Kodak Anastigmat f/7.7 from 1915

I grafted a Kodak Anastigmat f/7.7 with a ball bearing shutter to my

Speed Graflex. Needless to say, I was quite impressed by the

results.

 

This led me to think that these "old time lenses" are as good as the

ones that we have now. I am convinced now that this old lenses can

give a good run for their money to the modern Nikons, Zuikos and the

like... Hexanons, which by the way, are also more than superb,

especially for color.

 

I found the camera, with totally shot bellows in an antiques store

for $25. The lens is well worth that price, it will be a good

companion for a long time. The glass got cleaned and nothing was

done to the shutter, which I understand is supposed to operate

without lubrication. Works fine.

 

The ball bearing shutter is self cocking. This is an amazing piece

of technology. Naturally, it has speeds of 1/25, 1/50, 1/100, T and

B only... More than sufficient.

 

Marry this to wonderful TMX100 and you have to hang on to your socks.

 

Hope that everyone enjoys the results.<div></div>

The scanning leaves much to desire. This was done at 300 dpi and then reduced to fit in here. This JPEG compression !!!<div></div>

These were not real flowers. They are the "silk" kind that can be found in profusion in the crafts store.<div></div>

TMX 100 is amazing stuff in 4x5. I can't really make-out much of anything from the first shot but the others have that soft glow that I've come to appreciate from my '20s large format Skopar 135/4.5 lens.

There were a variety of fine lenses offered on the 3A Folding Pocket Kodaks, any of which would be perfectly at home on a 4x5 Speed Graphic. Not much extra coverage, but a Speed doesn't demand that. Plenty of them were put there in the past, as well.

I have used different focal lengths of that lens on 9x12, 3-1/4 x 4-1/4 and 5x7 with excellent results as you report.

The Anastigmat was the top of Kodak's line at the time, but I don't see much difference in performance from the lower priced lenses; all are capable of making very fine images. The older ballbearing shutters seem much more robust than later ones which I have found to have problems with T and B settings as well as with the action of the cable release. Later models did have greatly improved reflex viewfinders.<br>     It seems like a neat idea to put the old Kodak lenses on a LF machine to get the advantage of groundglass focusing. I can crank my No. 1 Pocket Kodak out past the end of the bed for a 2.5' focal distance, but the composition is kind of hit-or-miss. Still, the small apertures available mean I can usually get the focus right and the dof is better than any of my modern cameras with their measly f/16.

Diwan, the f/7.7 Kodak Anastigmats are four elements in four groups dialyte type lenses and all are supposed to be very good. The nicest of the lot is the late coated 203/7.7, badged "Ektar." But they have to be clean.

 

Large format beats small format. 35 mm has its place, also has limits. So what?

 

Some lenses for large format beat some lenses for small format. Some lenses for small format beat some lenses for large format. Don't over generalize. And before you get too carried away about how wonderful your new treasure is, shoot it on a 35 mm camera against a good lens of the same focal length made for the camera.

 

Good luck, have fun, keep on unearthing treasures,

Dan:

 

Thank you. All you say is correct. The quality of the lens calculation on the 35mm is better than any large format covering lens. This is a definite fact.

 

What I noticed is that as a $ per $ comparison for lenses that will cover larger format, this "inexpensive" Kodak did the trick for me. I am not about to spend a monthly paycheck on one of the newer large format lenses with super-duper shutters.

 

I found that this older lens, at small apertures give the same result as the only Schneider that I have, and believe me, I paid the cost of a whole vacation for it.

 

Reiterating your statement. Yes, it is true and a definite fact that the modern lenses for 35mm are of better quality. I can only imagine if one could adapt a Nikon or Hexanon to fit a Graflex... Imagine the possibilities. Another true fact is that these lenses do not cover the whole of the negative, which is a real pity. There are tons of superb quality glass out there that can be had for "nothing".

 

The only problem is that the 35mm format cannot bring out all the subtleties of the image due to the nature of the format. On the other hand, the small format is so much more portable. The smallest large negative format camera that can be used for snapshots is the Graflex type. All the other models of this kind are good for lanscape and still lifes.

 

Please do not get me wrong. Each format brings it advantages to the application for which it was made.

 

Good comment on your part. Thanks.

Diwan, I'm afraid you've stumbled across one of the deep, dark secrets of large format photography. There are only just levels of lens quality, useless and usable. The only attribute that matters and that usable lenses differ on is coverage. The unbelievably expensive modern super wide angle lenses from Schneider and Rodenstock really are better at what they do than older lenses. But for situations where less coverage is needed, there's not much benefit to be gained from shooting the lastest most best instead of the ok and older.

