270mm. general purpose lenses???

[sanking]

I did the same search for 6-8 months for a 270mm to cover 7x17 format. Tim Sharkey of Snohomish, Washington 98290, (I love the name of the town) web site
Lensn2shutter and on eBay, made up a "Wollensak 10 3/4" (273mm) f6.8 Graphic Wide Field Lens" (that is what is printed on the lens) in a Pi-Alphax shutter. speeds 1,2,5,10, 25, 50. F 6.8-64. It is SHARP and covers 7x17 with some movement. I have no idea if he has another one up his sleeve.


John

For 7X17 the 270mm Computar is a great lens. This lens will actually just cover ( or almost just cover, depending on your mood) 12X20, so you can imagine how much it will allow in the way of movements on 7X17.

You could also combine various configurations of the 240mm, 270mm and 305mm Computars to cover almost any intermediate focus between 240mm-305mm. Combinations of the 305 and 240 gives very close to 270mm.

For those who don't know it, the Computar is a plasmat type lens similar to the G-Claron, but it covers a lot more, say about 95 degrees compared to 80 degrees or so for the G-Claron.

Sandy King

[John Powers]

"For 7X17 the 270mm Computar is a great lens. " I knew that Sandy, probably thanks to you, but by the time the Wollensak arrived I had looked for 270mm and 240mm Computars for more than a year. Like old Porsche parts Computars seemed to be made of that rare metal, unobtainium.

John

[ditkoofseppala]

Well, John, I have great faith that *if* you continue to search diligently and regularly, virtually anything you ever heard of in terms of photographic equipment will eventually turn up as an eBay offering. I used to make the P&S a private mental exception to that belief until Andrew blew that one out of the water by offering TWO P&S lenses at the same time, while at the same time the modern Cooke imitation was offered by someone else. So I keep looking for Computars, but I'm bothered by that long Computar discussion on another thread which made it clear that various design changes took place without any corresponding change of lens designation, making it somewhat chancy as to what one is getting in any given Computar on the 'Bay.

I'm blown away by the collective POWER of this forum to make difficult information accessible -- I had never even heard of that particular Wollensak 10 3/4 "Graphic Wide Field Lens" before! Obviously for some reason 270mm was a favoured focal length for wide field process lenses, given this Wollensak, the Computars, the Apo Gerogon-S, etc. There have been some interesting suggestions that have clarified the question considerably.

Tessars . . . I dunno, I tend mostly to avoid 'em unless they bear the Ektar label, which for my money were always the best of the triplet crop. Overall, like a lot of folks I guess, I like the additional coverage afforded by symmetrical designs. A 270mm Tessar design would typically give a person very little room for movements on WP format. The older lenses from the heyday of WP are a possibility but I would really be flying blind in that area; I got the Collinear for a reasonable price; my only other brassie is a gem-like little Rodenstock Eurynar 180mm that I got for peanuts from the eastern bloc. (It may not even cover WP.) I'll be content to play around with those two perfecting my Galli Shutter technique until I've had enough time to absorb the researches of Jim and others into yesteryear's brass-barrelled optics to really know what's what.

[sanking]

So I keep looking for Computars, but I'm bothered by that long Computar discussion on another thread which made it clear that various design changes took place without any corresponding change of lens designation, making it somewhat chancy as to what one is getting in any given Computar on the 'Bay.

You may have read something I never saw, but as far as I know all lenses called Computar share a common design and have similar performance, except for the one called Computar Symmetrigon.

The confusion may be in the fact that some lenses called Aop-kyvtars (spelling?) seem to also be same as Computars, except for the fact that most of them were available designated as convertible lenses. But Computars can be convertibles to, int the same way, though the shutters don't have the double aperture scale.

Also, and this is where it gets complicated. Some, but not all Kowa 240mm and 270mm lenses have the same wide coverage as Computars, so they seem to be the same lens. Most other Kowa lenses cover about 80 degrees, about same as G-Clarons.

Sandy King

[clay harmon]

i had the same dubious opinion about Tessars until I bought one for a 'can't lose' price. And then used it. For still life, portrait, or anything else that requires a normal to long focal length and minimal movement, I am impressed. Especially their wider aperture performance. I wouldn't dream of using a dagor at f/8, but the tessars are fine performers at big apertures. Like any lens being discussed, there are bound to be some variations between specimens, but I think for the pittance they go for typically, they represent a nice lens to have in your bag.

Tessars . . . I dunno, I tend mostly to avoid 'em unless they bear the Ektar label, which for my money were always the best of the triplet crop. Overall, like a lot of folks I guess, I like the additional coverage afforded by symmetrical designs. A 270mm Tessar design would typically give a person very little room for movements on WP format. The older lenses from the heyday of WP are a possibility but I would really be flying blind in that area; I got the Collinear for a reasonable price; my only other brassie is a gem-like little Rodenstock Eurynar 180mm that I got for peanuts from the eastern bloc. (It may not even cover WP.) I'll be content to play around with those two perfecting my Galli Shutter technique until I've had enough time to absorb the researches of Jim and others into yesteryear's brass-barrelled optics to really know what's what.

[John Powers]

Now if you want a cheap, sharp solution and don’t mind using a lens cap for a shutter, “260mm f 9 KONICA GR 2 supersharp 330157470907 Buy it now $169”. I have read that this will cover 11x14, but knock the corners off 7x17. For whole-plate (6.5"x8.5") what do you care?

John

[ditkoofseppala]

John, I saw the Konica Hexanon listing too and was considerably tempted, but for a day-in, day-out lens I really do like to have it in a shutter. Granted photos can be made successfully without it, but using your hat, a lenscap, or the Galli Shutter gets confining, it removes a lot of options.

I just a few minutes ago solved my problem, though. I think I mentioned that the 10" Wide Field Ektar would fill the bill pretty well. The last one I saw sold on eBay for $1007 on the 11th of July -- too rich for my blood. Another appeared recently, and I was holding my breath hoping not too many people would notice. Well, I just won it for $61 over the minimum bid, at $460. It looks to be in excellent shape and I'm sure it will be a *very* satisfactory solution for me. That baby is supposed to have an image circle on the order of 422 mm, along with a nice bright f:6,3 maximum aperture for focussing. I think my new WP outfit is complete now!

[John Kasaian]

Congratulations! The 10" WF is a very fine lens indeed. $500-ish is a fair price for one in good condition in a working #5. I'm very happy with mine & I'll bet you'll be just as hapy with yours!
Cheers!