Any of these 90mm lenses any good?

[Calamity Jane]

I have been using my Schneider Symmar 5.6/150 convertible in every possible combinations and it takes pretty good pictures.

I'd like to add a sort lens to my kit (inexpensively) and I have run across the following:

SPIRATONE HAMBURG WIEITWINKEL ANASTIGMAT 90mm 6.8

OPTAR W.A. 3-1/2in. 90mm f6.8

Wollensak 90mm WA Lens

Any of these particularly bad?

Later, after I rob a bank, I'll look for a long lens ;-)

Thanks gang

[J. A. Berwocky]

they ain't the greatest, but call it "art"

[David A. Goldfarb]

I wouldn't be surprised if they were all essentially the same lens.

Why not look for a 90/6.8 Angulon, if you want something inexpensive? The Linhof badged ones are usually pretty decent. Not much usable image circle beyond 4x5", but they are compact, decent within the usable image circle, and relatively cheap.

[Dan Fromm]

The Optar is a rebadged Wollensak.

Have you visited http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html yet?

[RichSBV]

Like Dan said, the Optar and Wolly are pretty much the same. Many people find them just fine and I own several myself as "original equipment" for my Graphics. If you can find a later multi-coated one, or even a single coated one, it will probably do you okay until you can afford a prestige lens(!)

The 90/6.8 Angulon offers a tight fit for 4x5 with a 152mm image circle at81 degrees. The Wolloy/Optar is 84 degrees and from what I've heard will offer a larger image circle. Whether or not the the extra coverage is all that useable? But I have heard the Angulon is a bit tight...

For me and a whole lot of other people, the Wolly/Optars are pretty good... Just watch the price and condition!

[Brian Schall]

I had the Optar WA which I used on a Busch Pressman. This lens just covers 4x5 with no room for movements. Also, if you want to use filters, you will need to get a push on filter adapter, 1 1/4" if memory serves me. Luckily I found one at my local, old-fashioned camera store (luckily that I worked there for a short while). It took Series VI filters. This lens is not overly sharp but is a good performer, especially for the $110 it cost from Midwest. The following link is a photo taken with it (a quick scan of the negative). http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3011770

I recently replaced it with a 1960 Super Angulon f8 off of Ebay for only $200, to go on my Tachihara, which replaced the Busch.

[Christopher Perez]

You might be surprised at how good the Optar/Wollensak 4 element air-space Gauss implementation is. Just stop it down to at least f/16 and be prepared to smile. :-)

If you have a few more bux, try a Schneider Angulon f/6.8 (as was just suggested - probably set you back between $125 and $225 depending up on year and condition).

[Vick Vickery]

It might be worth your time to look over a Wollensack Extreme WA 90mm f12.5. Its slow as as a turtle, but it takes good pics and is tiny...weighs practically nothing, and I've seen several (including my current one) go for well under $100 on eBay! I've had a couple of these thru the years and have always been pleased with them...by the way, the specs I saw indicate that they will cover 5x7 stepped down and I beleive it, never having run out of room on any movements I needed. Being this slow, they are a little dim to focus, but you get used to that quickly...use a loope in the center and you won't have any trouble.

[Mark Sawyer]

I, too, like the 90mm Angulon; David's comments on it match my experience exactly. A 90mm Optar/Wollensak/Raptar should be pretty decent too.

I've never heard of a Spiratone large format lens. Spiratone 35mm lenses were notorious in the 60's and 70's as cheaply made and poorly performing. They were usually sold mail-order from magazine ads, as reputable dealers wouldn't carry them. I'd hesitate to buy one, but if you're just doing tintypes, maybe it would match the quality of Civil War-era lenses. Or maybe the seller would let you test it first?

[Jim Rice]

IMHO the biggest advantage of the Wolly/Optar is it's very small size and weight. It is also (or should be) dirt cheap (~$100 US). The quality controls of Wollensaks are pretty notorious in their absence, so my experience may not translate directly. The one I had a couple of decades ago was just okay with no, or very little, movements in black and white. The diaphram in the Rapax shutter on mine gave up the ghost, too. When I started shooting chromes with it there was this truely awful green cast and a lack of contrast which made is practically useless in that application. Others on the forum have reported no such problems, so my results may be an oddity. 90mm is a very nice focal length for 4x5".

[Dan Fromm]

If I'm not mistaken, the Spiratone Hamburg Weitwinkel (= wide angle) lenses were actually made by Leitmeyr and are four element double Gauss lenses in the same design family as Kodak Wide Field Ektars, f/6.8 wide angle Raptars/Optars like the 90 mentioned here, and the famous Taylor Hobson Cooke Ser. VIIb. The Vade Mecum says little about Leitmeyr lenses, does mention a 108/6.8 Weitwinkel that it says covers 5x7. So there's a chance that the Spiratone Hamburg lens covers a much larger circle than the Angulon or Raptar.

Jane, visit www.graflex.org and read their lens FAQs. Pay attention to what's said about coverage. And then think about whether a 100/6.3 WF Ektar might suit you better than a 90/6.8 Angulon or Raptar.

[Jim Rhoades]

The only problem I've ever had with my 90mm Wollensak Optar was with the lens snobs that would tell me they are not to sharp. Funny, I'm willing to show them a sharp print taken with the lens but they never show me theirs. Find a good one and learn to love it.

Because it's so small and light I use it more than my snob approved Rodenstock.

[Alan Davenport]

The Optars, Wollensak and Angulons will not have enough coverage to allow much in the way of movements; you'd be able to use back tilts and swings with no rise/fall and no front movements allowed. I believe most of these lenses need to be stopped down to f/22 to cover 4x5. I suspect the quality of those old lenses is extremely variable, but I will say that a friend's 165mm Optar is a very fine optic and is one of the sharpest lenses I've seen.

