"best" 127mm

[jjstafford]

Interesting! An associate has asked for a drop-dead simple 4x5 to handhold. Well, I have four Printex cameras, two with rangefinders, and they are best used with a 127mm lens, but my 127mm lenses just suck at wider apertures.

Is there a good 127mm lens?

[MikeS]

You say your 127mm lenses suck wide open. I guess the next question is: What 127mm lenses do you have?

-Mike

[jnanian]

i have/use a 127 tominon in a prontar (polaroid) press shutter.
works very well - large or small apertures.

[John Kasaian]

Theres nothing wrong with the ubitquitous 127mm f/4.7 Ektar of Jimmy Olson and Sped Graphic fame :-) The 127 Ysaron is pretty slick too, but I bet the Ektar would do better wide open (just a guess, considering the Ektar was made for "F/8 and be there" while the Ysaron was used in a Polaroid copy camera) Come to think of it a 127 f4.5 Optar/Wollensak should fill the bill too.

[jimgalli]

Most any old coated Kodak 127 f4.7 will resolve 80lppm in the middle at f8 but any of the old press tessars is going to suck out in the edges on a 4X5. Get a Caltar IIn 135 f5.6 if there's budget for it.

[BradS]

The three most commonly available 127mm LF lenses are probably the Wollensak Raptar, the Kodak Ektar and the Rodenstock Yasaron. The Graflex Optar is almost always a rebadged Raptar - although somtimes, a Yasaron can be found too. Each of these lenses was pressed into service on Speed/Crown Graphics only reluctantly. That they seem to have lived up to this role is a testament to their chivalry and courage as none of them really covers 4x5 very well - especially at infinity. Actually, I suspect that the fact the the lenses didn't, strictly speaking, cover 4x5 was overlooked due to practical considerations related to the nature of press photography in the 1940's and 50's coupled with the fact that most lenses of the tessar design have a much larger circle of illumination than their circle of good definition.

As jimgalli said, a modern, coated 135mm plasmat is far superior. They're not really significantly bigger or heavier and need not cost a lot more either. The Tessar formula lenses do have a characteristic look though.

Hmmm, I think I just decided to sell that lovely old Xenar that came on my Crown Graphic....

[John Kasaian]

Hey Guys, the reason why I mentioned grand-pa Ektar & pals is because this is for a handheld camera which, unless you're blessed with an extra pair of hands, kind of prevents using swings and/or tilts, so the size of the image circle probably isn't an issue. I agree with Jim Galli though, if its feasible just about any good "real" 4x5 lens will give you the option of moving up to a more sophisticated camera (which WILL happen, once you get hooked!) FWIW I think Peter Gowlands 4x5 handheld aerial camera is designed around a Nikkor 120. For a drop dead simple camera fix focused for infinity with a flip up sportsfinder thats about as simple a handheld as it gets.

[MikeK]

I have a Wollensak 127mm f4.5 Raptar. It performs very well indeed. Here is an example http://home.pacbell.net/mkirwan/pine_street.htm

Pretty good definition across the whole image. There is some mottling in the sky, not a problem with the lens but due to the fact I developed the negative in a Patterson developing tank.

[David A. Goldfarb]

And if a 135 Caltar II-N isn't in the budget, consider a 135 Symmar convertible.

[jjstafford]

You say your 127mm lenses suck wide open. I guess the next question is: What 127mm lenses do you have?

-Mike

Silly me - Raptars, Wollensaks - IMHO not very good.