Kodak Recomar 33 lens type & supplemental lenses available?

[rrunnertexas]

Recently I started using a Kodak Recomar 33 that I purchased over a year ago. It has a Kodak Anastigmat f/4.5 lens and a Compur shutter.

Can anyone enlighten me as to the type of lens this is and it's quality? Is this a 3 element or Tessar type?

Reading the instruction manual for this camera it lists and demonstrates the use of "supplementary" lenses that slip on. One is listed as a wide angle and the other a telephoto. Searching Google for them comes up with nothing. Has anyone ever used lenses like these on this camera?

Is there another brand (Zeiss?) that is the same as the Kodak "supplementary" lenses available? Could not find any listing on ebay or even a google search.

Thanks for the help!

 

[Dan Fromm]

Schneider Xenar, tessar type. See http://www.butkus.org/chinon/kodak/kodak_recomar_no18_33/kodak_recomar_no18_33.htm

Came from the second Google hit. Look harder.

 

[Ian Grant]

Dan, I thought some of the Kodak Anastigmats were made by CZJ. I know that when Nagel left Zeiss Ikon, to set up on his own again, CZJ wouldn't supply lenses so he switched to Schneider which was a huge boost to the company.

When Kodak Ltd bought Nagel the rift with CZJ was eventually healed and the Recommars were sold with Tessar or Xenar lenses. Kodak Ltd made Anastigmats in the UK in Compur shutters unlike the US ones made by/for Eastman Kodak.

Ian

 

[Dan Fromm]

Ian, the catalog to which I gave a link says Xenar.

 

[rrunnertexas]

Dan and Ian, thank you for the help.

Just so I understand, the Kodak Anastigmat is likely a Schneider Xenar?

Any experience with the supplemental lenses that they list in the catalog link you sent?

Thanks!

 

[Dan Fromm]

Not likely is, is.

None, I don't use supplemental lenses. I prefer interchangeable lens cameras.

 

[rrunnertexas]

Thanks Dan!

I found this on the bay and was wanting to know if this is the supplementary lens that is discussed in the catalog.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/CARL-ZEISS-...798535?hash=item2eea717087:g:Ik0AAOSwGvhT~tO6

 

[Dan Fromm]

Zeiss is not Schneider. Zeiss is not Kodak. Distarlinse 1,5/4 is not Supplementary Lens A, B or E.

If you can afford to lose the money and y'r Kodak Anastigmat is threaded 42 mm, buy it and try it. Then you'll know whether it is what you want. I wouldn't mess with it, but I also don't mess with old 9x12 cameras.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ian, the catalog to which I gave a link says Xenar.

Dan, the OP is asking about the Kodak Anastiggmat, although hard to spot it says Schneider on the lens in that PDF and Xenar Anastigmat in the etext, which is not the same. my understanding was the ones marked just Kodak Anastigmat were in fact made by CZJ Tessars. Splitting hairs slightly as the design is essentially the same.

Kodak Ltd who Kodak Nagel came under were the distributors for Ross lenses at that time and used British made lenses from other manufacturers as well, so I don't think you can jump to any conclusion that a Kodak Anastigmat is a Xenar when all the Recomars I've seen with Xenars were very clearly marked Schneider Xenar from the days Nagel started production until it ceased 1940. My 1940 Kodak Ltd Catalogue shows the Recommars still available with either a Xenar or a Tessar it would have been remaining stock as the Catalogue has a special Wartime Terms and Conditions insert.

More interesting is the Kodak Anastigmats found on Recommars in FL's like 130mm that Schneider and Zeiss didn't sell themselves. It was my understanding that Kodak bought lenses badged as Kodak Anastigmat from CZJ to fit to to Nagels to get around the Zeiss Ikon/Nagel issue. CZJ was owned by The Zeiss Foundation who only owned a part share of Zeiss Ikon.

I'd have to trawl through a few years of Kodak/Nagel adverts but I definite can't state the Kodak Anastigmat lens is a Tessar/Xenar type lens. it may well have been a cheaper budget lens or a re-badging for the US market. That last comment is because here in the UK up to 1940/WWII Kodak Ltd here were very open about sourcing lenses and selling them under the lens manufacturers name, they sold Ross, TTH Cooke, and Dallmeyer.

Ian

 

[Dan Fromm]

Ian, I'm not sure what you mean by etext. I can't discern Schneider in the pdf. Where did you see it? Interesting that you have a Kodak Ltd Catalog that shows Recomars with Tessars. 33s, another, or all?

Xenar is a Schneider trade name. I'm not aware of Xenars from other makers. If I'm mistaken, please correct me.

Kodak Anastigmats confuse everyone. Here in the US the name was applied to at least triplets, tessars and dialytes.

Kodak's subsidiaries outside of the US more often than not bought lenses from local makers than from Rochester, probably to avoid paying duty on foul unclean alien imported lenses. In some countries, e.g., France, this continued after WW II.

There is a very strong possibility (= I can't find the reference) that Schneider in particular made lenses to EKCo specifications for Nagel, sorry, Kodak AG. Lenses for Retinas come to mind.

One of the reasons that CZJ and Schneider survived in the '30s is that both saw themselves as merchant lens makers whose charge was to make what buyers wanted. Hence focal lengths for a customer but not the general public.

 

[LAG]

Can anyone enlighten me as to the type of lens this is and it's quality? Is this a 3 element or Tessar type?

Tessar Type

 

[Ian Grant]

Dan just go in and enlarge it''s very clear.

I'm not saying not Tessar type but I'm also saying there's no evidence it is either. I'd rather keep a very sceptical open mind.

Ian

 

[rrunnertexas]

Thank you for the great information and discussion!

I found a Distar lens attachment in 42mm that I will try shooting with. Spending 5 minutes with it last night I found that in order to focus with it attached, the bellows must be almost at full extension. The image on the ground glass is closer, zoomed in, so to speak, so that may work in some shooting situations.

Not to get way off topic, however, I have noticed that when I shoot with the Kodak Anastigmat f/4.5, 135mm lens it seems to get soft when off center, and rather quickly. As an example, I was focusing near infinity at a building with some lettering on it. The point at which I focused was nice and sharp, but a few letters down I could see it was already getting soft. Is that just the way it is with this type of lens?

 

[Ian Grant]

A 135mm Tessar/Xenar is softer at the edges/corners as you open up from the optimum f22, f16 is just OK but significantly softening begins at f11 and gets more significant opened up further.

Some Kodak Anastigmats were triplets so softer still at wider apertures.

Ian

 

[LAG]

I found a Distar lens attachment in 42mm that I will try shooting with. Spending 5 minutes with it last night I found that in order to focus with it attached, the bellows must be almost at full extension. The image on the ground glass is closer, zoomed in, so to speak, so that may work in some shooting situations.

Yes, it helps, the bed is too long!

Not to get way off topic, however, I have noticed that when I shoot with the Kodak Anastigmat f/4.5, 135mm lens it seems to get soft when off center, and rather quickly. As an example, I was focusing near infinity at a building with some lettering on it. The point at which I focused was nice and sharp, but a few letters down I could see it was already getting soft. Is that just the way it is with this type of lens?

Is not my case. Mine is 130 mm and do not have that "soft" problem, even wide open.
Best

 

[Ian Grant]

Is not my case. Mine is 130 mm and do not have that "soft" problem, even wide open.
Best

The 130mm may not be a Tessar type lens. All we know for definite is that Kodak lenses of that era in Compur shutters weren't made in the US.

If you look up Distar on the Internet you get some wild claims unless you look in Zeiss catalogues, I have a Rodenstock equivalent 1.5x Tele and it fit's my 203mm f7.7 Ektar but most of my 5x4 cameras (Wista, Graflex - Speed/Crown/Super) don't have enough extension to use it, however I've acquired 2 MPP Micro Technical recently and they should cope easily as they have much greater extension.

Ian

 

[LAG]

The 130mm may not be a Tessar type lens. All we know for definite is that Kodak lenses of that era in Compur shutters weren't made in the US.

Agreed with the second part, it was made in Germany.

Best

 

[GregW]

Do note that when you extend the bellows fully you need to also take that into account for your exposure. Here's a handy online calculator for this: http://www.cookseytalbottgallery.com/bellows_compensation.php

 

[Dan Fromm]

rrunner, since you have the lens you can find out for yourself which design type it is. Count reflections from both cells, using a point source of light.

Four strong reflections from the front cell, no weak ones and two strong reflections, one weak one from the rear cell: tessar type, i.e., Xenar.

Four strong, no weak from the front cell, two strong, no weak from the rear cell: triplet

Four strong, no weak from each cell: dialyte

The weak reflection from a tessar type's rear cell can be hard to see.

About coverage. f/4.5 tessar types from between the wars typically cover at most 110% of their focal lengths. They're marginal on 9x12, probably ok for contact printing. f/4.5 triplets do well to cover 45 degrees. For a 135 mm lens, that's a bit more than 110 mm. All that said, y'r 135/4.5 shouldn't give poor image quality near the center of the frame, even wide open. Are you sure that the camera's front standard is parallel to the gg?