PDA

View Full Version : Wollensak 'Graphic' Raptar, seeking info



JohnJ
23-May-2013, 05:38
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?

Ian Greenhalgh
23-May-2013, 06:08
Examine the number of reflections, that will tell you if it is a Tessar type like other Raptars or not.

E. von Hoegh
23-May-2013, 06:48
Cameraeccentric - http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/wollensak_4.html


These are marked "Enlarging Raptar"; I don't know what the difference (if any) is.

Mark Sampson
23-May-2013, 08:51
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.

E. von Hoegh
23-May-2013, 08:57
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.

Dan Fromm
23-May-2013, 09:07
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/info/wollensak_4.html and http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/wollensak_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.

ridax
23-May-2013, 09:19
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).

JohnJ
23-May-2013, 19:22
Examine the number of reflections, that will tell you if it is a Tessar type like other Raptars or not.

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.


Cameraeccentric - http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/wollensak_4.html
These are marked "Enlarging Raptar"; I don't know what the difference (if any) is.

Thanks very much. It's a fantastic resource and I've already scoured it many times, but unfortunately no luck in my particular quest.


No, it had nothing to do with Graflex. They were for process work, of some sort. There was a wide-field version, too.

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.


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/info/wollensak_4.html and http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/wollensak_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.

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.


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...

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.


...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).

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.

Dan Fromm
24-May-2013, 06:48
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

ridax
24-May-2013, 10:29
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.

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.


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.


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?

Dan Fromm
24-May-2013, 15:39
Ridax, there's no disputing tastes. If you like tessar type Raptars, that's fine. If you don't, equally fine.

Re Craptar, yes, it is a low blow. Reasonable people can disagree reasonably with reason about whether it is a fair characterization of most post-WW II Wollensak lenses. I've tried out one each f/4.5 tessar type, f/6.8 double Gauss wide angle, and f/5.6 telephoto Raptar and chose to replace all of 'em with lenses from other makers. I shot them all as I think Wollensak intended. From my perspective and for my purposes, crap. I have and happily use a Pro Raptar taking lens and an Enlarging Pro Raptar (for closeup). These two are plasmat types that I suspect wouldn't please you. As I said, there's no disputing tastes.

JohnJ
24-May-2013, 23:11
Thanks for explaining why you asked y'r question...

How is the reason (or my intended application) relevant to the original question, how does it change the original question in any way?

This thread is not a subversive plot to convert large format shooters to smaller formats or worse still digital. This sub forum is specifically about lenses and my question is as relevant to large format lenses as it is to the specific lens I mentioned in the original post.

The reason for my post was due to references made to the Graphic Raptar (74mm) in another thread in this very sub forum. My question was about the term ‘Graphic’ (as used on Raptar lenses) and it’s relevance, history, meaning etc. I'm sure you're aware that many Graphic Raptars are large format lenses so how is my particular post inappropriate? If you think this thread is inappropriate and should be deleted then feel free to arrange that.


... I'm not a moderator here and anyway I don't believe in chasing people away,...

Really! I'll have to take your word for that.


...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...

Regarding more appropriate forums for my question, there’s no point in posting a question in any forum where most people think a Raptar is a dinosaur.


... 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...

I've previously checked both of those links and found nothing relevant to the 'Graphic' Raptars, but thanks for the links anyway. I don't think the term 'Graphic' as used by Wollensak has anything to do with the Speed Graphics as has been suggested more than once, but I don't know for sure and is exactly the kind of specific information that I'm after, ie to prove or disprove it. I don't care either way, but conjecture is all we have at the mo' and that's not worth a pinch of...anyway. If someone has direct links, copies of old advertisements, brochures etc then that would be great but I've not seen anything of the kind on the net, yet.


...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 context of previous references to 'Ektar' was to enlarging lenses so I felt it was superfluous to clarify further in this case. I don't claim any particular expertise in Kodak lenses but I don’t recall a plethora of 75mm Ektar lenses either, other than enlarging lenses but I certainly may be wrong.

Dan, you're presumption about my enlarging lens is quite wrong. It is not an 'Enlarging' Ektar but is actually a ‘Projection’ Ektar, being dated 1946. So maybe you should go "learn to spell out lens names" too.

Dan Fromm
25-May-2013, 05:29
John, before EKCo standardized their lens names Projection Ektar meant enlarging lens.

JohnJ
25-May-2013, 05:54
John, before EKCo standardized their lens names Projection Ektar meant enlarging lens.

