6x9 camera with Pre-Tessar lens?

[JPD]

The Voigtlander Bessa with f/4.5 Voigtar is a triplet. It's soft until f/11.

Most people do not desire Bessas with these lenses: mine was 85 dollars. Zone focus, popup finder. But they might have put this lens on the RF as well, I don't know.

Very nice photo.

The RF- or E-Bessa had the unit focusing Helomar 3,5/105, and the later Bessa I the scale focusing Vaskar 4,5/105 (coated). Both presumably a little better than the Voigtar.

 

[John Wiegerink]

The Voigtlander Bessa with f/4.5 Voigtar is a triplet. It's soft until f/11.

This is f/8 with it, check out the corners. Focus is around that point near the center where the sunlight hits that railing.

View attachment 416970

Most people do not desire Bessas with these lenses: mine was 85 dollars. Zone focus, popup finder. But they might have put this lens on the RF as well, I don't know.

The problem with the later triplets like the Voigtar, Vaskar, Apotar and Novar lenses is that even wide-open they are to darn sharp for what the OP wants. Yes, not as good as a well designed Tessar, but sharper than what the OP is looking for. I've shot with cameras like the Kodak No. 1 Jr. using 120 film and it's pretty sharp in the center, but sharpness trails off as you move from the center of the frame. Typical of meniscus or achromat lenses. Even stopping down the aperture for greater depth of field still renders soft in the outer frame. Cooke triplets and rapid rectilinear lenses can get pretty darn sharp stopping down for better depth of field.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Until I can find a 6x9, I can play with this one which came in the mail today. It frames smaller than I like (4.5x6), and it wants to shoot vertical (not my fav), but for $20(US) I will see how well I can tolerate being limited to one aperture and two shutter speeds.

 

[runswithsizzers]

The problem with the later triplets like the Voigtar, Vaskar, Apotar and Novar lenses is that even wide-open they are to darn sharp for what the OP wants. Yes, not as good as a well designed Tessar, but sharper than what the OP is looking for. I've shot with cameras like the Kodak No. 1 Jr. using 120 film and it's pretty sharp in the center, but sharpness trails off as you move from the center of the frame. Typical of meniscus or achromat lenses. Even stopping down the aperture for greater depth of field still renders soft in the outer frame. Cooke triplets and rapid rectilinear lenses can get pretty darn sharp stopping down for better depth of field.

Thanks for sharing your concern. You may very well be right about some pre-tessar lens designs being too good for what I want.

 

[loccdor]

The problem with the later triplets like the Voigtar, Vaskar, Apotar and Novar lenses is that even wide-open they are to darn sharp for what the OP wants. Yes, not as good as a well designed Tessar, but sharper than what the OP is looking for. I've shot with cameras like the Kodak No. 1 Jr. using 120 film and it's pretty sharp in the center, but sharpness trails off as you move from the center of the frame. Typical of meniscus or achromat lenses. Even stopping down the aperture for greater depth of field still renders soft in the outer frame. Cooke triplets and rapid rectilinear lenses can get pretty darn sharp stopping down for better depth of field.

Good point, yes at f/16 that lens is sharp right to the corners (for its age).

Very nice photo.

Thanks!

I have a flickr contact who experimented with putting a reversed Holga lens on a folder. It creates a lot of softness and coma in the corners, quite charming pictures in my opinion.

 

[Paul Howell]

Dan Daniel and Paul Howell -- I appreciate your considerations, but most definitely, I will NOT be respooling any film anytime soon. I should add, the main reason being, I don't have a proper darkroom. I use a changing bag to load my film reels for processing, but to find a totally dark area big enough to respool film would be very difficult for me.

I have an inherited Kodak Brownie Target Six-16 (designed for the 616 film format). I briefly considered fixing that one up, and getting some adapters so I could shoot 120 film, but I decided I would rather explore other options first.

So for the reality is, if I cannot put 120 film in a camera and read the correct frame numbers in the red window, then that camera is not going to make my list.

There is current thread, well an old thread updated today concerning the conversion of the Tourist from 620 to 120. I re-spool, takes just a few minuets.

 

[Craig]

I think a lot of the look is due to film too. I have my grandfathers folding Zeiss from the late 1930's, and the negatives he made in the 1940's look quite different to what I get running modern film through the same camera.

