Best low cost 135mm 4x5 lens

[DREW WILEY]

For 4x5 film f/32 should be fine and will allow you a little more coverage if needed. Diffraction shouldn't
be a noticeable issue until f/45.

[eclarke]

Sharpness doesn't necessarily make the photograph, you can have good detail without having jittery sharpness when using a large negative..Yiu will love this lens..Evan Clarke

[Ian Grant]

Sharpness doesn't necessarily make the photograph, you can have good detail without having jittery sharpness when using a large negative..Yiu will love this lens..Evan Clarke

I thought jittery sharpness was what I got working han-held a bit of shake.

But yes what's impotatnt is this lens can deliver overall sharpness when you need it. and more subtle effects opened up

Iand

[Pupfish]

By f/22, most all 135mm LF lenses will be on equal footing, usually delivering between 54 and 60 lp/mm across the frame. Even relatively inexpensive Tessars like Wollensak Raptars/Graflex Optars (hard single coating, <$75 USD) or the Schneider Xenars will be excellent performers-- provided the shutter is up to par and the movements required are modest.

[John Wiegerink]

I have three lenses that fall into the category you're looking for. First is a 135mm f5.6 Symmar-S which is on a Sears Tower 4X5 press camera I use often. The next is a 127mm f4.7 Kodak Ektar that is setting on a Calumet monorail 4x5. and the third is the Rodenstock Ysarex f4.7 on a Polaroid 110A I'm thinking about converting to 4X5. I think they are all very, very good lenses and if I were in a hurry to pick one up I'd go for the Kodak 127mm f4.7 Ektar since they are very easy to come by. I've checked antique malls and flea markets and can't tell you how many of those flip-top Polaroid cases I've opened looking for just the lenses we're talking about. The last 110A I got was at a antique mall for $10.00 so they are out there for the cheap. About ten years ago I did a little test of my own on the 135mm Symmar-S, a 135mm Optar, 135mm Xenar, 127mm Ektar and the 127mm Ysarex and here's what I found. The 135mm Symmar-S was the best "over-all" performer, the 135mm Optar was very good and as usable as most view lenses, the 127mm Ektar was very sharp and has just a certain "quality" that I can't explain, but I liked it and kept it, the Rodenstock-Ysarex 127mm was the real sleeper of the bunch. It was sharp as a tack and had the best over-all contrast of all the ones I tested, including the Symmar-S. Now, coverage will very on all these, but I find at f22 I have no problem with my type of photography. Of course I'm not running around NYC shooting tall buildings either. Mostly landscapes, scenes and people. If it were me I'd get a 127mm Ektar(if money is a little tight) and try it. Heck, for what they cost you won't be much out and you can always peddle it later. Nothing like a big negative to make one smile! JohnW[/I]

[Rick A]

I know what you mean with the Ysarex 127/4.7, I have two of them. I have one mounted on a lensboard for my Calumet and the other is still on a 110a that is in imaculate condition. I'm also considering a Polaroid conversion(unless someone buys the kit it's in).

[John Wiegerink]

I know what you mean with the Ysarex 127/4.7, I have two of them. I have one mounted on a lensboard for my Calumet and the other is still on a 110a that is in imaculate condition. I'm also considering a Polaroid conversion(unless someone buys the kit it's in).

I sold the good one that I tested years back, but plan on either converting the 110A or maybe just pulling its lens. The fellow I sold the other one to made a hand-held 4x5 fixed-focus box type camera with hand-grip, stuck the lens on it and it worked out very nice for him. He had a bunch of fun with that camera. He also did his own darkroom work and camera shows. He'd bring 16x20 prints to the camera shows and when somebody would admire them he would haul out that simple camera to show them what he took the shot with. He'd say, "See, ya don't need nothing fancy"! Darn good lens, that's for sure. JohnW

[John Wiegerink]

I sold the good one that I tested years back, but plan on either converting the 110A or maybe just pulling its lens. The fellow I sold the other one to made a hand-held 4x5 fixed-focus box type camera with hand-grip, stuck the lens on it and it worked out very nice for him. He had a bunch of fun with that camera. He also did his own darkroom work and camera shows. He'd bring 16x20 prints to the camera shows and when somebody would admire them he would haul out that simple camera to show them what he took the shot with. He'd say, "See, ya don't need nothing fancy"! Darn good lens, that's for sure. JohnW

Oh, he had a finder off aSpeed Graphic mounted on top also.

[CollinB]

While the 127mm Ysarex is lauded by many, it is a single-coated lens.
There was a later 135/4.5 Ysarex which is multi-coated. (There may also have been a 150mm version.)
I have one. Performs beautifully. It is a quality optic which does not disappoint.
I like it better than the Fujinon 125mm and 135mm lenses that I have had in the past.
It is a Tessar design so it is also a light-weight lens.