Q on Speed Graphic 135mm lens as first camera starter

[glogan]

I've been researching, and it looks like for my first LF 4x5 camera, since I want portability, I'm looking at a Speed Graphic or Crown Graphic or Busch Pressman. I like the simplicity of the press cameras, and don't (initially) expect to use movements. I will be mostly doing landscapes and being portable. It's also been brought to my attention that some of the rail cameras are fairly portable, like the Calumet Pocket View.

Since I do want to definitely process color, it looks like most of the Crown or Speed Graphics were 1950's or earlier and so will be uncoated or only single coated, which from what I've been reading is not desirable for color processing.

For my first lens, from my landscape desires and what 'normal' size is, I would like to have somewhere around the 135-150mm range lens length. At the moment, I'm specifically considering a local purchase of a Speed Graphic camera with a 135mm lens. I've haven't talked with the person and gotten the age of camera or lens yet.

Question 1:
Any recommendations about this like: "skip the press camera lenses if you are taking color", or "not optimal, but a post 19xx year lens will perform well enough to give you an appetite for more without discouraging you from the LF world" or ...

Question 2:
For a better multi-coated lens, the best deal I've seen is something like a used Nikkor-W 135mm for about $200us on KEH. Do I need to just bite the bullet and get a separate lens if I'm processing color using the press camera? Also, would a lens like that still fold up into a Speed Graphic (Crown, Busch)

From my questions you can probably see that I would like to start with an inexpensive camera that included the lens, rather than paying for an additional lens. Of course I will still need to also get the other accessories and processing equipment too, so the are more startup dollars required.

I appreciate any input.
Gary.

[Brian C. Miller]

I do color with my Graflex Super Graphic, and it is just fine. I don't know exactly when mine was made, but the models were made between 1956 and 1973. It came with a 135mm Wollensack Optar, which might be multicoated, but I honestly don't know.

I've read about the Optar/Raptar lenses being designed with luminosity in mind, which might be and advantage or disadvantage for what you want. If you anticipate doing a lot of movements with the camera, then you should definitely get a different lens. The Optars don't have a lot of coverage at infinity.

Another thing to consider about lenses is what happens when you point them into the sun. You know how a lot of pictures have those pentagons in them from reflections, right? Well, the older lenses don't have pentagons in them because the aperture iris has many more blades, between 10 and 15. The high number of blades produces a circle instead of a polygon. The Optar will produce excellent effects in the out of focus areas.

I recommend that you first try the camera out, and see how well the lens does with color. The biggest difference for color is between uncoated and coated lenses, not single or multicoated. There was a lot of color photography done with these "old" lenses, so they weren't slouches. Kodak produced Kodachrome sheet film from 1938 to 1951, and those had some seriously good colors. (Time, The Dawn of Kodachrome)

[john biskupski]

Most of the lenses you will come across designed for use with the Graflex cameras were corrected for colour use. Coatings are a separate issue, reducing flare and increasing contrast. The Kodak Ektar range of lenses seem to have been considered especially good with colour.

Your 135mm Graflex Optar is said to enough coverage for 4x5 with minimal movements if needed. A longer focal length would give you more, eg 162mm Graflex or the Kodak 203mm. There is also the wide-field Ektar range, designed to offer wider angle permitting more movements.

You can look up this information on the dedicated Graflex site, and in the standard reference work "Graphic, Graflex Photography" by Morgan & Lester.

The 135mm Optar you're considering seems a perfectly good place to start. Make sure the camera works properly, use it and enjoy it.

[rdenney]

You'll probably want a post-war Graflex just for the sake of condition. From the end of the 1940's and forward, lenses used for Graflex cameras were coated. I don't think there were any lenses made for Graflexes that were multi-coated, however. But in terms of contrast enhancement, single coatings accomplish a large percentage of what can be accomplished, especially for simpler lens designs.

But coating/multi-coating affects contrast, not color. With some modern, high-contrast color films, you might find that a modern, high-contrast lens is too much of a good thing. An older, less-contrasty lens might be an advantage.

What makes the older Graflex lenses "older" and the more modern lenses "modern" is not so much the coatings, but the design. The older Ektars and Optars were tessar designs, and the newer lenses like the Nikkor-W are plasmats. There have been many tessar designs used in modern cameras. Plasmats were invented a long time before coatings came into use, but coatings made them work better because their complex designs caused more internal reflections than tessars. So, coatings were an enabling technology for complex designs, rather than an essential technology for simpler designs. Tessars are quite good when used at appropriate apertures (for large format, typical f/22). They lack a wide image circle and therefore the 135mm tessars will cover 4x5 with little room for movements. Since movements are not important to you, that feature of modern plasmats might not be worth much to you. Those f/4.5 tessars are also compact compared to modern f/5.6 plasmats.

There is no harm in trying out a Graflex using the lens it comes with, and then upgrading later if it doesn't suit you.

