your favorite classic camera

My MPP Microflex, closely followed by my Nikon F.<div></div>

A confession, Anthony. That's (unfortunately) not really my Contax II -- it's just a beautiful image I stole off the Internet. Actually, I have one of the very last IIa's (without the green tinted viewfinder), and 50mm Sonnar f:2.0, 35mm Biogon, and 135mm Sonnar. I foolishly gave a friend my 85mm Sonnar, and have been kicking myself in the posterior ever since it went West with his divorce.<P>Those look suspiceously like Nikkor lenses and viewfinder, and yes it IS truly beautiful! You're a lucky man.

I love my Leica M2 and Rollei 2.8C Planar... Oh the Rollei 2.8A is nice too ^^

John,

 

Only one... I like them all. My dream machine is also a Contax IIa, but alas my pockets have hole in them!

I've considered unload my MF equipment and using what ever I get

to pay for the IIa.

He who dies with the most toys...wins! Right!!

I have been wanting to "thin my herd" for a while now, cant seem to do it. I have a couple of Yashica tlrs that are in very nice condition that I never use, BUT I cant seem to sale either lol. I also really like my 4x5 speed graphic, here is a couple of images with it.<div></div>

<p>My Zenit TTL</p>

 

<p><img src="http://www.strangepulse.com/pics/cameras/Zenit%20TTL/DSCF0695.jpg"></p>

 

<p>And my Argus 75</p>

 

<p><img src="http://www.strangepulse.com/pics/cameras/Argus%2075/DSCF0383.jpg"></p>

it was funny when i was at cades cove in october there were lots of folks on that grassy area with there pointers and shooters taking pictures of that beautiful valley, when i set up my tripod and took the speed graphic out of the car a man that was a few feet from me stopped taking pictures walked over to where i was and asked "what in the hell is that?" I laughed to myself, soon there were about 15 folks standing around me looking at it, wondering how it worked and if it still works, how old it was, yada yada yada. Of all the folks I saw up there that weekend (which is a very busy weekend up in that area: Leaf season) One man was shooting with an old Yashicamat and metering with a weston. when I saw him, I thought to myself HELL YEA!

New favorite:<br>

Can't take pictures with it yet, it's coming back from a CLA.

<a href=" title="IMG2759 by oldglass, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2356/2121072820_4a5b923dc8.jpg" width="500" height="328" alt="IMG2759" /></a>

After reconsideration, I think my answer should be, as it should for a lot of us, the next one I get (and I have no idea what it will be).

I saw a lot of Graflex Graphic cameras listed here, andsome really neat 35mm's.

I fall in with the Graphic users, but have had some really nice stuff and a lot of fun with my Rolleicord III with the impressive little 75mm 3.5 tessar.

On the other hand, I have the 2.8 Xenotar like the Rolleiflexes use mounted on a Century Graphic. A really nice set up, and perhaps more user friendly and versatile than the TLR. Depends what one is used to using of course. I backpack with a stripped down Crown or Century, and have numerous lenses for any number of Graphics I have here. And I find a lot of pleasure in refurbishing these old press cameras, either for my own use and also for others. I think I have something around 25 or more Graphic bodies currently invarious stagesof refurbishing from just got here and and haven't touched them yet , to my favorites that areready to shoot anytime. Depends what I am doing, but if I had to pick an absolute favorite from the bunch, I would say it is a Pacemaker Speed 23 with an early black ring 135mm Optar which shoots vintage soft focus wide open and gets very sharp from F~8 and smaller. It is in the middle top row in the image below.

nice graphic collection SG

What is a "black ring Optar?" Thanks.

I call this lens my No.1 Black Ring Optar.

No one has been able to date the Wollensak lenses very accurately that I am aware of, but it's been my experience that the 135mm Optars that have black painted rings are earlier production than what I consider later lenses mounted in satin chrome or silver rings or housings. I've also noted that the later lenses tend to be sharper wide open. I may be completely off my rocker, but I'd say the black rings date back from early production runs at the end of the war, as they are coated, and the later versions that appeared and continued to be produced with the chrome silver rim about the mid fifties. One thing I'll add about the 135 Wollensak tessar is that it is one of the more consistently good lenses they produced. I can't say the same for many of their other lenses like the 101mm Optar that are all over the place in quality. Except for an exceptional 101 Otpar I have that easily compares to the fine reputation of the 101mm Ektar, I have slowly but surely turned more to Schneider Xenars and Angulons etc... when I want crisp images. But then I have a 15" Tele-Raptar, with some age and interior issues that would knock your socks off, so where Wollensak is concerned, I think it's really a crap shoot, but I don't think a person could do very wrong by the 135 Optar with clean glass surfaces. A lot are really scratched up, but the two I use regularly are spotless. One came with my 1970's Crown 45 Top RF and the Black ring mentioned here I acquired for, IIRC, $26.

