Looking for info: Wollensak 7 1/4 in. 4.5 velostigmatic

My son picked up one of these this evening. Hard to find info about
it.
Betax #3 shutter, uncoated. Came with an old Speed Graphic.
Anyone got a link to some info?

TIA,

Collin
KC8TKA

On Apr 25, 10:02 pm, Cheesehead <dplotusno...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> My son picked up one of these this evening. Hard to find info about
> it.
> Betax #3 shutter, uncoated. Came with an old Speed Graphic.
> Anyone got a link to some info?
>
> TIA,
>
> Collin
> KC8TKA

It may be a 7 1/2 inch. Lower digit is difficult to discern. Series
II.

Google pondered mightily and spake thus:

* photo . net /bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0031vq
* photo . net /bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EUBO
* w w w .kyphoto . com /classics/forum/messages/6790/8215.html?1166351030

I can't make head or tail of it - it is a soft focus lens except
when it isn't, though when it isn't it often is. Maybe.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
* w w w .darkroomautomation . com /index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

"Cheesehead" <dplotusnotes@yahoo . com > wrote in message
news:1177552935.011660.240090@o40g2000prh.googlegroups . com ...
> My son picked up one of these this evening. Hard to find
> info about
> it.
> Betax #3 shutter, uncoated. Came with an old Speed
> Graphic.
> Anyone got a link to some info?
>
> TIA,
>
> Collin
> KC8TKA

Wollensak used the trade name Velostigmat as a standard
name for their high quality lenses before about 1946. At
that time it was changed to Raptar with a large publicity
campaign. The focal length is a bit long for a press camera
lens but is about right if the camera was used for pictorial
purposes where some degree of camera movement was desired.
The Camera Eccentric web site, at

* w w w .cameraeccentric . com /index.html

has a number of Wollensak catalogues on it. The earlier
catalogues do not show lens diagrams but they are shown in
some of the late ones. For instance, the 1957 catalogue
shows the Series II Raptar which is the same lens as the
Series II Velostigmat, Both are Tessar types. Your lens
should give the series along with the lens name.
Wollensak lenses are rather variable in quality. Some
are very fine but the mid to late 1940's lenses sold by
Wollensak as Raptar and made under contract for Graflex as
the Optar are dogs with what appears to be a serious design
problem. This also applies to the f/4.5 series of Enlarging
Raptar lenses. I have some earlier Velostigmat lenses which
are quite good and the Wollensak Telephoto lenses are very
good.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix . net com . com

In article <9pkYh.5775$j63.863@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink . net >,
Richard Knoppow <dickburk@ix . net com . com > wrote:
>
> Wollensak lenses are rather variable in quality. Some
>are very fine but the mid to late 1940's lenses sold by
>Wollensak as Raptar and made under contract for Graflex as
>the Optar are dogs with what appears to be a serious design
>problem. This also applies to the f/4.5 series of Enlarging
>Raptar lenses. I have some earlier Velostigmat lenses which
>are quite good and the Wollensak Telephoto lenses are very
>good.

Curiously, the lenses supplied by Wollensak in the auto-diaphragm
mount for the Graflex Super D SLR are almost indistinguishable from
the Kodak Ektar supplied at a slightly higher price in the same mount.

These lenses seem to be differently coated from other contemporary
Wollensak lenses and the cell mounts -- hard to get at inside the
Super-D diaphragm assembly -- don't look like those on other Raptar/Optar
lenses either. I was told by someone who said he'd spoken with Kingslake
about it that all the lenses were in fact built from the Kodak design, so
it would seem that Wollensak either _could_ do good construction and
quality assurance when they really wanted to, or gave up and actually
had Kodak build the lenses they shipped, too (not implausible since Graflex
probably wanted a "standard" and "premium" lens for the Super-D to give
some upsell potential for well-heeled buyers).

I suppose it's also possible that if Kodak designed the lenses and did
the final steps of production (which seems likely from the look of the
coatings) this was simply adequate to address whatever the real problem
at Wollensak was in those days -- either design, QA, or both.

Certainly other 1930s-1940s Wollensak lenses, in my experience, are junk.

--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls . com
"All of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot present them all
at once." -Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On The Social Contract

"Thor Lancelot Simon" <tls@panix . com > wrote in message
news:f10ooc$l8o$1@reader2.panix . com ...
> In article
> <9pkYh.5775$j63.863@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink . net >,
> Richard Knoppow <dickburk@ix . net com . com > wrote:
>>
>> Wollensak lenses are rather variable in quality. Some
>>are very fine but the mid to late 1940's lenses sold by
>>Wollensak as Raptar and made under contract for Graflex as
>>the Optar are dogs with what appears to be a serious
>>design
>>problem. This also applies to the f/4.5 series of
>>Enlarging
>>Raptar lenses. I have some earlier Velostigmat lenses
>>which
>>are quite good and the Wollensak Telephoto lenses are very
>>good.
>
> Curiously, the lenses supplied by Wollensak in the
> auto-diaphragm
> mount for the Graflex Super D SLR are almost
> indistinguishable from
> the Kodak Ektar supplied at a slightly higher price in the
> same mount.
>
> These lenses seem to be differently coated from other
> contemporary
> Wollensak lenses and the cell mounts -- hard to get at
> inside the
> Super-D diaphragm assembly -- don't look like those on
> other Raptar/Optar
> lenses either. I was told by someone who said he'd spoken
> with Kingslake
> about it that all the lenses were in fact built from the
> Kodak design, so
> it would seem that Wollensak either _could_ do good
> construction and
> quality assurance when they really wanted to, or gave up
> and actually
> had Kodak build the lenses they shipped, too (not
> implausible since Graflex
> probably wanted a "standard" and "premium" lens for the
> Super-D to give
> some upsell potential for well-heeled buyers).
>
> I suppose it's also possible that if Kodak designed the
> lenses and did
> the final steps of production (which seems likely from the
> look of the
> coatings) this was simply adequate to address whatever the
> real problem
> at Wollensak was in those days -- either design, QA, or
> both.
>
> Certainly other 1930s-1940s Wollensak lenses, in my
> experience, are junk.
>
> --
> Thor Lancelot Simon
> tls@rek.tjls . com
>

I have a 190mm, f/5.6 Optar in my Graflex Super-D. It is
indeed an excellent lens with none of the faults found in
the f/4.5 Optar/Raptar lenses. It could well be that
Wollensak used the Kodak design, there is probably no way to
know at this late date. Certainly Wollensak had the ability
to make the lenses physically. They were also one of the
first lens makers to routinely hard coat their lenses. The
poor design of the Raptar is a puzzle to me because they are
_so_ bad. Although very sharp in the center they appear to
have either a very great deal of coma or of oblique
spherical aberration (they look much the same), so that the
image away from the center is not sharp even when stopped
down to f/32. In comparison the Kodak Ektar and Zeiss Tessar
of similar speed are sharp to the corners at around f/9.
Oblique spherical is an inherent problem with Tessar lenses.
Evidently, something got miscalculated. I don't think its
from manufacturing variation because I've observed it on
every one of these lenses I've had access to and it also
seems to be the same for both the 135mm and 101mm versions.
The Enlarging Raptar seems to have a similar problem. When I
set up a darkroom again some years ago I obtained a 50mm
Enlarging Raptar in excellent condition. I was puzzled as to
why the prints didn't look right until I replaced it with an
Enlarging Rokkor and shortly after a Schneider Componon-S.
The E-Rokkor is BTW a very good lens. I have a couple of
Enlarging Ektars. Its very hard to seen any difference
between the 75mm Ektar and an 80mm Componon.
As far as Wollensak is concerned I remember their
lenses having a poor reputation. Curiously, they were in
general not cheap. OTOH, Wollensak shutters are excellent.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix . net com . com