The Zeiss is a 75mm scale focus lens in 645 format, I suspect a lot of the "softness" you see in older photos is actually out of focus. When the lens is focused the images are quite sharp. For images closer than infinity it's easy to be slightly out of focus.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, a changing bag is fine for the one handed 120-620 respooling - but I understand the reluctance.
And I agree - it may be tough to get what you seem to be asking for on a 6x9 negative using modern film unless the lens is either poorly focused, filtered toward softness, or at least slightly damaged.
120 film is only 125 years old, and most lenses in that time were more than up to the task of giving reasonably detailed "postcard" size prints.

 

[Prest_400]

I'm not the best person for this as I've been spoiled by the Fujinon in my Fuji 6x9. Even Tessars seem too characterful to me sometimes.

I think a lot of the look is due to film too. I have my grandfathers folding Zeiss from the late 1930's, and the negatives he made in the 1940's look quite different to what I get running modern film through the same camera.

Down to the film with the oldest character/formulation would be Adox CHSII, Fomapan 100/400 and perhaps the Lucky BW films get close?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I doubt if the camera I am looking for actually exists, but maybe someone knows of something similar?

I would like to get a medium format camera, preferably 6x9 (6x7, 6x8 OK, but not square). And I want to make photos with a "vintage look" (sorry, I hate the vagueness of that). That is, I want something with more definition and clarity than the typically blurry medium format pinhole image, but something more dreamy and with softer corners than what a typical modern lens design produces. I have a Rolleicord and several 35mm SLRs for when I want a more normal look. My film will be mostly b&w.

So I think I want a camera with a pre-Tessar lens design — either a simple meniscus, meniscus achromat, rapid rectilinear, or Cooke triplet lens(?) And not too wide, something with a focal length in the range of 80-110mL.

Pretty sure I want to stick with 120 film, and I don't want to mess with trying to shoot 120 film in a camera designed for 616, 620, etc.

I just got an < Agfa Clack > and I think it might be roughly the type of camera I'm looking for — but mine has problems, so I've not been able to shoot film in it yet. (I do have a second Agfa Clack on order, advertised as "tested and working") But already, I am wishing for more control over exposure, framing and focus than what the Agfa Clack offers. The single shutter speed on the Clack is slower than optimal for me (1/30th sec.?), and it has only one or two apertures.

So my question is: Are there any box-type* cameras which offer more shutter speeds, apertures, and/or focusing options? Or am I going to have to go to a folding 6x9 camera to get more control?

I am a little reluctant to go with a 6x9 folding camera because I'm afraid the lenses on some of those are going to be too good to produce the look I want. But maybe there are some that will make the kind of images I am looking for? The 6x9 folders also look somewhat complex and fragile, so I'm afraid it might be difficlut to find one in working condition?

* edit: "box-type" is not really a condition, and is probably too restrictive a term; maybe "point-and-shoot" is what I'm looking for? Anyway, I care less about the style of the camera than I do about the results.

why are you excluding 5x6 folders. They offer most of what you're after.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I think a lot of the look is due to film too.

I agree, some of "the look" is due to the film -- and a lot is due to the subject as well.

 

[runswithsizzers]

why are you excluding 5x6 folders. They offer most of what you're after.

Sorry Ralph, but I don't know what a 5x6 folder is. Did you mean to ask about 6x9 cm folding cameras, or something else?

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

BITD - film was much slower and so lenses were often shot wider open thus throwing the background out of focus (adding "3-dimensional character" (add smiley as needed) ), and aberrations will be less corrected (adding an overall "softening effect" (add another smiley)).

Like most on the forum, I have far more lenses than I rationally need. I can't tell which lens was used for what shot - I guess all my lenses have no character (or, possibly they are just taking after their owner).

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Sorry Ralph, but I don't know what a 5x6 folder is. Did you mean to ask about 6x9 cm folding cameras, or something else?

sorry, my mistake and typo. I wanted to know why you excluded 6x6 folders.

 

[aconbere]

It’s not pre-tessar but I have a Plaubel Makina (Type I) with an Anticomar/2.9 with a very distinct soft rendering (on top of the light leaks and expired film I used).


I like the look enough that I’ve spent some time looking for a matching shutter to move the cells onto a 2x3 press camera. But I wonder if this is starting to get at what you’re looking for?

On the plus side the makina’s are by all accounts excellent cameras and later ones had a coupled rangefinder.