I have another crown that has the 101mm optar, i guess was lucky, it is a good one especially around f8 on

I think there are many good ones, just as many so so, and then some dogs. I've had a bunch through here over the last six years, and have six I think right now. Only one have I found to be the equal of the Ektar 101. You bet I'm keepin that one. I have another one waiting to be set up on a Crown 23 I'll eventually sell, and it's very nice, slightly better than average, probably about what Gene uses. The rest make useable images, but wont hold a candle up against something like the 105 Xenar, 105 Ektar 3.7, or the underestimated Gralfar 103 triplet. I'd even suggest my 103mm Trioptars are better than most Wollensak 101's. But when selecting a lens, there is always the subjective influence. Someone like myself might favor a less snappy look for a more vintage effect, especially in B&W. My black ring 135 Optar has a vintage glow to it, and that really works for me. The 105 Ektar 3.7 I have used for color, when backpacking in the Sierra, produced fine images with a nostalgic 1960's National Geographic appeal. Exactly what I was after. Another favorite which I noted is mounted on the first post above. A fine lens.

SG, about that black-faced Wolly shutter. FWIW I have an uncoated 75/3.5 Velostigmat Ser. II in a black-faced Rapax. This fact's significance for you is that Wollensak replaced the name Velostigmat with the name Raptar -- nothing else seems to have changed -- late in '46 or early in '47. So your guess that Wollensak switched from black-faced to chrome-faced shutters, i.e., that the ones with black faces are older than the ones with chrome, is probably true. AFAIK some, possibly all, of the latest Rapaxes were blue-faced. At any rate, my 160/5.6 Pro Raptar is in a blue-faced Rapax.

 

IMO if one goes for 2x3 Pacemaker Graphics it isn't possible to have a favorite. This because one needs a Speed and a Crown or Century to cover all possibilities. AFAIK the shortest readily-available lens that covers 2x3 and that will focus on a 2x3 Speed is the 58/5.6 Grandagon. Never had a 50/6.3 Mamiya so don't know whether it will work on a 2x3 Speed, doubt it will. But lenses as short as the 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon will make infinity on a 2x3 Crown/Century. At the other end, although a 250/5.6 TeleRaptar/TeleOptar will work on a Crown/Century, the longest lens that's easily used on a 2x3 Speed is the 12"/4 TTH telephoto (G. H. Cook design, for aerial cameras) and it won't go into shutter. Oh, yeah, the 1.75"/2.8 Elcan will make infinity on a 2x3 Speed but it barely covers 6x6 and, Leitz involvement notwithstanding, isn't very good.

 

Another reason to have at least a pair of 2x3 Graphics is that two little Graphics can be coupled front to rear to make a tandem camera that will, with a little finagling, focus a 480 usefully close as well as through infinity. The 480 covers 2x3 at infinity.

 

About that 75/4.5 Velostigmat Ser. II. Its horrible all over the frame wide open, very bad from corner to corner at f/22. So one could assert that since its image quality on 2x3 is as good in the corners as at the center it covers 2x3. Now roll on the floor laughing and lose bladder control.

An interesting point about my f:3.7/105mm Ektar. It makes some of the most beautiful B&W prints I've ever seen, but when the negatives are examined with a loupe they look like they've been made with coke bottle glass.

Here we are on the vintage lens board...

 

There are those who think the 101 Ektar is a better lens than the slightly faster 105mm. They are different designs.

 

Dan, I wasn't refering to the face plate. What I am talking about is the actual front lens group mount, what one might consider the filter ring. The only interesting thing about the black face plates is the changes in the font styles used. I've a bunch of the black, a late model blue, and sold the silver with red lettering.

