Santa came early & a lens question

smieglitz · Dec 22, 2004

A friend gave me a couple LF view lenses today. One is a Wollensak Extreme Wide-angle f/12.5 8x10 series IIIa. The other is a mint 10" f/4.5 Burke & James Rembrandt Portrait Lens. Both are in barrel.

I've never heard of the Rembrandt lens before and I'm wondering if anyone can fill me in on it. It appears to have 3 pairs of reflections when looking through the lens so I am assuming there are two elements in the front group and a single rear cell. The reflections appear colored so I am also assuming it is a coated lens. Any info appreciated.

Santa (moi) also produced a new Dewalt 744s table saw w/stand and 16" Incra Ultra Jig the past couple days to aid my cameramaking project. I must have been a good boy this year if I do say so myself.

Joe

Jeremy · Dec 22, 2004

My guess is the B&J lens was originally matched with B&J's Rembrandt portrait camera. I'm not sure what sizes they came in, but I know there was a 5x7 version--these didn't really have any movements.

jd callow · Dec 22, 2004

There seems to be a fair amount of info on the web regarding the Wollensak Extreme Wide-angle

Next to none on the B&J, although I know 2 or three blokes who would be happy to test and report back on the portrait lens

Jeremy · Dec 22, 2004

mrcallow said:
Next to none on the B&J, although I know 2 or three blokes who would be happy to test and report back on the portrait lens

I'm one of those guys, ship it to me and I'll test it out for you

BradS · Dec 22, 2004

Did someone say "portrait lens"?

John Kasaian · Dec 22, 2004

I've got a 159mm Wolly albeit the f9.5 version. A great WA for 8x10 considering size/wieght/price/performance. Not much wiggle room but enough for my purposes. Try it- I think you'll like it!

David A. Goldfarb · Dec 22, 2004

I think the funny thing about that Rembrandt lens on the Rembrandt camera is that it only focuses properly if you use Rembrandt lighting.

Dave Wooten · Dec 23, 2004

That is correct Dave,

The lens actually projects a small triangle pattern on the cheek opposite the light.

jimgalli · Dec 23, 2004

From my 1967 B&J Catalog.......

Lets see, $199 1969 dollars would be about $1800 now right? Could be a VERY nice lens.

Uh OHH. Pinkham & Smith??!!! Cooke 229mm, move over.

smieglitz · Dec 23, 2004

Hi Jim,

Thanks for posting the info but I don't think this is the same lens. My version is marked f/4.5 on the bezel and is a plain old Portait Lens rather than a Super-Portrait lens. But, you've given me an idea. Somewhere I have an older B&J catalog that may have it listed. So, I'll scrounge around and see if I can find it. In the meantime if anyone else knows about the lens I'd appreciate hearing about it since it may take me awhile to find that old catalog.

BTW, I also received your package a couple days ago. Thanks. That shutter ought to keep me off the streets and busy for awhile. Also thanks for tossing in the extras.

Have a nice holiday.

Joe

colrehogan · Dec 23, 2004

John Kasaian said:
I've got a 159mm Wolly albeit the f9.5 version. A great WA for 8x10 considering size/wieght/price/performance. Not much wiggle room but enough for my purposes. Try it- I think you'll like it!

I have the same lens and it's a great little lens. I do wish I could put a filter over it sometimes, but there aren't any filter threads on it.

Ed Sukach · Dec 23, 2004

Hmmm... Interesting "hype".
"Three dimensional roundness" - I'm trying to visualize what that could be... ??

Was it desirable for portraits to look "more round" back then? One could always have used a wide angle lens .... ugghh! - not good.

bobfowler · Dec 23, 2004

That f/4.5 portrait lens sounds very, very interesting. Please be sure to post some sample pix made with this one.

Ole · Dec 23, 2004

I think I've seen a term similar to "three dimensional roundness" in conjunction with Petzwal lenses. There was after all a reason beyond the large aperture why these were popular for portraits lons after sharper lenses were made.

I have a Xenar Type D which might be of a similar construction: The cemented pair in a Tessar is replaced by a single positive element, max. aperture is 3.5, and the "sharpness dropoff" is very obvious - and smooth.

smieglitz · Dec 23, 2004

colrehogan said:
I have the same lens and it's a great little lens. I do wish I could put a filter over it sometimes, but there aren't any filter threads on it.

Diane,

From the looks of it you could probably get a slip-on Series (VII?) adapter to fit the front barrel. Measure the outside diameter and contact the folks at Midwest Photo Exchange (Dead Link Removed). They can prolly set you up.

Joe

smieglitz · Dec 23, 2004

smieglitz said:
.. Somewhere I have an older B&J catalog that may have it listed. So, I'll scrounge around and see if I can find it....
Joe

Found my B&J catalog from 1942 but there is no mention of this particular lens.

Looking through this catalog I don't understand how this company could have gone out of business. They had everything photographic and at reasonable prices. Their cameras were not pretty or sophisticated, but they were very practical and modular for the times. I wonder how many Rembrandts and Grovers there are out there? Speaking of which, don't you think all cameras should have a proper name like Diana, Holga, etc.,?

Joe

Santa came early & a lens question

smieglitz

Jeremy

jd callow

Moderator

Jeremy

BradS

John Kasaian

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Dave Wooten

jimgalli

smieglitz

colrehogan

Ed Sukach

bobfowler

Ole

Moderator

smieglitz

smieglitz

Santa came early & a lens question

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency