Argoflex -- a competent poor uncle of the Kodak Reflex

A couple weeks ago, I mentioned on these forums that I'd really like

to have an Argoflex. Dean Williams popped up with an offer I couldn't

refuse, an Argoflex EF (with hot shoe and hard multi-coated taking

lens) that needed (very) minor work, for the cost of shipping, saying

he couldn't be sure when he'd have time to repair it.

 

I was incorrect in my original estimate; it took me longer than a half

hou to reset the focus. First, I had to look up how to adjust the

lenses, then get the two gears mated back on the correct teeth, and

finally set the focus scale to the correct relationship; fortunately,

the infinity stop was already correct, so I was able to reference

against it. Once the teeth were correctly mated, I also had to

correct their mesh, since part of the problem was that the gears would

skip teeth on every attempt to change focus; that required tightening

the retaining ring on the back of the shutter while holding the taking

lens gear into contact with the gear on the viewing lens. The job

wound up taking not quite an hour, including Internet time searching

Rick Oleson's excellent repair information.

 

That done, I also removed the supply side film cradle, which was all

that was needed to convert the camera to use 120 film, instead of the

originally specified 620 (I have carefully stored away the supply

cradle; it can be reinstalled with a little effort if it should become

appropriate or necessary to do so). Now, a 120 spool just drops into

the well on the supply side -- it'll fall out, if allowed to, but the

door holds it nicely once closed. On the takeup side, the original

cradle required some very gentle adjustment to take an unmodified 120

spool, and the inner winding key will engage either 620 or 120 (though

a few 120 spools with a deeply tapered key slot show some tendency to

slip if the supply side gets tight).

 

That done, it was time to run some film through the camera. The first

roll was TMY, and most of it was damaged by grit on the emulsion

(whether from inside the camera or some problem in my developing, I

don't know), but the first exposure on the roll looks pretty good...<div></div>

Second isn't noticeably damaged, either...<div></div>

They say any lens looks good at f/22 -- and they have a point. This lens, however, doesn't have an f/22; it runs f/4.5, 6.3, 9, 12.7, and 18 (though without click stops, so it's easy to set the half stops between that correspond to what we're mostly more used to). Stopped down a good bit, this coated triplet is capable of some decent sharpness and resolution.<div></div>

The second roll, J&C Pro 100, I managed to avoid the grit damage.<div></div>

This graveyard is at the local Friends Meeting, which is what the Quakers call their church; this one was established in 1750 (about 100 years before the first white settlers landed at Seattle). The graveyard itself is posted against trespass, but the grounds of the Friends Meeting aren't.<div></div>

Again, the resolution of this triplet is nothing to trifle with; I don't expect to leave this camera unloaded much.<div></div>

Last one for now. I've got some color film loaded, I'll come back when it's processed and scanned.<div></div>

Oh, yeah -- none of these images was subjected to any sharpening, USM, etc., either in the scanning or afterward. What you see is what I got off the film.

Jeeze..nice looking stuff.

Actually, if you sharpen a scan its more likely to represent what the negative captured. If you compare a projected color slide with a scanned color slide unsharpened and then sharpened, you'll know what I mean.

Don

 

I've got a beauty of an Argoflex that I've never used because the focus doesn't work. The two gears line up and turn freely but the focus doesn't change in the viewfinder. No matter where the top (focus) knob is set, the view is only in focus at around 3.5 feet. Any advice ? Your photos inspired me !

Gene, I have no idea how that's even possible. You can pry off the name ring on the viewing lens and see the screws that fasten the focus scale in place, but as far as I could see the gear is permanently mounted to (or machined as part of) the lens cell; even with the screws completely out, the gear was completely rigid on the lens. I'd suggest, first, looking up Oleson's page on the Argoflex to see how to get into there, and then second opening up the viewing lens and seeing if there's something more going on. All else fails, you could take both lenses completely off to diddle with it, it's not real difficult at all to reset the focus (in my recent experience, anyway).

Donald - All things are possible in the reversed universe that I seem to live in.

Argoflexes must all come from an alternative universe.

 

The one I've had sitting on a shelf for a couple of years waiting a chance to tinker with it has even a different set of focusing problems. Both lenses seem to mesh, and the distance scale stops exactly at infinity. And when I open the lens and use a piece of waxed paper at the film plane the focus appears as close as I can determine according to the distance scale on the lens. But when I look through the viewfinder, things at infinity don't snap into focus until the distance scale is at about 3.5 feet. I'm guessing either the focusing screen got changed by someone once - it doesn't appear to be upside down, or the mirror is misplaced or there's a set of shims missing under the focusing screen. But I've never yet taken it apart to see. The lens is clear and the shutter works at all speeds, so it's probably worth looking into it someday.

