Exposing Fp4+ with uncoated dialyte lens

[JPD]

I have a fresh box of Ilford Fp4 Plus 9x12 and plan to shoot with uncoated dialyte lenses which have eight glass-to-air surfaces, so about 30% of the light will be fog that lowers the contrast. How would you expose and develop the film?

My plan at the moment is setting the lightmeter to ISO 64 and developing using the recommended time for 125. I will probably use D-76 1+1 or Rodinal 1+50 for simplicity.

 

[Meyer Trioplan]

I (fairly) recently mounted some uncoated dialyte design lenses salvaged from some tattered Kodak folders (a 152 /f7.7 and a 170 /f/6.3) to my 4x5 camera and shot a mix of FP4+ and Atomic-X sheet film. Developed for 25 minutes in a 1:63 HC-110 dilution with only a single agitation half way though - results were excellent, and had excellent contrast.

 

[Ian Grant]

The Kodak 170mm f6.3 isn't a Dialyte it'll be a Tessar type design,, the 170mm f7.7 is a dialyte I have one in a Wollensak Velosto shuter (the Optimo trade name was already in use in the UK).

I wouldn't drop the film speed I'd just give slightly longer development to counteract the drop in contrast, a good lens hood will help as well.

Ian

 

[BrianShaw]

No matter what the design, I'm often amazed at how good old uncoated lenses perform... provided the normal precautions like a lens shade. I tend to shoot rapid rectilinears with the film at box speed and "standard" processing.

 

[JPD]

ISO 100 and 30 seconds longer development is the new plan. Lens hood is a must with dialytes. I have used the Adox CHS 100 II with the 6,3/135 Dogmar with nice results. But now I will be using Fp4 Plus for the first time, and I also have a new to me 4,5/135 Dogmar to try out.

No matter what the design, I'm often amazed at how good old uncoated lenses perform... provided the normal precautions like a lens shade. I tend to shoot rapid rectilinears with the film at box speed and "standard" processing.

The Rapid Rectilinear should be contrastier than a dialyte, though. I have yet to try one.

 

[Ian Grant]

I tested four uncoated lenses maybe 2 years ago fitting them to bellows on a DSLR, all are in excellent condition optically and mechanically the results were as expected.

The best was a 1913 120mm f6.8 Dagor, Goerz Berlin in a tiny Compond, this was as good as any coated lenses I've used. A 165mm f5.3 (rare in this aperture) CJZ Tessar was next a drop in contrast but usable with slight muddying of highlights and shadow detail. Here's a link to that comparison

Last were two dialytes an Goerz-Ihage 135mm f6.3, another step less contrast/more flare than the Tessar, would need very careful use, last was a Meyer WA I forget the aperture/FL offhand, this had the worst flare./contrast drop. Since then I acquired the cells of a pre-WWII Schneider 90mm f.8 Angulon, coverage is slightly better than the later version which suffers from vignetting earlier dut to the filter mount rather than lens fall off at the corners. Being a reverse Dagor design it has reasonable contrast, better than a Tessar.

We need to remember that when these low contrast lenses were common films/plate were thicker emulsions had more latitude were over exposed and over developed by todays standards and the paper suited those negatives.

Ian

 

[John Wiegerink]

I would stay with close to box speed. Some of the old timers who shot with the Contax rangefinder cameras preferred the uncoated Sonnars and said they "opened up the shadows" better and with the proper development smoothed the highlights. They also said the uncoated Sonnar allowed them to use a higher ASA/ISO. Maybe the flare induced was a little like pre-exsposure? People who say uncoated lenses are not as sharp as the same coated lens have never done Ian's comparison. JohnW

 

[Meyer Trioplan]

The Kodak 170mm f6.3 isn't a Dialyte it'll be a Tessar type design,, the 170mm f7.7 is a dialyte I have one in a Wollensak Velosto shuter (the Optimo trade name was already in use in the UK).

