cosmonot
uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝʞ
So I have here one of the little 6x9cm Century Graphics in nice shape, but it's got the f4.7 Graflar branded triplet. I've not been real impressed with this lens, or with what I've read about it online.
As I gear up for a big roadtrip, I've been thinking about adding some new glass to this camera. I'd like something 100mm or wider and f3.5 or faster. Say I have a budget of ~$200 and time to shop around.
Will the lenses from an old Mamiya press come out of their barrels and work? What about poaching some glass from a Graflex XL? One of those old Tessars or Planars sounds nice.
If I'm looking at one of these lenses online, is there any rule of thumb to tell if it'll only cover 6x7?
I'm hoping to have this camera in the car for landscapes and whatnot, but some faster glass would be nice if I end up wandering around some small town shooting available light. Sadly, moving up to 4x5 isn't an option right now.
So what would you do? What glass should I be looking for?
As I gear up for a big roadtrip, I've been thinking about adding some new glass to this camera. I'd like something 100mm or wider and f3.5 or faster. Say I have a budget of ~$200 and time to shop around.
Will the lenses from an old Mamiya press come out of their barrels and work? What about poaching some glass from a Graflex XL? One of those old Tessars or Planars sounds nice.
If I'm looking at one of these lenses online, is there any rule of thumb to tell if it'll only cover 6x7?
I'm hoping to have this camera in the car for landscapes and whatnot, but some faster glass would be nice if I end up wandering around some small town shooting available light. Sadly, moving up to 4x5 isn't an option right now.
So what would you do? What glass should I be looking for?
Daniel Kreithen
Member
I've used the 105mm / f3.5 Nikkor-M, which is a multicoated Tessar. They're rare, not to be confused with the Nikkor-W of the same focal length. It covers 6x9 and is excellent. It will also fit inside the camera when folded.
David Goldfarb
Well-known
If you're patient, you might be able to find an 80mm/2.8 Planar or Xenotar for just a bit over your budget. They are usually going for around $300 on eBay, but they often come with a Linhof 2x3" lensboard, which you could sell for around $25-35 to offset the cost, and either one would be a primo speed lens for a 2x3" press camera (for 6x7 and smaller). If you want to shoot 6x9 or 2x3" sheet film, look for the 100mm Planar or 105mm Xenotar.
If you can't go over budget, you might look for a 1970's-era 80mm/5.6 Symmar, which will be two stops slower, but will have more coverage, and will cost less. These lenses were usually convertable in that era, so you would also get a longer portraitish lens (they're a bit soft in the converted mode) in the bargain.
If you can't go over budget, you might look for a 1970's-era 80mm/5.6 Symmar, which will be two stops slower, but will have more coverage, and will cost less. These lenses were usually convertable in that era, so you would also get a longer portraitish lens (they're a bit soft in the converted mode) in the bargain.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Why the need for speed?
I'm very happy with a late (2000, bought new) 100/5.6 Symmar.
I've had faster, including a 100/2,8 Planar, but film flatness reduces sharpness.
'Budget' usually involves more compromises than I want to make. Even a mediocre lens beats 35mm, but to get a significant improvement over a mediocre lens at full aperture often involves spending serious money. At f/8 - f/16, it won't usually matter much.
For a cheap bottle with stunning quality, IF you can find one (unlikely), consider an f/6.3 Tessar. Or a Linhof-selected f/3,5 Xenar (I had one of those too -- but I rarely used it at f/3.5).
Cheers,
R.
I'm very happy with a late (2000, bought new) 100/5.6 Symmar.
I've had faster, including a 100/2,8 Planar, but film flatness reduces sharpness.
'Budget' usually involves more compromises than I want to make. Even a mediocre lens beats 35mm, but to get a significant improvement over a mediocre lens at full aperture often involves spending serious money. At f/8 - f/16, it won't usually matter much.
