# Argoflex E?



## JamesD (Apr 24, 2005)

I just won an Argoflex E on eBay... my first eBay purchase, actually. I haven't received the camera yet, but I'm looking forward to it. If it works, that'll be grreat!

But, that's not my question. Does anyone have any idea how much this camera, in decent, working condition, is actually worth? I've seen a wide range of prices on the E-model, poking around the internet. From the photos, this is the pre-1943 version, with the uncoated Varex lens (or is Varex the shutter? I don't know!). It also still has the case.

-James


----------



## Menard (Apr 24, 2005)

This is the information from McKeown's price guide.

Argoflex E
1940-1948
Focusing 3 element Varex Anastigmat
Shutter: T, B, 10-200
Average Used Working Condition $20-30 (which is also a reference price)

This is a 620 camera not a 120.

The price listed is for an average used condition camera for the age, which for a camera from the 1940's probably means well used but working with no major defects to the operation. The price is a reference price which can vary anywhere from 10-250% of that price depending on condition from falling apart to like new.


----------



## JamesD (Apr 24, 2005)

Thanks for the info... right in the price range I got it for.

From what I've read, I understood that the Argoflex was made to be compatible with both 120 and 620, so that whether the Kodak size caught on or not, the camera wouldn't be cut out of the market....I suppose I'll find out for sure when I get it. Either way, it's not too big a deal; I have several 620 spools that I picked up from a coworker, and respooling shouldn't be too hard. I'm more worried about whether or not it will need repair or cleaning... the last camera I tried to repair, I broke the middle lens during disassembly. That's what I get for using the wrong tool for the job! :banghead:

Thanks again!

-James


----------



## Menard (Apr 25, 2005)

You are correct, it can take both. I did some searching and found this:Argoflex E

Have Fun


----------



## ksmattfish (Apr 25, 2005)

The big difference between 620 and 120 film is the spool, and not the size of the film.  The 620 spool requires a smaller flange.  For many 620 cameras you can use 120 film as long as you have a 620 take up spool.  I've seen DIY modifications to make the flange bigger for 120 rolls.


----------



## ksmattfish (Apr 25, 2005)

Menard said:
			
		

> I did some searching and found this:Argoflex E



The photo sample at this site was taken wide open at f/4.5, and shows the aberations you are likely to get with a cheap anastigmat lens wide open.  Shots at f/11 or f/16 may be fairly impressive; most of the distortion will be gone.


----------



## JamesD (Apr 25, 2005)

Very cool. Now, I just need to get it in my hands and try it out. Most of my photography is done with the meter in my 35mm SLR, so it's going to be interesting to use this ancient thing (assuming it works). Maybe I'll be able to concentrate on taking better pictures, rather than fiddling with gadgetry. Maybe that "Vintage" distortion will lend a little character to my photos, too.

Oh, and my current scanner only handles 35mm negatives, so I've finally got the excuse I need! layball:


----------



## Mitica100 (Apr 26, 2005)

In case you decide to use 120 film respooled onto 620 rolls here is how to do it correctly:

http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart/respool.htm


----------

