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.