Rietzschel Linear 120mm best for?

[JPD]

One lucky guy on Ebay bought a camera with a Goerz Pantar 240mm lens from just before WWI. I bid up to £60, but the other bidder wanted it more than I did. The Pantar is a Dagor with an extra element in both groups, which corrects for Coma, making it better suitable as a convertible. It's not too different from the Linear, and using the back group only isn't something I'm interested in for a 240mm lens, so I hope the winning bidder has more use for it.

 

[lobitar]

Don't worry too much about that miss - the Pantar is absolutely not better than the Dagor. Of course - being scarce - I've only tried one (my own) specimen. Incidentally, I think the lens (being convertible) is marked 240 mm for each half, making the combination abt. 140 mm. By the way £60 seems almost dirt-cheap in my view; I bought my sample from a German (or Austrian) seller several years ago, I forget the exact price.

 

[JPD]

Don't worry too much about that miss - the Pantar is absolutely not better than the Dagor. Of course - being scarce - I've only tried one (my own) specimen. Incidentally, I think the lens (being convertible) is marked 240 mm for each half, making the combination abt. 140 mm. By the way £60 seems almost dirt-cheap in my view; I bought my sample from a German (or Austrian) seller several years ago, I forget the exact price.

Makes sense. The improvement was for making it more suitable for using the front or back groups as long lenses, but using both together would be just alike a normal Dagor. Maybe worse if the elements aren't perfectly centered. Still, it's one of those fun to have lenses. Is yours in a shutter? This one was in a Compur with double aperture scales.

 

[lobitar]

Makes sense. The improvement was for making it more suitable for using the front or back groups as long lenses, but using both together would be just alike a normal Dagor. Maybe worse if the elements aren't perfectly centered. Still, it's one of those fun to have lenses. Is yours in a shutter? This one was in a Compur with double aperture scales.

I agree to your remarks abt. single element use, that I havent tried out.. And yes, my was in the original shutter with 'bayonet'-mounted elements. I forget if with dual scales, but I'ill dig out a photograph of it one of these days (its getting late).

 

[lobitar]

Speaking of french 6/2 anastigmats I happen to own a couple. A Boyer-Beryl 6.8/210 mm, acquired as a barrel lens. Luckily it fits pefectly in a new type no.1 shutter, and is really quite good. The other is perhaps more curious, though, being a prewar construction, and uncoated ofcourse. This one I acquired for a song and a dance as seperate cells, without barrel or shutter. The thread fits into the old dial-compur-1 (the version with the small diam. mounting thread (34mm))View attachment 288539 but as I don't know the flange/flange distance I haven't seriously tried it out. On 6x9mm, however, it seems ok. The brass barrel pictured is just to keep the parts together.

I finally got around to trying out the lens, and it turns out to be excellent on 6x12 cm rollfilm.

 

[lobitar]

Of course it is possible that this shutter you have has been a special order. But special orders cost extra, wherefore I thought it was less probable that the Rietzschel factory would pay extra for just 1 mm less diam. But of course it's possible.
Yes, I've heard about the leather friction brake disk, but never actually seen it. As you see from the new pricture, all you can see is a low cylinder, where the leather might possible hide. I will try to fix the loose back group tonight, and would like to try it out ofcourse (but pls. dont hold your breath, as I've much to attend to). Yes, it's the Type B.
I enclose a picture of another Koilos of this type. I think it's a size 0, the former is probably a size 1. This View attachment 207059 View attachment 207060 type 0 has a mounting thread of about 28,5 mm, and luckily I have the mounting flange. The lens is a Collinear III 13,5 cm f.6,8. Lens and shutter is definitely in much less than perfect condition. But as I plan to use it on my Speed Graphic I think it will be ok.

I have now managed to try out my specimen of the 120mm Linear; and have to say it's rather disappointing as it covers max 6x9cm sharply to the edges. But I have to make another attempt.

 

[JPD]

I have now managed to try out my specimen of the 120mm Linear; and have to say it's rather disappointing as it covers max 6x9cm sharply to the edges. But I have to make another attempt.

How much did you stop down?

In my quick test I stopped down to f:18 and the 9x12 negative is nicely sharp to the edges. Sadly, I had put two sheets of film in the same slot in the tank, so I got uneven development. I find the Linear to be a nice lens, but not as bitingly sharp as a dialyte like the Dogmar. I might try using the back group only next time.

 

[lobitar]

How much did you stop down?

In my quick test I stopped down to f:18 and the 9x12 negative is nicely sharp to the edges. Sadly, I had put two sheets of film in the same slot in the tank, so I got uneven development. I find the Linear to be a nice lens, but not as bitingly sharp as a dialyte like the Dogmar. I might try using the back group only next time.

I can second that. In fact yesterday I took another look on the negatives, and was a little bit surprised. It turns out that exposure (at f:18!) and development was both sloppy at best, and that the sharpness probably wasn't that bad, just hard to make out; whence I will give it another run for the money. The shutter is another problem, of course, as there is a very limited range of speeds (if any). But I second your general remarks on the Linear.