As I said, my lens is specifically a ‘Projection’ Ektar, being dated 1946. I'm quite aware that 'Projection' and 'Enlarging' Ektars are the same thing but where called by different names at different times, but if you want to be pedantic about using the correct names then I'm happy to oblige. In case you’re interested, the ‘Kodak Data Book, Kodak Lenses Shutter and Portra Lenses’, 3rd Edition, 1948 refers to enlarging lenses as ‘Enlarging’ and not ‘Projection’ lenses so presumably the change in naming conventions came about somewhere between 1946 and 1948. Further to that my 100mm 'Enlarging' Ektar is dated 1947 (ES) so maybe 1946 was the last year the term 'Projection' was used for enlarging lenses, but I can't be sure and I've never particularly made it a quest to find out either. In 1948 Kodak certainly had 'Projection' Ektar lenses as well but they where no longer enlarging lenses and where normal projection lenses as we know them today, ie to project slides onto a screen. Unfortunately I don't have the equivalent Kodak book for each previous year but it would be interesting to see how/when enlarging lenses changed name from 'Projection' to 'Enlarging'.

But yes, I'm well aware they are the same.

Dan Fromm
25-May-2013, 06:03
John, about pedantry. Its very simple. The more information given in a question, the easier it is to answer.

About dinosaurs and tiny chip cameras. For reasons that I don't understand, some users of tiny chip cameras -- also some users of much larger cameras -- are fascinated by what they call lenses' signatures. The tiny chip crowd are so fascinated that they cobble up adapters to use antediluvian lenses made for larger formats. Their adapters seemed likely to be more interesting to you than the ones some of us use to hang lenses in front of shutters, shutters in front of lenses, Aero Ektars on Speed Graphics, ...

ridax
25-May-2013, 06:13
Ridax, there's no disputing tastes. If you like tessar type Raptars, that's fine. If you don't, equally fine.

Re Craptar, yes, it is a low blow. Reasonable people can disagree reasonably with reason about whether it is a fair characterization of most post-WW II Wollensak lenses. I've tried out one each f/4.5 tessar type, f/6.8 double Gauss wide angle, and f/5.6 telephoto Raptar and chose to replace all of 'em with lenses from other makers. I shot them all as I think Wollensak intended. From my perspective and for my purposes, crap. I have and happily use a Pro Raptar taking lens and an Enlarging Pro Raptar (for closeup). These two are plasmat types that I suspect wouldn't please you. As I said, there's no disputing tastes.

Again, agreed. I also would never shoot f/4.5 Raptars as Wollensak intended. I use them for formats at least twice smaller then those listed by Wollensak, and I try to avoid front movements with them. They aren't sharp enough outside of the center for my purposes either. For me, the f/4.5 Raptars are great lenses pushed to the wrong applications by the manufacturer just to grab a bigger market (not bad a sales policy I guess, but....). That reminds me about the IIIa Protar (again) that was rather aggressively marketed as a 97° wideangle a century ago but is a real crap IMO except within 60°... though I still haven't seen a 60° lens I liked better. I'd say both cases are not about crap glass, just crap advertising.

And I think the problem (if there is any) is not in declaring one's tastes but in the occasional lack of explaining the reasons behind the choice of tools to satisfy those tastes. What I find especially delightful in this forum is, no matter the amount of difference in tastes, one usually can extract a ton of info from another poster's words and use it according to their own needs and tastes, whatever different. And that's why those old posts by Richard Knoppow are, and will remain great IMO: things like coma are there (or they are not) regardless both the poster's and the reader's personal feelings about the lens discussed. So are astigmatism and general field sharpness and out of focus rendition, too - while the "goodness" and "badness" may come and go with each individual user.

(I am not too fond of any double Gauss wideangles nor any telephoto glass but I was really upset being unable to find enough info on the Pro Raptars except the basic things like the covering power. A lot of experienced people say the Pro's are great and may be the best plasmats ever made but I still have not seen a post specifying the difference to Schneiders and Rodenstocks and etc. clear enough. The Pro Raptars may well please me a lot but I find their prices rather high to buy them without actually knowing the quality difference is vital for my own usage, and sadly enough there are no cheap versions (too short focal lengths, odd-threaded barrels, etc.) of those lenses to go the buy-try-trash routine. I also could not find any pictures made with the Pro Raptars with enough of defocused background and foreground and the exact f-stops specified too judge the pictorial qualities of those. And I would really appreciate any links to the pictures like that!)

E. von Hoegh
25-May-2013, 07:06
Ridax, some of those claims for huge coverage were made on the assumption that the resulting plate/negative would be contact printed.

Then, you have those who persist in using the terms "cover" and "illuminate" interchangeably...

ridax
25-May-2013, 08:57
some of those claims for huge coverage were made on the assumption that the resulting plate/negative would be contact printed.

