Graflex.org

[Daryl]

I have heard that this lens that was used on the 2X3 Graphics can also be used on enlargers. Is this true, and if so, is the shutter easily removed for this use? Thank you for sharing any information you have on this.

[clnfrd]

105mm should be okay for some applications....I use 75mm for 2X3 and 2X2...and 50mm for 35mm...but why remove the shutter? Just set it on T (Time) and open the shutter with the shutter release.

[ This Message was edited by: clnfrd on 2002-08-30 06:06 ]

[Daryl]

Is your 75mm lens an enlarging Ektar? I have one and it does fine on 6X7, but I've heard that for 6X9 the 105 Ektar does better. Now, I've also read that the 101mm f4.5 is a fine lens. And, it might also be somewhat easier to find than the 105mm f3.7. Anybody with experiences using one or the other on an enlarger care to comment? Largest enlargement I'd do would be 20X24.

[Les]

The 105 is a Heliar design with 5 elements, te 101 Ektar is a Tessar design, both are formulated for infinity.

Before I'd spend the $100+ on a Heliar, should you find one by itself, I'd spend that or less on 100mm Componon S 5.6. That lens will out perform anything you can throw at it and a quick check on ebay shows they sell for around $100.
An enlarging ektar 100 f3.5 (probably a tessar too but designed for close up) was less than $25 and would still out perform the Heliar or the 101 ektar.

Now for images up to 8x10 the difference between the enlarging ektar and the 101 ektar would be slim, but for the price why not?

And if you've got the money, get a Componon or Componon S. The S was their top of the line before the HM series came out.

Prices have fallen through the basement on enlarging lenses, so there's really no need to try to use a taking lens. And if you got a speed with a working FP shutter, then you have a kickbutt macro lens to boot!

[clnfrd]

Yes, my 75mm lens is an enlarging Ektar, and it is excellent for my hobby, which deals mostly with 8"X10"s. However, it was my assumption that since Graflex manufactured Graflarger Backs for Graphics, the taking lenses would be acceptable as enlarging lenses. Fred.

[Daryl]

Fred, that's what I thought too. But, since Kodak also manufactured "Enlarging Ektar" lenses, perhaps there is some difference. Makes sense that the non enlarger lenses would be designed for optimum focus at infinity, and that the Enlarging Ektars would be optimized for under 48". Or is that notion nonsense? As to the Enlarging Ektar lenses, there are a couple of different versions that I have seen. Those with heavy corrugations on the aperture ring I believe were of the heliar design. Those with finer criss-cross machining on the aperture ring I've read somewhere are tessar design. Of the heliar design, I have a 75 and a 50mm, which are not uncommon. However, I've not yet seen a 105 heliar type Enlarging Ektar. 100mm tessar design I have seen. I believe, however, that a 105 heliar type was made for the Kodak Precision enlarger. Can anyone confirm this?

[clnfrd]

Interesting info, Daryl. I have and use a Kodak Precision Enlarger...and it has a Kodak Enlarging Ektar,f 4.5, 75mm, with heavy corrugations on the aperture ring. If your info is correct, it's a Heliar rather than a Tessar-type, eh? Since I use the Enlarger for 2X2" and 2X3", it's the ideal lens for me. Although I haven't seen carriers this size, it appears the enlarger could possibly accomodate a negative up to 3X4". Fred.

[Dan Fromm]

[Les]

Which of Kingslake's book did you referr to?

[Dan Fromm]

[Les]

thanks, I have the first edition, 1950 of the same book. One of my pricier book purchases, but Rudy signed it, so I couldn't pass that up!