David Silver
Contributing Member
"Will work for antique cameras..."
Posts: 20
|
Post by David Silver on Feb 20, 2008 23:32:58 GMT -5
I picked up some goodies through Craigslist the other day, and this Ciroflex was included: Figuring what I paid for the whole load, I'd say there's only about $20 in it. Not bad. I've had my hands on many of these over the years, and I've always been impressed with their no-nonsense design and structural integrity. This example is in absolutely perfect working condition, and, for Lord knows what reasons, I decided I wanted to give it a try. Not sure exactly which version this is (I'll figure that out later), but I know the lens is quite good and the Rapax shutter is excellent. Never shot with a Ciroflex before. What the heck? Might as well have some fun before doing the eBay gig. Opinions, anybody?
|
|
|
Post by daveinpasadena on Feb 21, 2008 0:48:43 GMT -5
Looks good. Can you get us some results soon? I've seen a lot of these sell on eBay at modest prices and I've always wondered what they are capable of.
|
|
scott
Senior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by scott on Feb 21, 2008 12:23:34 GMT -5
I recall reading that the Ciroflex (and DeJur-branded version) f3.5 lens is a 3-element design and the f3.2 lens is a 4-element Tessar-design lens, but I have used neither of them.
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Feb 21, 2008 12:44:38 GMT -5
I recall reading that the Ciroflex (and DeJur-branded version) f3.5 lens is a 3-element design and the f3.2 lens is a 4-element Tessar-design lens, but I have used neither of them. A triplet lens can do remarkably well when used with the 6x6 format. The Zeiss Novar and Triotar are often surprisingly good. It wasn't until after the war that the Rolleicord was offered with a 4-element lens which IMO speaks well for the ability of the Triotar lenses. I'd also like to see the results from the Ciro-Flex. Walker
|
|
David Silver
Contributing Member
"Will work for antique cameras..."
Posts: 20
|
Post by David Silver on Feb 21, 2008 13:23:53 GMT -5
This one has the Wollensak Anastigmat 85mm f/3.5. I have no idea what it's derived from, but I'll take a closer look at the elements when I'm back in my work shop. I assumed (usually a bad idea) that it was a variant of the Velostigmat, and that in turn was a Tessar variant. I see the later Graflex 22 Model 200 has the Optar or Graftar 85mm f/3.5...different names for the same lens? And then the Graflex 22 Model 400 sports the f/3.2...hmmmm.
I've been pleasantly surprised by a few Novars over the years, but they never had the quality control of the "better" Zeiss lenses, I believe because they were mostly farmed out to secondary manufacturers, and may not have always been the exact same formula. Novar was their generic name for many different lenses on amateur entry level cameras. I can pass on the Triotar. An okay formula for less demanding work, fine on those Rolleicords, but they never impressed me in other uses, for example the Triotar 135mm for Contax and other 35mm mounts.
|
|
|
Post by pentaxgraflex on Feb 23, 2008 21:42:01 GMT -5
Yes, all the 3.5 lenses were Triplets and the 3.2 version is a Tessar. The 3.2 only came in the full sync Rapax, the others also were available in the Alphax (with a narrower speed range). I have both, and yes the 3.2 is sharper, but there is very little difference. I actually used the 3.5 version on a 6x8 roll holder and it covered (although there was the slightest bit of darkening in the corners, although detail was visible). The 3.2 Tessar version covered completely. When Graflex bought and used the Wollensak lenses, the were called Optars whereas the ones Wollensak sold to outside manufacturers used Wollensaks in-house Raptar name. Raptar was copyrighted in 1947, before that Wollensak used the name Velostigmat. Since Wollensak was founded by two ex. Bausch and Lomb shutter designers you will find the shutters to be quite excellent (easily the equal of a Synchro-Compur).
|
|