Got myself a new camera (Rodenstock)

[JPD]

This beauty arrived yesterday. A Rodenstock 9x12 (rebranded Welta Watson) with a 150mm f:3,5 Eurynar. It was an impulse buy, because it isn't everyday you see these fast Eurynars. The #2 Compur works on all speeds, and the lens elements cleaned up nicely. I have fourteen fitting plate holders, and like a miracle the same amount of 9x12 film sheaths. Maybe I should try it before I try to find fitting filters and hood?

 

[baachitraka]

Nice buy indeed.

 

[rrunnertexas]

JPD,

I see you posted a bit ago, but how do you like this camera? Do you have any images to share made with it?

About 4 months ago I bought one just like this one, in great condition. The lens and shutter are quite large, but when folded up this camera is quite compact. Certainly fun to shoot with.

 

[paul ron]

thats beautiful! and you have enough holders too.

lucky guy.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Enjoy

 

[JPD]

Thanks for the comments!

JPD,

I see you posted a bit ago, but how do you like this camera? Do you have any images to share made with it?

About 4 months ago I bought one just like this one, in great condition. The lens and shutter are quite large, but when folded up this camera is quite compact. Certainly fun to shoot with.

I have felt very lethargic, so I haven't tried it yet, sadly. But since the lens is perfect and the shutter works, I was sure that it would perform as intended, so I bought slip-on filters that fit, and untreaded the mount on one of them and the thread can take screw-in filters and hood! It'll make a nice adapter.

The film sheaths are in my Voigtländer holders, loaded with film, and I'm planning to use my Avus fitted with a Goerz Dogmar 6,3/13,5 which is a very sharp lens. Maybe I'll try the Eurynar after that. I doubt that it's as sharp as the Dogmar, but the fast lens is easier to focus and the shallow depth if field fully open could be interesting. If it's sharp stopped down a bit it's a bonus.

So you have tried yours? What do you think?

 

[baachitraka]

This beauty arrived yesterday. A Rodenstock 9x12 (rebranded Welta Watson) with a 150mm f:3,5 Eurynar. It was an impulse buy, because it isn't everyday you see these fast Eurynars. The #2 Compur works on all speeds, and the lens elements cleaned up nicely. I have fourteen fitting plate holders, and like a miracle the same amount of 9x12 film sheaths. Maybe I should try it before I try to find fitting filters and hood?

I am still hunting for a good plate camera. How is this camera doing for you? Can I ask how much did you paid for it?

 

[JPD]

I am still hunting for a good plate camera. How is this camera doing for you? Can I ask how much did you paid for it?

I have three plate cameras with lenses I want to test, and I plan to do it this spring. I don't remember what I gave for this one, but it was below or around €100,-

 

[Ian Grant]

I have the same camera and lens (f4.5 version) but not combined My 9x12 Rodenstock camera comes with their 135mm f4.5 Trinar lens, my 135mm f4.5 Eurynar is on an Orion Werk 9x12.

The Eurynar is an excellent sharp lens but like all uncoated Dialytes quite low in contrast. I did a test of a number of pre-WWII lenses attached to bellows on a DSLR 3 maybe 4 years ago, a 120mm f6.8 Dagor, a 165mm f5.3 Tessar, a 135mm f6.8 Goerz-Ihagee (Dialyte) and 110mm ? Meyer WA (Dialyte). All teh lenses are in excellent optical condition the results were as expected, the fewer internal air'glass surfaces the better, the Dagor had excellent contrast, the was a drop with the Tessar, but a very noticeable drop with the Goerz-Ihagee diatye, the Meyer WA was the lowest in contrast.

When I've used the Orion Werk camera with the Eurynar the negative contrast was significantly lower than my regular 5x4 with coated or MC lenses, a good lens hood would help. When these cameras and lenses were made people worked differently, denser (more exposure) and higher contrast than we do today and papers matched those negatives.

Ian

 

[JPD]

The Eurynar is an excellent sharp lens but like all uncoated Dialytes quite low in contrast. I did a test of a number of pre-WWII lenses attached to bellows on a DSLR 3 maybe 4 years ago, a 120mm f6.8 Dagor, a 165mm f5.3 Tessar, a 135mm f6.8 Goerz-Ihagee (Dialyte) and 110mm ? Meyer WA (Dialyte). All teh lenses are in excellent optical condition the results were as expected, the fewer internal air'glass surfaces the better, the Dagor had excellent contrast, the was a drop with the Tessar, but a very noticeable drop with the Goerz-Ihagee diatye, the Meyer WA was the lowest in contrast.

