Rietzschel Linear 120mm best for?

[JPD]

I have this Rietzschel Linear 4,8/120mm lens. There isn't much information about it, but it has eight elements in two groups, and is said to be better corrected for coma than the Dagor, plus that it can be used on a 9x12 camera. Focusing wide open and then stopped down for corner sharpness.

I'm wondering if I should mount it on a 6,5x9 camera instead of a 9x12? I'm guessing that if would be more usable with larger apertures on the smaller camera.

 

[lobitar]

Great lens! No doubt it will cover 4x5 fully. I own a 90 mm that covers 9x12 very well.

 

[JPD]

Great lens! No doubt it will cover 4x5 fully. I own a 90 mm that covers 9x12 very well.

That sounds promising! I have a Voigtländer Avus 9x12 that once had the slow Voigtar lens that could take this lens, but I have an excellent Goerz Dogmar 6,3/135 mounted on it. I could mount it on a 6,5x9 Avus, but that one has a 130mm Dagor on it. One of my Bergheils could have been used if I had more bayonets. I will probably just buy another Avus for the Linear.

 

[lobitar]

Me'thinks it would be a shame to use the Linear for one of those 6x9 folders with virtually no movements. In my view it's born for a 9x12, or perhaps a 6x9 with lots of movements, like a Cambo f.ex. Likewise the 130 Dagor - should cover 13x18cm if it's not a bad sample. Whereas I would put the Dogmar 135 on a 6x9 folder, as it don't have too much covering power. I once had the 6,3/135 Dogmar, but the shutter was bad, and someone wanted the cells. The 6,3 Dogmar is said to be less common than the 4,5. The swedish authors of Fotografisk Handbook (Helmer Bäkström and another person) wrote, that the Dogmar 4,5 is an 'utomordentligt bra objektiv' (i.e. excellent lens).

 

[JPD]

Good points, but these lenses came from cameras with limited movements to begin with, and I am personally used to Rollei TLRs and not into selective focus and big movements like that. Maybe in the future, if I get a classic LF camera that allows lots of movements. But for now I'm into the "advanced amateur, shuttered uncoated lens" style. I also have a 100mm Dagor on a Roll-Tenax, but the camera is in such good condition that I'll let it stay on it. It's for 120-film so it's quite usable!

The 6,3/135 Dogmar is superb, bitingly sharp from corner to corner on 9x12. Much more so than the Tessar, Skopar and Heliar. It's also probably sharper than the 4,5 Dogmar, that I hope I will try out soon. The dialytes are "lens hood on, sun in the back" type of lenses.

 

[lobitar]

I don't think I managed to try out my specimen of the 6,3/135 Dogmar, but glad to hear you have a fine sample. The Linear will possibly be much more soft at wide apertures. I agree the dialytes are strictly for 'sun in the back' shooting, even if absolutely clean inside. But happy shooting with your folders. Cheers Lob./Copenhagen

 

[lobitar]

Hi again. Just saw your thread on the Linear over at LF (where I dont seem to be able to get a log in for some reason - whence respond here). You said the mounting thread for the shutter is 33mm. Surely this 'should' really be 34mm which is the smallest of the 2 sizes of the old DialCompur no 1? (the other has a 39mm MT). You ought to have another 34mm shutter among your lenses, otherwise it will pop up some day.

 

[JPD]

Hi again. Just saw your thread on the Linear over at LF (where I dont seem to be able to get a log in for some reason - whence respond here). You said the mounting thread for the shutter is 33mm. Surely this 'should' really be 34mm which is the smallest of the 2 sizes of the old DialCompur no 1? (the other has a 39mm MT). You ought to have another 34mm shutter among your lenses, otherwise it will pop up some day.

I measured with a caliper, and it's a good one used by my father who used to be a precision mechanics and made satellite parts. Some shutters from the 1910's and early 20's had non-standard diameters. I also have 168mm Dagor cells that would need adapters to fit in a standard Compur. The Compur they came in had parts missing and unusable.

I will try the Linear with its original retaining ring first. It might fit inside the bellows, plus a washer, and then a washer inside the hole so the shutter will sit properly, and one on the outside just behind the shutter as an extra light seal. I might be able to screw the shutter on while keeping the retaining ring still. If that doesn't work I will grind down the corners of the retaining ring.

 

[lobitar]

Yes, but this particular dial-compur it not nearly old enough to have a non-standar thread. No doubt it's SUPPOSED TO BE 34mm. The germans say SOLL: 34 mm , IST 33 mm. I dont want to insinuate you are incabable of measuring precisely, I think the discrepance is on account of sloppy manufacturing tolerances. Come to think of it - I forget it - I do have another Linear lens. It's a 120 mm f.5,5 (that is not so fast), but it's much older than your 120mm. The shutter is shown belov, its a pre-1910 Koilos with friction brake (in stead of air-pump or wheels). In fact this particular shutter has a nominal lens mounting thread of 33 mm (IST: 32,8 mm). I've had this lens stowed away for years, as there is a problem with one of the elements, that has loosened in the mont. Here is a pic. of the shutter, which is working allrite as far as this design is able to. By the way I've found it's is a general problem with these small 'amateur' shutters, that you occasionally find one with sloppe tolerances to make it difficult or impossible to fit a standard retaining ring. (I don't seem to have a ring for this particular shutter, but I may be mistaken). Concerning the Dagors, they have this problem, that the ELEMENTS are not standard threaded, wherefore Dagor elements normally don't fit into (the smaller numbers of) Compur shutters. The shutter mounting thread may or may not have non standard threads.

