Crown Graphic 105mm ektar

Hello all, I recently purchased a 105mm ektar lens after hearing good things

about them. my crown is a 2x3, here is a couple of images taken with the

ektar, I had to hand hold the crown graphic which i dont like doing because i

forgot my tripod, i have a hard time placing the image in the view finder then

checking the rangefinder without moving, tri podding is much easier lol.<div></div>

this next one is what i was talking about, i could have sworn i had them centered. Jesus and Angel<div></div>

You do have a parallax problem with the viewfinder when shooting close. Gene M , has taken some great photos with this camera and lens.

Has Gene used the 105? I thought all his shots were with the more common 101mm, f/4.5 Ektar. I've had two of the 105, f/3.7 lenses, and wasn't impressed; very contrasty, but not terribly sharp - even at f/11 neither of mine were any better than a 101mm Optar... The earlier, much less common 107/3.7 seems a lot better.

 

John, have you checked your viewfinder to make sure it adjusts for paralax as it should? I've seen some where the lube had dried up, and you could adjust the eyepiece, but it wouldn't move the internal bit that's supposed to slide to and fro. Can be very frustrating when the viewfinder *says* eight feet (or six feet, or infinity) but is actually set for around fifteen feet...

my 101 optar is ok, i really like the 105 ektar, seems sharp to me, seems as sharp as my 127.

these 2 images were shot at f8

Are you sure that's Jesus and not St. Francis?

If you'll visit http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html for the 101/4.5 Ektar and http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html for the 105/3.7 Ektar, you'll see that at f/8 and smaller the 101 is sharper and covers 2x3 better, i.e, is sharper at the edge.

 

This is consistent with results from my uncoated 101/4.5 and the 105/3.7 I used to have. I've since bought another 105/3.7 -- long story -- but haven't tried it yet.

i was talking about the 101 optar not the ektar, im not sure about the 101 ektar, i was saying that my 105 ektar is sharper than my 101 optar. too may different tars. lol

Beutiful pictures John.

John, of course opinions differ, but to the extent there's a consensus on www.graflex.org it is that the 101/4.5 Ektar is a bit better than the 101/4.5 Wolly. The difference in performance, if any, is greatest in the corners. Your news is sort of consistent with that, but I don't think its worth fighting to the death over which of the lenses mentioned in this thread is best. Its clear that they all do pretty well.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

My old shooter has an Optar.

 

<a href="http://westfordcomp.com/arizona07/graphlex/Graphlex.html"> CLICK <a> <a href="http://westfordcomp.com/classics/graflex23/index.html"> CLICK<a>

thanks Luis, very nice pics gene. to the above. I wasnt trying to see which lens was better I was just saying what lens the images were made with, and to me it is a sharp lens, as far as corners go, it really dosent matter to me much. to me this forum is posting pics with old cameras which i love very much. not all the tech stuff. i can get all that over at the other forums. this forum is fun. Luis your images are always a blessing and Gene I love looking at all those images taken with old cameras whether good cameras or cheap ones i think all your images are great.

Well, you heard correctly, the 105 Ektar tends to be a very good lens. It is not a tessar design like the 101 Ektar and Optars mentioned above. I believe it is known as a heliar, and IIRC it was recomended for copy work as well as being sold for general photography. The earliest one I have had (still have) was an uncoated externally from 1941. The one I keep for my own use on the Crown or Speed 23 is a later 1947 coated version, marketed by Kodak as Luminized. Both produce nice sharp images but the later version produces a much more contrasty image. One would note the same difference between the 101 Ektars or any other choice with quality glass with or without external coatings.

As noted above, the 101 Ektar is also a very god lens, and has better and consistent quality from lens to lens when comparing to the Wollensak 101's. But some of those produce very pleasing images as well.

Since you like to use a support for your little Crown 23, you have the advantage with the 105 Ektar being one stop brighter on the GG than the tessars for composition and critical point focussing.

I sure like mine, and the only thing I have here in that focal range that might be a tad bit better than the Kodaks is my 105 Xenar. But we're talking sharpness and contrast there, and more often I tend to favor the feel of the Vintage Kodak and Wollensak optics for my B&W images. I took my 105 Ektar backpacing in the Sierra a couple years ago and thought the images had a vintage National Geographic feel to them. That was color though, but it was the effect I was looking for at the time.

Have fun with it.