Old Lenses with surprising close focus

[RLangham]

So I bought an Exakta VX1000. Nice kit: it came with a pentaprism and what I take for a lens that must be a little older than the camera: a Steinheil Auto-Quinaron 35mm 2.8. This is a semi-automatic lens that, instead of a straight plunger that presses directly in on the shutter release, has a big knurled lever that operates the diaphragm gradually and then kicks out an internal plunger to fire the shutter release. It also has an override switch to keep it closed at all times. I like this lens. It must have been quite expensive in the day.

But the first thing I noticed was the extremely close minimum focus distance. This lens does surprisingly low-ratio macro without an extension tube--maybe about 1:2, at a distance of three or so inches. Did a lot of high-end German lenses do macro in the 50's and 60's? Because this seems very odd to me, an antique wide-angle lens that isn't marked as a macro lens focusing down to three inches.

 

[AgX]

I find this quite surprising.

 

[RLangham]

I find this quite surprising.

I don't think we've ever talked about Exaktas. Have you had experiences with them?
Certainly in East Germany at one time this VX1000 would have been one of the premiere 35mm cameras available, isn't that correct? I've seen a good sample of Prakticas and they certainly don't compare.

 

[AgX]

I dislike Exaktas, so I refrained to buy any. But I admit, I got an Exa..

As I hinted at here repeatedly most Meyer and Zeiss Jena standard lenses have a minimum focusing distances of about 30cm.

 

[RLangham]

I dislike Exaktas, so I refrained to buy any. But I admit, I got an Exa..

As I hinted at here repeatedly most Meyer and Zeiss Jena standard lenses have a minimum focusing distances of about 30cm.

Meyer, I had once in m42. A Primoplan. It focused decently close I think.
Zeina Jena, I have never had except on a few old folding cameras. Most of my good German lenses have been Steinheil or Schneider.
Can you elaborate on what you dislike about the Exacta? I see many things that one might dislike, but I'm interested in your opinion specifically. As for me I find them quite charming.

 

[AgX]

The basic wedge-shape countour evokes the expectation that it fits good into ones hands, but it does not, to the contrary. And all I asked confirmed this.
Furthermore it looks to me clutterd with its operating devices.

Of course, from the historic context I should have got one, but I not alway follow such considerations.

 

[RLangham]

The basic wedge-shape countour evokes the expectation that it fits good into ones hands, but it does not, to the contrary. And all I asked confirmed this.
Furthermore it looks to me clutterd with its operating devices.

Well, hands are different. I like the way it fits in mine but then again I thought the same about Prakticas and surely no one else finds those ergonomic.

But as to being cluttered, I find cameras that are too uncluttered cheap-looking and ugly. I do like the look the Exacta Varex line immensely and partially because they look so complex and expensive.

 

[Paul Howell]

I got an Exkta 1000 VX at a pawn shot in Denver near Lowery AFB in 1970, I think I paid ten dollars for it, came with the Zeiss 50 2.8 Tessar at the time I had a Konica T and Spotmatic, we had Nikon and Leica for on duty work. I found the camera to be interesting, just slow to use, dim viewfinder, but it was in good working order. I shot a few rolls of film, lost it in a poker game. I know people collect Exkta not sure how many people shoot with one. For an updated body you can get a Topcon RE, has the Exkta mount, well, the last model had a K mount.

 

[AgX]

Well, hands are different.

Yes, I got small hands. And concerning looks, tastes vary. Actually I myself am not consistent concerning this.

And a Exakta means yet another mount.

 

[RLangham]

Yes, I got small hands. And concerning looks, tastes vary. Actually I myself am not consistent concerning this.

And a Exakta means yet another mount.

Yes, the mount problem is major with the Exacta. Not a single lens for less than 80 in working condition!

 

[Paul Howell]

Have you checked Topcon RE lens?

 

[RLangham]

Have you checked Topcon RE lens?

Yes, they aren't much cheaper as a group

 

[Paul Howell]

I took a look myself, 50 1.4 cost as much as Nikon 1.2.

 

[gone]

RLangham, meet Kodak Kodak RF. Kodak RF, meet RLangham. A match made in heaven. Or that other place.

By Jan von Erpecom - Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8803323

 

[RLangham]

RLangham, meet Kodak Kodak RF. Kodak RF, meet RLangham. A match made in heaven. Or that other place.

By Jan von Erpecom - Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8803323

I have known too many Kodak rangefinders, in fact.

 

[reddesert]

Any lens can be made to focus closer by putting it on a focus helical with a lot of travel, and this is more practical for wide-angle lenses since the extension required to focus close is less (roughly, to focus to 1:10 magnification, you need extension of about focal length/10). However, for a non-macro lens the imaging performance at close distances is likely to degrade. I think, often manufacturers limit the close-focus distance to where they think performance will be acceptable, as well as how much focus helical travel they want to build. Some makers may have been less conservative than others.

 

[RLangham]

Any lens can be made to focus closer by putting it on a focus helical with a lot of travel, and this is more practical for wide-angle lenses since the extension required to focus close is less (roughly, to focus to 1:10 magnification, you need extension of about focal length/10). However, for a non-macro lens the imaging performance at close distances is likely to degrade. I think, often manufacturers limit the close-focus distance to where they think performance will be acceptable, as well as how much focus helical travel they want to build. Some makers may have been less conservative than others.

I will say, the macro performance does look good on the ancient ground glass... still no idea how it will look on film.

 

[Paul Howell]

It is at that, sort of Steam Punkish, but the lens was rather good, better than average coating for the day.

 

[MattKing]

Would it be undiplomatic to say that this is a grotesque camera anyway that you look at it? The exposed gears look kludgy, and that protrusion coming out of the rangefinder looks like an odd add-on.

I resent that!
One of these was actually my first 35mm camera.
My Dad gave it to me when I was in my early teens - it probably came from the repair department at the Kodak lab he worked at.
It was quite capable, although it certainly was heavy!
I think it came from the same "design studio" as the Kodak Medalist:

Which in turn was influenced by something like the Anniversary Speed Graphic.

The style considerations were a bit different 80 years ago!
The Kodak Rangefinder 35 (as it is sometimes referred to) came out in 1940. It replaced the first Kodak 35, which was introduced in 1938, and was the very first US manufactured Kodak 35mm camera. That camera was introduced just 4 years after Kodak introduced the 135 daylight loading cassette - what we consider today to be the standard type of 135 film cassette. The Kodak Retinas made in Germany were the first cameras to use that cassette.

 

[RLangham]

Would it be undiplomatic to say that this is a grotesque camera anyway that you look at it? The exposed gears look kludgy, and that protrusion coming out of the rangefinder looks like an odd add-on.

It is an add-on. Look at the Kodak 35 and then look at this--they share a rather large number of parts!

I resent that!
One of these was actually my first 35mm camera.
My Dad gave it to me when I was in my early teens - it probably came from the repair department at the Kodak lab he worked at.
It was quite capable, although it certainly was heavy!
I think it came from the same "design studio" as the Kodak Medalist:

Actually, the design process of the Medalist is pretty well known: Joe Mihalyi, who had previously worked with the industrial designer Walter Dorwin Teague, designed it, with some thought to aesthetics. Whereas I have not heard that he was involved with the 35 RF... in fact I find it probable that no one with a background in industrial design came into that at all!

 

[albada]

It replaced the first Kodak 35, which was introduced in 1938, and was the very first US manufactured 35mm camera.

I suspect that the Argus A (1936-1941) was the first 35mm camera to be made in the US.
And like the Argus A, the Kodak 35 (including those with RF) have bakelite bodies.
BTW, the Anastigmatic Special and Anastar lenses on the Kodak 35 are Tessar clones.

 

[RLangham]

I suspect that the Argus A (1936-1941) was the first 35mm camera to be made in the US.
And like the Argus A, the Kodak 35 (including those with RF) have bakelite bodies.
BTW, the Anastigmatic Special and Anastar lenses on the Kodak 35 are Tessar clones.

Most good 35mm normal lenses statistically are either Tessar clones or related in some way to the Biotar. RF normals are very often Tessar with the aperture diaphragm differently placed. Faster ones differ but the ones working photographers used were much the same.

Yes, I'll throw my money in on the first 135mm in the US being Argus, but it was not the first American camera to use cine 35mm film. I forget what was.

 

[Ian Grant]

Most good 35mm normal lenses statistically are either Tessar clones or related in some way to the Biotar. RF normals are very often Tessar with the aperture diaphragm differently placed. Faster ones differ but the ones working photographers used were much the same.

Yes, I'll throw my money in on the first 135mm in the US being Argus, but it was not the first American camera to use cine 35mm film. I forget what was.

Most good 35mm Normal lenses are Plasmats then the budget lenses from the same manufacturers were essars or clones, bottom end of the line were Cooke triplet type lenses like the Domiplan, Triotar etc.. The Biotar is not related to the tessar design, I have both CZJ lenses for my Praktina FX.

 

[Kino]

I suspect that the Argus A (1936-1941) was the first 35mm camera to be made in the US.
And like the Argus A, the Kodak 35 (including those with RF) have bakelite bodies.
BTW, the Anastigmatic Special and Anastar lenses on the Kodak 35 are Tessar clones.

It's probably very hard to pin down who exactly was the first but, I believe the Ellison Kamra preceded the Argus: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Ellison_Kamra

Also don't forget the QRS/DeVry: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/QRS_Kamra

Both made well before Argus was even making cameras.

 

[RLangham]

It's probably very hard to pin down who exactly was the first but, I believe the Ellison Kamra preceded the Argus: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Ellison_Kamra

Also don't forget the QRS/DeVry: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/QRS_Kamra

Both made well before Argus was even making cameras.

As I say, not 135 format, though.