Wollensak 162mm 6.3

[Arthur Nichols]

Any one have any opinions on a Wollensak 162mm F6.3 lense (coated) Image circle, sharpness, contrast ect ? Thanks Art Nichols

[Ron Shaw]

I have an older (I guess, since its uncoated) Wollensak 162 f4.5 lens, and its suprisingly sharp. Being uncoated, I have to choose my shots carefully, as contrast suffers in a backlit shot, but for most other shots, it works very well. I dont know what the coverage circle is, but I can use the full rise of my SG (19mm) with no noticable falloff, even in the corners. I would like to replace it someday with a modern coated optic, but since it works so well, its not a high priority. These old press lenses really deserve more respect than they get. Im sure modern glass has better specs, but in the real world, the differences really arent as noticable. At our local camera club, comparing chromes taken with this lens against those taken with other members lenses (all types, from vintage to modern), no one is really aware which lens took which chrome, so the differences certainly arent easily noticable, even to the judges.

[Chad Jarvis]

I would have to say that I agree whole-heartedly with Ron. Wollensaks must be the unsung heroes of the large format world. Though I don't own a 162mm (which type, b the way?), I do have a 127mm Raptar, a 12-inch and 6.25-inch Velostigmat. Can you tell I'm a fan? And they all do quite well.

[Michael Phifer]

According to one of my sources "Handbook of Photography, Henny - Dudley, 1939 Mc Graw-Hill", two Wollensak lenses @ f6.3 are listed. The Velostigmat 1a: Field Coverage = 63 Degrees The Velostigmat 4 : Field Coverage = 60 Degrees (The Velostigmat 2, was the f4.5 Version = 53 Degrees and the Velostigmat 3 was the f9.5 Wide Angle @ 90 Degrees)

Since yours is coated it is most likely Post WWII.

Hope This Helps... Mike Phifer