Calling Lenserati Part Three, Sytar

[Steve Hamley]

Here's another interesting and uncommon lens I ran across but haven't bought: a 300mm f/4.5 G. Leitmeyr Munchen Doppel Anastigmat Sytar.

It's a big but light lens, coated, and the reflections say "Artar". The local pro who owns it used it in the 40's as a portrait lens on a studio camera, and reports that it is sharp and has low distortion (He said the subjects ears are where they should be!) as would be expected from an Artar-type.

It's too big for #4 shutter and too small for a #5, the Luc works but vignettes the front glass. The glass has some fogging and would need to be cleaned. The coatings are near perfect.

LVM says they made two focal lengths in f/4.5, a 210mm recommended for 5x7 and a 300 for 8x10. It says they weren't cheap, and the pro says he paid nearly $600 for it in the 1940s.

So, is there any reason to acquire this lens - anything special about it in terms of image characteristics? An Artar-type this fast is rare, but does it do anything worth acquiring it? The asking price is $85.

jpeg attached.

Thanks!

Steve

 

[bobfowler]

I would think that it's not an Artar clone, but probably closer to a Homocentric - a lens type that was made at speeds of f/4.5. Look in the LVM at the lens diagrams for the Ross Homocentric (Ros030) and for the Goerz Artar (App013) and you'll see why counting reflections is just that, counting reflections!


Almost forgot... The Homocentric type lenses are usually quite good. For $85, you could hardly go wrong.

 

[Steve Hamley]

Bob,

yep, that's true counting reflections - and the f/4.5 weighs against it being an "Artar". However, it is labeled "Doppel Anastigmat" which the Artar is even though it wasn't labeled as such, and LVM suggests a Sytar is a Q26 which has glass shapes very much like an Artar and would account for the familiar reflections, not just number but spacing.

Q26 would possibly make it a Gotar or Dogmar type as made by Goerz, the Dogmar also being made in a 300mm f/4.5.

Thanks!

Steve

 

[medform-norm]

So, is there any reason to acquire this lens - anything special about it in terms of image characteristics? An Artar-type this fast is rare, but does it do anything worth acquiring it? The asking price is $85.

jpeg attached.

Thanks!

Steve

Steve, why don't you ask your friend for a test drive, so to speak? Then you'll know whether it's worth your money or not. There must be larger Luc's than yours available. Last week, I saw a Luc-type shutter (Zetor/Zettor) with a 81mm diameter on eBay for 70 euro's buy now and it didn't sell. Would that be big enough? (I don't know how big is a #5 shutter).
Norm

 

[Ole]

...and the f/4.5 weighs against it being an "Artar". However, it is labeled "Doppel Anastigmat" which the Artar is even though it wasn't labeled as such, and LVM suggests a Sytar is a Q26 which has glass shapes very much like an Artar and would account for the familiar reflections, not just number but spacing...

An "Artar" is one of many variations of the dialyte design. Others, like Rodenstock's Eurynar, were made in f:4.5 up to 600mm.

Stop thinking of Artar and it isn't so mysterious!

Anyways: It seems that the Sytar is a dialyte, and as such should be a very nice sharp lens. Coverage is somewhat more than a Tessar, less than a Plasmat.

Are you sure it won't fit in a Compound #5? That size was very common for 300mm f:4.5 - like the Xenar I had. Being German, I'd expect it to fit..

 

[Steve Hamley]

Ole,

It isn't mysterious; I just wanted to know if there was some reason to "invest" in it over say, the 300mm f/4.5 Heliar I already have in shutter. You can tell I'm a sucker for old pretty glass just because of this post (like I need another "non-standard" shutterless barrel lens)!

Nope, won't screw into a #5 Compound, the cells are too small diameter; haven't tried and Ilex #5 - I just assumed it wouldn't fit which may be a bad assumption. The only Ilex #5 I have is a Kodak branded shutter which I understand has different threads from the Ilex Universal. But I had the same thought, German lens too big for a #4 - it should drop into a Compound #5.

Norm, a test run will be made, but the glass has enough fogging to reduce contrast a bit. No spanner notches, so if I want to disassemble and clean the glass, its O-ring time.

Thanks everyone!

Steve

 

[Ole]

The next question is: Which size 4 Compound did you try? There are two, and they're different: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[jimgalli]

I would take a pass. I'm sure it probably can produce lovely portraits but with the Heliar already in the bag, would you ever reach for it? 8 glass / air interfaces is..........too many with no coatings. I've had Dogmar's that have come and gone and always thought they were kind of well named.

 

[Ole]

Jim has a good point. A Dialyte is "too sharp for portraits", and eight uncoated surfaces gives low contrast negatives. My (coated) 150mm Eurynar is a wonderful sharp lens; the uncoated one is equally sharp but much lower contrast.

 

[Steve Hamley]

Folks,

This one is single coated. Rather pretty blue/bronze reflections. But I tend to agree, with a super clean coated 300mm Heliar in shutter, why pick up a hazy non-standard barrel lens?

Ole, I'll check the Compound #4 when I get home. There's no data on Schneider's site for any of the lenses that fit in it; the 32cm f/5.5 Xenar (WW2 vintage), the 16.5 cm f/2.7 CZ Tessar, or the 21cm f/3.5 Xenar. Th last one has some haze too, but at with f/3.5, good glass and a drop-in, I'll probably pop to have it cleaned if I can't get the retaining rings out myself.

Thanks!

Steve