This is the lens thats coming with the 4x5 camera I bought.
Is it worthy of keeping? decent performance?
I like to do model shoots & landscapes mostly.
Just wanted opinions on if the lens is a keeper
This is the lens thats coming with the 4x5 camera I bought.
Is it worthy of keeping? decent performance?
I like to do model shoots & landscapes mostly.
Just wanted opinions on if the lens is a keeper
It's slightly wide-angle on 4x5; excellent sharpness, limited coverage. Standard issue on 4x5 Speed Graphics back in the day, but really meant for 3.25x4.25 format. I used one for 5 or 6 years before upgrading... a fine lens to start with, I'd suggest a 210mm to go with it. There's a great deal of information on lenses, and Kodak optics especially, on the front page of this site. A keeper? I still have the 1946 version I started with- just don't use it any more.
Cheers, I'll have to go hunting for images taken with it until it gets here.
Yeah a 210 sounds like a good idea, was also going to supplement with the 65mm Super Angulon f/8, but perhaps a 90 might be a better choice for landscapes.
Use it. Use it a lot. I use my 1953 edition. Great lens.
Wayne
Deep in the darkest heart of the North Carolina rainforest.
Wayne's Blog
FlickrMyBookFaceTwitSpacei
I had one and used it a lot before loaning it to a friend when he found a free 4x5. It was super sharp in the center but the corners of 4x5 suffered. This worked for the project I was shooting at the time. Now I'm much happier with my 125mm Fujinon--though I do hope to get the 127 back, eventually.
I didn't loan my Ektar to anyone. I liked it so much that I also bought the 125mm Fujinon lens. I will never ever loan that lens to anybody. I really like 125mm-127mm lenses on 4x5. I put the 127mm Ektar back on my speed Graphic where it belongs. Hand held. Rangefinder focusing. Awesome!
Wayne
Deep in the darkest heart of the North Carolina rainforest.
Wayne's Blog
FlickrMyBookFaceTwitSpacei
The 127mm is a good match for a Graphic. Many years ago, newspaper photographers discovered that it was easier to do their work with a lens really intended for 3 1/4" X 4 1/4' use, which the 127mm was. Fcussing was a little less critical, as was framing.
A problem arises when one of these lenses winds up on a view camera. They barely cover 4" X 5 ", leaving no room for movements at all. With a 120 rollfilm back they can be appropriate, but not on cutfilm.
What Ernest says. I do use mine with sheet film however (with a speeder, movements aren't really an issue) Quality-wise, the results speak for themselves! It is a fine little lens, just be mindful of the coverage limitation and you'll get beautiful images. If swings and tilts etc...are what you're after, you'll likely want to invest in a second lens (FWIW the 203 Ektar or it's Wollensak clone are very fine lower cost alternatives to a 210mm)
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
Wonderful lens. I know it is against rules, but I used it several times to take portraits.
More here :
http://www.nemerovsky.com/arkady/Office-page1
http://www.nemerovsky.com/arkady/photo-id58005
http://www.nemerovsky.com/arkady/photo-id58006
http://www.nemerovsky.com/arkady/photo-id58007
Bookmarks