90mm Raptar/Optars

[K. Praslowicz]

I currently own a f/12.5 90mm Wollensak Raptar. I find it to be a great lens which has created some of the sharpest images I'm made on 4x5 film. The problem is that I love to do urban night photography, and well, f/12.5 can be quite a bit hellish to focus with.

I'm patiently looking for a f.6.8 Raptar or Optar since they are quite affordable. I'm just kind of wondering what to expect from one of the lenses, assides the hope of actually being able to focus it.

Typically the length of time I want to stand around for exposure equates to f/11-f/16. Should I expect better performance from the 6.8 since it is at that optimal 2-3 stops form wide open, whereas the f/12.5 is running pretty much wide open, even at f/16? What about coverage? I don't get much rise since the standard has to be inside my Speed Graphic body when I use a 90, but the f.12,5 hasn't seemed to have much issue with any amount I've been able to actually apply.

Just out of curiosity, what was the marketing angle on an f/12.5 lens? Something like "Who needs anything larger than f/16 with flashbulbs anyways?"

[Mark Sampson]

I would imagine that f/12.5 was the best that they could do when they designed it, a long time, maybe a hundred years, ago. That lens may have more coverage at a working f/stop than the f/6.8 version, which is probably newer (relatively) and meant for press cameras. It's my impression that the 90/6.8 Optar is similar to the 90/6.8 Schneider Angulon, which is supposed to just cover 4x5 @ f/22. But I'm not positive, and a search of the archives here will tell you a lot about the Angulon. And perhaps the Raptar; or better yet, the experts will speak up.

[K. Praslowicz]

I would imagine that f/12.5 was the best that they could do when they designed it, a long time, maybe a hundred years, ago.

The lens isn't that old. It is in a Rapax Shutter with X-sync. Design wise it doesn't look any different than any of the 1940's Wollensak lenses..

The lens.
http://www.kpraslowicz.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/90raptar.jpg

Raptar ad from 1950.
http://www.kpraslowicz.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/raptars-222x300.jpg (http://www.kpraslowicz.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/raptars.jpg)

[bigeye]

I was just thinking about how nice that lens would be in a Crown Graphic; you could use the rangefinder for dark shots?

Cost is about the same to change the lens or get a complete Pacemaker...

- Charlie

PS - just checked your party gallery. Huge fan of Big Nasty Flash.

[K. Praslowicz]

I was just thinking about how nice that lens would be in a Crown Graphic; you could use the rangefinder for dark shots?


Considered it, but the design of the Anniversary's infinity stops wouldn't make it impossible for me to switch to longer lenses if I set it up for 90mm.

[IanG]

You can have more than one set of infinity stops :D They fold down out of the way.

Ian

[Michael Graves]

I have used the 90mm Optar and the Angulon. The Optar is a good sharp lens, but JUST covers 4x5. Try to use any movements and you run out of image circle. The Angulon almost, but not quite covers 5x7. I have set my Crown up with 2 sets of infinity stops. One is at 90mm and one is at 135mm. I kept the 135mm cam because the 90 has better DOF. I'm not sure what impact the cam has, but it must do something. In any case, with these two lenses I get sharp focus with the rangefinder. I don't know how well it would work with a longer lens. I would suspect that the longer the lens, the less accurate focus would be for whichever lens was not cammed correctly.

[Jim Jones]

Ian -- the OP is right; the infinity stops on an unmodified Anniversary don't fold down. I believe one can replace the Anniversary tracks with ones from a later Graphic, but buying a later model might be more practical. My Graphics have been modified so much over so many years I'm not sure what was original.

The instructions for my Graflex Optar 90mm f/6.8 say, "Like most Wide Angle Lenses it is recommended the lens be stopped down to f11 or smaller for critical definition." I believe it is an ancient four element four group design, perhaps similar to the OP's f/12.5 lens. The somewhat newer Angulon is an entirely different design, and might perform better at larger apertures.

[K. Praslowicz]

Ian -- the OP is right; the infinity stops on an unmodified Anniversary don't fold down. I believe one can replace the Anniversary tracks with ones from a later Graphic, but buying a later model might be more practical.

I recall seeing a junked out Pacemaker locally a week or so ago for $7. No lens, no back, and I couldn't get the Focal Plane shutter to release. Maybe I should just go buy it. If I can get the shutter working or swap out the rails, sweet. If not, $7 for two sets of infinity stops and a random cam seems to be a pretty sweet deal for if I ever do get a working pacemaker.

[K. Praslowicz]

I have used the 90mm Optar and the Angulon. The Optar is a good sharp lens, but JUST covers 4x5. Try to use any movements and you run out of image circle. The Angulon almost, but not quite covers 5x7.

Is that the 6.8 Angulon, or one of the faster ones?

[Mark Sampson]

K- I should have been more clear. I suspect the f/12.5 lens is an old design that stayed in production for many years; if it's labeled 'Raptar' it was made post-1945. I also suspect that at the time, the f/12.5 aperture was as fast as they could make it with the coverage they wanted. (By way of comparison, I once owned a B&L/Zeiss Protar made for 5x7 which was even slower, at f/18 max aperture. It was a coated post-WWII optic, too.) I also think that the 90mm/6.8 Raptar/Optar was designed for press camera applications, where lens speed was more important than coverage. I can't prove any of this, but a look a the cameraeccentric.com site will lead you to dozens of old lens catalogues, which will probably help more than my speculations.

