Struss lenses

[MDR]

Actually it's a doublet. Or an achromatic doublet achromatic is a description of the lens correction and form achromat (corrected for chromatic apparations) achromats can have one lens or be composed of several lens elements. . There is such a thing as a double meniscus btw it's composed of two meniscus lenses and is therefore called double meniscus. The french meniscus landscape lens a variation of the achromat was composed of two meniscus elements.

But all in all you are right a rr is composed of two achromatic doublets. My mistake

 

[jp498]

My understanding of he RR is that it's symmetry cancels out some aberrations that are common to each lens/group. This means each lens would be imperfect by design and has potential for soft focus goodness.
An achromatic doublet would be like a Kodak portrait or Imagon and was also a pretty common SF lens. People are doing great photos today with magnifying glasses, wollaston menisci, and doublets.

I'd love to have a Struss pictorial lens, but don't want to pay for it. I think it's valuable now, not because of technical innovation, but because it was designed by a well known multi-talented photographer who was part of the photo secession and knew what he wanted in a lens. The old P&S lenses are also valuable because they were bespokely (not even a word I know) made at the direction of people like Coburn/Day who knew what they wanted for hardware to make the images they had in mind. It'd be like going out to eat with Bobby Flay or Paula Deen, and they tell the staff they want something particular they had in mind and that's not on the menu and they get it, and we'd be like, "I'll have the same".

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've certainly seen some vintage images done with Struss lenses that had a slightly different special look to them that I found very pleasing.
But maybe someone could make a fifty dollar lens nowadays that would be close enough. Not something I'm going to do because that isn't my
own genre. But I could kick myself for not purchasing a couple of exceptional Julia Cameron prints for a couple grand apiece, way back when.
But that would have been a lot of money to me back then... And I certainly wouldn't call someone asking a few thousand bucks for a rare lens necessarily a crook. I might call the purchaser a sucker under certain circumstances; but it's no crime to offer something at a high price if it is authentic and the description of it is accurate. Look what collectors pay for old cars, motorcycles, and even baseball cards. It's their money to spend. Will it make them great photographers themselves, by acquiring something like that? Not likely.

 

[jimgalli]

........half baked opinions gleaned from legend based on "galli says".

This moron is banned at LFForum and not missed. Wanna talk about half baked opinions . . ?

 

[LJH]

This moron is banned at LFForum and not missed. Wanna talk about half baked opinions . . ?

Most of us know that you've probably forgotten more about lenses than this goose knows, Jim...

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Let's stick to lenses and back off on the name calling, folks.

 

[johnielvis]

Interesting.

Almost all of the contributers to the discussion show an open mind and seem to have been very receptive to the facts presented in the Dr.'s dissertation. There are exactly two people who have reacted with hostility at the facts being presented:

Mr. "Go Mule" (struss lens peddler)

and

galli (struss lens peddler).

Why would the two struss lens peddlers react with such hostility at the facts and conclusions in the Dr.'s paper? One would think that they would be overjoyed to learn these new facts. But they are hostile to them. Perhaps they don't like these facts getting out to the people because they perceive it will ruin their future sales? That seems to be the only conclusion one can make.

Pity--they should applaud the information. With this information, someone who is considering a struss can buy a reinhold to "try it out" without laying out a huge dollar investment. Then, if they like the results, they can make their struss purchase. The lens peddlers don't see this positive aspect.

It's the information age, people, the truth gets out--learn to use it to your advantage.

 

[jimgalli]

Interesting.

Almost all of the contributers to the discussion show an open mind and seem to have been very receptive to the facts presented in the Dr.'s dissertation. There are exactly two people who have reacted with hostility at the facts being presented:

Mr. "Go Mule" (struss lens peddler)

and

galli (struss lens peddler).

Why would the two struss lens peddlers react with such hostility at the facts and conclusions in the Dr.'s paper? One would think that they would be overjoyed to learn these new facts. But they are hostile to them. Perhaps they don't like these facts getting out to the people because they perceive it will ruin their future sales? That seems to be the only conclusion one can make.

Pity--they should applaud the information. With this information, someone who is considering a struss can buy a reinhold to "try it out" without laying out a huge dollar investment. Then, if they like the results, they can make their struss purchase. The lens peddlers don't see this positive aspect.

