
Commonally called a 162mm.
Should be a good sharp lens.

_________________
While a picture may be worth a thousand words, a quality photograph is worth a million.

[ This Message was edited by: Les on 2004-04-29 20:01 ]

glennfromwy · Joined: 29 Nov 2001 Posts: 903 Location: S.W. Wyoming

The number 32 Anastigmat is indeed listed as 161mm. These are the common Tessar formula and still have a reputation of being a fine lens in their own right. The coating you observe is likely "bloom" from the minerals in the glass. It acts in about the same way as coatings and is considered a desirable thing. Be very careful when cleaning it, as it is easily damaged.

_________________
Glenn

"Wyoming - Where everybody is somebody else's weirdo"

Henry · Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2004 9:28 pm Post subject:

I believe that the 162 is considered the "normal" focal length for 4x5, although 135 or even 127 seem to be more commonly found.

Dan Fromm · Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2144 Location: New Jersey

disemjg · Joined: 10 Jan 2002 Posts: 474 Location: Washington, DC

I have seen 'bloom' and I do not think I have it here. This is straw yellow and violet, and does not have any of the mottle that bloom frequently displays. It is faint and seems to be only on an interior surface. Interesting, if nothing else.

45PSS · Posted: Sat May 01, 2004 2:02 am Post subject:

Somewhere recently I read (maybe here) that Kodak coated some of the Anastigmats late in their production and that coating was on the inner surfaces only. Slight yellow suggest it might have some HOT glass as in radioactive stuff. Set it on a sheet of unexposed polaroid B&W for 12-24 hours, yellowing side closest to film, then process. Any hint of a circle is Yes its HOT.
Charles

_________________
While a picture may be worth a thousand words, a quality photograph is worth a million.

[ This Message was edited by: 45PSS on 2004-04-30 19:15 ]

Henry · Posted: Sat May 01, 2004 8:34 pm Post subject:

Hi, Dan:

"152?" what? The diagonal of a 4"x5" rectangle measures 162mm. Isn't that what determines so-called "normal" focal length in a given format?

Did Graflex ever make a 152?

Dan Fromm · Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2144 Location: New Jersey

glennfromwy · Joined: 29 Nov 2001 Posts: 903 Location: S.W. Wyoming

I have been thinking about your lens. Given the date and the strange coating colors, I would not be surprised if it was a military one off type of thing. Kodak was coating interior surfaces on the Ektars in 1943 but I have not seen this on the Anastigmats, a lot of which became part of the Ektar line. You may have a rare thing.

_________________
Glenn

"Wyoming - Where everybody is somebody else's weirdo"

Henry · Posted: Sun May 02, 2004 3:21 am Post subject:

Yes, Dan, I was aware of the fact that format dimensions are nominal only, and that the 135 and 127 would be considered mild wide-angles on a 4x5. I also believe that Kodak didn't made press cameras comparable to our Graphics, and further I don't think that Graflex furnished a 152mm lens under its own rubric for 4x5, at least I don't find a reference to any such focal length in my copy of the Graphex shutter service manual.

RichS · Posted: Sun May 02, 2004 3:52 am Post subject:

I could be wrong

but as I remember the Navy chapter I have on the GVII, one of the standard issue lenses was the 152mm. The other being a 90, and I can't remember the third. So Graflex did sell a 152mm with their units, but maybe only for certain applications?

_________________
----------------------------------------
"Ya just can't have too many GVIIs"

----------------------------------------

Dan Fromm · Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2144 Location: New Jersey

Henry · Posted: Sun May 02, 2004 1:42 pm Post subject:

Following my own sacred rule, "Shoot off mouth first, then do the research," I offer the following data: "Graphic Graflex Photography," 10 ed., p. 14: "...the 101mm and 162mm Graflex Optars f/4.5, which are normal focal lengths for 2-1/4x3-1/4 and 4x5 respectively...." Then on p. 30 we read, "...a 4x5-inch camera, for which a 150mm [sic!] lens is normally standard."

Mmmm...think I'll have another cup of coffee.

t.r.sanford · Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 9:16 pm Post subject:

Right, "normal" is in the eye of the beholder, when it comes to lenses. F&H "Rolleiflex" prewar and postwar TLRs (through the "Automats," at least) used 75mm. lenses, which are a bit wide for the 2¼x2¼-in. format.

But Leitz started the tradition of regarding 50mm. as normal for 35mm. cameras, and they are long for the format!

The 3¼x4¼ "Speed Graphics" I've seen, including my "Anniversary," have been fitted with 127mm. lenses, while the convention suggests 135mm. should be normal...

Forty years ago, many people regarded 135mm. as normal for 4x5. But, just when one concludes that press-camera users liked that wider field, one runs into the almost invariable use of 100 to 105mm. lenses on 2¼x3¼ "Graphics," although there was a 90mm. "Raptar" available.

Coffee definitely is indicated.