Sharpest 120 Folder?

[flavio81]

Are you sure about the Selfix 820? I ask because I've never got a satisfactorily sharp shot with mine, even on tripod. The lens is in collimation and the focusing scale seems to be correct. See http://www.filmstillphotography.com/ensign-selfix-820.html for a review that agrees with me. It has one thing wrong, the lens is 105/3.8 Xpres in Epsilon shutter. The shutter is supposed to be flaky. Mine has behave well, so far but with very little use. Overall, a Century Graphic is a better tool, and many of them have, unlike the Selfix 820, a coupled rangefinder.

I had exactly the same problem. I collimated my lens as well. It only gave sharp results at about f16, but f8 or f5.6? no... only sharp center, the rest was poor.

 

[flavio81]

I have had some 120 folder cameras: A nettar 6x6, Agfa Record III with solinar, Ensign Selfix 820. The only one to give me really sharp results is the one I kept: The Zenobia Folder with Neo-Hesper lens.

Probably due to this camera having actual film rails, and the smaller 6x4.5 negative.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It is my understanding, that in the same way that a lens where the focal length is roughly equivalent to the diagonal of the film is easiest and cheapest to design, it also has a focus distance that it “likes” the best, that also corresponds with a multiple the focal length.

I don’t know the reason for this, or can give you the math, but that’s what I read “somewhere”.

It is a rule of thumb, but it is not that that accurate.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I have had some 120 folder cameras: A nettar 6x6, Agfa Record III with solinar, Ensign Selfix 820. The only one to give me really sharp results is the one I kept: The Zenobia Folder with Neo-Hesper lens.

Probably due to this camera having actual film rails, and the smaller 6x4.5 negative.

I have a Zenobia, and it's plenty sharp, though I don't know that it's necessarly better than my Super Ikonta B (ca. 1948), either of my Speedex 6x6 (including the amazing quality of the images from the periskop lens on the Speedex Jr.), Mamiya 6, or my Voigtlander Rollfilmkamera (6x9 from the 1920s) -- but what it has over all of my other 120 folders is size. It's barely bigger than my Weltini, a 35mm folder with coupled RF -- but has roundly three times the negative area.

 

[Helge]

It is a rule of thumb, but it is not that that accurate.

It wouldn't be strange though, since you are very slightly adjusting focal length when focusing.
You are in essence taking the lens ever so slightly out of it's sweetspot. And as with anything, things are worse in the near field, so infinity works fine, even if not strictly optimal.
It only gets bad after you are a good bit under half the (supposedly) optimal focussing distance.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

fwiw the point of best image quality on a front cell tessar is up to the designer. I have heard that some were designed for infinity, some for about 8 ft (the portrait length?) but the most important thing is that it is probably not consistent between cameras.

 

[Helge]

fwiw the point of best image quality on a front cell tessar is up to the designer. I have heard that some were designed for infinity, some for about 8 ft (the portrait length?) but the most important thing is that it is probably not consistent between cameras.

It would really make little sense to design for infinity since very few people actually take photos at that range and even those that do only some of the time.
Remember these where consumer cameras back in the day. Most photos are of people or objects in the interaction range.
I think the internal justification in the argument for infinity as benchmark, that has spread as the common explanation, is that it's supposedly what you calibrate the lens for easily with a collimated source.
Infinity is however a rather poor mark to use as reference, as it's pretty forgiving.
Of course you should be able to hit it reasonably well, but it's not as hard as say nailing three meters dead on.

 

[takilmaboxer]

What got me wondering about it was an experiment: I reasoned that back in 1955, ASA 100 was pretty fast film, and cameras of that era always have red dots on the focal scale and the diaphragm. So I loaded a roll of FP4 into my Mess Ikonta 524/16, set the focus and diaphragm to the red dots, and shot a roll of cityscapes with subject distances of 25 feet to infinity, varying the exposure only with the shutter. The results were impressive. Everything was acceptably in focus so long as it was over 20 feet away. I repeated the experiment with HP5 but set the diaphragm to f/16, and the results were even better.
I remember from college that the math behind lens design was simpler with incoming rays assumed to be parallel; i.e. the subject at infinity. But my experiment made me wonder if the designers didn't actually use a closer subject range. They didn't have computers in the late 1800s when these lenses were designed; and the Tessar was originally designed at f/8, close to the "red dot" setting. And it's true that casual users were shooting mostly people pictures with the subjects 10-25 feet away.
So, to address the OP's question, the sharpest folder lens would be a 4 element design (Tessar, Solinar, etc.), with the lens either in excellent original condition, or CLA'd by a qualified technician. The biggest problem is the scale focusing - it's hard to set focus accurately closer than 20 feet!

 

[Auer]

From the Agfa Isolette II manual, mine is an Apotar ƒ/4.5/85

 

[macfred]

Two more photograhs with the Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta III 531/16 - Novar Anastigmat f/3.5 75mm (which I bought for about 120,- EURO two years ago)

 

[Wayne]

Those are sharp!

