Suggest me a sharp lens for a Baby Century Graphic

johan_niels_kuiper · November 18, 2009

Hello,

I recently bought a Graflex Baby Century Graphic, which will arrive with a Graflar 101/4.5 lens attached. According to Graflex.org, this is the entry-level lens and there are better options.

The BCG will be used to shoot 'pure' portraits and environmental portraits, both mostly outdoors. I am looking for a sharp lens, size etc are of no consideration. It does not need to allow for collapsing on the body. Coverage of the frame is important, but dark corners are no deal killer when the lens is tack sharp.

If you have shots that prove the Graflex.org remark on the lens quality wrong, I'd be very interested to see them. Shots taken with alternate lenses are welcome as well.

Thanks for your suggestions in advance, much appreciated.

tom_harvey3 · November 18, 2009

The Ektar 101mm f/4.5 is very sharp, as is the Optar.

ondebanks · November 18, 2009

Assuming you have lensboards for #0-sized shutters (Copal 0, etc.):

- The lens cells from a Mamiya Press 100mm f2.8 (best choice IMHO) or 100mm f3.5 (should at least equal any other 100-105mm Tessar design, such as the Ektar and Optar) screwed into any #0 shutter. Both are designed for 6x9.

- 100mm f5.6 APO Symmar, Sironar-N, or APO Sironar. Reputedly very sharp (I haven't used them), and lots of coverage for lens movements too. The 150mm versions of each of these would give you a better perspective for portraits.

dave_s · November 18, 2009

I've never had a Graflar, so I can't show you test shots, but you might consider shooting a roll or two with it before you swap it out. It may be better than you think, particularly for portraiture, and presumably the rangefinder is set up for it already. If you change the lens, you'll have to adjust at least the infinity stops and probably the rangefinder. I personally find this a pain.

I agree with Tom and Ray. On 23 Graphics, I've used a prewar uncoated 105 Zeiss Tessar, a five-element 105 Ektar, a 105 Symmar, and a 100 Symmar-S. They were all good, but I think the sharpest and most contrasty were the Ektar and the Symmar-S, if 'sharp' is what you want. You can probably find a second-hand Ektar in the 100mm range for a fair price. My 70-year-old Tessar is, incidentally, a very good lens.

Dustin McAmera · November 18, 2009

I have a Century (not really a 'baby' Century - they were only ever made in 2x3) which came with the Graflar. I was a bit worried by the sniffiness on some websites about the Graflar, but I have no complaints about it, and haven't bought another lens of the same length. It's a coated triplet.

I'm not sure I have any pictures that are really suitable as evidence in such a discussion, but here are a couple from the Graflar:

Cat Crags, near Blubberhouses in West Yorkshire. The Graflar, 1/125 sec at (I think) f/8, on a tripod, FP4 done in Aculux.

A spear thistle in a sheep field in Littondale. I didn't make a note of the exposure, but I remember setting up the tripod for it. The film is Fuji NPS (the predecessor to 160S).

Hogweed in an old cemetery in Leeds. No idea of the exposure or the even the film.

I had to reset the infinity stops for the Graflar, because a previous owner had moved them for a wider lens. They'd left a focus scale for a different lens on the bed too, so I made one for the Graflar. Mostly I use the ground glass though.

I picked up an Ysarex 127/4.7 (A Rodenstock Tessar-type; comes from a Polaroid Pathfinder), just because it was cheap (I think the lens plate and a spare pair of infinity stops cost more than the lens did). That's sharp: this is from the same roll of film as the Cat Crags picture. Myself, I find the fine detail excessive here.

The dam at Thruscross Reservoir, near Blubberhouses in West Yorkshire. Ysarex 127 mm, 1/8 sec at f/11, FP4 done in Aculux.