I remember your interesting test. But isn't the Meyer Weitwinkel a double Gauss (Aristostigmat)?

I like the glare from unocated dialytes. These photos were taken by Borg Mesch, a swedish photographer who used his 18x24 camera to document new settlements in northern Sweden in the late 1800's and early 1900's. I'm not sure what lens he used, but an uncoated dialyte would produce similar results on 9x12/4x5 and even 6x9.

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/DDYFR6/st...krona-sweden-1900-this-picture-was-DDYFR6.jpg

https://images.interactives.dk/kiruna_nybyggare_familjen_hammar_1900-S2QfwipagG3FJPCKnOYWPA.jpg

And here is one I took with an uncoated Heliar 4,5/105 on 6,5x9:

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3702/9384135320_575a7cfd48_b.jpg

 

[baachitraka]

Excellent information on contrast and how is Heliars compared with Dagors in terms of contrast? Are there any fast Dagor's for 9x12

 

[Ian Grant]

I remember your interesting test. But isn't the Meyer Weitwinkel a double Gauss (Aristostigmat)?

One of my BJP Almanacs from the 1930's has diagrams of the Meyer lenses and the Wide angle is shown as have two pairs of separate elements (air spaced). My tests would indicate the same in terms of the contrast, a Double Gauss would have much higher contrast even uncoated, and that's my experience with a pre-WWII 90mm f6.8 Angulon.

Ian

 

[baachitraka]

Is Hekla 135 f/6.8 same as Dagor 135 f/6.8...I try to find some info Hekla lenses..

 

[baachitraka]

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/uncoated-vs-modern-leica-lenses.135741/#post-1775290

 

[JPD]

One of my BJP Almanacs from the 1930's has diagrams of the Meyer lenses and the Wide angle is shown as have two pairs of separate elements (air spaced). My tests would indicate the same in terms of the contrast, a Double Gauss would have much higher contrast even uncoated, and that's my experience with a pre-WWII 90mm f6.8 Angulon.

Ian

The only Meyer wide angle I know of is the Weitwinkel Aristostigmat and it's a double-Gauss. It's still a four air-spaced element lens. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/42/d9/78/42d9781b4e4da2a86632372127ada512.jpg The Angulon is a six element/four group "reverse Dagor" and should have good contrast since it only has four glass-to-air surfaces.

Excellent information on contrast and how is Heliars compared with Dagors in terms of contrast? Are there any fast Dagor's for 9x12

Is Hekla 135 f/6.8 same as Dagor 135 f/6.8...I try to find some info Hekla lenses..

ICA Hekla is a double-Gauss, similar to the Aristostigmat in the link I posted above. The Heliar is contrastier (six glass-to-air surfaces compared to eight in the Hekla). Dagor has even better contrast, with only four glass-to-air surfaces.

Dagor-type lenses are usually f/6,8. One you can find on ICA cameras is the Maximar 6,8 lens. Other similar lenses are the Rietzschel Sextar, RÜO Iricentor, Steinheil Orthostigmat and Zeiss Doppel-Amatar.

But if you want a classic uncoated lens maybe you don't need the highest contrast possible? There are always the good old Tessar, Xenar, Skopar lenses and ICA Dominar. The dialytes have less contrast but are often sharper, like the Eurynar, Dogmar, Celor, Syntor, Isconar, Sytar, Coronar and Helioplan.

 

[baachitraka]

@JPD I am hooked to this info and looking for plate/roll cameras that comes with Dagor-type lenses. I have also read your post on Roll-Tenax, seems they are not bad cameras to own either.

Curiously some cameras also comes with Dagor 130mm f/6.8 lens or 90mm f/6.8. My humble question is whether these lenses have the same design as of Dagor 135mm f/6.8?

Regards,

 

[Ian Grant]

The only Meyer wide angle I know of is the Weitwinkel Aristostigmat and it's a double-Gauss. It's still a four air-spaced element lens. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/42/d9/78/42d9781b4e4da2a86632372127ada512.jpg The Angulon is a six element/four group "reverse Dagor" and should have good contrast since it only has four glass-to-air surfaces.