 

[JPD]

Yes, but this particular dial-compur it not nearly old enough to have a non-standar thread. No doubt it's SUPPOSED TO BE 34mm. The germans say SOLL: 34 mm , IST 33 mm. I dont want to insinuate you are incabable of measuring precisely, I think the discrepance is on account of sloppy manufacturing tolerances.

It's not sloppy manufacturing. F. Deckel was known for precision. I'm sure that 34 mm stands for the hole on the front standard or lens board, and some retaining rings have a thin ridge that goes inside that hole for a secure fit (so the shutter doesn't wobble). And I have tried the retaining rings from many shutters and they are either too big or about a millimeter to small. I think many shutters where made on order, with the threads specified by the camera/lens manufacturer.

The Kolios shutter is interesting. I assume your model is the one with the leather brake/lederbremse? I have seen diagrams of them but never understood how the leather brake works. Does it contain a piece of leather for friction?

Is your 5,5 Linear marked Typ B? The 4,5 and 4,8 versions are of the Typ A.

 

[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

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.

 

[JPD]

Nice looking shutters. The engraved pattern looks oriental. I have avoided Koilos and air brake shutters so far because I don't have any experience with how to clean and repair those.

The Linear is now mounted on an Avus. The square retaining ring fitted perfectly inside the bellows. Then a plastic washer to center the shutter in the hole, and a black paper shim so the shutter screwed on tightly with the correct side up.

 

[JPD]

Now I also have a 4.5 / 105 mm Linear. The aperture scale is interesting: 4.5, 5.5, 6.3, 7.7, 11, 15, 22, 31 and yes, they used periods instead of commas. The glass is tip-top and the Compur shutter runs on all speeds. It came on a Rietzschel camera, but I'll put the lens on a Bergheil bayonet for use, and I will of course keep the camera safe. It's after all a Rietzschel, and it's in good condition.

 

[JPD]

I have finally used the 120 mm Linear and developed the film, and now I know that it covers 9x12 just fine at f:22 with no vignetting. The negs look nice and sharp. No complaints. I didn't have sheets to waste, so I didn't try larger apertures. Maybe I will in the future.

 

[JensH]

I have finally used the 120 mm Linear and developed the film, and now I know that it covers 9x12 just fine at f:22 with no vignetting. The negs look nice and sharp. No complaints. I didn't have sheets to waste, so I didn't try larger apertures. Maybe I will in the future.

Fascinating lens, gratulations!
Thanks a lot for presenting it here.

Have you seen this? http://www.camarassinfronteras.com/...rm_minimum_clack_selskabet_til_udbredelse.jpg
So the 120 was made for 9x12.

Jens

 

[JPD]

Fascinating lens, gratulations!
Thanks a lot for presenting it here.

Have you seen this? http://www.camarassinfronteras.com/...rm_minimum_clack_selskabet_til_udbredelse.jpg
So the 120 was made for 9x12.

Jens

Thanks! I haven't seen that before, and it's nice to have it confirmed that it really was made for 9x12. It's a fun little lens of a not so common construction.

 

[JensH]

... It's a fun little lens of a not so common construction.

Yes, like a cousin of Zeiss' Double Protar Series VIIa...

 

[JPD]

Yes, like a cousin of Zeiss' Double Protar Series VIIa...

Yes, and just as "cool". And useful as a little shorter normal lens, and the back component hopefully good as a long lens for some uses. I plan to test that in the future.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Yes, and just as "cool". And useful as a little shorter normal lens, and the back component hopefully good as a long lens for some uses. I plan to test that in the future.

Patric, check that the two cells have the same focal length. If not, possibly a triple convertible.

FWIW, the general rule with double anastigmats that have equal cells is to use the front element, not the rear as you plan.

 

[JPD]

Patric, check that the two cells have the same focal length. If not, possibly a triple convertible.

Good idea, I haven't checked that yet. One of the statements about the Linear is that it's better corrected than the Dagor for use as a convertible.

FWIW, the general rule with double anastigmats that have equal cells is to use the front element, not the rear as you plan.

The 1933 Zeiss catalog says about the Dagor "the back component can be used stopped down as a long focus lens", but I'm sure the front component could be used as well, and it sure is easier to attach a filter and sun shade on the front element.

Speaking of double anastigmats, it was said about the dialyte Steinheil Unofokal that it's completely symmetrical and that the sum of the positive and negative elements is zero, and that it uses the air gaps as air lenses for the focus. Maybe the early ones were completely symmetrical, but the later ones have a big difference in focus between the front and back components. The Dagor and Linear are of course very different from the dialytes.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Patric, don't forget French double anastigmats, equal and unequal. There were a number of manufacturers, most more-or-less forgotten, before WW I. Berthiot persisted with double anastigmats, mostly 6/2, until the early 1950s, when they stopped making lenses for LF.

 

[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))

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.

 

[lobitar]

Here is another specimen of low production run french pre-war (ww I or II?) lenses. An Anastigmat from 'P. Boucher - Ing. a Paris'. Its about 200 mm 1:8. But as the iris aperture is missing and all threads and measures are non-standard (from what I know, at least) I haven't as yet managed to try it out. So just for the record. By the way it's no doubt a copy of an early Zeiss Protar, the four-lens 1:7.2 (this one is right about 1:8). I believe this design was widely copied. I have another much like it from the small shop of Oscar Simon, Dresden. .

 

[JPD]

@lobitar Try them soon. It's very interesting to learn how these lenses behave.

 

[lobitar]

@lobitar Try them soon. It's very interesting to learn how these lenses behave.

The 200mm however has no iris, so it will have to wait a bit. I've found an old Compound shutter that seems to fit the 120 mm, but it has only one time. Hope to fix this within too long and will be glad to give a report.