The RF wasn't working when I got the camera (the arm had been tucked out of the way where it didn't move with the lens); I've set it up for the Ysarex. I also got a Tele-Xenar 240/5.5, and one day I mean to see if the RF will serve that. I agree with Dave; adjusting the RF is a pain. Setting infinity stops is ok, but not something you want to do very often. I have a pair set up for each lens.

tom_harvey3 · November 18, 2009

Some years back, Gene M had posted some shots of New England barns shot with the Optar. I believe the post was titled "shots from a venerable old classic" or something like that.

Try looking him up in the PN community and then chase down his posts to see if you can find the original post. Alternatively, send him an email by way of the PN directory and perhaps he can guide you directly to his original post.

I had some shots with the Ektar on my CG scanned at one time, but a recent upgrade to Windows 7 has made a lot of archived stuff difficult to find.

Regards,

TH

tom_harvey3 · November 18, 2009

Johan,

I found it. I believe these shots were done by Gene with his 2x3 Graflex and the Optar:

http://westfordcomp.com/classics/graflex23/midmarch07/march2007.html

h._p. · November 18, 2009

I have the Graflar on my Century Graphic and I'm pretty happy with it. It's not as sharp as a four element lens, to be fair (the Heliar on my Bessa RF is clearly sharper) but I rather like the results it gives me.

sebastianmoran · November 18, 2009

Johan, I had exactly the same question and ran some tests.

Graflar at f/11 or f/16 produces 28 lp/mm or 3150 LW/PH in the 6x9 negative. This is 14.8 MPx. This is enough for good images, and I produced good images from this camera in color and B&W, but not as good as a 10MPx DSLR in my comparisons. My interest in MF is to get better image quality than a DSLR, so I quickly abandoned ideas of shooting with the Graflar.

Ektar 101mm f/4.5 at f/11 gives 42 lp/mm or 4750 LW/PH on the negative. At f/16 it is 47 lp/mm or 5250 LW/PH. Definitely better, a real step up, as expected. At f/16, this is 41.3MPx, a Medium Format quality image.

The Mamiya 100mm f/3.5 in the same test conditions is a little better and consistently so. At f/8 through f/16, I see 53 lp/mm or 5960 LW/PH which is 53.3MPx.

I resolved if I were to use the 2x3 Graphic I would mount a Mamiya Press 100mm f/3.5 lens instead of the Ektar for better image quality and to have a more modern shutter. The whole Mamiya lens and shutter assembly can be taken off the Mamiya focusing helical and placed in a lens board. The PC sync connector might take a little work. It looks like the Graphic front will just barely close with the Mamiya 3.5 lens in place. However, I simply bought a Mamiya Press instead.

Also sometimes seen is an 80mm Zeiss Planar which will cover 6x9.

My test protocol was to shoot a modern ISO 12233 test chart on TMAX 400 film. Continuous indoor lighting, camera on tripod, shooting 100th at f/11 at about 5 feet. Focus with a loupe on groundglass. In all the above, I used the Graphic RH8 back. I read the results with a 40x microscope. I'm looking at the extinction resolution where you can no longer distinguish the lines in the test pattern. I'm looking at center only.

For rigorous testing of MF lenses, see <a href="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html">this site</a>. I'm sure his procedures are better than mine, but I am pretty confident of the relative merits of the lenses I looked at here. (He doesn't test these lenses.)

Hope this is helpful.

sebastianmoran · November 18, 2009

Also, just FWIW, my the Kalart rangefinder on my baby Graphic is right on. Google for instructions to adjust it for a different lens.

robert_creason2 · November 18, 2009

I use a Kodak Ektar 105mm 3.7 lens on my Century Graphic and think it is exceptionally sharp. It is a 5 element Heliar design. One of the best lenses Kodak made, I think. A bit hard to find, but worth the effort.

Bob Creason

robert_creason2 · November 18, 2009

I use a Kodak Ektar 105mm 3.7 lens on my Century Graphic and think it is exceptionally sharp. It is a 5 element Heliar design. One of the best lenses Kodak made, I think. A bit hard to find, but worth the effort.

Bob Creason

johan_niels_kuiper · November 19, 2009

Thank you all very much.

I'm new to the 6x9 Century Graphic and was having some trouble finding suitable shuttered lenses for it.