It's the information age, people, the truth gets out--learn to use it to your advantage.

:rolleyes: unsubscribed. jim out.

 

[eclarke]

johnielvis, Maybe some can afford Struss lenses and just like them..Why is it such an issue with you? I have one and a couple Reinholds too..like them all.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Jim Galli strikes me as more of a lens user, a true addict, than himself a peddler. Look at the kind of images he takes. He seems to let go of his lenses reluctantly, only when he needs funds for a new old toy. So some of us, who are not personally into that kind of look, still appreciate his
input into these nuances.

 

[johnielvis]

johnielvis, Maybe some can afford Struss lenses and just like them..Why is it such an issue with you? I have one and a couple Reinholds too..like them all.

Great--you are a candidate for the "missing information"--the comparison.

If you find the time, could you shoot your struss vs a reinhold of a similar focal length? Shoot the same subject at the same magnification and post the results? Perhaps two different type of subject--one "up close" like a portrait distrance and one at infinity.

Maybe you have done this already? That's what is needed. The paper says it's a standard old mensicus, the peddlers say it's something extra special due to hand grinding and this after extra careful manufacturing to exacting special specs (maybe these are in the patent? maybe mustafa can help out with the patent info--he's always doing patent searches)

Anyways--the paper says it's nothing special and that's the suspicion. But results will speak volumes. I hear a lot of talk about how magick they are but there's been nothing really majickal out there.

Struss made some majickal images--did he use a struss lens for these? maybe--and if so, maybe it's not the lens that was special, but struss technique of shooting at three different apertures?

First things first--let's see if it's a cheater eyeglass diopter/magnifying glass--if so, then we can start looking for the technique that makes the majickal images instead of searching for the "rare bird" that is apparently the only thing that can be used to make majick.

 

[jp498]

I'm convinced magical results with soft focus result from practice and shooting and learning more than from rare glass. I think the F64 revolution came about because photographers were frustrated with the challenge of getting magical image with magic glass and it was magnitudes easier to visualize a straight photo rather than a pictorialist photo.

If someone is more practiced with a Reinhold they can make killer photos with it and perhaps not with a Struss. Someone who has shot hundreds of sheets with a Struss and never used a Reinhold will likely produce nicer images consistenly wtih the Struss. It's about ongoing success with a familiar lens rather than side by side comparison.

 

[goamules]

There are exactly two people who have reacted with hostility at the facts being presented:
Mr. "Go Mule" (struss lens peddler)
and
galli (struss lens peddler).
Why would the two struss lens peddlers react with such hostility at the facts and conclusions in the Dr.'s paper? .....
It's the information age, people, the truth gets out--learn to use it to your advantage....

I just peeked into this forum, and this thread out of macabe curiosity. Yep...what I expected, Johnielvis is making friends and influencing people. Johnielvis, I only gave one reply to your windy, trolling thread, and with no hostility. Why do you put SO MANY words in my mouth? Blathering about being "afraid for the truth to get out" and such is trying to ascribe motive to ....nothing.....

Open callout - why did YOU start a thread bashing a particular lens type? Why did YOU start calling me and others "lens peddlers"? It seems YOU had the agenda when starting this post.

I take pictures with my lenses. Lots and lots of pictures. I give workshops to teach people wetplate (for the cheapest price around by the way). I do Gratis wetplate portraits for local clubs. I've done wetplate demos for the public and the Western Photography Historical Society. I write articles about antique, rare lenses, which are published. I consult with some of the top collectors in the world and travel to buy and discuss lenses. I moderate and designed several LF websites. I helped create World Wetplate Day, which published a book that paid for a new headstone for Archer in London. This is just a little of the Photo community support I've done. Jim has done a lot more than I to advocate LF including workshops. If it weren't for him, and others like him, I wouldn't be doing LF. I sell a few lenses, very cheaply, to very satisfied customers. Duplicates that I'm not using.

Now, Johnielvis, what have YOU done (notwithstanding your reputation which precedes you)? Call me a "peddler" again and see what I call you.

 

[gandolfi]

I'm convinced magical results with soft focus result from practice and shooting and learning more than from rare glass. I think the F64 revolution came about because photographers were frustrated with the challenge of getting magical image with magic glass and it was magnitudes easier to visualize a straight photo rather than a pictorialist photo.

If someone is more practiced with a Reinhold they can make killer photos with it and perhaps not with a Struss. Someone who has shot hundreds of sheets with a Struss and never used a Reinhold will likely produce nicer images consistenly wtih the Struss. It's about ongoing success with a familiar lens rather than side by side comparison.

+1

 

[removed account4]

+1

+2

 

[jimgalli]

First things first--let's see if it's a cheater eyeglass diopter/magnifying glass--if so, then we can start looking for the technique that makes the majickal images instead of searching for the "rare bird" that is apparently the only thing that can be used to make majick.

The Struss is a specially ground single element meniscus such that if you looked at the element sideways, it looks like a little mexican hat. Struss worked many of the inherent flaws of a simple meniscus out of the lens by his design. It is completely unique in the lens world.

So, your comparison to Reinhold's meniscus (which is very excellent in it's own right) is ignorant, as is your comparison to eye-glasses and simple looking glass magnifiers. You are simply an ignorant person bloviating about something you have no knowledge of what-so-ever. Why am I educating you? Should just leave it alone, you're your own worst enemy. Learn to spell for goodness sake.

Magic comes from intelligent use. The difficulty for some folk is the fourth word in the previous sentence.

Show us some pictures mr. elvis. Or, kindly shut-_ _ _-_ _ _ _-up. This is a hobby folks. It's supposed to be fun.

 

[jimgalli]

Thinking about this, I'll add something else of interest;

The Struss would be the simplest of lenses to 'reverse engineer' and copy by the thousands in China. Except for one thing. If you gathered all of the surviving Struss lenses together at the machine that measures them, you'd find every one of them slightly different. So which one do you pick to clone

That's an educated guess folks. Something that is lacking in every post made by the O.P.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Jimbo, you said you were gone from this discussion. Gone! And here you are again. :eek:

You have lost all credibility. I will never trust you again. Never.

 

[jimgalli]

Jimbo, you said you were gone from this discussion. Gone! And here you are again. :eek:

You have lost all credibility. I will never trust you again. Never.

It's Garrett's fault.

 

[goamules]

Noooo.....Not me! I should have never made even one, intsy comment at all. Should have not taken the bait! Sorry...I'm out!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Thank you for describing what I have long suspected, Jim. That will suffice until I actually make my barefoot pilgrimage to Tonopah!

 

[gandolfi]

Thinking about this, I'll add something else of interest;

The Struss would be the simplest of lenses to 'reverse engineer' and copy by the thousands in China. Except for one thing. If you gathered all of the surviving Struss lenses together at the machine that measures them, you'd find every one of them slightly different. So which one do you pick to clone

That's an educated guess folks. Something that is lacking in every post made by the O.P.

so it's like re-engeneering(sp? sorry, I am Danish..) a Stradivarius?

Should be possible.... but isn't!

 

[eclarke]

Great--you are a candidate for the "missing information"--the comparison.

If you find the time, could you shoot your struss vs a reinhold of a similar focal length? Shoot the same subject at the same magnification and post the results? Perhaps two different type of subject--one "up close" like a portrait distrance and one at infinity.

Maybe you have done this already? That's what is needed. The paper says it's a standard old mensicus, the peddlers say it's something extra special due to hand grinding and this after extra careful manufacturing to exacting special specs (maybe these are in the patent? maybe mustafa can help out with the patent info--he's always doing patent searches)

Anyways--the paper says it's nothing special and that's the suspicion. But results will speak volumes. I hear a lot of talk about how magick they are but there's been nothing really majickal out there.

Struss made some majickal images--did he use a struss lens for these? maybe--and if so, maybe it's not the lens that was special, but struss technique of shooting at three different apertures?

First things first--let's see if it's a cheater eyeglass diopter/magnifying glass--if so, then we can start looking for the technique that makes the majickal images instead of searching for the "rare bird" that is apparently the only thing that can be used to make majick.

GOD! too much thinking about a really trivial thing..Give it up..If you want a comparison, don't try to get somebody else to do it for your trivial issue..Buy one and do it yourself...

 

[Dave Wooten]

...bloviating

 

[winterclock]

Now you've done it Jim, the word is out and the market will soon be flooded with chinese lomo Struss mexican hat lenses. Thus ends the conspiracy.