Hi All,
I have an Anny Speed Graphic in excellent shape, with the original 127 4.7 ektar lens. I would like to add a longer lens for portraits and landscapes/scenics, so I have been told that I would do well with the 203 7.7 ektar. The problem is that they are hard to find, and when they do appear, they go for $300. I can buy a Caltar II in a modern shutter for less than that, and they are supposed to be very sharp, although much bigger and heavier. I was wondering if anybody has recommendations on any other affordable lenses for this camera (around this focal length) besides the 203 ektar? Do you know of any reasons why the Caltar II would be a bad idea? Some added info: I am using GG focusing, my rear curtain is not accurate so I can't use barrel lenses at this point. I don't need movements much, and I shoot mostly black and white.

Thanks in advance!

There are any number of lenses in the 200mm range that are very inexpensive. The Caltar II comes in a couple of different versions - the E and the N. The 203 Ektar may be too sharp for portraits, as may be either Caltar. Depends on your taste and what effect you are after. Used wide open, the Caltar II E might do it for you. I recently aquired a 203 Ektar in pristine condition for 100.00. A II E, like new for 180.00.
There are some real bargains out there but you have to hunt them down. Don't overlook old stuff, like the Tessars, Heliars, Raptars, etc. All very good. And inexpensive.

Here we go again! Regulars please tune out---you've heard it all before.

Doug, greetings from e. PA. Look for the Optar 203mm f/7.5 in Graphex shutter. If you find one like mine (sharp as a tack; usable on 2x3 and larger), grab it quick. I picked one up, in pristine condition, a few years ago from Columbus Camera Group for $169. I don't see many of these advertised, or at shows, but check famous auction site. You might get lucky!

I did a side by side quicky test with the 203 Optar and Ektar lenses. Neither one cost anywhere near 300 dollars. The Ektar showed a slightly better resolution, in fact better than five or six lenses shot at the same time. However, the Wollensak 203 came in a close second. Both lenses would be too sharp for certain portraiture, and I believe the what-for on the Ektar relates to close in product imagery ( I tested for distant landscape), but one of the experts can expand on this or read about on site. Also, neither lens is very fast at f~7.5.

Gentlemen,
this is very helpful. I had never known the Optar or the Wollensak to be good alternatives to the Ektar. I have a 165mm Wollensak enlarging lens that is softer than a baby's bottom, which had turned me off of the brand (I know, not rational thinking, as lenses vary within a manufacturer). I will keep an eye out for these classic lenses, and maybe I will get lucky. Thanks very much!