 

I'm on a roll. Last week I finally got the taking lens of my Diacord G apart enough to clean the oily stuff out of it so it's nice and clear now. Then this week I finished fixing the focus problem on a Super Ricohflex I just bought. Maybe the Argoflex will be next.

great shots - did you hand hold these or use a tripod?

Todd, that one's easy -- you just need to slip the gear a few teeth in the correct direction. The gears can skip teeth if the shutter isn't tight, or if it's tight but not close enough to the viewing lens. To correct this, use a lens spanner (or, if you're me, two small screwdrivers and considerable care) to loosen the retaining ring on the inside end of the shutter enough that the shutter slips a bit (there'll be about 1/16 inch of movement). Turn the taking lens to infinity, and then slip the gear teeth until the viewing lens reaches infinity focus as well. Push the shutter back into position and tighten the retaining ring, then pry up the name ring on the viewing lens, remove the three screws, and reset the focus scale to match the infinity setting of the lenses. Then go shoot some film!

 

WJ, the two shots in the graveyard ("Oak and Stone" and "Softly Falling Rain") were on tripod with one second exposure; the rest were hand held with exposures ranging from 1/25 to 1/200. The combination of waist level finder and shutter release position makes it easy to cradle and "belly brace" the camera, and then press the release (which doesn't require cocking) by straightening my index finger. On a good day, I might be able to hand hold 1/10 (surely can with a good brace on a solid object).

Looks good, Donald. The JandC and the Argoflex seem to be a good match.

 

Gene; First thing I'd check is the spanner nut on the back of the viewing lens. Remove the strap lugs, then four screws that hold the hood on, then lift the hood and GG out as a unit. You'll see the mirror and the rear element of the viewing lens. If the spanner nut is a little loose, the front of the viewing lens will appear to turn like it should, but really the whole barrel is turning, and the focus won't change in the viewer. Going by memory here from other Argoflexes (Argi?) I fixed up. There are no surprises in there that I can remember, (no parts will fly out). Check it out. If you get stuck, Donald has more recent experience. ;)

DEAN - I will do that.

Dean, I'm starting to conclude that the J&C is just plain nice stuff, if only they'd find a way to clean up the coating defects. You can't really trust it for any kind of serious work, because you never know when you'll find a wavy spot or a tiny bubble in the emulsion. It does seem to help considerably to keep the developing chemicals no warmer than 68F, and to avoid using acid stop bath (the temperature appears to make more difference than the acid stop, though), but you'll still occasionally get 2-3 defects in the length of a roll.

 

When it's okay, though, it's pretty decent, and the price is certainly right. Plus, it's less curly than the Lucky SHD (SHD 100 is another film I've been planning to try -- I like the SHD 400, but it tries to curl into a tube after processing and drying, which makes it a pain to scan and print). I should also get around to giving the Classic 200 and Classic 400 a run -- ISO 200 would be just about the perfect compromise for these older cameras with limited adjustments, though I've heard the 200 isn't significantly finer grained than 400.

 

Bottom line, I suspect pretty much any ISO 100-125 B&W would look really good here -- fine grain and a large negative is a good combination -- but I like the TMY a lot, too; grain similar to the Pro 100 (in fact, a little softer, though about the same size), and two stops faster, which lets me stop down more and more often. No, no selective focus -- but with a triplet, you start to get non-selective blur if you open up enough to get narrow DOF, so I don't miss that option much. I plan to continue to shoot a lot of Pro 100, develop it gently, and take two (for insurance) of anything seriously significant...

Donald, at the beginning of your last post here, the thought of two frames for any "gotta have" shot came to mind. You beat me to it. For what it is (the JandC pro), the stuff really has a super tonal range. It shows well in your building shot above.

 

I like both the JandC 200 and 400 films too. I think the 200 shines in Rodinal 1+100, but the 400 gets funky in it (that's a technical term, ya' know). The 400 is good in D76 1+1 though, and the extra speed comes in handy once in a while. I've use the 400 in PC-TEA also, with good results.

Yeah, my next order from J&C (likely to be soon, I'm almost out of Pro 100) will include a couple rolls each of Classic 200 and Classic 400 to try, before I commit to the SHD 400 as a replacement for TMY (when I run out of what I have, I'll need something else, as I just can't keep paying $4/roll for film and can't depend on finding the kind of killer deals I've gotten a couple times in the last year or two). I do like the look of the SHD 400, but it's *so* curly.

 

Meantime, I've got another roll of TMY from the Argoflex waiting its turn in the soup, and a roll of Portra 400 NC in the camera now (for color, I'm afraid I can't really beat the price of Kodak by enough to bother). Now, I need to find the time to get the focus straightened out on my Reflex II...