127mm or 203mm Ektar for shooting 4x5 POLAROIDS?

Greetings- I'm sending my Crown Graphic off to get it serviced soon, and I'm

left with sort of a dilemma as to which lens to have my camera RF calibrated

for. I've not had much experience shooting large format and I am not sure if

the principles of LF lenses are the same as with small and medium format. I

have two lenses that are in original Graphic Synchro-Compur shutters which will

allow for using the cameras exposure button while focusing with RF. I have the

original stock 127mm Ektar f/4.7 which came with my camera, and I've recently

acquired a 203mm f/7.7 Ektar. Both are in near mint condition. I'm not sure

which of the two lenses will be better suited for shooting 4x5 polaroids in

deep urban settings. It seems that somewhat yellowish earthy polaroid hue, that

was commonplace in my youth, is now gaining ground as a trendy way of getting a

nostalgic retro 60's 70's 'look'. While the 203mm Ektar f/7.7 seems to be

commonly praised for better coverage and sharpness, I'm concerned if it will be

fast enough for shooting in artificial and low light urban situations such as

inside inside a subway car or a coffee shop. The 127mm is a a few stops faster,

but I don't read where many seem to praise the 127mm Ektar as a 'great' lens

compared to the 203mm. I know I can use both lenses by just switching them out,

but I have to choose the one I want the rangefinder calibrated for, which would

be for which ever one is best suited for shooting polaroids. If any of you

would be willing to share your thoughts and suggestions, I would very much

appreciate hearing them.

 

 

Charles

If you don't mind vignetting or don't mind cropping, 127 makes sense. Hand-held the 127 should be sharper due to less movement blur.

Comparing at f8, the 127 will probably be a lot sharper than 203 because the 203 will be at full aperture.

 

Compare the two lenses on tripod at middle distance or infinity at full aperture and compare 203@f8 to 127@f8. Try hand holding both at f8 after focusing with tripod.

The 127mm Ektar has been discussed nurmous times on this site and Graflex.org and the 203 a few times. Search for the posts. 127mm Ektar, normal for 3x4, barely covers 4x5, the most corrected lens for color of the entire Ektar line, horizional angle of view 43.6⁰.<br> 203mm Very nice sharp lens, covers 4x5 with movement, horizional angle of view 28⁰.<br> In your other post you say you have a TOP RF. The top rf is calibrated at infinity only. Cams are cut for each lens. Send the lens that Fred agreed to make a cam for. Either should preform well on the camera. 127=wide angle; 203=telephoto.<p>If you have mislead us or if you have a second camera with a Side RF then calibrate the Side RF to the lens that you have a factory focusing scale for then transfer the distance reading to the second lens scale, factory or home made.

Not a bad suggestion John, but unfortunately I am not in the position to where I can do such. I don't have any sheet film and my 550 Polaroid back which only arrived just yesturday. While I (perhaps foolishly) declared my lenses to be almost mint in condition,(they look it)currently my 127mm Ektar shutter is not fireing properly in the lower speeds (sticky) and I seem to loose another speed each time I move it up and fire it a few times. I am sending both lenses and camera to an experienced repairman. He is going to do a CLA both lenses and repair the rangefinder on my camera. I'm hopeing I can get some input from a few users who have used both lenses so I can maybe decide beforehand which lens to have the rangefinder calibrated for. I guess I am trying to choke three birds with one string. I wonder how either lens performs wide open.

Greetings Charles- It's a TOP RF Crown Graphic Pacemaker. I inherited this camera from my grandfather and I mistakingly thought it was a 1972 make. Thanks to the web-site (Graflex.Org) you and others have reccomended, I've learned the camera is a 1955 make with a 1954 lens. If the 127mm Ektar is better suited as a color lens then maybe I should lean with it. The camera still has the original 127mm cam in place.

Personally, I wouldn't bother with the rangefinder; especially for those two lenses. The 127mm will only just cover the film with little to no movements. The 203mm length is more of a portrait type lens.

 

Both of these lenses are very good lenses, but I would use the ground glass to focus them. If you are going to use the rangefinder, I would get a lens around 150-165mm (normal focal length for 4x5) and have the rangefinder set for that one.

 

Also to consider, the rangefinder isn't going to accomodate movements for fine focus on detail. You will use the ground glass for that. In this case, the rangefinder would act more as a hinderance.

 

At $3.00 a sheet for the polaroid film, my guess is that you will be using a tripod and wanting perfect results everytime. While the rangefinder is a great thing to have, I think that the ground glass will be more of an asset for focus.

 

I apologize if all I offer seems confusing. The Crown is a nice camera, the 127mm and 203mm Ektars are fantastic lenses.

 

Sorry if I've added to the dilemma.

Greetings Jeff- No added dilemma by any means and I do appreciate your input. Maybe I'm just lazy or too go-easy, but why let the RF go to waste. It is already calibrated for the 127mm Ektar, but unfortunately the split mirror has lost its coating and the RF dual image no longer shifts side to side. I really prefer to use the RF if it can be made to perform accurately (at least for the casual polaroids. I want to keep it as much point-n-shoot as possible. I wouldn't dare set up a tripod inside a subway car or crowded caffe and draw any more attention to myself than shooting a Crown Graphic by itself will already draw. I want to start out without using the tilts as well. I can elect to use a tripod with either lens at any time. What concerns me however is that you seem to indicate that the Crown's RF may not be reliable for good focusing. If that's the case then I am back at square one. I was originally thinking about buying a Polaroid 600SE for its RF capability. However, since I already owned a Crown, I thought I would just get it in working order insted.

