Graflex 10" Tele-Optar questions

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Thanks! Will it (Nikkor-T 270 mm) cover 4" x 5" when focused at infinity and wide-open? I would use it for portraits, but would also like to be able to use it for other, far-away subjects (distant landscapes, boats, etc.).

[Bill_1856]

One of my favorite lenses. Easily covers 5x7. Sharp and contrasty. #2 Wollensak shutter.

[MultiFormat Shooter]

One of my favorite lenses. Easily covers 5x7. Sharp and contrasty. #2 Wollensak shutter.

Thanks, Bill! How does it compare to the Optar 101mm f/4.5 for the Century Graphic? That's the only other Optar lens I have experience using.

[Dan Fromm]

MFS, Optar is a Graflex Inc. trade name, not a lens design type. Most Optars were made by Wollensak, who sold the 101/4.5 as a Raptar and the 10"/5.6 tele as a TeleRaptar.

You can't conclude anything about how Wollensak's tessars perform from how a Wolly telephoto lens performs. They're different design types. All the two have in common is Wollensak.

An old-style tele like a TeleRaptar will have lower resolution, more distortion and less coverage than a tessar type of the same focal length and maximum aperture.

I have the very strong impression you're trying to avoid making a bad mistake. Give it up, you're doomed. You're looking at used lenses with different histories of abuse (or good care) from a maker whose quality control was so-so. The only way to know whether a Wollensak lens you're offered is good or bad is to try it out. f/5.6 Pro Raptars might have been more consistent when new than other Wolly lenses but nowadays they're all used too.

[MultiFormat Shooter]

I have the very strong impression you're trying to avoid making a bad mistake....The only way to know whether a Wollensak lens you're offered is good or bad is to try it out.

I am definitely trying to avoid a mistake, hence all the "stupid" questions. My rationale for the comparison of the 101mm f/4.5 to the 10" Tele-Optar was that if Wollensak had good quality control, you might be able to get a general idea of the performance of their lenses, even though they are different styles (i.e. if their Tessars are great/poor, then their telephotos should great/poor, etc.) I have came to the conclusion that, like you said, I would just have to try one out, and see what it does.

At any rate, I really appreciate all the advice and information from everyone in the thread!

[mdarnton]

Many, or even most, of us, including me, have had consistently good results will Wollensak lenses, and the teles. I think they're highly underrated, thanks to the criticism they get, not due to their performance. I don't have the 10" lens, but I have four of the 15", two in shutters, two barrel, and they are great. I have long suspected that old + American + lens is a trigger for negativity from a lot of people that simply needs to be ignored.

[Bill_1856]

MFS: just be sure that you have return privileges on any used lens you buy (and plan on eating the postage, which is only fair).
Dan, I agree completely, except I don't think that Wolly had so-so QC -- they just weren't Zeiss, Eastman, or Goerz -- more like Schneider.