Prices are down a bit across the board, it seems, so you can find some very attractive prices. If it's within your budget, consider a Caltar II-W 90mm f/8; it is a rebadged Super Angulon and a stellar performer (the later ones are multicoated, too.) Lately the Caltars have been selling for around $300 or even less.

[jnantz]

like vick, i also used a 12.5 wollensak exwa. it came in a tinylittle alphax shutter and aside from the 100thS being its highest speed, it was a sweet little lens. i originally got it when my wollensak 90mm was in the shop getting re-calibrated and came back with beard clippings in the shutter so i could only use it with my speed graphic for a while there. both lenses were sharp as a tack stopped down f16-f22. i ended up picking up a cheep 90mm schneider super angulon a few years later, and sold off the 2 little field lenses. these days i wish i still had them because they were so small an worked so well ( when there was no beard in the shutter that is!).

[David A. Goldfarb]

If I can make good 8x10s with my 120/14 Berthiot Perigraphe, I'm sure you can make good 4x5s with an Optar/Wolly 90mm WA, but I would still go with an Angulon in that price range in order not to have to deal with series filter sizes.

[Dan Fromm]

CJ, I think I'm going to put you on my bad list.

It seems that you've bid on this: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15247&item=7513447550&rd=1 That's fine, and is your right. There's nothing wrong with bidding on a used lens on eBay, especially when I'm selling it. This one isn't mine.

But and however the lens you've bid on is a 90/12.5 Wollensak. Not at all the same lens as the 90/6.8 that people responding to your post assumed you had in mind.

You withheld relevant information. You elicited responses that were widely off the mark. You didn't correct our misapprehensions. Good people give full information and help people who try to help them.

[Calamity Jane]

Ah, Dan, I did bid on the 90/6.8 but somebody has a higher maximum than I was willing to go. I appreciate the advice folks offered on the 90/6.8 and I used that info to determine my max bid. My max bid wasn't good enough and I am not prepared to go higher so I set my sights on a different duck in the flock.

The 90/12.5 was at an attractive price so I thought I'd take a shot at it. Now that it's all "public", it'll probably get bid up to.

I didn't have much luck searching out info on the 90/12.5

"You withheld relevant information. You elicited responses that were widely off the mark. You didn't correct our misapprehensions."

If I am chasing stuff on e-bay you can hardly expect me to show my whole hand before the betting is over!

Put me on yer "bad list"!!! Come on, I DARE ya!!!

;-) <----- note the simley face

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

CJ...

I like that. Anyway, is robbing a bank out of the question? How about a couple of mini-marts? I would save up for an older Super Angulon or one for the Caltar f/8 lenses.

[Jim Rhoades]

David makes mention of Wolly/Optar and series filters like it's a bad thing. It is one on the reasons I like my Crown Graphic outfit so much. A 90mm Optar, 135 Schneider and a 203 Ektar all with series VI filters. 4 filters, rings and a lens shade in a little leather box that weights next to nothing. I can fit all that plus half a dozen film holders and spotmeter in a Domke #6 bag. Good to go anywhere. Of course if you need a lot of movements, nevermind.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Series filters are handy if you've already got them, or if you're fortunate enough to pick up a set in good condition. But starting from scratch with an eye toward getting other newer lenses in the future, filters and hoods in conventional mm sizes are much easier to come by. It's not as if a set of 4 40.5mm filters and a shade are heavier or take up more space than a comparable set of series VI filters.

[Dan Fromm]

CJ, if you can simle I guess I can too.

Ain't no secrets on eBay, though. If you want to hide y'r interest in an item on eBay, use a sniping engine to place your bid at the last instant.

[Vick Vickery]

About the Series filter comments: I carry filters in Series VI & VII, and 3" square. Every one of my view camera, MF, or 35mm lenses can easily use any of them with the appropriate adapter ring, step-up ring, etc. Makes it real easy to buy any special filter you need at eBay or such places since any of three sizes will work fine! :-)

[Ernest Purdum]

It's not surprising that you haven't found much information on the 90mm f12.5 lens. Wollensak seems to have put out relatively little information on it. Also, they apparently stopped making them on and off, more or less by whim. The 159mm size for 8" X 10" seems to be much more common. There was a 108mm size also, which should give excellent movements on 4" X 5", but is seen even less often than the 90mm.

Most people that have used any member of the family seem to be enthusiastic about the size and weight and consider all other factors acceptable at worst.

[Ernest Purdum]

Well, now you can find out all about the f12.5 for yourself.

Congratulations. I think you got a great deal of usefulness for the money, and my guess is that you are going to like it.

[Doug Herta]

I assume we will be getting an evaluation from CJ with her observations of the quality and value of the Wollensak lens and bring the topic full circle?

[Calamity Jane]

Well the 3-1/2"/12.5 Superwide Wollensak wasn't my first choice - rather have had the faster lens for tintypes - but it's within my budget right now. Certainly I will make some comments on what I think of it when I have had the chance to play with it for awhile.

Thanks everybody for your comments and suggestions. Being so new to LF I rely a lot on the opinions I get from this Board when deciding how to spend my money!

[Dan Fromm]

CJ, don't be afraid to make a mistake when buying a lens. If you don't pay too much -- restraint in bidding is a virtue -- you can almost always resell at a minimal, sometimes negative, loss. That's how I pay for my lenses.

I'm not suggesting that you turn into a Jim Galli, just that you realize that selling lenses that turn out not to do what you want/expect is a useful option.

Cheers,

Dan