 

For your amusement, see http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/502581.html

 

About lenses for LF always being worse than similar lenses for 35 mm, I beg to differ. My 210/9 Konica Hexanon GRII shoots better on a Nikon than does my 200/4 MicroNikkor AIS. Parallel shots at ~ 40' and at 1:2, at f/9, f/11, f/16. The GRII is a process lens, vendors on eBay claim the 210 covers 8x10 at infinity.

 

Thinking of interesting old glass, I recently acquired a 4.75"/7.7 Aldis Uno in barrel. I've shot it on a 2x3 Graphic, am waiting for the film to come back from the lab. Preliminary indications -- the view at f/7.7 on the GG -- were very encouraging.

 

Cheers,

Dan:

 

You just gave great info. Great info. I will have to try barrel and process lenses.

 

The older lenses, as my Kodak are fine at small apertures, I do not dare to use this lens fully open. Also it is uncoated, so this limits the range of usefullness.

 

My Schneider is a real jewel, it is a 75mm Super Angulon and it is simply wonderful for landscapes and the such. One has to be careful with the vignetting, but that is all. This lens is a dream lens.

 

As for the older ones, yes, they are good too, but only under certain situations.

 

Modern lenses for 35mm are simply superb. That is all I have to say. On the other hand, glass is glass, and calculation is calculation. Good glass and good calculation makes great equipment. With today's computers, the shape of a good lens can be determined in no time. Yesterday, it took a room full of accountants to do this, plus arithmetic checks.

 

Sometimes I wish that the good lenses were not so expensive. I love 4x5, but the choice for my budget is limited. I think that if Schneider did lower the price of their lenses that they could make it up in volume sales. They have in me an eager customer. Thanks.

Gentlemen:

 

My special thanks to Mr. Dan Fromm for the useful and clear information that he provided in this thread. My experiment was a first to me, and he courteously expanded my knowledge and pursuit of a new photographic adventure.

"Good glass and good calculation makes great equipment."

 

Fair statement, Diwan. The material used to make a lens is also mighty important.

 

I was given some surprsing information by a reliable source (none other than Lynn Jones) that the dL in Computar dL enlarging lenses stand for "diffraction limited"(though he did mention that it was never achieved). In reality, all the samples of Computar dL lenses, I have wasted my money on were plain junk. Diffraction limited? Not even close! Computar designers apparently worked over time to arrive at the "perfect"formulae for their lens designs.

 

Sadly, none of their efforts are reflected in the final products.

Modern computer designed optics and automated glass grinding (or precison moulding) are supposed to improve the performance of optics. Not always true, in actual practice.

I have, and use, several different versions of the Kodak Anastigmat. With very satisfying results, I might add. One thing, however, bugs me. The smaller lenses in Ball Bearing shutters. I have yet to run across one of these shutters that is anywhere near accurate. They have no retard mechanism and simply rely on changing the tension of a spring. Ha! Every one I have gotten hold of shoots around 1/25 to 1/30 at all speeds. All 3 speeds. This, however is just about perfect for the average sunny day shot with 100 speed film at f:16 with a K-2 filter. It works for me.

I have a number of KA's on Various old cameras,and although they're fine lenses,in practicle use(not bench testing)I don't see that the're much better than the Rapid Rectilinear,and the RR is less prone to flare.The one old lens that I have that seems like a major improvement is the Goerz Double Anastigmat(Dagor).

Glenn:

 

I have the same problem with the ball bearing shutters. They fire differently every day. I have opened them, and they only thing that they have is essentially a spring with a variable tension mechanism, nothing fancy.

 

How does this system work ? Not very well. I maily use the "T" setting and forget about the others. My exposures are in the evening with really slow film and usually greater than 1s. So, adding reciprocity...

 

On the other hand, I have a Rodenstock Ysarex 127mm that came from an old Pola, mounted on a Prontor shutter. Same story, totally unreliable. This Prontor is rated at 1/300 sec... I do not see or hear a noticeable difference in all shutter speeds. It may be there, but cannot quantify it.

 

I will maybe do the microphone and sound card trick to find out.

 

As to the lenses. I do not know anymore. I cannot afford the Caltars, the Schneiders and the like. Too bad, but I do not have "lens envy", so much the better. I am happy with these "old glass", and they are more than fine for what I do.

 

I just only wish to find a 35mm type quality lens that has coverage for 4x5... Impossible dream. So, the Rapid Rectilinear at $20 are fine for me.

 

I am still in shock from my discovery. Who could ever imagine. Read all the literature for LF, specially on the lenses... $$$ and more $$$. Film is still really cheap.

The old 8 inch F7.7 was designed for 5x7 coverage. It morphed into the Number 70 lens 8 inch F7.7. Later it was coated; and was rebadged the Kodak Ektar 203mm F7.7 . The coated 203mm F7.7 Kodak Ektar I have here exceeds the resolution of my 4x5 Phase One 35 Megapixel scan back ; and also makes a fine transparency or negative too. A "modern" design lens offers no improvement in detail gathering ability; compared to the old Ektar; with the digital back. They do offer a faster lens. For closeups the 8 inch /203mm lens is well corrected; and mine is often sharper than a normal lens like a tessar at close distances. For closeups a 6 element elelarging lens works well too.

I have for my 4x5 camera a 75mm Scheider Super Angulon with f/8.

 

I cannot see a $%^# thing in the GG with it wide open when I look though the GG. With the Kodak rectilinear, at least the diaphragm opens more than the f/7.7 so I have a clearer vision of the composition and of course, for focusing.

 

I need to find another one of these f/7.7 Kodaks... This time I will try to pay less than the first one.

 

Thanks.

Stacking one more f/7.7 on your existing lens would certainly brighten up the images by making it a faster lens.

 

Still, I do not think the angle of coverage will match the ones formed by the S.A.

Diwan, I can't imagine why you're having a problem using your 75/8 SA. I use a 65/8 Ilex, very similar design, that throws quite a bright view on the GG.

Dan:

 

I cannot see much in the edge projection of my Scheider 75mm. I usually take photographs in the evening and this coupled to the fact that I cannot see much anyway ( permanent bifocals ) does not contribute to the fact.

 

I wish to thank you personally for all the information that you courteously provided in this thread. The material has been of utmost importance for my photographic knowledge and advancement.

 

Thank you.

Diwan, is there a fresnel lens on either side of your ground glass? If there's none, get a cheap one, cut to fit, and put it on the back (facing you, NOT the front facing the lens) side of the GG.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

Um, Diwan, I forgot to mention that I have poor vision when I don't wear my trifocals. You'll progress to trifocals as you age, its inevitable.

 

Three more gratuitous suggestions:

 

Don't focus on the GG with the naked eye, use a loupe. Since you have a 4x5, a really crappy Hasselblad chimney finder -- mine cost all of $10 at a camera show, and it is ugly -- will do very well. I can't use mine for focusing on my 2x3 Graphics, its too big, so I make do with an Ednalite Magnifinder. I paid between $10 and $15 for my three.

 

If you are going to pursue old lenses, The Lens Collector's Vade Mecum is a very useful guide to them. Buy a copy. Unlike the "optics for idiot photographers" books, the VM reports how well many of the lenses it mentions shoot. Without encouragement from the VM, I would not have hazarded UKP 4 plus postage to the US on a 4.75"/7.7 Aldis Uno. The trial shots came back today, it is a very usable little lens. In fact, I bought a number of my best inexpensive lenses because the VM praised them.

 

Photo.net's crappy old cameras forum is infested with nice people, some of them very fine photographers. But most of them shoot only 35 mm and know very little about larger formats. For advice on Graflex Inc's products, the best place to go is www.graflex.org. For general LF advice, p.n's LF forum isn't bad, but http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/ is, IMO, better.

 

Good luck, go on having fun,

Dear Mr. Fromm:

 

Again, you provided great info for everyone, especially myself.

 

I always wandered why the "old" photos were of such great quality and why I could not achieve same with "modern" equipment. I started my adventure with 35mm, which did not last long. Love affair with 6x6 and 645. Then I discovered that 4x5 existed and is alive and more than well.

 

I was astonished at my first 4x5. Subsequently, I started looking for various lenses that could give different effects. The Rectilinears was a total suprise to me.

 

Yes, bifocals and as you mention, trifocals soon. No, I do not have a fresnel. I use my reading glasses and a magnifiying glass to focus. I also rely heavily on hyperfocal. Somehow the world is blurrier and smaller that it used to be...

 

I will check the reference that you provided for the old style lenses and equipment. This may prove to be a treasure chest.

 

And gain,I somehow feel indebted to you for the courtesy that you provided to all in this thread and forum.