Steinheil Munchen

I just acquired an 8 X 10 Deardorf and it came with a Steinheil Munchen Weltwinkel Unofocal 18cm 1:9.

Is this a particularly valuable lens that I should treat with utmost respect or is it run of the mill quality?

Thanks in advance for your response.

Jim

Isn't it a wide angle lens ? Might be useful long term.

Ian

Can you post pictures of it? I wonder if it's a double-Gauss lens? The normal dialyte Unofokal/Unofocal is very common, but this is the first time I've heard of a wide angle version.

I think you misspelt the Weitwinkel, a quick search shows an 8.5cm f9 Weitwinkel Unofoacl which is clearly a WA lens. It's not called that in the Vade Mecum if it's listed but may have had a different non German name on export versions.

The Weitwinkler rang a bell as I have a Hugo Meyer Weitwinkler WA lens a dialyte type.

Ian

Ian Grant said:

I think you misspelt the Weitwinkel, a quick search shows an 8.5cm f9 Weitwinkel Unofoacl which is clearly a WA lens. It's not called that in the Vade Mecum if it's listed but may have had a different non German name on export versions.

The Weitwinkler rang a bell as I have a Hugo Meyer Weitwinkler WA lens a dialyte type.

Click to expand...

Yes, he misspelt it. A weltwinkel (world-angle) would have been a huge breakthrough in optical design. I saw that 8,5 cm lens as well, and the curvature of the front element makes me believe it's a double-Gauss. Your Meyer WA is a double-Gauss as well, and not a classic dialyte (Dialyte means "separated" and technically you can call a double-Gauss that. I think there is a 'Dialytar' lens that were made both in double-Gauss and classic dialyte versions).

"Weitwinkel"
It means wide-angle.

Likely the old issue of lower- and upper-case "i" and "L" in times of computer typography.

AgX said:

"Weitwinkel"
It means wide-angle.

Likely the old issue of lower- and upper-case "i" and "L" in times of computer typography.

Click to expand...

Or the dot over the 'i' that isn't always easy to see: https://thumbs.worthpoint.com/zoom/...5-cm-9_1_5b6117b3705f9360570a8969bb54a786.jpg

On that picture it looks like "Weitwlnkel".

Interesting. To me it rather looks like a mis-engraving.
The Blue Mauritius of LF collectors lenses...

Unofocals were, according to the VM, dialyte types and were sold in two series, Ser. I, f/4.5 covering 60 degrees, and Ser. II, f/6 covering 70 degrees. It doesn't mention f/9 Unofocals. Or Unofokals.

OP, could your lens be f/6 instead of f/9 as you posted?

Dan Fromm said:

Unofocals were, according to the VM, dialyte types and were sold in two series, Ser. I, f/4.5 covering 60 degrees, and Ser. II, f/6 covering 70 degrees. It doesn't mention f/9 Unofocals. Or Unofokals.

OP, could your lens be f/6 instead of f/9 as you posted?

Click to expand...

The 8,5 cm Weitwinkel Unofocal Ian and I found by googling is also an f/9. And it's probably not a dialyte.

JPD said:

Yes, he misspelt it. A weltwinkel (world-angle) would have been a huge breakthrough in optical design. I saw that 8,5 cm lens as well, and the curvature of the front element makes me believe it's a double-Gauss. Your Meyer WA is a double-Gauss as well, and not a classic dialyte (Dialyte means "separated" and technically you can call a double-Gauss that. I think there is a 'Dialytar' lens that were made both in double-Gauss and classic dialyte versions).

Click to expand...

The problem is Gauss and Double Gauess lenses vary quite considerably in design, number of elements, have cemented components. I prefer to think of these lenses as wide angle dialytes as they have no cemented elements.

For a 10x8 camera an 18cm/180mm is still a reasonably modest Wide angle lens compared to a WA Protar, my Ross Air Ministry 141mm f16 lens covers 10x8 it's a Protar but Ross dropped Zeiss name during WWI.

Ian

Yes, I noticed it. Not 180 mm, though. I've found no mention of a 180/9 Weitwinkel Unofocal. One book, published in 1942, mentions "2. Steinheil-München, ,,Unofocal“1 : 9 mit einem Bildwinkel von 90O und einer Brennweite von 8,5 cm für das Format 9 : 12 cm."

That's probably the lens you and Ian found, and I agree it can't be a dialyte type. 4/4 double Gauss is much more likely.

Ian Grant said:

The problem is Gauss and Double Gauess lenses vary quite considerably in design, number of elements, have cemented components. I prefer to think of these lenses as wide angle dialytes as they have no cemented elements.

For a 10x8 camera an 18cm/180mm is still a reasonably modest Wide angle lens compared to a WA Protar, my Ross Air Ministry 141mm f16 lens covers 10x8 it's a Protar but Ross dropped Zeiss name during WWI.

Ian

Click to expand...

Ian, all four elements of 4/4 double Gauss types (WW Aristostigmats, WF Ektars, Cooke Ser. VIIb, equivalent lenses from Dallmeyer, ...) are meniscii. The inner elements of dialytes are biconcave, the outers are biconvex. Not at all the same. The majority of old fashioned LF anastigmats are either 4/4 double Gauss, the elements airspaced; 4/2 slow Protars; 6/2 dagor types; or 8/2 variants of the dagor. Not all the same.

Your 141/16 Ross is a narrow angle lens. Berthiot's 120/14 Perigraphe VIa also covers, just, 8x10.

Bakc to the original question:

jmccl@yahoo.com said:

Is this a particularly valuable lens that I should treat with utmost respect or is it run of the mill quality?

Click to expand...

The normal dialyte Unofokal/Unofocal is a quality lens, and I don't doubt that the wide angle is a good one too, maybe like the Meyer Weitwinkel Aristostigmat. You will have to try it and see for yourself. It's obvious that it's a very rare lens, so much so that we haven't heard about it before. The feeling of owning such an uncommon lens is probably worth more than its monetary value. Now we want pictures of it!

Dan Fromm said:

Ian, all four elements of 4/4 double Gauss types (WW Aristostigmats, WF Ektars, Cooke Ser. VIIb, equivalent lenses from Dallmeyer, ...) are meniscii. The inner elements of dialytes are biconcave, the outers are biconvex. Not at all the same. The majority of old fashioned LF anastigmats are either 4/4 double Gauss, the elements airspaced; 4/2 slow Protars; 6/2 dagor types; or 8/2 variants of the dagor. Not all the same.

Your 141/16 Ross is a narrow angle lens. Berthiot's 120/14 Perigraphe VIa also covers, just, 8x10.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt the lens is most likely a 4/4 Double Gauss, the problem is the term Dialyte is a little loose as it can cover any 4/4 air spaced lens although its main use is as you point out.

When is a WA lens a narrow angle lens or an EWA ? That seems to be decided by the manufacturer, I'm thinking of the EWA Series IIIa Wollensak my 159mm f12.5 has about the same coverage as my Ross 141mm f16 Wise Angle Anastigmat.

As JPD says the OP needs to try the lens.

Ian

Re the narrow angle, I was teasing you, Ian.

Dialyte has a meaning. Using the term loosely degrades the language.

Dan Fromm said:

Dialyte has a meaning. Using the term loosely degrades the language.

Click to expand...

Yes, dialyte stands for a special type of design today. Ian is correct, though, that lenses with the achromats separated once also sometimes were called dialytes even if the inner elements were of meniscus shape. I agree that it's confusing, so I never call double-Gauss lenses dialytes.

Camera-Wiki has an interesting description of the Laack Dialytar lenses: "This name was used on several lenses of different design and maximum aperture. Greenleaf[2] lists three designs; one is a simple triplet, one (Series T!) a Tessar-type, and one a four-element lens like a Tessar, but with the two parts of the rear group not cemented, and with an air space."

That last sentence is funny since it's clearly referring to a dialyte.

Thanks to all for your response. I agree, the monetary value is secondary to the personal pleasure of owning a rare vintage object. As I have studied the glass in the Steinheil, I am afraid that there is a cloudy look to it. I cleaned the outer surfaces with lens cleaner but the cloudy appearance is still there. Someday I may take it to a technician here in the Tampa area and see if it is just dirt inside or something worse. Funny thing with the Schneider-Kreuznach 210; it has no T or B shutter setting. It only has 1 to 100, and man are those numbers small and dim on the shutter speed selector. I have just noticed another unusual characteristic of the S-K. There is nothing on the lens/shutter to indicate the shutter manufacturer. The shutter speed selector is a "dial set" as opposed to a "ring set". From what I've read, these dial set lenses/shutters seem to be pre 1930. I think I will try to find a Kodak Ektar in the 300mm (normal) range. That will keep the camera 100% USA made. The tripod has a plate on it that reads "Mitchell Camera Corp. Los Angeles". Could that be the Same Mitchel of Hollywood movie camera renown? Here's a photo of the Steinbeil and the Schneider-Kreuznach. I'll also include the plate from the tripod. I think I have stumbled onto some pretty unusual vintage stuff here.
Thanks again for all the feedback.

The 210mm Angulon's Compound shutter has a button lever at the bottom it'll be hidden by the front cell, it has 3 positions I, B, & T.

Ian

Further on Ian's point, when the shutter is set to B or T trying to cock it will break it. To use the B or T settings, simply press the uncocked shutter's release. B for bulb (stays open as long as the released is pressed), T for time (one press opens it, a second press closes it).

Note that the settings may be Z, D and M. If I remember correctly, Z corresponds to T, D to I and M to B.

As Ian says, the Angulon's shutter is a Compound made by F. Deckel, München. Maybe you need a pair of tweezers to manipulate the shutter mode button. If the Weitwinkel Unofocal is anything like the normal Unofocals it should be easy to unscrew the front and back components from the shutter and then unscrew the individual elements for cleaning. The reflections inside the lens have the double-Gauss look, so maybe you can confirm if the inner elements are meniscus lenses when you take them apart for cleaning. The cloudiness looks like normal dirt/haze that old lenses often have.

I see that the Ibsor shutter has a small hole just above the AGC logotype. It's for taking photos you self want to be in. You tie a long thread to a needle pin and insert it into the hole, then you trip the shutter. The shutter will fire when you pull the needle out.

jmccl@yahoo.com said:

The tripod has a plate on it that reads "Mitchell Camera Corp. Los Angeles". Could that be the Same Mitchel of Hollywood movie camera renown?

Click to expand...

Most likely due to the name, and the famous Mitchell to my undrstanding next to many versions of heads made tripods too.