For a cheap bottle with stunning quality, IF you can find one (unlikely), consider an f/6.3 Tessar. Or a Linhof-selected f/3,5 Xenar (I had one of those too -- but I rarely used it at f/3.5).
Cheers,
R.
cosmonot
uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝʞ
I'd like a faster lens for two reasons: brighter image on the ground glass and I like shallow DOF whenever I can get it. I have a decent tripod (tiltall) but also prefer to shoot handheld whenever I can, and considering I've had decent luck with the coupled RF on this thing so far, something better than f4.7 would be more of an incentive for me to drop money on the lens.
I do have one of the later RH8 lever wind backs for the camera, so hopefully that will help with the film flatness issue, but I can understand the argument for slower lenses.
I do have one of the later RH8 lever wind backs for the camera, so hopefully that will help with the film flatness issue, but I can understand the argument for slower lenses.
FPjohn
Well-known
Xenar/Tessar
Xenar/Tessar
A 80/100mm Tessar f2.8/3.5 would serve you well as would the work-a-like xenars from the late 50s to 60s.
yours
FPJ
http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=15317
Xenar/Tessar
A 80/100mm Tessar f2.8/3.5 would serve you well as would the work-a-like xenars from the late 50s to 60s.
yours
FPJ
http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=15317
Attachments
Last edited:
mbisc
Silver Halide User
The camera screams for either a 101mm Ektar, or a 80mm WA Ektar (the former is usually pretty cheap on FleaBay) -- it's what it was built for 
W
wlewisiii
Guest
I have and love a nice pre-war CZJ 10.5cm/3.5 Tessar on mine. Sweet lens that fits it perfectly. As Roger mentions, though, a 100/5.6 Symmar would be a treat and probably quite inexpensive. I know that I found my 135/5.6 Symmar convertable is quite lovely on my 4x5 Crown Graphic; I should try it as a long focus lens on the 2x3
William
William
cosmonot
uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝʞ
Just out of curiosity, what range of focal lengths can the side mounted Kalart be adjusted for? Is it only good for the 101-105mm range listed in the manual over on graflex.org?
I do have a couple of the old Polaroids with Ysarex 127mm lenses. Probably a little too long for the little graflex, but from what I've heard they might be worth playing with.
It's starting to look like buying another camera with a better lens, swapping the glass, and then reselling might not be a bad idea either.
I do have a couple of the old Polaroids with Ysarex 127mm lenses. Probably a little too long for the little graflex, but from what I've heard they might be worth playing with.
It's starting to look like buying another camera with a better lens, swapping the glass, and then reselling might not be a bad idea either.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Questions about the Kalart are best asked over at www.graflex.org - the folks who really know these beasties hang out there.
My Graflex cameras are all built up from bits, pieces & multiple cameras. It's a time honored tradition to buy a kit for one part and say you'll sell the rest. Of course, those extra bits do tend to still be there years later, but that's the game...
The Ysarex is a nice lens from what I've read. I'd slap one on a lens board & give it a work out Feel free to give me one so I can tell you how to do it :angel:
Just keep looking - a good list of lenses to look for is here: http://graflex.org/speed-graphic/symmetrical-wide-field-lenses.html
With patience, you'll find something nice for much less than you'd expect.
Good luck,
William
My Graflex cameras are all built up from bits, pieces & multiple cameras. It's a time honored tradition to buy a kit for one part and say you'll sell the rest. Of course, those extra bits do tend to still be there years later, but that's the game...
The Ysarex is a nice lens from what I've read. I'd slap one on a lens board & give it a work out
Feel free to give me one so I can tell you how to do it :angel: Just keep looking - a good list of lenses to look for is here: http://graflex.org/speed-graphic/symmetrical-wide-field-lenses.html
With patience, you'll find something nice for much less than you'd expect.
