Is there interest in a New Rapid Rectilinear lens?

[Nodda Duma]

Hi folks,

I am a lens designer. I have been a lens designer for quite some time. I've designed camera lenses, objective lenses, telescopes, eyepieces, and so on and so forth. I've designed in the visible, in the thermal, in the UV, and even dabbled in "microwave lenses". I've fabricated lenses, assembled lenses, tested lenses, and destroyed them to see how they fail (a necessary evil). While my official degree is an MSEE, I never did electrical engineering. I took a couple optics electives, got interested in them, highlighted them on my resume and was hired by the Navy into an optical imaging group where I worked for many years. There I taught myself design. At some point I actually went back to school (University of Arizona's Optical Sciences Center) to get the formal classes. Now I work as a lens designer.

My hobby ties into my professional work.

I am a new member to APUG but have enjoyed film photography as a hobby even back when it was just called "photography". I joined to keep up to date on the latest trends in film and camera equipment, as I've seen cost of equipment go down and then creep back up.


So I know the classical optical designs very well. I saw a thread about a Petzval Kickstarter project, and was kind of surprised at the level of interest (but maybe not so surprising). So that got me thinking...



Is there interest in classical camera lenses such as the Rapid Rectilinear, Dagor, etc, reviving them for use with modern cameras?

I would love to revisit the old designs and see the designs become real lenses. That is my passion and why I'm a lens designer.


I think there is, and I'm considering the idea of a Kickstarter. I would start (but not end) with the Rapid Rectilinear... a design which I think provides beautiful photos in a normal format focal length. The original design is well-documented, but unfortunately the glass types called out are no longer made. The first step is updating the design, which I have done. It does what the RR did originally, and looking at the simulated images, the Bokeh is really nice. The focus is sharp but if I move one of the lenses the focus gets softer. Adjusting the softness of the focus could be a feature!

My starting design is a 13.75" f/6 or f/8, for use with an 8" x 10" film, giving a field of view of ~40 degrees by 32 degrees on that film (50 degree diagonal). Does that sound like a useful lens? I am looking for feedback in this regard. I can tune the focal length easily enough while it is in Zemax.

I would use modern materials for the housing such as aluminum or plastic... whatever is appropriate to maintain lens position within tolerances over temperature. I could give it a classic look or a sleek modern look, but more on that later.

Here is a layout of the preliminary design (if I successfully upload).

The design can of course be used for other formats: Scaling of the focal length accomplishes that but it'd be different production runs.






​

 

[Oren Grad]

You should run, not walk, to post this in the Large Format forum as well:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/

 

[Nodda Duma]

I will, thank you!

The design is still preliminary....I need to finalize the optimization. I think I figured out what it takes to provide nice bokeh but I'll be presenting images and ask how it looks. Zemax supports simulated images (a WYSIWYG type of simulation) so I'm going to try to post what you'd see for sharp focus and also bokeh which looks nice.

A couple questions I'd like to see answered are: Is the focal length I posted acceptable? Is the 8x10 format good to design for, or should it be something else? What

 

[LJH]

I like the idea (esp. if you get into longer Dagors for ULF!!). I think that the ability to add aberration soft focus would be a good option for the RR.

One suggestion: make the lenses compatible with Copal shutters.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Good suggestion. I don't want to reinvent the wheel Re : shutter design.

 

[removed account4]

if you can make these lenses in very large focal lengths for 8x10 and larger cameras
that would sell like hot cakes i think.

 

[bdial]

I agree, I think there would be quite a lot of interest especially in the longer focal lengths/bigger coverage arena where there aren't lots of choices.

 

[TheToadMen]

Could you tell me why you chose the Rapid Rectilinear design? And maybe show some images made with such a lens?
I'm not familiair with this type of lens.
Thanks,
Bert from Holland

 

[Dr Croubie]

I'd be interested, but with a few suggestions:

- Shutter mountable as already said. Maybe if you kickstart it you can offer it in two versions, shutter-mountable elements only (BYO shutter) and elements with a tube for barrel-mounting.

- Reasonable price, don't forget that there are thousands of old lenses about. A bit of a premium over an old lens is fine, because it'll be newer, but it'll have to be within reason.

- 8x10 350mm is a good place to start, even old convertible 360mm Symmars are hard to come by and expensive when they are, Symmar S MC are in the few-hundred-dollar range. So if you keep it under $4-500 it'd probably sell a few.

- What about coatings? Can you coat them, at least single-coat, or will they be uncoated?

If it were up to me, I'd be looking to the more rare, expensive and more legendary Universal Heliar and Apo-Lanthar. How possible would it be to produce one of them? I've never seen one of them in any focal length go for less than $800 (AL 150mm) or $1500 (AL 210mm), sometimes up to $3k. The price of these is of course related to rarity, not so much manufacturing cost.
I can't imagine that manufacturing costs would be that much different to a RR, so if you can produce one brand new for $600 there'd definitely be a market for those of us who'd like to try one but can't outbid collectors.

 

[Nodda Duma]

ToadMen: It's really kind of arbitrary except that the Rapid Rectilinear was the most popular lens for something like 60 years in the 1800s.

