Wollensak Raptar 190mm f4.5

<p>I have a Raptar 71/2" (190mm) f4.5 lens that came to me mounted in an Alphax #3 shutter. It has the "W" in a circle in the lettering on the bezel which I take to mean the lens is coated.<br>

The lens covers 8x10 nicely with quite a bit of movement.<br>

I have several questions about the lens. While there is information in this forum and other places on a 190mm Raptar f6.3, I can't find much data on my f4.5 lens. Is this an enlarging lens? The Wollensak enlarging lenses that I have seen (I have a couple) say "Enlarging Raptar" on the bezel, this lens does not.<br>

Does anyone have experience with this lens. I don't see this lens mentioned in discussions of low cost wide angles for 8x10. I'm going to have to spring for a shutter repair before I can use the lens (with 8X10) and I curious about its performance before I take the expense.</p>

<p>TIA</p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/wollensak_14.html">http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/wollensak_14.html</a><br>

and<br>

<a href="http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/wollensak_3.html">http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/wollensak_3.html</a></p>

<p>both list the 190mm as for 5x7, only the first link list my 10 inch/254mm f4.5.</p>

<p>The Alphax is a robust and easy to cla shutter.</p>

<p>The 190mm F4.5 has been on 4x5 cameras; it allows movements since it is a 5x7 lens like Charles mentioned with his cool links.</p>

<p>It is a F4.5 old classical lens of Tessar design. Basically 190mm F4.5 is just a longer normal for 4x5; thus one gets some movements since it is just a modest coverage lens.</p>

<p>A lens like my ancient 12cm F6.9 Angulon just covers 5x7 too; and it too allows some movements with 4x5.</p>

<p>a 190mm F6.3 is probably a wide angle lens design; thus might cover 8x10. It is a different lens design that the F4.5; it covers more angle</p>

<p><br /> A wild first guess if one plays poker is a F4.5 lens is often just a moderate coverage Tessar; and a slower F6.3, F6.8 , F7.7 covers more angle. F9's are moderate coverage process lenses; often not wide angles</p>

<p>Thank you for the helpful replies.<br>

One might expect that a lens designed for 5x7 would offer good coverage and movements for the 4x5 format. But, please note, that I've found (to my surprise) that this nominal 5x7 format lens seems to have surprisingly good coverage for 8x10. That is, it lights up the screen completely on my V8 Deardorff and offers a useful bit of tilt and swing.</p>

 

<p>Wendal; the 210mm F4.5 Xenar covers 130x180mm; about 5x7 inches. it is a Tessar type design like your 190mm F4.5 Raptar.</p>

<p>https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/xenar/data/4,5-2</p>

<p>The thing about theses Tessars is illumination can be still good before resolution tanks.</p>

<p>The 127mm F4.7 Kodak Ektar is a prime example. It really is a 3x4 camera lens; but was/is used on a zillion 4x5 press cameras. On axis a couple of mine clock in at 85 line pair per mm on axis at F16; *BUT* at the far corners of a 4x5 sheet; the lessor of the tangential and radical data or all 4 corners is down to 14 to 16 line pairs per mm. Some samples are worse; ie down to 10 or 12 even. Thus one can be fooled by the ground glass being bright; onn can be down in the mud in resolution.</p>

<p>*COVERAGE* in the contact printing era was often based on illumination; if one enlarges the resolution matters too. </p>

<p>Thus if I was just doing contact prints; the common 127mm F4.7 4x5 Kodak Ektar covers a hair MORE than 4x5; since one can be down to maybe 7 to 5 line pairs for a contact print.</p>

<p>If one is just making 8x10's from 4x5; the 127mm covers about 4x5; since one is just enlarging 2x.</p>

<p> If one is doing big enlargements; the lens is more like a 3x4" or even a 2x3 camera lens; since one know has a higher resolution requirement.</p>

<p>With a Tessar clone Russian Industar N-51 210mm F4.5 here; it will throw an image on 8x10" but the resolution is way in the mud. An old 1920's Kodak No 34 is a 8.5 inch F4.5 Tessar clone; and look like it clips sooner.</p>

<p> ****In a way using the old 5" ie 127mm Tessar on a 4x5 is like using a 10 inch ie 254mm Tessar on an 8x10 camera; ie no movements and super weak corners.</p>

<p> Now I am assuming you are talking about the Tessar Raptar; ie 190mm F4.5. That is even shorter than the hypoethetical 10 " F4.5 Tessar on 8x10 I just mentioned; it is shorter by about 2 1/2 inch. Thus I am a bit doubting! ; or you really do not have a Tessar!</p>

<p>A 190mm F4.5 Tessar on an 8x10 camera would be like a 95mm Tessar on a 4x5 camera. In Tessars a 95mm is like a 2x3" camera lens or just a 6x7cm lens. </p>

<p>Check your corners before doing anything serious; since a Tessar should not really cover that wide. </p>

<p>Looking at the tables in the first link, Angular Field of View for this lens is 60.7 for 5x7 and 81 for 8x10, no listing for 11x14; the second table Horizontal and Vertical Angular field of view list figures up to 11x14 format. </p>

<p>Hi Charles;</p>

<p>Re :"Looking at the tables in the first link, Angular Field of View for this lens is 60.7 for 5x7 and 81 for 8x10,"<br>

<br /> That table is the coverage REQUIRED of a lens or pinhole too. ie for 190mm and 5x7 it is 60.7mm<br>

<br /> It is not for any optical design of lens it is just pure geometry.<br>

<br /> The table does not imply that a 190mm F4.5 covers 8x10</p>

<p>"Check your corners before doing anything serious; since a Tessar should not really cover that wide"<br>

Thanks for the caution and I agree.<br>

I did check with a good quality loupe and there is both an image in the corners with the lensboard square and centered and, as well, an image when I add a bit of tilt and swing (no shift, I have a Deardorff).<br>

The GG is evenly lighted with the lensboard centered and with the tilt and swing that I've used. I agree with Kelly that the question now becomes the quality of the image away from the center.<br>

My next action should (and will) be to get the shutter working, take some photographs, then see how sharp the edges are in a contact print. For 8x10, I only make contacts. </p>

<p>Hi Wendell;<br>

Many of the Tessar design lenses I mentioned I have "poop out in the corners" due to simple blockage by the lens itself. ie the lens cells cause the clipping.</p>

<p>A 4x5 Bausch & Lomb branded Tessar Series 1C here has a focal length of about 6.5 inches; one can hold it in ones hand and all is blocked at about 45 degrees.</p>

<p>Then on this link:<br>

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/classic-experts.html<br>

the following is said about a "5x7 Bausch - Lomb Tessar Series 1c Pat. Feb24 1903 No 2448486"<br /> <br /><br>

" It has a field about the same as a Dagor (!) because the astigmatism corrections are stretched out to cover more than 60 degrees, even wide open. The problem is that the resolution falls to 5 or 10 lines/mm for about half the field for the wider apertures. (One authority on fine print resolution says a resolution of 12 lpmm in the _print_ is considered to be truly "fine," by the way.)"</p>

<p>The lens her of my says "4x5 Bausch - Lomb Tessar Series 1c Pat. Feb24 1903 No 3053XXX" and passes zero light at 45 degrees; thus I found the comment above by another to be very interesting.</p>

<p>*****Maybe yours is a Tessar type lens that allows more off axis light to pass; by its design of the lens cells.</p>

<p>It would be interesting to see the corner performance of you lens versus F stop!</p>

<p> Maybe some of the Tessars had a wider angle variant, The Russian Tessar clone I mentioned further up the thread is sort of like this</p>

<p>Wendell; can you post an image of what your F4.5 190mm raptar looks like?</p>