Yes that's similar to the diagram I was thinking of, my mistake thinking you meant two cemented cells like the Dagor/Angulon.

I must get around to trying my CZJ 135mm f3.5 Tessar, it's fitted to an Jhagee 9x12 Duplex camera.

Ian

 

[JPD]

@JPD I am hooked to this info and looking for plate/roll cameras that comes with Dagor-type lenses. I have also read your post on Roll-Tenax, seems they are not bad cameras to own either.

Curiously some cameras also comes with Dagor 130mm f/6.8 lens or 90mm f/6.8. My humble question is whether these lenses have the same design as of Dagor 135mm f/6.8?

Yes, they have the same design. I have the 130 mm Dagor and have installed it on a 6,5x9 Avus. I'm going to do a couple of tests this spring with this camera and lens. I plan to see if the focus plane is correct when I use a roll film holder and also test my estimates for developing times for Fp4+ in Agfa 44 1+1. So there will be three tests in one: Lens, roll film holder and developing times. It's one of those things I could have done years ago if I wasn't lazy.

The Roll-Tenax is a fun early 1920's camera. But be aware that it doesn't have a pressure plate, no cover for the red window and that modern 120-film is a little thinner than it used to be back then, so the red window may leak light onto the film. It would be a good idea to cut a piece of black paper (the photo album type) and use double sided tape to attach it to the inside of the camera back. That would give you better film flatness, and the cut out in the paper for the red window will act as a frame around it to minimize the risk for light leaks. A cover for the red window can easily be made by using black electrician's tape (with a little piece of black paper on it for just where the red window is so you don't get tape residue on it).

There is always work and fixes you need to do before using these very old plate and roll film cameras. It's not like with a Rolleiflex/cord that you most of the time just need to load with film and go out shooting. For plate cameras you need to find the correct sized plate holders and then sheet film inserts. I had to remove the velvet plus light traps, use compressed air to get rid of old dried powdery residue from the old shellac glue and then glue them back with contact cement.

I must get around to trying my CZJ 135mm f3.5 Tessar, it's fitted to an Jhagee 9x12 Duplex camera.

It could be fun to use fully open! Your 5,3 Tessar is probably sharper, and the "original" 6,3 Tessar would be best, but sometimes the shallow depth of field with a 3,5 would be more important. That's why I wanted the 3,5 Eurynar, even though I'm more than pleased with the 6,3 Dogmar.

I have three sheets left before I can fill the Combiplan tank, so my plan is to test three lenses with one sheet each. The 3,5/150 Eurynar at full aperture, and the 4,5/135 Dogmar and 4,8/120 Linear at working apertures. I wonder if there will be vingetting with the Linear on 9x12 at f:12... That one was another impulse buy, because it's interesting with its eight elements. What I have read it should behave like a Dagor, and only better if the rear lens group is used as a long lens compared to using the Dagor in the same way (which I have no plans to do).

 

[baachitraka]

Thanks. Me thinking now, not to consider Roll-Tenax.

 

[JPD]

Thanks. Me thinking now, not to consider Roll-Tenax.

Maybe an east german Ercona II 6x9 with coated Tessar would be something for you? https://a4.pbase.com/o4/93/463093/1/118294387.9LIAFkOd._E4782_Ercona_II_Vert_WhtBG.jpg

Sharp coated lens, easy to use, has flash sync, big 6x9 negs. Same picture quality as a Super Ikonta but for a much lower price!

 

[baachitraka]

On the one hand side, working with plate cameras, processing sheet films and printing them can be fun but on other hand side it will be expensive to set it up (developing tanks, enlarger, paper for bigger prints and so on...). But it can be fun to shoot just 3-4 sheets in one walk or just one sheet at a time and learn to develop them in trays and eventually printing them on bigger sizes.

I am long looking for plate cameras with Heliar lens but the prices are not justifiable for the experiment. Lucky, I have discovered there are better than Heliars for cheaper price to start with.

 

[Ian Grant]

It could be fun to use fully open! Your 5,3 Tessar is probably sharper, and the "original" 6,3 Tessar would be best, but sometimes the shallow depth of field with a 3,5 would be more important. That's why I wanted the 3,5 Eurynar, even though I'm more than pleased with the 6,3 Dogmar.