Back to my point, except for the black ringoptar I like somuch, all the others I've seen have been mounted on cameras relating to the earlier transition to the Optar lens, late forties to mid fifties, and all I have seen have been coated. And if not all scratched up, I think they make supperb vintage lenses for the 2x3 Speeds. The older Miniature Speed on the lower left in the image I posted above has the 127 Wolly Velostigmat in Supermatic shutter I fitted to it. This is a really nice set up also, and I thought it also matched the camera better than the early fifty's 101 Ektar that came on it. I can also mount my Cooke 7" barrel lens (mounted on the 4x5 Speed top left in photo above)on it if so desired. But that works out better on the Speed 45 with a 120 rollback, and covers 5x7 stopped down. The reason the Cooke barrel lens lives on the Speed 45 is weight. Ihad a 7-1/2 Paragon in Ilex shutter on it and it really heavy on the front. I am waiting the arrival of a 6-3/8" Kodak Anastigmat for my other Speed 45. Here I'll post an image Imadewhen testing out the Mini-Speed after I fit the Velostigmat and set the RF for it. So now the Mini-Speed is my favorite. So Dan was right. With a bunch of really neat old stuff itis the perpetural revolving favorite...

Sorry for continuous words, my space bar is causing me grief.

Oh for cryin out loud, I can't spell very good either.

They never should have let me have a computer.

I certainly don't have a favorite computer at least.

SG, thanks for the additional explanation. Now I'm going to have to pay closer attention to the paint/enamel/plating on the sides of my lenses' front cells. Or did you mean the trim ring? I'm at work, can't look at lenses to check, but IIRC all of my lenses have black trim rings.

 

Vintage lens board? Not at all. The majority of discussions here are about cameras with fixed lenses. Lenses aren't often mentioned in them; instead of writing "my Craptar lens sure is good" people write "my Crapomat camera sure is good." But there were crappy old cameras with interchangeable lenses, so I don't see those of us who use them should be limited by what people with less capable cameras say.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

Dan just to be sure, I'll post an image below that shows a red dot on the painted rim I was refering to.

I'd like to know how that flash shown at the very beginning of this thread is mounted to the optical viewfinder?

I taking a lens board to work today to spin it in the lathe to accomodate another Graphex #2 shutter so I can more easily do more comparisons on film. I have a another black ring 135 here, and an 8" Tele-Raptar I haven't given much attention. And I still haven't made time and effort to do that comparison between coated and uncoated 101 and 105 Ektars.

But my latest toy is a tiny 65mm Angulon. First impression looking at GG is apples and oranges compared to the little Raptar I was trying to use. Lighter for backpacking, much sharper and way easier to focus. I have read all the shortcomings, but based on my experience comparing optics I took a chance that Schneider produced a higher quality lens. Yup. It is a compromise so I don't have to fool around with lens cells when setting up and can pack up the camera with the lens on.

Thanks for the image. Black it is. None of my few (3) Wolly taking lenses is like that, and neither are the enlarging lenses.

 

I'm surprised you see that much difference between a 65/6.8 Angulon and a 65/6.8 Wolly. Interesting news. For the record, I didn't love my little Wolly that wouldn't make infinity on a 2x3 Speed. Its replacement, a 65/8 Ilex, will and is a very good lens.

 

I'm temporarily fiddling with lens cells while deciding which of several similar lenses in barrel not to use. The lenses in question all go into a #1. Beats buying more shutters ...

Well, the Angulon is mounted and I take some lenses and film out tomorrow afternoon. The water front here makes for nice compositions even if just fooling around.

The crux of mounting the little Angulon 65 is that it has no press focus likethe bigger shutters, and worse I found out, no cable release mount. So, here is what I did after going out to lunch with a nice little lady with nice mounts herself. Motivation is all that's needed sometimes.

My only questions is, I am planning on painting this little release mount with flatblack, or should I leave it?

Well, the Angulon is mounted and I take some lenses and film out tomorrow afternoon. The water front here makes for nice compositions even if just fooling around.

The crux of mounting the little Angulon 65 is that it has no press focus like the bigger shutters, and worse I found out, no cable release mount. So, here is what I did after going out to lunch with a nice little lady with nice mounts herself. Motivation is all that's needed sometimes.

My only questions is, I am planning on painting this little release mount with flatblack, or should I leave it?