Intermediate large format questions/photography misadventures

[DirtCat]

No but that sounds awesome, I didn't know they did open houses there. I'll swing by!

 

[MTGseattle]

No but that sounds awesome, I didn't know they did open houses there. I'll swing by!

2nd Saturday of each month.

 

[MTGseattle]

I've had a couple of missteps in the classifieds lately. I had a Hasselblad winder show up to the buyer d.o.a and I advertised and sold a 5x7 camera as a 4x5. Whoops.

It also occurs to me that certain lenses end up creating a lot of fuss/comments when they are brought up in a thread. Should certain lenses have their own threads? I feel like going down this road should also mean a thread with examples or there isn't much point. Conversely, if one accurately notes lens type when submitting to the gallery that then becomes a good source of examples and perhaps a dedicated lens thread is no longer needed.
What has sparked this line of thought you ask?
The Wollensak 6-1/4" (159mm) wide angle in 8x10 flavor. It has been labeled a few ways, and even had its lens design changed over the years. My sample is one of the "yellow dot" samples which seemed to come about due to a military contract and has a cold weather capable adhesive between the lens elements instead of Canada Balsam. This yellow dot status also means it is one of the later production runs. I have clicked around quite a bit in the Alphax Betax shutter service site, and that is where I have gleaned the information. Mine is mounted in an Alphax #3 shutter. Mine is labeled as Wollensak Anastigmat wide angle.

Wollensak Catalogs, Etc.

This page is a bibliography of original Wollensak publications, primarily related to commercial still camera lenses and shutters. These publications include catalogs, instruction manuals, product b…

alphaxbetax.com

One thing that comes up often is whether the f12.5 version or the f9.5 version has more coverage. It depends upon generation of the lens, but in the 1953 catalog, there is an asterisk near the f9.5 heading that denotes "same angle of coverage as the f12.5 lens. The angle of coverage stated in 1953 is/was 91.2 degrees. The odd thing is that there's a text block further up in the 1953 catalog that says; "for full 8x10 we recommend the 6-1/4 f9.5." This seems like a slight contradiction if Both of the lenses have the same angle of coverage.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I've had a couple of missteps in the classifieds lately. I had a Hasselblad winder show up to the buyer d.o.a and I advertised and sold a 5x7 camera as a 4x5. Whoops.

It also occurs to me that certain lenses end up creating a lot of fuss/comments when they are brought up in a thread. Should certain lenses have their own threads? I feel like going down this road should also mean a thread with examples or there isn't much point. Conversely, if one accurately notes lens type when submitting to the gallery that then becomes a good source of examples and perhaps a dedicated lens thread is no longer needed.
What has sparked this line of thought you ask?
The Wollensak 6-1/4" (159mm) wide angle in 8x10 flavor. It has been labeled a few ways, and even had its lens design changed over the years. My sample is one of the "yellow dot" samples which seemed to come about due to a military contract and has a cold weather capable adhesive between the lens elements instead of Canada Balsam. This yellow dot status also means it is one of the later production runs. I have clicked around quite a bit in the Alphax Betax shutter service site, and that is where I have gleaned the information. Mine is mounted in an Alphax #3 shutter. Mine is labeled as Wollensak Anastigmat wide angle.

Wollensak Catalogs, Etc.

This page is a bibliography of original Wollensak publications, primarily related to commercial still camera lenses and shutters. These publications include catalogs, instruction manuals, product b…

alphaxbetax.com

One thing that comes up often is whether the f12.5 version or the f9.5 version has more coverage. It depends upon generation of the lens, but in the 1953 catalog, there is an asterisk near the f9.5 heading that denotes "same angle of coverage as the f12.5 lens. The angle of coverage stated in 1953 is/was 91.2 degrees. The odd thing is that there's a text block further up in the 1953 catalog that says; "for full 8x10 we recommend the 6-1/4 f9.5." This seems like a slight contradiction if Both of the lenses have the same angle of coverage.

..................and to add to that oddity I have heard of folks that have used both and they preferred the f12.5 version over the f9.5. I have only used the f12.5 and found it to be a good wide angle for the 8X10, but nothing spectacular.

 

[abruzzi]

It also occurs to me that certain lenses end up creating a lot of fuss/comments when they are brought up in a thread. Should certain lenses have their own threads?

I think we should have an "All things Dagor" thread. That design has had such a weird life, such as:

- Serie III or Serie IV
- Wide Angle Dagors
- Goerz Berlin
- Goerz Americal Optical
- Zeis Dagors
- Berlin Dagor (supposedly bargin bin lenses sold by B&J)
- Early Schneider Symmars
- Early Schneider G-Clarons
- Schneider "Kern" Dagors (I've seen them in 355mm, but never another focal length?)
- Schneider Angulons (a reverse Dagor design)
- Other manufaturers that made Dagor like designs that I'm not familiar with.

I've found little bits of all of the abovehere and there on the internet, but there are tons of detail I don't know.