Ian

Perhaps there are multiple versions of the 170mm f/6.3 but mine clearly seems to be a dialyte. Rear elements are widely spaced just as the fronts are. In the picture attached, you can see the inner of the two rear elements while the outer of the two lines up with my finger nearly a full cm away from the other element. The front is identical in size and spacing to make a symmetrical pair.

Perhaps the later Series III had Tessar designs but this one clearly seems to be a dialyte.

 

[Ian Grant]

I'd like to see better photos, the front and rear cells compared. There's something odd as the rear cell seems disproportionally to large (that's after taking into account being closer to the camera). It could be a mismatched front and rear cells but we'll assume not.

There's no records of a Kodak making a 170mm f6.3 Dialyte, they may have done orhowever it's quite possible it's been bought in and re-badged, At one time Eastman Kodak sold CZJ Tessars as Kodak Anastigmats as Carl Zeiss Jena weren't a known brand in the US. Up until WWI B&L had made Zeiss lenses under licence, as had Ross in the UK etc.

I just looked at a couple of BJP Almanacs 1923 & 1933, in 23 the Kodak 3a camera had a choice of Meniscus, Rapid Rectiliear or f7.7 Kodak Anasigmat (the dialyte), now this is the UK market and Kodak Ltd used British lenses after WWI, so in 1924 the'd dropped the meniscus and adde an f6,8 TTH Kodak Anastigmat alongside the RR and f7.7 Dialyte, by 1933 the top lens was the f6.3 Kodak Anastigmat, and the f7.7 Dialyte was no longer listed.

Kodak's links to outside optical manufacturers is complex, Eastman Kodak were importers & distributors of TT&H (Cooke) lenses in the us for a number of years, and Kodak Ltd were the distributors of Ross and TT&H (Cooke) lenses in Australia and New Zealand. That's just the UK Eastman Kodak of course had links with US manufacturers.

There are references to an f6.3 TT&H Kodak Anastigmatic lens in B&L Compur on an Eastman Kodak No 3 A made around 1916, it's also know that TT & H made Kodak Anastigmat lens without their own name on them. The Cooke Aviar Series III was originally a Triplet but was redesigned as a Dialyte initially being named the Series IIIb Aviariac but quickly dropped to Aviar. At some point in the late 1920s Eastman Kodak stopped distributing TT&H Cooke lenses, and B&J took over.

Now Series III TT&H lenses were sold marked as Kodak Series III in the US (according to VM), and looking in a TT&H advert 1924 there's an Aviar Series IIIb 168mm f6.3 lens, marked FL's are nominal +/- 1 or even 2 at this sort of focal length,.

So maybe we are on the way to the answer

Ian

 

[JPD]

Perhaps there are multiple versions of the 170mm f/6.3 but mine clearly seems to be a dialyte. Rear elements are widely spaced just as the fronts are. In the picture attached, you can see the inner of the two rear elements while the outer of the two lines up with my finger nearly a full cm away from the other element. The front is identical in size and spacing to make a symmetrical pair.

It does look like a dialyte, but can you unscrew the lens components in four parts and take a photo of them? Are the two middle elements bi-concave? If it can be determined for certain that it's a dialyte, It's a nice find.

 

[Meyer Trioplan]

I’ve not yet been able to get the elbow grease to separate the elements without risking damage to the lens but here is a view of front and rear groupings. Both groups appear to have the same extensive depth compared to a Tessar (the inner elements are both flush with the rim of their bezels) and it is obvious there is a good amount of air between both sets of elements. The outer rim says the lens was made by Kodak in Rochester NY.

A Rapid Rectillinear is seen on the right by comparison. Much shallower. I used to have a 3A with a B&L Tessar 6.3 but no longer have it to be able to compare.

 

[JPD]

and it is obvious there is a good amount of air between both sets of elements.

Stand under a lamp and count the reflections. If it's a dialyte you should see four strong reflections on the lamp in each of the components. If it's a Tessar type you would see two strong and one very weak reflection in the back component.

