Ok, I bought a Hugo Meyer 14.25" f7.7 Double Anastigmat, now what.

[mattk]

Well I just purchased a 14 1/4" f7.7 Hugo Meyer Anastigmat from the big auction house. I was hoping to get an interesting old lens to use making portraits with the 8x10 and contact prints. Anyone have any experience?

Coverage....anyone....
Seems I put the cart before the horse but what the heck. I got my D2 set up tonight and I felt inspired to reward myself.

Matt

 

[Pinholemaster]

Guess you'll teach us!

 

[Ole]

I can't find any reference to a f:7.7 Doppelanastigmat - could it be an Aristostigmat? If it is, then it's a wonderful big wide-field lens with a coverage of almost 700mm...

 

[Uhner]

According to Lehrbuch der Fotografie (David 1911): it is a symmetrical anastigmat with six or eight elements in two groups (Herr David is not consistent in his information – he describes the lens as having six elements but the drawing of the lens construction shows eight elements). Your length is not listed but the 30 cm version covers 24x30 cm wide open…

You can also use the lens as a convertible, and it is supposedly well corrected for this.

 

[JPD]

A Double Anastigmat is mentioned in the "Vade mecum":

Double Anastigmat f:7.7 2.375-19 in in 1898, when it seems to be 'new'. Q9 type.

If this is correct, it should be a dagor type.

 

[mattk]

All--thanks for the info. What would I do without APUG. It was very cheap and listed as having some "haze". I have had good luck before cleaning up older lenses--should this one open up fairly easily? Additionally the lens is in fact marked 14 1/4" f7.7 Double Anastigmat Georlitz No.361557. The side of the barrel is marked "New York".

 

[Huw C]

Lucky you Matt,

I bid on this too, with kind of the same idea in mind (portraiture). But I didn't really didn't need it, so only put in a low ball bid. Also the minimum aperture of f44 kind of put me off (for landscape use). I'd love to know how it turns out. And is f44 in fact the min. aperture?

Circa 1920's vintage, dagor type, should be good for portraiture wide open, with buckets of coverage stopped down (16x20, maybe even 20x24). And like Uhner said, convertible, to an approx 28 1/2" f15.4 when using a single cell, if your camera extends that far.

I'm starting to wish I'd put in a higher bid! Good luck with it, and let us know how it goes.

 

[Uhner]

Matt, can you do me a favour and count the reflections in your lens? If it has 6 elements in two groups, similar to a Dagor, each cell should have two strong and two weak reflections. If it has an 8-element construction, like the one shown in the first attachment, I believe that it will have two strong and three weak reflections.

Both figures taken from David 1911, Photographisches Praktikum. Lehrbuch der Photographie.

Cheers

Claes

 

[mattk]

Looks like two strong and two faint. One also has a purple tint--looks coated. As far as aperature--f/44 is marked and measures 7mm. I can go past that and wind up with a 3.5mm aperature. What that works out to be=not sure. Will have to do some math. Much smaller that f/44 though-maybe f64 or 90. The haze doesn't seem to affect the image much at all. Or is it effect? My 8x10 Orbit never touched the outer reaches of coverage--even with crazy shifts and swings. I ran into bellow shadows but never the edge of the image.

Fun stuff using lens caps as shutters.
I posted a neg scan and crop in the gallery--take a look.

Matt

 

[mattk]

Quick question guys...Are the front and rear cells indentical? I ask because the rear element has haze the front has none. Could I use the front element backwards to get the 28" lens?

 

[Huw C]

The old catalogue I have says either cell can be used. You'd want to stop down a fair bit to get a sharp image. Maybe just leave the haze there if your sole aim is portraiture.

And if 7mm=f44, 3.5mm is about f90. So it does stop down plenty after all.

 

[Uhner]

Looks like two strong and two faint.

Many thanks.