 

[MTGseattle]

@John Wiegerink I can't remember who made the most recent wide for 8x10, the Nikkor SW 150mm or is there a Schneider Super Angulon XL ? At any rate, I was happy to pay what I paid for my Wollensak vs what the other options would have cost me.

@abruzzi The Burke and James "unbranded" or budget European glass category in the catalogs definitely adds some stumbling blocks to lens research. I have an oddball "Karl Meyer" 355mm that is now in the hands of a friend in the hopes it will see some use as a portrait lens.

 

[Rod Klukas]

I've had a couple of missteps in the classifieds lately. I had a Hasselblad winder show up to the buyer d.o.a and I advertised and sold a 5x7 camera as a 4x5. Whoops.

It also occurs to me that certain lenses end up creating a lot of fuss/comments when they are brought up in a thread. Should certain lenses have their own threads? I feel like going down this road should also mean a thread with examples or there isn't much point. Conversely, if one accurately notes lens type when submitting to the gallery that then becomes a good source of examples and perhaps a dedicated lens thread is no longer needed.
What has sparked this line of thought you ask?
The Wollensak 6-1/4" (159mm) wide angle in 8x10 flavor. It has been labeled a few ways, and even had its lens design changed over the years. My sample is one of the "yellow dot" samples which seemed to come about due to a military contract and has a cold weather capable adhesive between the lens elements instead of Canada Balsam. This yellow dot status also means it is one of the later production runs. I have clicked around quite a bit in the Alphax Betax shutter service site, and that is where I have gleaned the information. Mine is mounted in an Alphax #3 shutter. Mine is labeled as Wollensak Anastigmat wide angle.

Wollensak Catalogs, Etc.

This page is a bibliography of original Wollensak publications, primarily related to commercial still camera lenses and shutters. These publications include catalogs, instruction manuals, product b…

alphaxbetax.com

One thing that comes up often is whether the f12.5 version or the f9.5 version has more coverage. It depends upon generation of the lens, but in the 1953 catalog, there is an asterisk near the f9.5 heading that denotes "same angle of coverage as the f12.5 lens. The angle of coverage stated in 1953 is/was 91.2 degrees. The odd thing is that there's a text block further up in the 1953 catalog that says; "for full 8x10 we recommend the 6-1/4 f9.5." This seems like a slight contradiction if Both of the lenses have the same angle of coverage.

Have you considered that the F12.5 would have slightly flatter image projection, but with more diffraction than the F9.5 model?

Of course the F9.5 would be brighter for composition and focus.

Just somw notes.

Rod

 

[John Wiegerink]

@John Wiegerink I can't remember who made the most recent wide for 8x10, the Nikkor SW 150mm or is there a Schneider Super Angulon XL ? At any rate, I was happy to pay what I paid for my Wollensak vs what the other options would have cost me.

@abruzzi The Burke and James "unbranded" or budget European glass category in the catalogs definitely adds some stumbling blocks to lens research. I have an oddball "Karl Meyer" 355mm that is now in the hands of a friend in the hopes it will see some use as a portrait lens.

Why do you think I had a 159mm Wollensak for my 8X10 Kodak 2D . For the few times I used or needed a wide angle for my 8X10 the Wollensak earned its keep. And yes, the price was right too.

 

[Rod Klukas]

The most recent Wide angle in this focal range, is the 150mm F5.6 Super Symmar XL ASPH MC

Excellent lens with 386mm Image Circle.

 

[John Wiegerink]

The most recent Wide angle in this focal range, is the 150mm F5.6 Super Symmar XL ASPH MC

Excellent lens with 386mm Image Circle.

I'd love to have one, but I'd have to sell a kidney to buy one. I have thought about the Fujinon 180mm, which is in my price bracket and would allow me to keep both kidneys too.

 

[Rod Klukas]

Well it is a good lens, but at inifinity, only has a 280mm IC, so not covering 8x10.

Be well and keep making images.

Rod

 

[John Wiegerink]

Well it is a good lens, but at inifinity, only has a 280mm IC, so not covering 8x10.

Be well and keep making images.

Rod

The 280mm image circle is for the later 180mm f5.6 Fujinon with the lettering on the outside of the front lens. The older 180mm f5.6 Fujinon with the lettering on the front bezel has an image circle of 305mm. Not very generous for movements, but useable stopped down to a shooting aperture of f22.

 

[JensH]

I think we should have an "All things Dagor" thread. That design has had such a weird life, such as:

- Serie III or Serie IV
- Wide Angle Dagors
- Goerz Berlin
- Goerz Americal Optical
- Zeiss Dagors
- Berlin Dagor (supposedly bargin bin lenses sold by B&J)
- Early Schneider Symmars
- Early Schneider G-Clarons
- Schneider "Kern" Dagors (I've seen them in 355mm, but never another focal length?)
- Schneider Angulons (a reverse Dagor design)
- Other manufaturers that made Dagor like designs that I'm not familiar with.