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Two more photograhs with the Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta III 531/16 - Novar Anastigmat f/3.5 75mm (which I bought for about 120,- EURO two years ago)

Incredible sharpness for a triplet. I have a Yashikor- equipped TLR with a triplet that easily outperforms most tessars (about half of the ones I've tried)

It would really make little sense to design for infinity since very few people actually take photos at that range and even those that do only some of the time.
Remember these where consumer cameras back in the day. Most photos are of people or objects in the interaction range.
I think the internal justification in the argument for infinity as benchmark, that has spread as the common explanation, is that it's supposedly what you calibrate the lens for easily with a collimated source.
Infinity is however a rather poor mark to use as reference, as it's pretty forgiving.
Of course you should be able to hit it reasonably well, but it's not as hard as say nailing three meters dead on.

You are right, any lens designer worth his or her salt would probably choose to optimize for hyperfocal, not infinity if they were going to optimize for some long distance. The point I was meaning to make is that I've heard some front cell focusing lenses are optimized for "group picture" distance which is what many designers thought people would use the cameras for. Of course I have no source for this other than probably some other random forum post I read years ago, so it should be taken with major grains of salt.

 

[nosmok]

I've had a bunch of old 6x9 folders, and the sharpest ones are 1) Ensign 820 Autorange: unit-focusing RF 105mm f/3.8 Xpres (possibly apochromatic-- it has red, green and blue rings printed on it in the manner of the Voigtlander Apo Lanthar, listed as 'fully colour corrected' in old ads); 2) Agfa with the 105 f/4.5 Solinar (just an outstandingly sharp lens. I have one for 4x5 that is just as good, easy winner in a 3 lens 135mm shootout); 3) Voigtlander Bessa II with Color Heliar. Of the 3, the Bessa II is the easiest to find, but pricey-- you can get lucky though (I did, within the past 6 years). The Agfa is the most bang for the buck and worth searching for, but you may have a long search. The Ensign is just sublime but not worth the money unless you get verry lucky or have cash to burn. BUT my sister-in-law has a 16x20 print of a shot I took of her, husband, and daughter walking in front of a huge tree. Her full body was less than the length of the top joint of my little finger on the negative; on the big print, you can clearly see the laces on her small backpack, tied in a bow. I understand other people have had ho-hum experiences with the Xpres, but the one on the Autorange lives up to the hype AFAICT.

 

[Greg Kriss]

Super Isolette is the sharpest of all my folders.

Second that after shooting dozens rolls of 120 film with various Isoletts since the 1990s. Currently have four of them, with one converted to a pinhole camera.

 

[Donald Qualls]

One thing to keep in mind relative to optimization of front-element focusing lenses is that it is to some extent adjustable after the fact. A couple millimeters of shim between the shutter case and front standard plate will shift the "infinity" focus (with the front element as close to the middle one as the cell permits) toward the camera; that much difference (say, additional or loss of the felt gasket I've seen in a lot of these old cameras) can move the optimum from hyperfocal to the horizon, as well as fouling up the scale by enough to be very frustrating.

 

[Helge]

Two more photograhs with the Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta III 531/16 - Novar Anastigmat f/3.5 75mm (which I bought for about 120,- EURO two years ago)

View attachment 268272 View attachment 268273

It’s hard to say anything definite from such small scans, but it does look good and contrasty.

Have you (or anyone) ever had the opportunity to compare the rareish 3.5 against the regular bog standard Novar 4.5 lens?

You could argue both for and against the possibility that the smaller lens could be better.
Fx. Easier production of the smaller lens means more care put into it. Or, the slightly more prestigious lens will get special treatment...?
Or the 3.5 is a waste, only done to boast and one up man ship. With the max aperture being pea soup. And the rest being as good as the 4.5.

Do you have a 4.5 to compare against? Sometimes it’s the internal hard baffling that determines max aperture on these triblets, and not the lens surfaces themselves.

I passed up the opportunity to buy a pristine 3.5 Novar Nettar before Christmas for a song with a spotless case, and I am kind of still kicking myself in the butt that I didn’t take it.
I just have so many Nettars that it kind of seemed silly (seven or eight I reckon).

 

[takilmaboxer]

I currently own several f/3.5 Novars. I've owned and used both the f/4.5 and f/6.3 versions. I always shoot stopped down to f/8 or lower and can't see any difference between the 3.5 and 4.5 versions. The f/6.3 version had noticeable vignetting at the edge of the field and I sold it right away. I can heartily recommend the f/4.5s. They're usually fitted to Nettar bodies which are virtually identical to the Ikonta bodies. A Nettar with a 4.5 will give you great bang for the buck.

 

[Helge]

I currently own several f/3.5 Novars. I've owned and used both the f/4.5 and f/6.3 versions. I always shoot stopped down to f/8 or lower and can't see any difference between the 3.5 and 4.5 versions. The f/6.3 version had noticeable vignetting at the edge of the field and I sold it right away. I can heartily recommend the f/4.5s. They're usually fitted to Nettar bodies which are virtually identical to the Ikonta bodies. A Nettar with a 4.5 will give you great bang for the buck.

But how does it compare to the 3.5 at various apertures. Including completely open?

 

[takilmaboxer]

But how does it compare to the 3.5 at various apertures. Including completely open?

Sorry, I can't answer that as I always use f/8 or smaller. Many years ago I ran experiments with the 3.5 version and the photos wide open were soft and had corner distortion; by f/8 the images were nice and sharp. At f/16 they're as good as a Tessar and at f/32 they are still wonderful.

 

[Helge]

Sorry, I can't answer that as I always use f/8 or smaller. Many years ago I ran experiments with the 3.5 version and the photos wide open were soft and had corner distortion; by f/8 the images were nice and sharp. At f/16 they're as good as a Tessar and at f/32 they are still wonderful.

Me too. That’s what I meant. Hard pressed I’ll go down to 5.6.
Are there differences between the 3.5 and 4.5 version at optimal apertures. IE 8 to 22?

 

[takilmaboxer]

Me too. That’s what I meant. Hard pressed I’ll go down to 5.6.
Are there differences between the 3.5 and 4.5 version at optimal apertures. IE 8 to 22?

Not that I could see. The condition of the lens and camera are more important than anything else.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Not just the condition but the calibration. Most cameras that were made 50 years ago's infinity focus position is wrong if not set recently.

 

[Helge]

Not just the condition but the calibration. Most cameras that were made 50 years ago's infinity focus position is wrong if not set recently.

Only if someone tampered with it along the way.
Metal helicoids, shims and lens element mounts shouldn’t change over such a short amount of time.
Even a hundred years is nothing, if we take vandalism, brutality and “repairmen” out of the equation.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Maybe there were lots of bad repairmen in the past. My statement is based on some observations I took with a recently acquired autocollimator from a forum member. After reading this thread I have been checking my cameras for focus accuracy at infinity, using the reflection of a collimated target off real loaded film (following these instructions: https://learncamerarepair.com/downloads/pdf/NatCam-Auto-Collimators.pdf) and have been blown away by just how bad most of them are. They were so bad that it made me wonder if the autocollimator's calibration was off, but I tested it with a mirror and by testing the infinity focus of a lens in my DSLR (with a known good infinity, tested by taking a picture of a building a mile away right before the test), and that combination tested near perfectly. In comparison, my TLRs and folding cameras have been stupendously bad, returning focus error at infinity of an actual focal point around 30-50m. Why haven't I noticed this before? Well, infinity is well within the hyperfocal range at 50meters/f11 and I am guilty of racking the focus all the way to infinity rather than thinking about hyperfocal range most of the time. One of the more interesting tests was that several of the lenses I sing the most praise of on this forum (Hasselblad 60mm, Mamiya TLR 80mm) "just so happen" to have the best infinity calibration, and the lenses I have often said I "got a bad copy of" (Mamiya TLR 65mm, Perkeo II color skopar) are the most out of calibration...

 

[Helge]

Maybe there were lots of bad repairmen in the past. My statement is based on some observations I took with a recently acquired autocollimator from a forum member. After reading this thread I have been checking my cameras for focus accuracy at infinity, using the reflection of a collimated target off real loaded film (following these instructions: https://learncamerarepair.com/downloads/pdf/NatCam-Auto-Collimators.pdf) and have been blown away by just how bad most of them are. They were so bad that it made me wonder if the autocollimator's calibration was off, but I tested it with a mirror and by testing the infinity focus of a lens in my DSLR (with a known good infinity, tested by taking a picture of a building a mile away right before the test), and that combination tested near perfectly. In comparison, my TLRs and folding cameras have been stupendously bad, returning focus error at infinity of an actual focal point around 30-50m. Why haven't I noticed this before? Well, infinity is well within the hyperfocal range at 50meters/f11 and I am guilty of racking the focus all the way to infinity rather than thinking about hyperfocal range most of the time. One of the more interesting tests was that several of the lenses I sing the most praise of on this forum (Hasselblad 60mm, Mamiya TLR 80mm) "just so happen" to have the best infinity calibration, and the lenses I have often said I "got a bad copy of" (Mamiya TLR 65mm, Perkeo II color skopar) are the most out of calibration...

Have you considered that it might be quite on purpose and that you might have “fixed” something that shouldn’t be fixed?
Have you critically checked performance at closer ranges after the infinity adjust?
Vis a vis:

It would really make little sense to design for infinity since very few people actually take photos at that range and even those that do only some of the time.
Remember these where consumer cameras back in the day. Most photos are of people or objects in the interaction range.
I think the internal justification in the argument for infinity as benchmark, that has spread as the common explanation, is that it's supposedly what you calibrate the lens for easily with a collimated source.
Infinity is however a rather poor mark to use as reference, as it's pretty forgiving.
Of course you should be able to hit it reasonably well, but it's not as hard as say nailing three meters dead on.