 

[Ian Grant]

Stand under a lamp and count the reflections. If it's a dialyte you should see four strong reflections on the lamp in each of the components. If it's a Tessar type you would see two strong and one very weak reflection in the back component.

Even easier hold front and rear cells side by side, they should be symmetrical so give the same optical results. I'm leaning heavily towards the lens being a Dialyte and older than the 170mm f7.7.

Ian

 

[Meyer Trioplan]

Thanks for the tips. Will definitely try both of these methods shortly.

 

[Meyer Trioplan]

The pairs of elements side by side seem identical looking both ways...

 

[Meyer Trioplan]

Seems like 4 good reflections in the rear elements. Took a bit to get an angle that shows this. Two images are largely overlapped while the reflection from the uppermost surface is far more magnified than the others

 

[Meyer Trioplan]

I’ve only been able to dabble with this lens a bit. The humid mid-Atlantic summers combined with ny hectic schedule make the formal process of photography under a dark cloth a bit less than the methodical process it should be, but I still see great things in this lens...

Retrofitted with 65mm Kodak Vision 100T with warming filter.

 

[JPD]

https://ambientimages.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/the-kodak-170-f6-3-anastigmat/

In the comments we read: "Recieved the 170mm f/6.3 today..I also have ny curosities about it, however it is a Dialyte, si it will be very sharp,,,but probably low on contrast…should be very good on black & white with appropriate yellow or orange filteration…"

A quote from old Apug by Ian himself:

Dan's right there's a variety of Kodak lenses. He's not menyioned the 170mm f6.3 Kodak Anastigmat - Dialyte version in a Velosto (Optimo) shutter or the Zeiss Kodak Anastigmat which is not not the same as the Bausch & Lomb Tessar.

"

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...-lens-be-fitted-on-a-4x5.102573/#post-1357304

 

[Ian Grant]

I need to think where I had the reference to a 170mm f6.3 Kodak Anastigmat - Dialyte type 5 years ago. It may well have been in a BJP Almanac new products section, it's not the Kodak adverts, as I looked at those Friday/Saturday. I was carer along with my wife for my mother around then and bought a few 1920s BJPA and did a lot of reading

The lens is from s a point in time where Eastman Kodak and Kodak Ltd were into Kodak brand and trade names for a lot of their products, I have a gut feeling this 170mm f6.3 dialyte is a Taylor Hobson Cooke lens made specifically for Kodak. It's European style.

The problem is the Lens Collectors Vague Mecum gets muddled never says the Cooke Series IIIb is a dialyte, but then later says it has 8 air/glass surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . dows mention they were branded Kodak in the US though .

Ian

 

[JPD]

I find it strange, in an interesting way, everytime I search for information on something on the internet and the best info I can find are in old forgotten posts written by myself. Yesterday I found out that I had boasted about my "recently bought" Dogmar 6,3/135 since 2008.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I have a Rodenstock 150mm f/3.5 Eurynar that is an uncoated dialyte. I don't do anything special when I use it.

 

[JPD]

I have a Rodenstock 150mm f/3.5 Eurynar that is an uncoated dialyte. I don't do anything special when I use it.

What's it like, especially wide open? I have the same lens, but haven't tried it yet.

 

[Ian Grant]

I have a Rodenstock 150mm f/3.5 Eurynar that is an uncoated dialyte. I don't do anything special when I use it.

This is where it gets complicated, it's been suggested not all Eurynars were Dialytes and that pre-1924 they may have been double Gauss, that would have a marked impact on contrast.

Ian

 

[JPD]

This is where it gets complicated, it's been suggested not all Eurynars were Dialytes and that pre-1924 they may have been double Gauss, that would have a marked impact on contrast.

They are easy to tell apart, though. The front element is more curved on a Double-Gauss, and the reflections you see when you look at the lens from an angle are similar to a Dagor's. I had a Gauss Eurynar for a couple of hours once, after a seller had sent me the wrong camera. I have an ICA Hekla 90mm in a Compur that I should get working.