Cheap ULF lens?

David H. Bebbington · Dec 22, 2005

This could be the answer to someone's prayers:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Ross-Xpres-20...ryZ30076QQssPageNameZWD1VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Struan Gray · Dec 22, 2005

I've eyed that lens since it appeared on MW Classic's website. In the end though, it's just too heavy and bulky - and not exotic enough to justify the heft. It may be a Plasmat, in which case it will flare horribly. It may be a Tessar, in which case the coverage isn't *that* great. If it had an even wider aperture, or coatings, or guaranteed enormous coverage I'd be tempted, but not as-is.

The old single-coated 19" APO-Ronars are true bargains right now, and much more practical than this beast. Less exalted process lenses are even cheaper. Good enough for contact prints from 11x14 and even 12x15.

The Ross is a nice piece of optics history though, and it's probably sharp as hell. If I lived closer to Uckfield I might still be tempted.

Dan Fromm · Dec 22, 2005

The VM says: "Xpres f6.3 Aerial E.M.I. (Extra marginal illumination.) This was a bulky aerial 5-glass 1+1+i+3 type, normally made in 20in, and probably 1930's in concept. The front glass is relatively big to even up illumination.These do not seem to be coated. Note there was also a Wide Angle Plasmat type of this specification but 6-glass design and this is often coated and a very excellent lens."

If the VM's Ross serial number to date table is to be believed, the lens' s/n is way out of sequence.

I don't want her, you can have her, she's too fat for me ...

Cheers,

Dan

jimgalli · Dec 22, 2005

Dan Fromm said:
I don't want her, you can have her, she's too fat for me ...
Dan

Used to have the original Arthur Godfrey shellac of this Dan. It may still be in the Brunswick, I haven't looked in a long time

JG Motamedi · Dec 23, 2005

Dan Fromm said:
...If the VM's Ross serial number to date table is to be believed, the lens' s/n is way out of sequence ...

This one is an ex-RAF lens, which followed the RAF's serial numbers, not the manufacturer.

David H. Bebbington · Dec 23, 2005

Struan Gray said:
In the end though, it's just too heavy and bulky - and not exotic enough to justify the heft.

I know what you mean - my limit is what will fit into a Sinar panel, with this lens a 6" lens panel is an absolute minimum, and few wooden cameras could handle the weight. Nonetheless, this lens would be just perfect for someone who's bought a process camera cheap and wants to play with it.

Dan Fromm · Dec 24, 2005

JG Motamedi said:
This one is an ex-RAF lens, which followed the RAF's serial numbers, not the manufacturer.

But Jason! I have an ex-Air Ministry mid-WWII vintage 14" Aviar whose s/n fits well in Taylor, Taylor, & Hobson's s/n series. Also more modern ex-RAF TTH and Elcan lenses with s/ns in their makers' normal sequences.

Were you thinking of the Air Ministry/MoD/RAF contract number that is often, but not always, stamped on ex-AM/MoD/RAF lenses? My 14" Aviar, for example, bears the same contract number as one figured in the VM; the two lenses have different s/ns.

Cheers,

Dan

JG Motamedi · Dec 24, 2005

Hey Dan,

You may be right. I have noticed that pretty all of the ex-RAF Dallmeyer Pentacs and Ross WA Xpres lenses I have seen carry a s/n (separate from the contract number) which is unique to the RAF, and doesn't follow the manufacturers. But perhaps TTH or Elcan didn't follow this practice.

regards,

jason

Curt · Dec 24, 2005

It won't be cheap now!

Ole · Dec 25, 2005

I just managed to find another cheap ULF lens - a Symmar 300mm f:5.6 (convertible) in shutter for 128 Euro. Pure luck, and another proof that Christmas is a stupid time to sell nice old gear on ebay.

That, plus the 210mm Angulon (pre-redesign) ($180) and the Winter casket (Eur 200) set should have me pretty well covered.

David H. Bebbington · Dec 25, 2005

Curt said:
It won't be cheap now!

It's still there at Buy It Now for £90! I think the answer is that very few people have cameras that can accept a lens as big and heavy as this.

Ole · Dec 25, 2005

I have a camera that can take it, but I have no need for it. The big ugly Russian can take anything, but this lens is too heavy to carry about when the camera's already 15kg.

Struan Gray · Dec 27, 2005

While not in Ole's class, I am not immune to the charms of big chunks of glass either. This one piqued my interest enough to pay the postage:

Riesiges Objektiv....

I think the phrase "probably unusable" got my gander up.

The Xpres falls between a whole bunch of stools, unless you're wanting the same things as the aerial bods: even, sharp coverage over (I guess) 9x9" at infinity focus and full aperture.

Incidentally David, you can bodge bigger lenses onto your Sinar if you get a 5x7/13x18 conversion kit and swap the order of the standards. That gives you a bigger hole to play with, and a sturdier standard.

edz · Dec 27, 2005

David H. Bebbington said:
It's still there at Buy It Now for £90! I think the answer is that very few people have cameras that can accept a lens as big and heavy as this.

The question is not just who needs a big heavy 500mm uncoated monster of unknown coverage but desperate enough to pay well over a 100 Quid for one--- they not only want 90 GBP but also 25 GBP for shipping in the UK, 40 for Europe and 60 GBP for the rest of the planet (that's resp. 115, 130 and 150 GBP).
Even for 8x10" one can get away with a 240mm G-Claron stopped down to f/32 and they are small, light, sharp and cheap (probably a fraction of what that seller wants alone for shipping and handling). For less than the money that "antique" monster is demanding I'm sure with a bit of patience one could find even a 305mm G-Claron.

