Wollensak-Raptar 135mm. F:4.7

[Phil Tobias]

I have two lenses. A Kodak EKTAR 127mm f4.7 and a Wollensak-Raptar 135mm.

F:4.7. From what I have read the EKTAR is the better lens. I sent the EKTAR
to Paul Ebel for a CLA. The Wollensak-Raptar looked fine to me, but I wanted
to send it to Paul and have him test it out. Paul said that the shutter speeds
were off and the 'T' setting did not work on the Wollensak-Raptar. The cost of
the CLA is not a huge concern. My question is, is the Wollensak-Raptar lens
worth saving? Is there anything special about this lens that it might be worth
something as a backup or for some other use? Any comments are appreciated.

Since the two lenses are so close in focal length, I'd throw the
Wollensak-Raptar lens in a drawer. Save the extra CLA money for film &
processing, a lens with a significantly different perspective, or something
more useful.

my two cents only. ...pt

-------------------------------
Business/Communications start at http://www.PhilipTobias.com.
Grow your business using my technical and marketing communications -
Effective writing, graphic design, multimedia, photos, and Web sites.

[Norman Worth]

Some of the Raptars were pretty decent lenses. They cover a bit more area
than the Ektar (which was originally designed for 3-1/2X4-1/4, but covers
4X5 adequately) and a slightly smaller angle.

I have two lenses. A Kodak EKTAR 127mm f4.7 and a Wollensak-Raptar
135mm. F:4.7. From what I have read the EKTAR is the better lens. I
sent the EKTAR to Paul Ebel for a CLA. The Wollensak-Raptar looked
fine to me, but I wanted to send it to Paul and have him test it out.
Paul said that the shutter speeds were off and the 'T' setting did not
work on the Wollensak-Raptar. The cost of the CLA is not a huge
concern. My question is, is the Wollensak-Raptar lens worth saving?
Is there anything special about this lens that it might be worth
something as a backup or for some other use? Any comments are
appreciated.

...

[Neil Purling]

You do not specify what sort of camera you have, or what format size.
Forgive me for guessing it's a 4x5 Press camera.
The 127mm f4.7 Ektar is indeed only just adequate for 4x5 with NO MOVEMENTS.
You can get a 20x16 enlargement from it , but the corners may well be
looking rather 'wooly'.
At f11 you'd be pushing it, f16 or f22 is better.
I have a Pacemaker 'Crown with the Ektar & I have tested the lens a bit.
The Graflex lens helpboard on www.graflex.org/helpboard are somewhat
dismissive of the Wollensak Raptar/Optar.
The Ektar has a image circle of 165mm. The actual area of good sharpness is
a good bit less than 165mm.
You might consider another lens if you need to use any camera movements.

Let us know what you have and its intended usage and i'll try to help a bit
more

[Doug Joseph]

Hello,

I am new to large format photography. The camera I am building is an
Alatta camera (http://www.alettaphoto.com/) and I was looking on ebay
for fairly inexpensive lenses to use to get started. It then occurred
to me that lenses are 40 plus years old and might not be correctly
calibrated. I sent them to Paul Ebel for a CLA. I called Paul the
other day and he also said that the Wolensak should be left alone.
Once I get a handle on large format photography, I will look for a
lens with more movement

I would like to thank the people that left their comments.

Thanks again,

Doug

[AArDvarK]

Doug joseph:
I have two lenses. A Kodak EKTAR 127mm f4.7 and a Wollensak-Raptar
135mm. F:4.7. From what I have read the EKTAR is the better lens. I
sent the EKTAR to Paul Ebel for a CLA. The Wollensak-Raptar looked
fine to me, but I wanted to send it to Paul and have him test it out.
Paul said that the shutter speeds were off and the 'T' setting did not
work on the Wollensak-Raptar. The cost of the CLA is not a huge
concern. My question is, is the Wollensak-Raptar lens worth saving?
Is there anything special about this lens that it might be worth
something as a backup or for some other use? Any comments are
appreciated.
--

I have another approach ... *keep* anything you
have in glass. Always. never give up any of it unless
it is cracked, or sanded down, or is full of pits and
gouges. It just isn't worth selling at a low price if
it will give you an image on [media] at all. That
lens is probably perfect for abstract, rough or
otherwise grainy art in alternative processes and papers,
whether black and white or color. It's how something
of technical insignificants can be of a higher personal
value and as a resource.

Only my thoughts,

Alex

[Richard Knoppow]

I have two lenses. A Kodak EKTAR 127mm f4.7 and a

Wollensak-Raptar

135mm. F:4.7. From what I have read the EKTAR is the

better lens. I

sent the EKTAR to Paul Ebel for a CLA. The

Wollensak-Raptar looked

fine to me, but I wanted to send it to Paul and have him

test it out.

Paul said that the shutter speeds were off and the 'T'

setting did not

work on the Wollensak-Raptar. The cost of the CLA is not

a huge

concern. My question is, is the Wollensak-Raptar lens

worth saving?

Is there anything special about this lens that it might be

worth

something as a backup or for some other use? Any comments

are

appreciated.

The Ektar is a much better lens. While the Wollensak
Raptar (also sold as the Graflex Optar) is very sharp in the
center of the field it has very excessive coma requiring it
to be stopped down to around f/22 to get anything like sharp
corners even for its normal format. I think the problem is
with the design rather than a quality control issue. I've
observed this problem with both 135mm f/4.5 Raptars and
101mm f/4.5 Raptars.
The Kodak Ektar series is of unusual quality. I've
encountered only one Ektar with which I have had optical
problems. This is a very early 101mm, f/4.5 lens. Actually,
its not at all a bad lens but has too much focus shift
making it unsuitable for use on a range finder camera
although it works fine where it can be refocused at the
working f/stop. I am pretty sure the problem is a small
error in the cell spacing. I have at least three 127mm,
f/4.7 Ektars all of which are very sharp lenses. One is an
early uncoated lens, another is a much later single coated
lens. The performance is similar except that the uncoated
lens has a weak ghost image of very bright objects in the
field. Neither of these lenses has significant focus shift.
I have some other Wollensak made lenses which have good
to excellent performance. For instance, the Tele-Optar
series they made for Graflex are excellent as is the 190mm,
f/5.6 Optar on my Graflex-Super-D. I don't know what is
specifically wrong with the Raptar/Optars made for press
cameras but they are not very good. Nor are the Enlarging
Raptars I've tried.
As far as shutters, the Wollensak Rapax/Graphex is a good
shutter. I don't think it is as rugged as the Kodak
Supermatic. The Supermatic was designed in the mid 1930's as
an alternative to the Compur. Kodak began using them
exclusively when Compur shutters became unavailable on the
outbreak of WW-2. My experience with the Rapax is that they
can be very accurate but have no real adjustments. If the
shutter is way off it one must replace springs and balance
the springs to get it into tollerance. Actually, Kodak
shutters do not have adjustments other than the tension of
the retarder spring. With good springs either shutter should
be reasonably accurate and repeatable but factory adjustment
was in the form of filing and swaging the speed cam,
something you want to avoid if at all possible. Wollensak's
original business was shutters and they made quite good
ones. Their lenses are highly variable.