I purchased a 3.25x4.25 Speed Graphic recently to use non-standard even non-shuttered lenses with, but it's near impossible to find film cut to the right size in the EU for that. Also, a roll film back is near impossible to find, and I am uncertain as to shaving the back and mounting a 4x5 back on it.

My main goal is (like Richards) to get shots from a bigger than DSLR quality, with of course that cool OOF look in the files. I plan to up the score of keepers shooting portraits with this camera, the 35mm format (Leica) and 6x6 (Mamiya C330) are not big enough for my taste.

Now I have a nice shopping list, that'll keep me busy for a while :)

If you like you can have a look at my work here: www.portretteur.nl

Your contributions to my search are much appreciated, thank you!

ondebanks · November 19, 2009

Pete, great pictures. The swirly corner bokeh with the Graflar is mad (in a good way!).

Richard, great to see you put some numbers on resolution and LW/PH for these different lenses. You confirmed my expectation that the Mamiya Press 100/3.5 would emerge as the "top Tessar". Do you still have the Mamiya Press? Try the 6-element 100/2.8! That, and the 50/6.3, are the reasons I got into the Press/Universal system.

john_liberty · November 19, 2009

Congratulations on your camera purchase Johan. I had one of these also and I must tell you, the easiest thing to do w/ it is to sell it and get a 2x3 or 4x5 camera. Getting the roll film backs for the 3x4's, as you've said, is difficult & pricey, and I ended up w/ a 4x5 Crown Graphic that was actually lighter than the 3x4 Speed Graphic. Huge selection of great films for 4x5, and roll film backs are plentiful and at good prices. The larger lens boards make it simple to mount a lot of lenses quite easily too. I now have a Graphic View II which I use w/ sheet film and a roll film back, and I enjoy the additional movements it offers, but I regret selling that Crown Graphic. It was light and folded up into a very compact package that was much easier to put in a backpack. It probably had enough movements for most anything you'd shoot in landscapes.

Now that I have the Graflex bug the 2x3 Century Graphics are my next possibility, but I am not sure why they go for such high prices! Limited movements and a small lens boards that limits the lenses you can shoot with would seem to produce a cheaper camera, but they go for $300 or so w/ a roll film back. I primarily use these cameras to shoot landscapes, and I think the better way to go is 4x5 because you can get a huge amount of movements if you're using roll film backs (or sheet film for that matter). The lenses that will mount on the 2x3 cameras don't offer a lot of coverage. That's the main thing that's kept me from getting a 2x3 Graflex camera. If I'm going to be shooting things pretty much straight on, it's a whole lot easier to slip one of my folders into my pocket than pack a LF camera, and 6x9 is a larger negative anyway. I haven't seen any LF lenses that match my 105 Heliar for imaging, or the Xenotar I used to have on a Rolleiflex camera. A larger format doesn't necessarily result in better or sharper pictures, which is why lens testing is sometimes a snipe hunt.

Beautiful shots Pete.

vick_vickery · November 19, 2009

Johan, since you want to use the camera for portraits and still want sharpness, try out a good quality lens in the 150mm to 160mm range meant for use as a "normal" lens on a 4x5 camera...you will be using only the central part of the image for straight-on portrait shots and that, of course, is the sharpest part of the image circle.

johan_niels_kuiper · November 20, 2009

Tom, thanks for the link you posted earlier, these shots are very nice, and indeed very sharp!

Pete, I like your shots a lot, thanks for putting them up for me to see!

When shooting portraits I am looking for results like the photos from Frank Petronio, whose work I admire a lot. Or even Sally Mann.

I want to go medium format to be able to print bigger without excessive grain. Digital I will not consider, there are too many people out there to distinct yourself with that and the process is a soul-less one, at least too much to my liking. The slower process when shooting MF or LF I consider a benefit, not a setback.

Thanks again for your responses, it might take a while, but I'll post some results up here in due time!

Sign In

Suggest me a sharp lens for a Baby Century Graphic

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in