Good luck,
William
Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html
and for the budget aspect:
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/proposal.html
The last triggers a solution that you could also try: get one of the better front cell focusing lenses of a 620 camera (cheaper) like the Anastar or the Anastigmat Special (but Luminized) and find out on what distance setting the front cell focusing should be for best performance. ( a digital camera + bellows and Imatest is a way to do it) You will see in Perez's test that he also did that and the res number distribution from center to edge shifted accordingly. Fix that setting then with some glue. Must be the cheapest to good glass.
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/cameras/kodak.html
On Polaroid's 110a b lenses: next to the Wollensak and the Rodenstock you will find the Yashinon on Polaroid 120 models, possibly sharper than the Rodenstock and with a Seikoshi shutter that goes up to 1/500. I have both.
The choice widens when it would have been a Speed Graphic. Lots of shutterless lenses including fast ones. Have to put the ones I have access to on a list one day.
Ernst Dinkla
MaxElmar
Well-known
I have a 105/4.5 Color Skopar in Synchro Compur that's fantastic on my Century.
I think when choosing a lens for your folder it's very important to get one that allows the camera to fold - I mean, why give up one of the best features of the camera....
Of course the 2.8 Planars and Xenotars are sexy - but will they fit in the front standard and will the camera fold? Same with the view camera Plasmats mentioned. This is a real question to the group - has anyone used these bigger lenses on a little Century?
My favorite Graflex 6x9 is a 3x4 Anniv. Speed Graphic with a modified RH-8 rollback. I can use all sorts of weird barrel lenses and I get some movements. I like my old Ilex 65/8 - very sharp, but not very contrasty. Still have the Optar 135 that came on the camera - plenty of movement on that one... and the RF is set for that one.
I think when choosing a lens for your folder it's very important to get one that allows the camera to fold - I mean, why give up one of the best features of the camera....
Of course the 2.8 Planars and Xenotars are sexy - but will they fit in the front standard and will the camera fold? Same with the view camera Plasmats mentioned. This is a real question to the group - has anyone used these bigger lenses on a little Century?
My favorite Graflex 6x9 is a 3x4 Anniv. Speed Graphic with a modified RH-8 rollback. I can use all sorts of weird barrel lenses and I get some movements. I like my old Ilex 65/8 - very sharp, but not very contrasty. Still have the Optar 135 that came on the camera - plenty of movement on that one... and the RF is set for that one.
Last edited:
huffy49
Member
I'd look for an Ektar
I'd look for an Ektar
I use two "standard" lenses on my Centuy Graphic - a Schneider Symmar 100mm f/5.6 convertible from 1965, and a Kodak Ektar 101mm f/4.5 from 1946. I also use a Schneider 100 mm f/5.6 Componon, but mostly on my Speed Graphic as it lacks a shutter.
In my opinion, the Symmar is very slightly better than the Ektar at very close distances. At middle to far distances. it's a real toss-up, with the decision going to the Ektar sometimes, as it show a bit better contrast.
Although the 6-element Symmar seems that it ought to easily best the 4 element Ektar, the Ektar makes significant use of thoria (thorium oxide), which optically is nearly the equivalent of flourite (CaF) used today in the highest quality lenses.
A major plus for the Ektar is its low cost; I've seen them on eBay for less than $50.
John
I'd look for an Ektar
I use two "standard" lenses on my Centuy Graphic - a Schneider Symmar 100mm f/5.6 convertible from 1965, and a Kodak Ektar 101mm f/4.5 from 1946. I also use a Schneider 100 mm f/5.6 Componon, but mostly on my Speed Graphic as it lacks a shutter.
In my opinion, the Symmar is very slightly better than the Ektar at very close distances. At middle to far distances. it's a real toss-up, with the decision going to the Ektar sometimes, as it show a bit better contrast.
Although the 6-element Symmar seems that it ought to easily best the 4 element Ektar, the Ektar makes significant use of thoria (thorium oxide), which optically is nearly the equivalent of flourite (CaF) used today in the highest quality lenses.
A major plus for the Ektar is its low cost; I've seen them on eBay for less than $50.
John