Anybody has any experience with radiography lenses ?

[Armando E]

Hello, I picked up this Cooke anastigmat 5in F/1.5 for Radiography lens, so so heavy and so much glass inside, no maker and havent been able to find much online, any experience with it? Thanks in advance

 

[AgX]

They are designed for high relative opening, for large scale work, for flat field, for monochromatic work. Their resolution is tailored to that of the imaging screen.

 

[removed account4]

just googled "radiographic lens"
https://books.google.com/books?id=IaBXn06OlWsC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=radiographic+lens&source=bl&ots=FsuK7cSmEJ&sig=2iAgWXe3NpC8wN4-CV4k75zR_3I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiF6ZGS_ZfSAhVHrVQKHesxA-QQ6AEIRzAJ#v=onepage&q=radiographic lens&f=false
it might be like it is like an oscilloscope lens, for doing close-to-subject work for reproduction.
oscilloscope lenses always used to sell on ebay for like 3$ and were useless for anything but macro work, unless you had an oscilloscope lying around to photograph its screen
or maybe its for projecting radiographs ?

either way, it looks like a fun lens to play with, macro-work with a massive opening can be a lot of fun, kind of like using a noctalux

 

[Martin Rickards]

X-rays don't act like visible light and glass has a refractive index of less than 1.0 which means that lenses are a bit unusual

 

[Dan Fromm]

These lenses are made for photographing fluoroscope screens. X-rays pass through patient, hit screen, phosphors on screen fluoresce. The radiologist can read the screen directly or a technician can take a picture of it. The lenses are for taking pictures of the screen. They're pretty useless for general photography.

Armando, if you want to play with it, by all means play. The best thing to do with it is put it up on eBay. If you're lucky a bidding war between enthusiasts of fast lenses will ensue and you'll end up with funds to buy something you need and thought you'd never be able to afford. If you're lucky.

 

[AgX]

The fact that, as far I know, never a optical works offered such lens for commercial photography should be telling.
Typically each country only needed a handful of these. With the market being served by different manufacturers the production number would be very low.
But the price of such lens also may have been restrictive for a commercial market.

 

[Dan Fromm]

AgX, if the VM's account of TTH's radiographic lenses is correct, they all have very short back focus. The OP's lens is too big to put in shutter. Not a practical proposition for most photographers, but possibly appealing to the juvenile delinquents who hang thin digital cameras behind all sorts of highly improbably lenses.

 

[Armando E]

These lenses are made for photographic fluoroscope screens. X-rays pass through patient, hit screen, phosphors on screen fluoresce. The radiologist can read the screen directly or a technician can take a picture of it. The lenses are for taking pictures of the screen. They're pretty useless for general photography.

Armando, if you want to play with it, by all means play. The best thing to do with it is put it up on eBay. If you're lucky a bidding war between enthusiasts of fast lenses will ensue and you'll end up with funds to buy something you need and thought you'd never be able to afford. If you're lucky.

Hey Dan, thanks for the insight! yeah the reason why I picked it up was because it was fast f1.5 to possibly mount it on an 8x10 to experiment,

These lenses are made for photographic fluoroscope screens. X-rays pass through patient, hit screen, phosphors on screen fluoresce. The radiologist can read the screen directly or a technician can take a picture of it. The lenses are for taking pictures of the screen. They're pretty useless for general photography.

Armando, if you want to play with it, by all means play. The best thing to do with it is put it up on eBay. If you're lucky a bidding war between enthusiasts of fast lenses will ensue and you'll end up with funds to buy something you need and thought you'd never be able to afford. If you're lucky.

X-rays don't act like visible light and glass has a refractive index of less than 1.0 which means that lenses are a bit unusual

 

[Armando E]

Hey Dan, thanks for the insight! yeah the reason why I picked it up was because it was fast f1.5 to possibly mount it on an 8x10 to experiment, I've been using as you said haha, a digital delinquent trying to get a dreamy like image but it was really hard finding anything on it, I only found one other somewhat similar on Ebay and it went for a whole lot, but so hard to say since there isnt much info, so its really kindly appreciated Dan, these is what I gotten hand held.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Armando, there's no way a 5"/1.5 lens will cover 8x10. None. Play away, but don't expect much.

 

[Armando E]

Thanks for the feedback guys, I'll play with it for a bit more before I put it on ebay.

 

[Armando E]

just googled "radiographic lens"
https://books.google.com/books?id=IaBXn06OlWsC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=radiographic+lens&source=bl&ots=FsuK7cSmEJ&sig=2iAgWXe3NpC8wN4-CV4k75zR_3I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiF6ZGS_ZfSAhVHrVQKHesxA-QQ6AEIRzAJ#v=onepage&q=radiographic lens&f=false
it might be like it is like an oscilloscope lens, for doing close-to-subject work for reproduction.
oscilloscope lenses always used to sell on ebay for like 3$ and were useless for anything but macro work, unless you had an oscilloscope lying around to photograph its screen
or maybe its for projecting radiographs ?

either way, it looks like a fun lens to play with, macro-work with a massive opening can be a lot of fun, kind of like using a noctalux

Thanks man, it is fun to play with but oh so hard and heavy, but really great images.

 

[Armando E]

They are designed for high relative opening, for large scale work, for flat field, for monochromatic work. Their resolution is tailored to that of the imaging screen.

Thanks for the Insight, really appreciate it

 

[Armando E]

Armando, there's no way a 5"/1.5 lens will cover 8x10. None. Play away, but don't expect much.

I tried it on a speedgraphics 4x5 with a polaroid back and seem good so I figure I push it even

ivignetting

ome vinieting

 

[Armando E]

Armando, there's no way a 5"/1.5 lens will cover 8x10. None. Play away, but don't expect much.

BTW, you're right. I just made a quick test and its a no go, perhaps someone may want to trade

 

[EdSawyer]

Nice portraits! Was that using it on digital (full frame)? Dreamy but sharp at some points too. Nicely done, great models help too of course.

 

[removed account4]

Thanks man, it is fun to play with but oh so hard and heavy, but really great images.

not sure how you got made portraits, but they are really nice -
can't wait to see more of your experiments !

 

[Armando E]

Nice portraits! Was that using it on digital (full frame)? Dreamy but sharp at some points too. Nicely done, great models help too of course.

Hey Ed, thanks and yes it was on a full frame 5DM3, to keep the it takes a bit to nail the focus but once you get it it looks great

 

[EdSawyer]

Armando - thanks for the info, great work indeed, I like the look of that (at least those 5Dm3 ones are excellent!)

 

[AgX]

Hello, I picked up this Cooke anastigmat 5in F/1.5 for Radiography lens, no maker.

The maker is Cooke.

(As stated on the lens...)

 

[AgX]

The fact that, as far I know, never a optical works offered such lens for commercial photography should be telling.

Kingslake states that a design by Wynn of such lens also was available in a version to be focused at infinity.

 

[Dan Fromm]

The maker is Cooke.

(As stated on the lens...)

TTH. When that lens was made Cooke was a TTH brand.

More recently, TTH split into at least two companies -- metrology went one way, optics another -- and eventually the former optics division renamed itself Cooke Optics.