I have a 165mm f6.3 Tessar as well as the quite rare 165mm f5.3 Tessar, I'd like to get a f2.8, f3.5 and f4.5 all in the same 165mm focal length for comparison. I use quite a few Tessar and Type lenses, the Opton Tessar on my Rolleiflax Automat is superb as is the CZJ 150mm T (coated) f4.5 I use with my Super Graphic, then I have Xenar's and Ektar's etc, plus a 210mm f6.3 Congo/Osaka Commercial, the only one taht's not remotely sharp is a Linhof Carl Zeiss 150mm f4.5 Tessar which I was given for the cost of postage (it's in mint condition but useless),

Yes, they have the same design. I have the 130 mm Dagor and have installed it on a 6,5x9 Avus. I'm going to do a couple of tests this spring with this camera and lens. I plan to see if the focus plane is correct when I use a roll film holder and also test my estimates for developing times for Fp4+ in Agfa 44 1+1. So there will be three tests in one: Lens, roll film holder and developing times. It's one of those things I could have done years ago if I wasn't lazy.

Is your 130mm Dagor German or US made ? It will cover 7x5 or 13x18 stopped down my CP Goerz (Berlin) 120mm f6.8 Dagor does.

Ian

 

[JPD]

I have a 165mm f6.3 Tessar as well as the quite rare 165mm f5.3 Tessar, I'd like to get a f2.8, f3.5 and f4.5 all in the same 165mm focal length for comparison. I use quite a few Tessar and Type lenses, the Opton Tessar on my Rolleiflax Automat is superb as is the CZJ 150mm T (coated) f4.5 I use with my Super Graphic, then I have Xenar's and Ektar's etc, plus a 210mm f6.3 Congo/Osaka Commercial, the only one taht's not remotely sharp is a Linhof Carl Zeiss 150mm f4.5 Tessar which I was given for the cost of postage (it's in mint condition but useless),

Have you tried the 6,3 Tessar? I suspect that the 165 mm ones were made for 10x15 cameras.

Is your 130mm Dagor German or US made ? It will cover 7x5 or 13x18 stopped down my CP Goerz (Berlin) 120mm f6.8 Dagor does.

It's german. Nice little lens.

 

[Ian Grant]

Have you tried the 6,3 Tessar? I suspect that the 165 mm ones were made for 10x15 cameras.

Not tried it yet but I have used a pre-WII 135mm f4.5 Tessar for a while on my Crown Graphic and edge/corner, coverage is poor at wider apertures, just about passable at f16 but good at f22, the f3.5 version I'd expect to be that touch softer at the corners and edges. The fast Tessar is the 165mm f2,7 not 2.8 my mistake

The 165mm f5.3 Tessar is an odd one, it appears to have been fitted to one of the larger Kodak roll film cameras, there's very few references to them anywhere and they don't appear to have been sold separately.

Ian

 

[JPD]

Not tried it yet but I have used a pre-WII 135mm f4.5 Tessar for a while on my Crown Graphic and edge/corner, coverage is poor at wider apertures, just about passable at f16 but good at f22, the f3.5 version I'd expect to be that touch softer at the corners and edges. The fast Tessar is the 165mm f2,7 not 2.8 my mistake

The 165mm f5.3 Tessar is an odd one, it appears to have been fitted to one of the larger Kodak roll film cameras, there's very few references to them anywhere and they don't appear to have been sold separately.

I have two 4,5/135 Tessar and have tried one of them, and it wasn't more than "ok". The 3,5/75 Tessar on the Rolleis are much sharper, even the uncoated pre-war ones.The 4,5/135 Heliar on my Bergheil performs about the same as the 4,5/135 Tessar, but it's supposed to have "other qualities".

Maybe the 5,3/165 Tessar was the fastest that could fit in the shutter? That was the case with the 3,8/75 Tessar and Triotar on the early Rolleiflex Original and Standard and Rolleicord I. They are the same lenses as the 3,5 but couldn't fit the Compur shutter used on the cameras at that time.

I could only find one reference to the 5,3/165 Tessar, and the serial number indicates 1937 as the year of manufacturing. Is yours also in a Compound and from the same period?

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/carl-zeiss-jena-f5-16-cm-tessar-310799221