Charles, I did an image search for for color images created using the 127mm Ektar and I must say for an old lens it seems to do a fine job. I can't find any color images that were made using the 203mm. I suppose it is mainly for B&W.<div></div>

"I'm concerned if it will be fast enough for shooting in artificial and low light urban situations such as inside inside a subway car or a coffee shop."

 

Kudos to you if you've the chutzpa to whip out a 4x5 and point it at people in such circumstances. Not exactly a Leica huh? Having shot a 4x5 in urban places, I wouldn't consider either lens for situations like the above. My favorite long urban lens is the 90mm. Large but better dof and wider view. Once you get into low light situations and have to open the lens up to keep a decent shutter speed your dof goes into the crapper. You might consider what lenses you like in the formats you shoot now and translate them to 4x5. The 90mm reference above is about a 25mm in small format terms but 90mm in DOF terms. The 127 comes in around 34mm in the small format. If your shooting hand held your going to need all the dof you can get. Go here http://medfmt.8k.com/brondof.html and plug in your format and lens to see what you wind up with.

Just about all of the lenses you are going to find and use with your Crown will be perfectly suitable for color or b&w. I shoot a pretty even mix of b&w and color transparency in my graflex cameras with old glass.<div></div>

Another.<div></div>

The 203 Ektar will make camera shake more distinct than the 127. With reguards to color the 127 is the better but you do not own the equipement to pick up the micro fine differences between it and the 203. You can buy a lot of cameras, lens, and film for the cost of the equipement to distinguish the differences also.<br> Hopefully Fred will have a cam for the 203 so that you can use the RF with both lens. If you look on the graflex.org site at the cam list for Top RF cameras you will see that there are 3 cams for the 127 and 3 for the 203. Lens are rarely their marked focal length. Due to production tolerances they are usually 1 to 2 mm either side of the stated focal length. On a correctly calibrated RF (with a good cam for the Top RF) the RF focusing is only as good as what point in the scene that you focus on. Groundglass focusing with a loupe will be within a few degrees of focusing knob turn of a carefully RF focused setting of the same object.

Nice shots Jeff! Old lenses do indeed seem to be way UNDERated. Both very sharp and rendering very good color. The boards on the mill in the Ilex shot seem to glow. I'm just curious, but is it a kodak chrome?

 

Wayne, It's easy to have chutz' when you're amongst peoples that likely you never will see again. I live and grew up in a small town that bares a fair distance from most major cities. You now have me thinking however whether it will be safe to go into public places with a 4x5 camera in a post 911 world. While a Crown is almost as quiet as a Leica (though not as heavy) it is certainly LOUDER in looks!

 

I enjoyed the weblink you provided. Should you be reading this, I was wondering if you think a Wide Field 100mm Ektar f/6.3 is close enough to a 90mm to meet your suggestive? I'm trying to stick with press camera shutters and currently there are no 90mm Graphic mount lenses available on eBay.

 

Thanks

Charles

The rangefinder will be highly accurate at all but closeup distances. It's an excellent system. Assuming it's properly adjusted your only concern at portrait to infinity will be parallax and your viewfinder is adjustable for that purpose. Study the viewfinder's view to be sure how it corresponds to the ground glass...the field of view is adjustable for different focal lengths with appropriate Graflex metal masks or, if necessary, with tape.

 

Don't let people talk you out of using the rangefinder/viewfinder...that was the primary way (with the wire sportsfinder) that camera was designed to be used. It's not a "field camera" and few ever relied on the ground glass in its heyday.

 

Think about the speed of your polaroid and the likely exposure you'll need in your lighting conditions. For example "sunny 16" with 400ei means that if you shoot either of your lenses at f8 you'll be shooting at about 1/500 ...and if lighting isn't strong daylight you'll quickly drop to 1/100 or 1/50...too slow for good hand holding with either lens. The 127 would however be far sharper because a) shorter focal length means less motion blur b) it'd be stopped down toward it's sweet spot, whereas 203 would be wide open...where it's very unsharp.

The 100mm WF Ektar F6.3 has an image circle of 183 which will do nicely. The WF's are suppose to be pretty dam good from what I hear. The older 100mm Nikkor wide comes in at a 153mm circle. You could move up to a 105 in Fuji or Nikkor as well. Btw, there is a wide angle 90mm Optar F6.8 made for the Graphic's and a WA Raptar as well. I don't know the circle's tho.

 

The Graphic in 4x5 screams look at me. Point it at someone and you'd think you were pointing a gun at them. Hell, I've pointed a 6x6 folder at workman across a river and had people scream at me. In a subway? Nah, not my cup of tea. If you want to use it that way, rest it on your lap and reach down and trip it or keep your hand on it loosely and look elsewhere. Look back and trip as needed.

Wayne, CW intends to use one of his two current lenses. You're right about the 100WF. He could use a 100 2.8 Xenotar to better effect than the Nikkor for his hand-held purpose..would be at least as sharp. Maybe "candids" aren't CW's thing. Some "street photographers" are fearful, some aren't.

Another vote for the wider lens.<br><br>

 

Don't listen to the folks trying to discourage you from using the 4x5 in public.<br><br>

 

People are mostly oblivious. <br><br>

 

I've snapped away in public with my Super Graphic 4x5 handheld and noone really seems to care. <br><br>

 

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/80/257502794_48c290b99d.jpg" width="394" height="500" alt="." /></a>

Greetings Bart F- Your photos are superb to say the least! Your have a unigue style that can only be credited to you. Thank you for sharing!

 

Charles