David H. Bebbington · Dec 27, 2005

edz said:
The question is not just who needs a big heavy 500mm uncoated monster of unknown coverage but desperate enough to pay well over a 100 Quid for one--- they not only want 90 GBP but also 25 GBP for shipping in the UK, 40 for Europe and 60 GBP for the rest of the planet (that's resp. 115, 130 and 150 GBP).
Even for 8x10" one can get away with a 240mm G-Claron stopped down to f/32 and they are small, light, sharp and cheap (probably a fraction of what that seller wants alone for shipping and handling). For less than the money that "antique" monster is demanding I'm sure with a bit of patience one could find even a 305mm G-Claron.

You must tell us where you find these bargains! A quick search of e-bay revealed a recent sale of a clean 305 mm G-Claron in a shutter for $650 and a barrel example of a 355 (complete with haze) on offer for $425.
Incidentally, as regards coverage, I would feel fairly confident that a 500 mm Xpres (Tessar type) would cover 12x10" (24 x 30 cm) with some movement. The lens in question probably spent its working life on a 10x10" aerial camera.

Dan Fromm · Dec 27, 2005

Ed, I agree almost completely with you about the economics of questionable old lenses in barrel. If the old lens isn't very inexpensive, a modern lens in shutter at market price is usually a better buy.

I'm very much a partisan of process and aerial camera lenses in barrel, but I buy them below the bottom of the market (not easy, possible with patience) or in bundles and then resell most of the bundle. I've never written it down, but I think I can prove a theorem to the effect that in a rational world a bundle of items will never bring more, and will usually bring less, than the items in the bundle would bring if sold individually. So bundles can offer a nice opportunity for arbitrage. And yes, eBay is not a rational neighborhood.

But I don't agree with you about the prices G-Clarons command. They're among the most expensive barrel lenses going because they go easily into shutter. Without bothering to look at recent sales on eBay, note that in the last year I've sold three 240/9 dagor type G-Clarons for $170 +/- on eBay. This is a bit more than MW's semi-outrageous shipping for the apparently useless monstrosity.

Cheers,

Dan

Ole · Dec 27, 2005

There are still "bargain" lenses to be found - I've just bought a 300mm f:5.6 Symmar convertible in Compund shutter, for the shocking price of EUR 128.- on ebay. From a seller's point of view, Christmas eve in not a good time for an auction to end.

I agree about "bundles", and have been outbid on several

morkolv · Dec 27, 2005

Bargain or not, here are two lenses witch I'm eagerly waiting to play with...

12" F6.8 Graphinar for the price of 41.0$

Or this Schneider G-CLARON 9/240mm for 60.0 Euro...

I'm beginning to think that they maybe seems cheap but (may?) come with a HUGE hidden cost... New camera, new film formats, holders, development equipment for larger sizes and so on.... Hmmmm

Hope that You all have and enjoys a happy christmas and a happy New year!!

edz · Dec 28, 2005

Dan Fromm said:
But I don't agree with you about the prices G-Clarons command. They're among the most expensive barrel lenses going because they go easily into shutter.

That's why I like them. But.. even in this thread we hear of 60 EURO for a 240.. I got lucky and for my 210mm paid less than what the postage would have been should I not picked it up (it was in town and I went by bicycle).

Without bothering to look at recent sales on eBay, note that in the last year I've sold three 240/9 dagor type G-Clarons for $170 +/- on eBay.

You were lucky and got a good price. I would NEVER pay that kind of money and I can in Germany get one for a lot less at a good store with 2 year warranty!

You can't judge prices by closing prices on eBay since a large number of auctions don't really close to real bidders but (at least in Germany) to the seller (self-bidding). In eBay.de there is no way to set a reserve other than to set a higher opening price. They, however, charge much more for higher opening prices than 1 EURO. Given the mechanics of bidding and techniques people use to snipe there is a real economic motivation for sellers to set the opening price to 1 EURO and to bid them up and, should the price not yet surpassed their "internal" min., to snipe them. Sometimes people do it very well but a lot of people in eBay don't do well to hide their multiple personalities... For example I just saw the other day an auction from a seller named 123G*** (I'll leave off their name) go to a buyer named ***123 (same town etc. and I've left off their name too). Its forbidden but eBay makes their fees and since the item often is relisted months later its in the interest of their profit maximization. And a lot of the buyers I see.. are wannabe traders.. looking for deals to resell to the next.. or maybe relist items in another market.. There is more noise than substance and the supply is significantly larger than demand. We can also purchase so much...

The key (and not just in auction sites) is p-a-t-i-e-n-c-e. If not today then tommorrow.. Its all, afterall, just old obsolete technology with ZERO market value being hauled away to the dumps..

Cheap ULF lens?

David H. Bebbington

Struan Gray

Dan Fromm

jimgalli

JG Motamedi

David H. Bebbington

Dan Fromm

JG Motamedi

Curt

Ole

Moderator

David H. Bebbington

Ole

Moderator

Struan Gray

edz

David H. Bebbington

Dan Fromm

Ole

Moderator

morkolv

edz

Cheap ULF lens?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency