old lenses

[df cardwell]

Groovy picture Ara !

.

 

[Dan Fromm]

How about the new voigtlander lenses? are these designs true to their names or just fancy planars?

Trade names have no implications for design.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Most enlarger lenses are either 4-element Tessar types, or 6-element Plasmats. There are a few rare 4-element dialytes too, but not many. The most "exotic" one is probably the Voigtländer WZ (2 elements soft-focus enlarger lens), but that is old.

Some condensers are aspheric - mostly high-end 35mm enlargers. The rest are one- or two-element spherical.

It's an interesting thought, that you have to get very new or very old to get something unusual. I think it might be correct, too. The largest variation in design and quality seems to have been the "Anastigmat explosion" in the beginning of the 20th century, when every lens maker had at least one "unique" flavor of anastigmat!

FYI, 50/4.5 and 75/4.5 Enlarging Ektars are 5/3 heliar types. Ektar is a prime example of a trade name that's been applied to a wide range of designs. And there have been many, many triplet type enlarging lenses.

 

[Ole]

Were they Heliar-heliar types, Dynar-heliar types or Oxyn-heliar types?

Most Heliars are Dynars; most lenses sold as Dynar were Tele-Dynars, and most of Voigtländers enlarger and repro lenses were Oxyns...

The new Cosina Voigtländer lens series treat the names as what they've always been: Names only.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Were they Heliar-heliar types, Dynar-heliar types or Oxyn-heliar types?

Most Heliars are Dynars; most lenses sold as Dynar were Tele-Dynars, and most of Voigtländers enlarger and repro lenses were Oxyns...

The new Cosina Voigtländer lens series treat the names as what they've always been: Names only.

Fair question re the Enlarging Ektars. I've never learned how to differentiate between the various dynar-like Voigtlaender lenses. But if you want, I can give the number of the US patent that covers Kodak's heliar types.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[Ole]

But if you want, I can give the number of the US patent that covers Kodak's heliar types.

Thanks, but no thanks. I mean "please, NO"! I already know far more than I want to know about the different configurations possible in 2+1+2 lenses - I really don't want to learn more.

I would rather get to grips with the plusses and minuses of 1930's triplet lenses, next time I have a spare century with nothing better to do.

 

[df cardwell]

Kodak did to the heliar what they did to the tessar: treat the basic design as a starting point, then perfected it.

.

 

[Richard Kelham]

I'd have to say that the subject matter and lighting are just as important in giving something a vintage look. I took the shot below about a month ago. Most people who I showed it to thought that it was shot in the 50's.

I'd guess it's the hair style more than anything else...



Richard

 

[jonnyboy]

I'd guess it's the hair style more than anything else...

Yeah, and all the other 50's cliches, too. Beatnik/coffee house ambience, mike stand, suit rather than jeans and too-tight muscle shirt, *sitting* while playing, double bass (while there a very few bands today that actually use one, it is still somewhat rare to see one on stage), etc.......Damn, Ara, I wish I shot that one! Amazing what serendipity can do for an image.

Jon

 

[Dan Fromm]

Kodak did to the heliar what they did to the tessar: treat the basic design as a starting point, then perfected it.

.

df, that's an interesting point. For curiosity, have you ever shot an f/6.3 Commercial Ektar against the equivalent pre-war (I, not II) CZJ or B&L Tessar IIb against the equivalent post-war (II, not I) coated CZJ f/6.3 Tessar? I mean, I know that the Commercial Ektars are highly respected, am not aware of aged and modern Zeiss equivalents' reputations, except that the Vade Mecum says that early f/6.3s are the connoisseur's choice. I know that the Yamazaki CE equivalents aren't beloved, also that although the one I have is in poor condition -- horrible cleaning marks -- it still is usable.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[df cardwell]

Yep. Shoot the Commercials today, and a couple nifty CZ and B&L s.

The Tessars have been continuously evolved. re computations, new glasses, better manufacturing technique, cements, coatings... better and better.

The Hawkeye Works under Kingslake was a well funded and superbly staffed program that had the new glasses from Corning in their backyard. Kodak made good stuff. They were not merely state-of-the-art, they WERE the art.

I think the last-off-the-line Tessars from CZ were even better. Progress is a cool thing. I like the choice of 110 years of Tessars to choose from: each era's lens has something to offer.

What do you think about the different lenses ? Fun to shoot.

.

 

[Ed_Davor]

oh and one more thing...

I have this handycap that I can't distinguish "looks" in BW very good, some people are color blind, I'm BW blind probably.

For example, when seeing a movie or photo in color I can in 1 second tell you roughly from what time it came from, and sometimes even what kind of film it was shot on. But when I see a BW image, I'm stumped, I can't figure out such things.

 

[Ed_Davor]

Thought this has turned to be an interesting thread, I get the feeling that most posters who tried responding to me (thank you by the way) didn't even read my first post.

I didn't say I am looking to emulate some look I've seen somewhere, nor did I say I'm trying to emulate anything.

What I was asking is someone to describe to me that look that vintage lenses can give. I don't know what is it because I've never shot with any lens older than 70's.

Thanks for the advices, but I'm not trying to emulate anything, I was just asking what is all that that people are often speaking when saying such things about old uncoated lenses.

 

[Dan Fromm]

df cardwell asked "What do you think about the different lenses ? Fun to shoot."

Well, I don't yet have a set of comparable tessars. 100/6.3 Neupolar (reversed tessar), 101/4.5 Ektar (1946, 1948), 127/4.7 Tominon, 5 3/8"/6.3 B&L (~1912), 150/6.3 CZJ (1912, en route), 6"/9 Cooke Copying, 6 1/4"/6.3 B&L (pre-WWI), ~ 7"/6.3 B&L (~1920), 210/4.5 Industar 51, 10.16"/9 Taylor Hobson Copying, 30cm/9 Apotal. Don't have the 150/6.3 in hand, haven't shot the 5 3/8"/6.3 yet.

The uncoated 1946 101/4.5 Ektar is my preferred normal lens on 2x3 even though with it the corners are, when examined closely, softer than the center. Best from f/11 down, at f/11 the corners suffer a little. From f/5.6 - f/11 my 4"/2 TTH Anastigmat is better.

The Neupolar is astonishing, simply astonishing. From 1:4 to 4:1, sharper than a 100/6.3 Luminar. At distance, barely covers nominal 6x6 but is very sharp.

All of the others have much more coverage than I need on 2x3. And all except the I-51 are very very good on 2x3. The 127 Tominon shoots very well on 2x3, I think its a tad better than my 135/5.6 Symmar (convertible). Haven't done the 150/9 Apo Ronar vs. 6"/9 TTH shootout yet, but the TTH is much better than ok. I prefer 180/10 Apo Saphir to B&L ~7"/6.3. I much prefer 210/7.7 Beryl S and 210/9 GRII to I-51. Haven't done a full 260/10 Nikkor-Q (= Process Nikkor) vs. 10.16/9 TTH shootout; preliminary indications are that the Nikkor is a little better. Also haven't done a full 305/9 Apo-Nikkor vs. 30 cm/9 TTH either; again, preliminary results are that the Nikkor is a little better.

With reference to the original poster's question, all of the lenses I've mentioned except the I-51 shoot beautifully. 2x3 color transparencies shot with them can't be put in "age of lens" order. When exposure is correct they all give well-saturated sharp undistorted images. One could be happy with any of my lenses. The differences on which my preferences rest are pretty minor and are easily swamped by sloppy technique.

My I-51 stands out from the rest for unsharpness, but since I've tried it only the one time I can't be sure whether this is due to the lens or to me. I thought I was careful, but if I didn't focus it quite right or ...

 

[df cardwell]

Thought this has turned to be an interesting thread, I get the feeling that most posters who tried responding to me (thank you by the way) didn't even read my first post.

I didn't say I am looking to emulate some look I've seen somewhere, nor did I say I'm trying to emulate anything.

What I was asking is someone to describe to me that look that vintage lenses can give. I don't know what is it because I've never shot with any lens older than 70's.

Thanks for the advices, but I'm not trying to emulate anything, I was just asking what is all that that people are often speaking when saying such things about old uncoated lenses.

You know, Ed, that's the problem with the internet, isn't it ?

I read your post, and did my best to explain that '70s lenses are basically TODAY'S lenses, for most of us, and that for 'vintage' you have to go older than that.

Some folks explained, and illustrated, that the 'vintage' effects had to do with lighting, and other elements.

Now YOU need to do YOUR part. Go look at pictures. Lots of books out there. Check the Magnum site, thousands of great images going back to the '30s.

I was just asking what is all that that people are often speaking when saying such things about old uncoated lenses

If we couldn't answer your question, it'll just be better for you to LOOK for yourself. Go back and take a look at the two images I posted for you, and the excellent examples from Ara, mcgratten, and David.

Here's a question: what are the characteristics that you see in color images that place them in time for you ?

d

 

[Ed_Davor]

DF, yes I hear all of you who said that 70's lenses aren't so much different from modern lenses, and thank's I've learned something new.

A question for me...

Well, mostly the way highlights behave, the way skintones look, the way shadows look etc. Mostly things tied to film emulsions of that time.
Of course Kodachrome brakes the rules because it is like a time machine. But color negative has developed in a pretty linear way time-wise, so its easiest to put it somewhere in time. Of course with a margin of at least 10 years.
It's harder as the format gets larger, because things get smoother, sharper, cleaner etc. But when I look at 8x10 negatives from Stephen Shores work from early 70's, I can clearly see the "look" of negative material of that age, same look I see in my own snapshots from that time (well not my own cause I wasn't alive back then, but images tied to my family), at least the aspects of that "look" tied to tonality (grain and sharpness not being the issue in his 8x10 work)
I notice these things because I really care, cause I find that kind of tonal distribution more pleasing, more rounded, and smoother, than the modern more realistic tonality of films.

When it comes to movies it is much easier, because a certain age carries its typical lighting style and many other things.

 

[Ed_Davor]

"Go for something uncoated and shoot with a bright light source and the resulting coma gives a wonderful glow."

tony, this sounds interesting, whas do you mean by "coma" and "glow", could you be more technical?, I think this is the "definition" I was looking for, I think I've seen what you mean..

 

[Dan Fromm]

tony, this sounds interesting, whas do you mean by "coma" and "glow", could you be more technical?, I think this is the "definition" I was looking for, I think I've seen what you mean..

Ed, coma is an off-axis aberration that is affected by aperture -- stopping down reduces it. The only post-WWII lenses that I know for sure are said to have severe coma problems are tessar-type Wollensak Raptars; this according to Richard Knoppow, who insists that there was a design problem.

But these are lenses for 6x6 and larger formats, and we're in the 35 mm forum so I think you must be interested in lenses you can easily use on a 35 mm camera, probably an SLR. I don't think you can accomplish what you want by using post-WWII lenses made for SLRs. Your best bet is to do what's needed to shoot pre-WWII lenses in Exakta mount near wide open with grainy B/W film. You may need to use ND filters to accomplish this.

Don't insult Kodachrome. I still have 50 + KM 135-36 in the freezer and IMO there's nothing that matches it. Velveeta is a synthetic cheeselike substance, not an acceptable replacement or substitute for KM.

 

[ricksplace]

FYI, 50/4.5 and 75/4.5 Enlarging Ektars are 5/3 heliar types. Ektar is a prime example of a trade name that's been applied to a wide range of designs. And there have been many, many triplet type enlarging lenses.

I have often wondered why my 75/4.5 Ektar enlarging lens is consistently sharper than my equivalent componon. I thought the Ektar was a 4 element and could not understand why it was sharper than the six element componon. I thought maybe I just had a bum componon, so I borrowed a buddy's. Same thing. Just proves that trying the lens is the important part. Did I mention I paid $15 for the Ektar?

 

[ricksplace]

I have a Zeiss Kodak Anastigmat No. 4 f6.3 pat Feb. 24 03 in a compur dial set 1-200. It covers 4X5, seems like it is around 160mm. My friend who gave it to me said it came off a Kodak 2-1/4X4-1/4. It is quite sharp and definitely has a different look to the images. I'll see if I can find a few negs shot with it and post a print.

 

[Ed_Davor]

Don't insult Kodachrome.

I was not insulting it, I like it because of that, because it looks like something from 50's

 

[tony lockerbie]

Hi Ed, I'm not a technical sort of guy I just call 'em as I see 'em. The coma that I speak of may not be the correct term and someone will probably corect me. Astigmatism may what I mean, or maybe a combination of both. I will give you my experience with a couple of old lenses, the first being a Voigtlander Nokton from the early fifties. When shooting colour with this lens you can see a blue fringe around the image which I presume is astigmatism(anybody?). When shooting on B&W with this lens the result is a well defined image but with a slight glow from the unfocussed blue light. I get this result also from old and fast leica lenses (Summar, Summitar) and an uncoated Tessar on my Super Ikonta. I have an old uncoated sonnar from a Contax that doesn't have this effect however, so it's probably a case of suck it and see.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hi Ed, I'm not a technical sort of guy I just call 'em as I see 'em. The coma that I speak of may not be the correct term and someone will probably corect me. Astigmatism may what I mean, or maybe a combination of both. I will give you my experience with a couple of old lenses, the first being a Voigtlander Nokton from the early fifties. When shooting colour with this lens you can see a blue fringe around the image which I presume is astigmatism(anybody?). When shooting on B&W with this lens the result is a well defined image but with a slight glow from the unfocussed blue light. I get this result also from old and fast leica lenses (Summar, Summitar) and an uncoated Tessar on my Super Ikonta. I have an old uncoated sonnar from a Contax that doesn't have this effect however, so it's probably a case of suck it and see.

Color fringing is a symptom of chromatic aberration, Tony.

Astigmatism makes it impossible for lines at 90 degrees to each other to be in focus simultaneously. My late unlamented Celestron C-90 is an example of a lens with horrible astigmatism; it couldn't give me a good image of, e.g., a window screen.