Small, lightwieght lenses for 5x7

[Chad Jarvis]

I had a Wollensak 127mm Raptar that was teenie in a Rapax shutter. I believe it just covered 5x7. If it didn't the 135mm version may. IMHO the Raptars are overlooked in all areas, including sharpness and contrast.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

I don't have either of the Wollensaks lenses (127mm or 135mm) to test, but aren't these bother tessar types? If so, they likely barely cover 4x5 and would not be usable on 5x7. I used to have a 127mm Ektar that I used on a 4x5 Speed Graphic. It was very sharp in the center, but even on 4x5 the sharpness started to fall-off in the corners.

By the time you get down in the 127 - 135mm range on 5x7 you need a lens capable of covering 80 - 85 degrees. Most tessars types cover 55 - 64 degrees. Even typical plasmats (70 - 75 degrees) aren't really useful on 5x7 in these focal lengths.

Kerry

[e]

Check out the Protars. Also I use a 130mm Rodenstock Perigon f 12 that is so, so tiny I can even close my 3.8lb 5x7 Anba Ikeda with it reversed.

[Arne Croell]

A Meopta Largor 135mm would also fit the bill. These were coated double Gauss wide angles like the WF Ektar made in the 1950's. Meopta sold them for the "Magnola" 13x18cm camera, a simplified copy of the Technika, so the lens was intended for 5x7. They usually come in a tiny Prontor Press size 0 shutter, so the elements can be put into a new shutter without problem (as opposed to the WF Ektar). The quality is quite good if stopped down to f/16 or smaller.

[Chad Jarvis]

I defer to Kerry regarding the Raptars, as I don't have any imperical data upon which to base my opinion.