I would add this: My Speed Graphic is no lighter and not really that much less bulky than my Sinar F. Yes, it folds up into its own armor, but it wouldn't if it had a modern, bulky lens on it. The only real advantage of my Speed Graphic over my Sinar is that it can be easily used hand-held. It has a rangefinder, a useful viewfinder (the wireframe, not the optical finder from which my vision is not good enough to gain value), a focus scale, infinity stops, a side button, and an integral shutter (if I want to use it). It also has a useful handle, both for holding and for carrying. A press camera is a great starter camera, but it was made for a particular purpose and it makes sense to make sure your purpose is compatible with it.

Rick "who has trouble controlling the contrast on some color films" Denney

[jp]

I have two speed graphics, a 30's era and a late 40's/early 50's frankenstein camera.

I use my post-WWII speed graphic with 135mm optar for B&W negative and fuji instant color. It does a nice job with the instant color and I haven't tried color negative or transparency film due to developing logistics and interests. Plenty of contrast and no fringing noticeable.

If you get a post-WWII model you'll probably get the back that can accommodate an instant film back or other accessory backs. The popup metal shade around the groundglass is a desireable feature. My older one has a 3-sided leather+cardboard one that's functional but not as good.

You could get a fuji, nikon, schneider view camera lens for it, but it may not fold up with the lens installed as those lenses were meant to be transported separately from the camera bodies. Kodak, graflex, and schneider do have thinner lenses for press cameras that will fold up with the camera. I have a 203mm graflex lens to go along with the 135mm. I find being able to fold it up quickly into a neat portable box fits my shooting style well enough and is more important than the 1 stop of light you'd get with a bigger lens that must be undone when stowing the camera. As you probably don't need an extra lens to get started, you might make that second different lens a different focal length, perhaps a 90 or 210.

[Frank Petronio]

I think anything from the 50s on will be fine for color and sharpness, the Optars, Ektars, Xenars... of course there are some poor sample variations and cloudy, beat-up lenses to avoid.

A more modern lens, like a Schneider Symmar or Nikkor W or Rodenstock Sironar will have more coverage and be sharper at the edges, especially wide-open. If you stop the older lenses down they get better.

A truly modern and more expensive lens like a Sironar N or S will probably be slightly sharper but probably only if you print larger than 11x14 or 16x20, and very subtly if you can tell at all.

[Kevin Crisp]

A coated "press" lens like a Schneider Xenar will do color without a problem. You just won't be able to use much front lens rise at all. The price of $200 on the Nikkor is a very good price, and you could use some movements some day if you want to with that lens.

I personally really like the Crown Graphic, I put a MC Symmar-S 135 mm on mine and it is a very useful combination. Folds up into the camera body with no problem and with careful positioning of the lever on the Copal 0 shutter I can use the body release for handheld shooting.

The speed vs. the crown is thicker, a little heavier, so I got rid of mine for a Crown since I was not using the rear curtain shutter on the speed.

If you aren't going to do handheld work, and if size and carrying are not concerns, then an inexpensive monorail is worth considering.

[Kuzano]

Calumet Pockets were actually made by Gowland and branded for Calumet. You will find them most often as Gowland Pocket View. I have found all mine over the years on eBay, but only once as a Calumet.

Hard to find two pockets the same in terms of manufacture. I believe each one was a one-off hand built. I've had 4 Gowland pockets and one Calumet Pocket. Both the lockdown mechanisms and movement types and pivot were all different. They are friction lockdown with smooth metal mating surfaces throughout - hard to lock down and not get movement when inserting film holders. They worked best for me for roll film, not for sheet film.

That said, and if you are prepared to really tighten down movements, they cannot be faulted for being one of the lightest (3 pound minus) monorail breaking down into a tiny package.... great for backpacking.

Press Buschman D are very heavy compared to Graflex. The lens board is much smaller than Graflex and can pose problems with lenses with large rear cells. I had one lens that I had to remove the rear cell from to put the lens board on and screw the rear cell back into the shutter from inside the camera.

One thing about the lenses that were common on 4X5 press cameras, is that if you get a nice one with a user shutter, you'll be able to use it and get your money back when you move to something else. I've been very happy with many images from Optars, Ektars, Xenars, old press Schneiders, and such. But that's a subjective opinion.

[tbeaman]

If you want to see some examples, take a look at my 4x5 film set on flickr.

Each one is in color and was taken with a Speed Graphic and a ~1949 single-coated Graflex (Wollensak) Optar. None of them are of superlative technical quality. The first has processing errors, the second has focus errors, and the last three are actually only quick and dirty, low-res scans. Each can be viewed quite large.

It's enough for me, though someday I'd like to get something with more coverage. You can see the corner softness in the cityscape shot; I think it was shot at f8-f11.

[BrianShaw]

I do color with Optar on Super Graphic and have always been happy wiht the results.

Attached is a color photo taken with a 1940 Anniversary Graphic. The lens was an uncoated Kodak Anastigmat. Film is 10-year old EPN. Lighting was a blue No. 25 flash bulb with 5 inch polished reflector.

You can decide if color photography is possible with less-than-multicoated lenses... but I think it can.