[LargeFormat] Just quiet or out of order?

[Brock Nanson]

Richard Knoppow wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Brock Nanson" <brock@nanson.org>
> To: <largeformat@f32.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 10:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [LargeFormat] Just quiet or out of order?
> 
> 
> 
>>Took out a Crown Graphic with the original lens two
> 
> weekends back.
> 
>>Never used this camera or the lens before (new
> 
> acquisition - intended to
> 
>>be a museum piece), but gave it a try because Canada
> 
> Customs *still* has
> 
>>my shutter as they try to determine how to ding me for the
> 
> repair costs
> 
>>at SK Grimes.  I'm about ready to start charging them
> 
> rent...
> 
>>Anyway, shot some Delta 100 and the results looked
> 
> reasonable, provided
> 
>>I didn't shoot into the sun... the glass has some some fog
> 
> that looks
> 
>>almost pebbly, but otherwise isn't too badly abused.  Hot
> 
> spots seem to
> 
>>bloom however...
>>
>>Brock
> 
> 
>    Neither the Kodak or Wollensak (Optar) lenses should have
> much flare. The lens is probably hazy. Its also just
> possible the cement in the rear component has become
> degraded. Shine a flashlight through the lens cells. Both
> cells should be crystal clear. If not there is a problem.
> The front cell can be cleaned by removing the front
> retaining ring. Both Kodak and Wollensak used front
> retaining rings without slots. They are removed with a
> friction tool made from a sticky rubber washer and a tube
> the right diameter. You will probably have to remove the
> paint from the threads on the Kodak lens, they are usually
> painted over making it look like there are no threads.
> Cleaning is done with plain lens cleaning fluid, Windex, 99%
> Isopropyl alcohol, all are effective and will remove the
> haze. Make sure the internal surfaces are spotless before
> reassembling the lens. Haze in the rear component is a sign
> that the cement is bad. I have encountered this on a couple
> of Kodak lenses. They can be recemented. I started a project
> to recement a 152mm Ektar recently. I was able to get the
> glass out of the burnished cell by very carefully prying up
> the lip. The project is still in progress because I got
> called to jury duty on a very long case just as I was
> starting out and have not completed the job.
>     In any case, both the Kodak Ektar and Wollensak Optar
> should be good, contrasty lenses. The Kodak lens is by far
> the better of the two. Later Graphics have Optars made by
> Rodenstock. These are excellent lenses. If you are buying
> lenses avoid the Wollensak Optar "normal" focal length
> lenses for Graphics, they are dogs. The Optars made for the
> Super-D Graflex are excellent and the Tele-Optars are
> excellent, its just the normal FL Optars/Raptars and
> Engarging Raptars which should be avoided.
> 
> ---
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk@ix.netcom.com

Hi Richard,

The lens I have is a Kodak Ektar 127mm f4.7 in a Graphic Supermatic 
shutter (which actually seems to be fairly close to the marked speeds).

The rear cell looks pretty good to me.  Some minor polishing scratches 
visible when you get it right up to a bright light.  The front cell is 
the one with the problem.  I've cleaned both sides of it, but still has 
what can only be described as a sandblasted look when you get it right 
to the light.  Rather than scratches, just specks that could have been 
put there by blown sand.  Does this sound like the haze you describe?

I gather from your description above, that there should be two elements 
in this front cell, but won't be cemented.  Is that right?  Would this 
one be of the same design as you describe?  I'm not quite sure I can see 
how to take it apart.  The retaining ring you describe - this is the 
beveled ring with the focal length and aperture inscribed?

Brock