Dr. Croubie: good questions. The price point is reasonable to shoot for. Cost will depend on demand. I can estimate the glass cost and would probably get a cost curve (cost vs quantity) for the final design from a couple of optical shops I do business with. One is local and I'm friends with the president of the company, and the other I've sent lots of business to, so I'm hoping for good rates. In any case, like I do professionally, I'll optimize the design (glass and metal) for cost.

Yes I intend to get them coated. Coating costs when amortized over a production run are relatively inexpensive.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Another distraction:

Every quarter or so a hopeful person who wants a normal lens for ULF pops up asking which lens to buy. Formats they want to use include 14x17, 16x20, 20x24, and 48x60 or 60x80, the latter two usually at 1:1. The hopefuls usually go away disappointed after they learn that the only lenses with large coverage available (all used, all scarce) are narrow angle process lenses much longer than the circles they cover. Would your proposed modern RRs meet the hopefuls' needs?

Some of the hopefuls also want very wide angle lenses for ULF. I don't know whether any ancient w/a designs are in LensView, but look here http://cnum.cnam.fr/CGI/redir.cgi?M11121 p. 43 for evidence that such lenses (f/14 dagor types) were offered and may even have been made in small numbers. Go here http://books.google.com/books?id=cnkWAAAAYAAJ&dq=zeiss+unar&source=gbs_navlinks_s and click on the little starry wheel in the upper right corner of the screen to download as a PDF, see p. 69 of the pdf for evidence of another. By modern standards the coverages claimed in these old catalogs are exaggerated, 100 degrees is closer to reality than 115.

If you have the time and interest, think about w/a lenses and understand that a slow lens is better than no lens.

As Dr. Croubie pointed out, used relatively modern and even older lenses that cover 8x10 are relatively common so unless y'r proposed RR offers something wonderful that they don't their prices will set a ceiling on the price your RR can expect to fetch. There's much less competition from used lenses, possibly also much less demand for new lenses, for larger formats.

Do you have an idea of how much you'll have to charge per lens to make a batch of size n (I don't know how many makes sense) worth making?

 

[LJH]

My wish would be an ultra-wide for ULF; something with coverage like the from a 200mm Grandagon or 210mm SSXL.

It wouldn't need to be as fast as these. Even something like a 210mm f11 with massive coverage would be amazing!

 

[LJH]

Another distraction:

Every quarter or so a hopeful person who wants a normal lens for ULF pops up asking which lens to buy. Formats they want to use include 14x17, 16x20, 20x24, and 48x60 or 60x80, the latter two usually at 1:1. The hopefuls usually go away disappointed after they learn that the only lenses with large coverage available (all used, all scarce) are narrow angle process lenses much longer than the circles they cover. Would your proposed modern RRs meet the hopefuls' needs?

Some of the hopefuls also want very wide angle lenses for ULF. I don't know whether any ancient w/a designs are in LensView, but look here http://cnum.cnam.fr/CGI/redir.cgi?M11121 p. 43 for evidence that such lenses (f/14 dagor types) were offered and may even have been made in small numbers. Go here http://books.google.com/books?id=cnkWAAAAYAAJ&dq=zeiss+unar&source=gbs_navlinks_s and click on the little starry wheel in the upper right corner of the screen to download as a PDF, see p. 69 of the pdf for evidence of another. By modern standards the coverages claimed in these old catalogs are exaggerated, 100 degrees is closer to reality than 115.

If you have the time and interest, think about w/a lenses and understand that a slow lens is better than no lens.

Beat me to it... And with much more eloquence!

 

[Nodda Duma]

I'm looking into cost but I think it could be competitive. I'll know for sure in a week or two.

I'll also look into classical wide format for ULF to cover....what size?

What about for medium format?

 

[LJH]

I'm looking into cost but I think it could be competitive. I'll know for sure in a week or two.

I'll also look into classical wide format for ULF to cover....what size?

What about for medium format?

It'll be a whole lot more complicated as you have multiple brands/mounts and integrated focusing. Large format and above use the camera body to focus. They are adaptable in mounting due to the lens boards. Not many MF are body focused. Plus, the suggestion of Copal shutters for LF adds the aperture function to the mounted lens. MF will be more complicated in this aspect.

 

[LJH]

I'll also look into classical wide format for ULF to cover....what size?

200-355mm perhaps? It is all format-determined...

 

[Nodda Duma]

I can explore those in the future so the only question is where to start. I posted over in ULF

 

[gzinsel]

My opinion, , , , do not make for medium format> too many different mounts. LF and ULF is the way to go.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I don't see myself taking an interest in RR's myself (or I'd already have one), but Dagors longer than 14" would have customers for sure--Heliars too.

Classic soft focus lenses could also attract interest, particularly rarities like the Perscheid, Pinkham-Smith Visual Quality IV (Cooke has their version, but this is mainly for 4x5"), P-S Bi-Quality, Universal Heliar, Cooke Portrait ser. II, and Goerz Hypar. The Wollensak portrait lenses like the Verito, Vitax, etc. seem to be out there in sufficient quantity, that you would be competing with the old ones.