I've found little bits of all of the abovehere and there on the internet, but there are tons of detail I don't know.

Good idea, may I add:
- ICA Maximar f/5.4 and f/6.8 (i have a f/5.4 12cm but not in a good condition...)

 

[MTGseattle]

Have you considered that the F12.5 would have slightly flatter image projection, but with more diffraction than the F9.5 model?

Of course the F9.5 would be brighter for composition and focus.

Just somw notes.

Rod

I am always hesitant to comment on anything that relies on the actual lens design since I do not fully understand any of it. One has to read back and forth among the various Wollensak catalogs to ferret out the possible designs of the 159mm. There are a couple of years where that specific focal length isn't even listed and the closest is 162mm.
There's a paragraph on the Alphax Betax site which states it as an 8/4 lens design. (in the lens and shutter compendium under heading "Raptar series III wide angle")

 

[Whir-Click]

There are two Wollensak 159mm (6.25”) f/12.5 Extreme Wide Angle lens designs.

The old 4/2 design was discontinued in favor of a new 4/4 design in 1946 with the advent of lens coating. The earlier 4/2 lenses are distinguished by being uncoated and engraved as “Series IIIa EX. W.A.”

There is just one Wollensak 159mm (6.25”) f/9.5 wide angle lens design: the 8/4. The differences within this f/9.5 type pertain to coating and performance improvement, but not the fundamental design.

 

[DREW WILEY]

abruzzi - strictly speaking, the Dagor design was a cemented double-triple. Angulons were something different. Kingslake's history of lenses shows the various redos and their names. Dagors per se had a long history, ending with the Swiss Kern 355 and rarer 210 Kern. I've owned both single and multi-coated versions of the 14-inch (355) version. The shorter one was only made single-coat.
Then Schneider offered a very limited run of uber-expensive ULF "Fine Art" series lenses, with one of those having a dagor optical design, the 770mm f/16 XXL wide-angle. The current list price is $19,000.
There seems to be an aura of mythology surrounding the Dagor lineage, turning some of them into "cult" lenses, commanding extremely high selling prices today.

 

[BrianShaw]

the Dagor design was a cemented double-triple. Angulons were something different.

Both are more similar than different, with the biggest difference being different glass formulas. That seems to be why some call Angulon a "reverse Dagor". The reasoning for the change seems a bit muddled. Some say it was for increased optical perfection yet it might also have to do with avoiding patent and licensing constraints, like Wollensak did with their Radar lens. The Angulon patent:

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/5b/29/c8/2faf399fdb5143/US1882530.pdf

There are also many Schneider documents online that depicts the Angulon lens design, but I didn't link because I assume you already know where they are. What I'm less familiar with, though, is if the Angulon design changed after 1940. I saw something online somewhere that showed two additional elements, yet at it's heart there were two cemented triplets.

 

[abruzzi]

abruzzi - strictly speaking, the Dagor design was a cemented double-triple. Angulons were something different. Kingslake's history of lenses shows the various redos and their names. Dagors per se had a long history, ending with the Swiss Kern 355 and rarer 210 Kern. I've owned both single and multi-coated versions of the 14-inch (355) version. The shorter one was only made single-coat.

I thought the difference was the inner element on each side was bi-concave on the Dagor and bi-convex on the Angulon, and the outer elements were different to conform to the shape of the inner:

Dagor:

Angulon:

The interesting thing is the Dagor patent includes the Angulon design as well:

US528155A - Gael paul goerz - Google Patents

 

[Rod Klukas]

One thing many who appreciated the Dagor were looking for, was the 87 Degree projection yielding a large image circle,
Many miss the instruction and recommendation by Goerz, that the lens be stopped down a minimum of F22 and F32 was better.
Remember that when the Dagors were first offered, the primary printing medium was contact printing, primarily Platinum, and so diffraction was not such a problem
to deal with. Later when groups like F64 came about it, sort of gave approval to this use of a small stop, and with the large image circle, kept the Dagor relevent.

Note attached mentioning stopping down to acheive large image circle.

Hope this is useful,

Rod

 

[DREW WILEY]

The design improved over the decades. The last of them, the Kerns, were almost perfectly corrected from f/11 down, although the full angle or circle of coverage naturally increased as it gets further and further stopped down. The older f/7.7 dagors probably only had a larger coverage because they were in much larger no. 4 or 5 shutters instead of no.3 like the Kerns - hence less mechanical vignetting, but probably not as good peripheral performance either, if viewing enlarged rather than contact prints. In fact, I cannot recommend the 14 inch f-9ish Kerns for any format larger than 8x10.

Front and rear elements had to be carefully mated for symmetry, and a lot of hand work was involved in the cemented triplet construction itself. The main claim to fame of these lenses should be their high contrast due to only 4 air/glass interfaces, not their alleged coverage, although specific WA versions have occurred (and one is still made, although it's both as heavy and expensive as a race horse).