[K. Praslowicz]

K- I should have been more clear. I suspect the f/12.5 lens is an old design that stayed in production for many years; if it's labeled 'Raptar' it was made post-1945. I also suspect that at the time, the f/12.5 aperture was as fast as they could make it with the coverage they wanted. (By way of comparison, I once owned a B&L/Zeiss Protar made for 5x7 which was even slower, at f/18 max aperture. It was a coated post-WWII optic, too.) I also think that the 90mm/6.8 Raptar/Optar was designed for press camera applications, where lens speed was more important than coverage. I can't prove any of this, but a look a the cameraeccentric.com site will lead you to dozens of old lens catalogues, which will probably help more than my speculations.

Gotcha. Tons of info on that site. Will bookmark and dig around later when I have more free time.

[rdenney]

This one was made after WWII, because it carries the "wocoated" mark and is coated.

The Vade Mecum shows an "Extreme Angle" model by Wollensak, but in a 6-1/2" focal length for the 8x10 format (at f/9.5) and describes it as an older design but still recommended for 8x10 into the 1960's. I suspect it is the same design as yours. That suggests that the Raptar W.A. f/6.8 and the Raptar Extreme W.A. f/12.5 were contemporary for a good while. The regular f/6.8 Raptar is a four-element gauss lens according to the Vade Mecum--certainly not one of the designs that emerged only after the war. The naming of these lenses suggests that the Extreme had wider coverage than the regular W.A. in return for that smaller maximum aperture.

90mm is a strong wide in 4x5, and my reading suggests that designs that really covered it abundantly didn't come until the various Biogon designs and their derivatives (such as Super-Angulon-type lenses) emerged. Prior to that, the Dagor-type designs and their derivatives seem to have dominated the wide-coverage applications, including the Raptar W.A. and the Angulon.

Rick "who uses an 90mm Optar on his Speed, but doesn't confuse it with his 90/5.6 Super Angulon" Denney

[jnantz]

the 12.5, if it is the same one i had, said 3 1/2" exwa on the lens.
from what i remember it was able to cover a 5x7 sheet of film.

i had both the exwa and 6.8 raptar for a while, my raptar had a dot ( yellow? purple?)
and i had no trouble getting enough coverage with it. maybe it was the dot ?

[Kevin Crisp]

I thought the f:12.5 ones had more coverage than the faster ones. Would be interesting to put it on an 8X10 and check the usable coverage.

[K. Praslowicz]

Ian -- the OP is right; the infinity stops on an unmodified Anniversary don't fold down. I believe one can replace the Anniversary tracks with ones from a later Graphic, but buying a later model might be more practical. My Graphics have been modified so much over so many years I'm not sure what was original.

The Parts Pacemaker was still at the store for seven dollars. My Anniversary now has folding infinity stops and front tilt.

[Drew Bedo]

A sub-optimal option: The Ocillo . . . Raptars, Optars and Paragons were designed for imaging ocilloscopes. They are generally 75mm in focal length, and only cover a four inch circle at infinity, BUT . . .they have an aperture range from f16 to f 1.9 (One Point Nine) They are in a #3 Aliphax shutter. They should not be expensive. I have seen them go for $50 or so on *bay.

If you are shooting at night, and have a difficult must-get shot, this might save the “day” even though its only a 6x6 cm image.

[K. Praslowicz]

Digging around on the subject of a 90mm some more, I'm also now considering the possibility of jumping up a bit and maybe going for a 5.6 or 4.5 90mm lens. The one thing I can't seem to find out though by searching for images taken with these lenses is if the characteristics of point lights will look great, such as this:

http://img.kpraslowicz.com/fitpost/0298.jpg

Or nasty, much like this:

http://img.kpraslowicz.com/fitpost/sekor-ugly-flare.jpg

Every old press lens with a circular aperture I've used seems to draw the light like the first image. I'm just fearing purchasing something more modern and having it look like the later (which was shot with a 90mm Sekor on an RB67)

Maybe I'll just wait until I can score a cheap 6.8 Optar/Raptar/Angulon and try it. If it isn't bright enough to focus, then I'll worry about going faster.

[Michael Graves]

Is that the 6.8 Angulon, or one of the faster ones?

6.8 on both. I still have two copies of the Angulon.

[Brian C. Miller]

Every old press lens with a circular aperture I've used seems to draw the light like the first image. I'm just fearing purchasing something more modern and having it look like the later (which was shot with a 90mm Sekor on an RB67)

Maybe I'll just wait until I can score a cheap 6.8 Optar/Raptar/Angulon and try it. If it isn't bright enough to focus, then I'll worry about going faster.

What you need to do is count the number of blades on the apeture. The second photo looks like it has 8 blades. An Acme 4 shutter or older Copal 3 has 10 blades, so it will look rounder. The minimum I have seen for a round apeture is 12 blades. I just counted 15 on my Betax 3. My Graflex shutter has 11 blades. A new Copal 3 has 7 blades.

I'm planning on buying a bunch of filters, taking out the glass, and then having some plastic inserts made for them to get actual round apetures.