 

[Dr Croubie]

If we're going to talk about wider-angles, something wider than 210mm that covers 8x10 with movements gets my vote, because there's not much around there that's cheap.

Super Symmar XL 150 & 210, Nikkor SW 150, Grandagon N 155 & 200, Super Angulon 165 & 210, Computar 210 f/9 - they're all fairly uncommon and generally over $1k when they are available. 210mm is where the rest (Apo Sironar, Fuji W etc) just start to cover with almost no movements, 240mm and above there are a lot more choices that cover 8x10 with more movements.

Keep it wide enough to cover more than the regular cheaper 210s, but narrow-enough to keep costs and complexity/elements lower (hell, I'd love a 120-degree 150mm, but I know I can't afford it no matter who makes it).

I'd suggest to aim at 180-190mm because there's nothing much between the $1k 165mm Super Angulon and 200mm Grandagon, except the more-affordable but still uncommon Wide-Field Ektar 190mm (that will cover 8x10 with bugger-all movements).

If you can get 100 degrees out of the f/14 Dagors that Dan suggested above, that'd be a good start. That's just on the limit of being able to focus, but I'll deal with that if it saves a grand over an f/8 Super Angulon.
If you can get it cheaper than $1k at 165mm then it's still better than an f/8 Super Angulon, but I'd prefer one at 180mm (I love 90mm on 4x5). Of course, you can also offer them in 210/240/300, even 400/500mm for a ULF, but that's not for me (yet), I can see a few others wanting a cheap 100-degree 300mm though.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Not easy to find, but the 120mm f:14 Berthiot Perigraphe covers 8x10 at small apertures, and isn't too expensive.

 

[TheToadMen]

It seems there is a serious (but small?) interest in a new-made-old-design lens, The Dead Link Removed succeeded after all. He did get orders on Kickstarter for 46 lenses, that will fit Hasselblad or Pnetaacon-Six mount and (with adapter) Nikon/Canon SLR.

The interest here mentioned very different types and formats for lenses. I have no idea what will sell in what quantities. Maybe you could inquire for wishes, make a selection of 3 or 4 options and then put out a query asking for support for each type?
This way you create awareness for your upcoming project and a better chance for your Kickstarter project to succeed.

For one price is a major factor. I'm looking for a Verito diffused lens (pictorialism aera). These are offered once in a while but I'm not willing to pay USD900 or more for such a lens. So I'll wait (much) longer to get an affordable one since it is a hobby to me. A price range of USD300 - 450 would be nice. But I have no idea what did will get me yet (I'm rather new to the LF scene and haven't investigated yet what's out there).

Format matters too. I would like an old school lens to make large paper negatives for contact printing with old processes like Salt, Gum, Albumen, VanDykeBrown and Carbon printing. But I would also like a lens that (with a converter) will fit an MF camera so I can use it more often.

BTW: I thought I might repeat my previous comment from an other thread so you'll have every thing in one place:

Interesting idea. I would be interested in old style lenses for MF format, like Pentax 67' Bronica SQ-A or Pentacon Six mount.
Especially an old Wollensak Diffused Verito lens (pictorialism aera).

and your reply:

The design can be scaled for medium format, but the lenses would be different due to the different focal length. But there's no reason I couldn't run a separate Kickstarter for each except it'd be double the work. I'll think about the best approach.

I could do it for any design for which there is interest. But let me focus (haha) on the new RR first.

 

[Roger Cole]

I think most ANY good lens available new for large format for a reasonable price would be a great thing. There are used ones for not too much in some format/focal length areas but for the most part new lenses are outrageously expensive or no longer available. Part of this is due to shutters, too, so being able to get it in a barrel for use with a Packard or "hat trick" particularly for 8x10 and up is a good thing too.

A modern Petzval to cover 8x10, or even 4x5, would be awesome too.

 

[Nodda Duma]

The interest here mentioned very different types and formats for lenses. I have no idea what will sell in what quantities. Maybe you could inquire for wishes, make a selection of 3 or 4 options and then put out a query asking for support for each type?
This way you create awareness for your upcoming project and a better chance for your Kickstarter project to succeed.

That may very well be the reason I started this thread


Cost is a factor. Of course cost will reduce drastically with greater interest (traditionally polished lenses obtain great benefit from quantity production). So it's very important for me to determine what generates the most interest. Not just so the project is successful in and of itself, but more importantly so that people interested in the project are able to buy in at a lower price point.


Kickstarter is a good venue because I can select a quantity from a cost curve and set a threshold based on that curve. If qty is too low then not many people sign up. If qty is too high then not enough people are out there to sign up. Obviously the more interest generated the better it is for everyone.

I have a "Rough order of magnitude" idea of cost from my experience and think it will be competitive with the numbers being mentioned in the thread. But by how much I don't know. It would not be in good form to discuss cost beyond this until the design has been quoted.

 

[AgX]

..., so being able to get it in a barrel for use with a Packard or "hat trick" particularly for 8x10 and up is a good thing too.

Best should be barrel design that has space and threading for a commercial shutter, as well as offering a piece of inbetween barrel to be screwed in instead if lacking a shutter.