Mystery Lens

[jjstafford]

I posted this to usenet a couple years ago, and am still looking for insites. Any information would be much appreciated. Thank you.

http://elearning.winona.edu/jjs/mystery/

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Ahhh, the famous "Mullett"...

No idea, but it looks like a beautiful lens. Have you tried it out?

 

[MattCarey]

Wow, the only place I can find any reference to "Mullet Bros." is
http://specialcollections.wichita.edu/collections/ms/2002-08/2002-8-b.html

but you probably already have seen that.

My only guess is that this is a rebranded lens. I.e. someone else made it--much like some of the stuff sold by Burke and James.

Matt

 

[jimgalli]

I know exactly what it is. Bausch and Lomb Optical made these about 1890 and later. They put a lot of other peoples names on them. I have 3. One says Eastman Kodak Co. One says SeRoCo (Sears Roebuck & Co.), and one says Hyatt. There was one on Ebay recently that didn't sell. It actually had the Bausch & Lomb name on it. The lens Collectors Vade Mecum has this paragraph about them:

Universal Portrait f4.0 These seem to be a Petzval type made in:
No(1) 6.5, with front glass 2.75in dia. for 5x4in.
No(2) 8.5, with front glass 3.5in dia. for 5x8in.
No(3) 11.5, with front glass 4.16in dia. for 6.5x8.5in.
No(4) 13.5in with front glass 4.5in dia., for 8x10in.
The separation of the rear glasses was adjustable to control softness, and this may be most useful in close-up
as it increases the depth and eveness of definition.

Interesting but mine are all #5 I guess as they are 16" f4. The rear groups should have a single line on the inner one and 4 lines on the outer one. You turn the outer one ccw until the lines line up for 1, 2, 3, &4 diffusion.

They are a "Patent Petzval" type.

Gorgeous lenses all.

 

[jjstafford]

Pardon if this is a repeat message. I’m messed up with a recently mauled hand, typing one-handed and really goofing up at the keyboard.

Jim, I can’t thank you enough; after all these years I finally know what I have. It is exciting.

If my other post did go through, I made an error in which I said that the “f-5” engraved on the body was wrong. Not so. I got the lens out of storage (it’s been that long) and it turns out the lens uses the defunct British Uniform System of apertures. This one has Uniform scale 1.5 to 64, which is approximately f5 to f32. So the USA folks put the accepted equivalent and engraved it accordingly.

Again, my deepest appreciation for the information.

John

 

[Paul Sorensen]

Didn't the Mullet Brothers play minor league hockey in the 80s?

http://www.blackaces.ca/top_ten_mullets.htm

 

[noseoil]

John, we still want to see a picture or two taken with the beast! tim

 

[jjstafford]

John, we still want to see a picture or two taken with the beast! tim

My colleagues joke, but are correct, that I spend an inordinate amount of time making cameras, then spend one session using it, and put it into storage. The pictures from this lens via 4x5 teducing back went to the subject's mother, negs and all. I live in a tiny house now with no room to use the beast. Don't know if studio work is in my future, or how I could make it so.