Kodak 3A Rapid rectilinear vs Anastigmat lens

[rrunnertexas]

I recently purchased a Kodak 3A folding bellows camera and will use a combination back on it to shoot 3.25" by 5" sheet film.

My question is regarding the lens on the camera I have - it is the rapid rectilinear model and seems very nice. After a few years with the RR lens Kodak introduced the Anastigmat lens on this model and it was advertised as being better.

Has anyone tested them side by side?

I am wondering if there is any real difference between the two lenses, especially when used at f/11 or smaller.

Thanks for the input.

 

[removed account4]

hi rrunnertexas

you are so lucky you found one with a combination back !
i have my grandparents' folding kodak 3A and had always wanted
to have a combination back and holders but know they are quite rare ...
i wish i had an answer to your question about the difference in sharpness or how much better the anastigmatic lens might be
or the RR lens might be ... as you probably know RR lenses tend to be nice and sharp stopped down and still offer up
a sweet rendition, smoothness, pleasing out of focus areas, roundness &c ... im guessing the older anastigmatic lenses are nice too
and ( from my seriously lacking / poor lens knowledge ) they might have cleaned up the spherical aberration when used wide open
so the creamy round softness you might find in a RR lens has been corrected a bit.

best of luck with your sweet camera !
john

 

[DannL.]

I have several sets of Bausch & Lomb RR elements that I took from 3A Model C's years ago. They are one of my favorite "8x10" lenses. 8x10? . . . you may ask. Yes. By using only one doublet, either front or back, you have a lens that will cover 8x10 and them some. And there is a wonderful distortion as it approaches the perimeter of the 8x10 frame space. I can't do that with the Anastigmat.

 

[BrianShaw]

I've used both but, unfortunately, cannot show side-by-side comparison. Used only on 4x5. RR is about 1915; anastigmats from 1930s I believe. Both perform remarkably well when used with a lens shade/hood. Both perform about the same as later Tessar-design lenses and better than triplets. I thought I'd get softness out of the RR and never did. The difference for me is in the shutter; the RR I salvaged is in a Kodak TBI shutter and the Anastigmat is in a dial-set Compur... Which is much better for use. Also have other Kodak anastigmats in barrel that perform as described above.

 

[NedL]

I too have used both. I use the RR from a very old 3A mostly the way DannL mentioned, using only one of the elements on a bigger camera. But I have a couple 1A cameras with the RR, and a 3A with the Anastigmat. I like them all very much but have never done any testing or comparison.

Clive recently started a thread about "magic" and I almost mentioned the Anastigmat on my 3A. Just for me, there is something magic about that lens... I can't put it into words exactly but it makes pictures with a sense of "light" or atmosphere that I have never seen anywhere else. Maybe it's actually a "defect", reflections in an uncoated lens... I don't know what it is, but I know I like it

 

[rrunnertexas]

Well, I am pleased with the responses.

Sounds to me like the original RR lens actually pretty good then. My initial thought when asking was that there would be a huge difference in image quality. Sounds like both lenses can do a great job.

Unless I get some G.A.S., maybe I should just be happy with what I have and go with it.

Darn G.A.S.!

 

[Nodda Duma]

If I remember correctly, the RR is an aplanat -- free of spherical aberration and coma.

The anastigmat is free of spherical aberration, coma, and astigmatism. Traditionally, using symmetrical triplets afforded the extra degree of freedom over the RR's symmetrical doublet.

What that means is that the anastigmat design can be pushed faster while keeping good correction off-axis. The speed of the RR design is limited by uncorrected field curvature...especially considering the glass types available back then.

From a design standpoint, if you have a curved image plane then both designs are equivalent.

 

[studiocarter]

My camera is a 3A Folding Pocket with a Rapid Rectalinear AR Bausch & Lomb in a ball bearing shutter. One very old roll of 122 was shot and developed just right except that the focus scale was not set correctly so my shots are not in proper focus. A sheet of ground glass soon fixed that. I even made some YouTube videos about that. See studiocarter1 to find them. Proper focus was achieved but only on glass.
Since I have the 122 spools, paper and the uncut roll of processed film, I'm getting ready to roll my own. A piece of 12x15 negative will be cut and rolled up. Two frames at a time will be possible to take. I got a big spiral paper cutter that should do the trick.

 

[Jim Jones]

The RR first appeared in 1866, and was manufactured until about the First World War. I tried one shot with one on an old folding Kodak, model forgotten. With a small aperture and maximum rise on the front standard, the image's upper corners were rather unsharp in 11x14 prints, but probably as good as many later lenses. Edward Weston used a larger RR to good effect in some photos. Any RR in decent condition deserves careful testing.

 

[studiocarter]

I just bought spool adapters to use 70mm film and 120 in 122 cameras! Search on this number in eBay
221978361359 wwwholgamodscom
It is in other photography, somewhere

Jim, thanks for the history!