Indeed. And those Protars (and the Raptars and the CZJ Tessars and others) are surely no crap for contact printing on the formats much bigger then I tend to use them for. Actually, this is the point I'm trying to make here: a lot of great lenses are regarded as crap by the common belief just because of the wrong usage someone prescribed for them some day decades ago. And even if that wrong usage is recommended by the manufacturer's own marketing guys and gals, that IMHO still does not justify never using the unlucky lenses in a better way but calling them names instead.

Perhaps the most shocking (but far from being the only one) example for me was my 50mm f/4.5 Polaroid MP4 Tominon upon examination turning out to be a perfectly symmetrical process lens excellent at 1:1 on 2"x3" (is it still OK to mention 2"x3" on an LF forum?) - though with the Polaroid, it was intended for magnifications quite different from 1:1, for which this 50mm was definitely not the best lens at all (crap?), and a longer Tominon was recommended for 1:1 by Polaroid - the one that turned out not to be optimized for 1:1 actually....

E. von Hoegh
25-May-2013, 09:21
Here's an old thread http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?13109-Lousy-Dagor There's a lot going on in this thread not least a disingenuous OP, but it illustrates some of these (mis) conceptions.

I have an 8 1/4" Dagor type lens by an unknown manufacturer. It's in a very early Goerz Sector shutter, putting (at least the shutter's) it's date at ca. 1905. This lens on 8x10 at f:32 shows an aperture like a cat's pupil due to mechanical vignetting, has dark corners, but still give pretty decent contact-printable detail if you hold the corners back when printing.

Chauncey Walden
25-May-2013, 13:31
Here are some of the varieties of Raptars.

Dan Fromm
25-May-2013, 15:16
I was really upset being unable to find enough info on the Pro Raptars except the basic things like the covering power. A lot of experienced people say the Pro's are great and may be the best plasmats ever made but I still have not seen a post specifying the difference to Schneiders and Rodenstocks and etc. clear enough. The Pro Raptars may well please me a lot but I find their prices rather high to buy them without actually knowing the quality difference is vital for my own usage, and sadly enough there are no cheap versions (too short focal lengths, odd-threaded barrels, etc.) of those lenses to go the buy-try-trash routine. I also could not find any pictures made with the Pro Raptars with enough of defocused background and foreground and the exact f-stops specified too judge the pictorial qualities of those. And I would really appreciate any links to the pictures like that!)

Ridax, most of the noise about how wonderful Pro Raptar taking lenses are came from Andrew Glover when he had a heap of them to sell. I've shot my 160 Pro Raptar against a 135 Symmar and a 150 Saphir BX (= Zircon, another instance of the same prescription used for taking and enlarging lenses). I rate it far ahead of the Symmar, slightly ahead of the Saphir BX. I doubt it is the best post-WW-II plasmat type taking lens. I'm delighted by my 4"/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar. Worthless, IMO, as a taking lens at distance but outstanding (= beat a known good 100/6.3 Luminar) closeup. As a macro lens it beats all of the other ~ 100 mm plasmat type enlarging lenses I've tried (Componon, Componon-S, Comparon, El Nikkor (early type)).


Perhaps the most shocking (but far from being the only one) example for me was my 50mm f/4.5 Polaroid MP4 Tominon upon examination turning out to be a perfectly symmetrical process lens excellent at 1:1 on 2"x3" (is it still OK to mention 2"x3" on an LF forum?) - though with the Polaroid, it was intended for magnifications quite different from 1:1, for which this 50mm was definitely not the best lens at all (crap?), and a longer Tominon was recommended for 1:1 by Polaroid - the one that turned out not to be optimized for 1:1 actually....

By an odd coincidence that won't bear close examination, Polaroid's claimed optimal ranges of magnifications for the MP-4 Tominons are exactly the ranges of magnifications at which they'll cover 4x5 on the standard (not XL) MP-4. When I tested, 40 and 63 Luminars, 45 Mikrotar and 50/3.5 Neupolars (I have two, should sell both) beat my 50/4.5 Tominons (three, all sold). And a 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS reversed and shot at f/4 beats all but the 40 Luminar and 45 Mikrotar.

Don't worry about shooting smaller than 4x5. I also shoot 2x3 and the moderators haven't yet told me to go away.

JohnJ
25-May-2013, 17:38
John, about pedantry. Its very simple. The more information given in a question, the easier it is to answer...

I thought my original question, about the difference/meaning of 'Graphic' vs normal Raptars, was very clear.


...About dinosaurs and tiny chip cameras. For reasons that I don't understand, some users of tiny chip cameras -- also some users of much larger cameras -- are fascinated by what they call lenses' signatures. The tiny chip crowd are so fascinated that they cobble up adapters to use antediluvian lenses made for larger formats. Their adapters seemed likely to be more interesting to you than the ones some of us use to hang lenses in front of shutters, shutters in front of lenses, Aero Ektars on Speed Graphics, ...

How is the above relevant to the original question?