How is the Graphic Raptar different to otherwise similar enlarging Raptars?
I have a Wollensak Graphic Raptar 3" (74mm) F4.5 which is quite a nice lens, no complaints, but I don't know anything about them or their intended application.
What's special or different about the 'Graphic' versions? Any resources or references that I can look at to find out?
Examine the number of reflections, that will tell you if it is a Tessar type like other Raptars or not.
Cameraeccentric - http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/...llensak_4.html
These are marked "Enlarging Raptar"; I don't know what the difference (if any) is.
One man's Mede is another man's Persian.
It's probable that a 'Graphic' Raptar was originally sold by Graflex. We'll probably never know why Wollensak didn't just call it a 'Graflex Optar', as they did on so many lenses.
No, it had nothing to do with Graflex. They were for process work, of some sort. There was a wide-field version, too.Originally Posted by Mark Sampson
One man's Mede is another man's Persian.
Hmm. Graphic Raptar is a trade name, not a design type. I have in hand a 138/4.5 Graphic Raptar, a pedestrian tessar type that's not particularly good at any distance. There's a 210/6.8 Graphic Raptar said to be a decent dagor clone.
I suspect, with no evidence to support the suspicion, that f/4.5 Graphic Raptars are all rebadged Enlarging Raptars are all rebadged Ser. II Raptars, about which see http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/...llensak_4.html and http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/...llensak_3.html .
When there were active discussions on usenet's rec.photo.*, Graphic Raptars (I recall only discussions of f/4.5 tessar types) were scorned and so were Ser. II Raptars. Richard Knoppow, who knew whereof he spoke, insisted that these lenses suffered from worse coma than the equivalent Ektar/Kodak Anastigmat and had to be stopped down ~ two stops farther than an Ektar/K.A. to match its image quality in the corners. He alleged a bum calculation.
As I've mentioned in another thread, I've tested those Raptars carefully enough, and I am 100% sure there is no difference at all. Graphic Raptar = Enlarging Raptar = (regular) Raptar f/4.5, tessar type. Those days most (though certainly not all) of the lens manufacturers did not bother to design special lenses for enlargers, and a lot of tessar type 'enlarging' glass was just the same as the taking versions (but often in other barrels).
My Graphic and Enlarging Raptars are very very slightly better in quality then the regular ones, probably thanks to the barrels being way more solid then the Alphax shutters. But again, the difference is quite negligible, and I'd any day buy another Wollensak and go use it without any preliminary testing as I find all their products pretty reliable. (And BTW I reeaaly can't say the same about Ilex Paragons, for example.)
Those f/4.5 Raptars are far less sharp then modern enlarging plasmats so I wouldn't use any of them for enlargement. But the Raptars are IMO among the very best tessars ever made regarding their out of focus rendition when used as taking lenses. The 74mm and 127mm are great for background blur already wide open (though still not as great as a f/6.8 Dagor stopped down to f/10; but f/10 is not always OK with smaller formats!); the 101mm has to be stopped down to about f/6.3 or maybe f/7 for the best background. And wide open, the 101mm f/4.5 Raptar is better for the foreground blur - though its foreground blur is still not the best possible, and I find both my 90mm f/3.5 Super-Omegon (the Mamiya-made one, not the earlier Konica lens) and 100mm f/5.6 convertible Symmar to be much better for the blurred foreground.
The f/4.5 Raptars are also not as sharp out of the central portion of the field as some other tessars (yeah, the Ektar is sharper in the corners.... but its nowhere near in its out of focus rendition - which is way more important IMO). I use my 74mm on my small format SLR only. But for the small format, I'd never trade my Raptar for any other lens.... though my 90mm f/4 Leitz Wetzlar Elmar of the same era (that cost me about 10 times more BTW) is quite indistinguishable from my Raptars except by the focal length difference (I still don't have a 90mm Raptar to compare, though).
Ian, I don't have an identical non-'Graphic' Raptar to compare it with but it has 5 reflections looking at the front. I don't know what that means.
Thanks very much. It's a fantastic resource and I've already scoured it many times, but unfortunately no luck in my particular quest.
Do you know the period these 'Graphic' Raptars where sold? That might help to find some info on them, possibly from old magazines from the same period.
I don't doubt any of that. It would however be interesting to find some documentation about them.
It seems to me, based again on no evidence, that they are a marketing exercise with only a different name. I believe Wollensak changed hands in approx. the 1960's so maybe the rebadged 'Graphic' Raptars have something to do with that.
That's what prompted me to drag the lens out of the cupboard, I've had it for a couple of years without really using it.
Interesting you should mention the Kodak Ektar, presumably the 75/4.5. This lens kept the Raptar company in a draw for a couple of years simply because I didn't have a suitable adapter to use either of them in any practical way. They have nearly identical needs and I was able to have some adapters made which work well with both lenses. I only use them on FF digital bodies so this focal length is quite nice for me.
Thanks for explaining why you asked y'r question. I'm not a moderator here and anyway I don't believe in chasing people away, but what you're up to is a considerable distance from large format. Given what you're doing, you may find more kindred spirits on, for example, mflenses.com.
None of the lenses you mentioned is really for LF. If you're going to continue posting here, you should learn more about actual LF lenses and their design types. Read this board's FAQs, also wander over to www.graflex.org and look at M. Gudzinowicz' lens list as is posted there; as far as I know it isn't duplicated here.
Also learn to spell out lens names. You mentioned an enlarging lens as "the Kodak Ektar." Its name is really Enlarging Ektar, not just plain Ektar. The best, although not easy to navigate, source on EKCo's better grade of lenses (that's all that Ektar means) is http://www.bnphoto.org/ . The site is well worth exploring.
About that 75/4.5 "Kodak Ektar." It is a much much better lens than the Graphic Craptar you asked about. Not in the same class at all.
Good luck, have fun,
Dan
I am not an old-timer here so please let me know if I am braking the rules, too, but I believe those wide range lines of quite similar lenses of different focal lengths (like Dagors and Symmars and Raptars and so on - though surely not Ektars which are far from being identical) are not so far from the LF topic in any of their incarnations. Myself, I enjoyed testing the extra-cheap (thanks to you Americans putting so little value in that germs made in your own land ;) ) short focal length Raptars quite a lot - before deciding if I wanted to spend money on longer lenses of the very same type for my bigger formats. And similarly, I wouldn't ever think I wanted a 75mm Dagor for my 35mm SLR if I had not appreciated the longer Dagors in LF.
I wholeheartedly agree with every one of these words - while we assume using the above-mentioned lenses for enlarging. The 75mm Enlarging Ektar is in the same class with Componons and Rodagons (and may be even better corrected chromatically - though I'm not sure as the difference, if any, is quite tiny) - just somewhat narrower in its usable angle. The f/4.5 Raptars, on the contrary, seem to be not enlarging lenses at all but relabeled taking lenses, and those not too sharp in their field for the formats they were listed for (but still quite sharp in the center). And yes I've seen the coma mentioned long ago by Richard Knoppow with my own eyes, too. And I really must add that coma is far from being the worst of the Raptar's sins; the residual astigmatism is not too small in the 4.5 Raptars either - and astigmatism would not go at any f-stop. But both still do not affect the central part of the field, which is IMHO just great.
But being perfect enlarging lenses is just the very thing that makes both the Enlarging Ektar and the Componon make an ugly mess out of the out of focus background if used as taking lenses. And the ability to make the defocused background exceptionally pleasant necessarily comes with being a pretty bad enlarging lens in case of the Raptar. (BTW, my 190mm f/4.5 Enlarging Ektanon is nowhere near the (shorter) Enlarging Ektars in its sharpness - and it makes a lovely taking lens, too.)
What is crap in fact? I don't like soft images myself but I still would not use words like Crapito or Crapimagon out loud. And I guess a Summilux is also crap for an 8x10"; does that mean it's really just crap? Or is it still a great instrument - if properly used?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks