TURNER-REICH 8X10 TRIPLE CONVERT LENS 28/21/12 INCH

Hi:

Can anyone that knows older lenses tell me about this lens, in terms of it's image making qualities assuming the glass is in excellent condition? I'd be interested in how well it performs in 12" with both elements and then in the 21" and 28" single cell configurations. The good thing is that the negatives made form it will be contact printed which will help a great deal. I know the Cooke Convertible lenses of its day were valued, but what about this lens?

Any info, especially from anyone that uses one, would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

-R

I have a 15" 11 x 14 triple conv. I have not used the single cells but it is my favorite for 7 x 17.

There are definitely better, more modern convertibles, but for a vintage lens the TR triple performs quite well. It is, of course, better corrected when using the 12" configuration. The addition of a yellow filter helps to sharpen the 21" and 28" back up. I have one that I use quite happily on 8x10.

Edward Weston shot hundreds of negatives with this lens, (IIRC he didn't like the 21" focal length) so if the lens is in good shape, you won't be able to blame it for much.

If it's in a Betax shutter ,quite common for Gundlach lenses, make sure you have very strong cable releases.

My Gundlach Radar lens takes some force to cock & trip the Betax shutter, even more than is required for a Protor Press.

Ian

TURNER-REICH 8X10

Reggie, I own and use this lens on 8x10. I like the effect although it's hard for me to describe. I primarily use the 12-inch configuration but have tried the 21-inch. These were landscapes. I am interested in trying it as a portrait lens, hopefully soon. Craig

I have a 12-19-25 in a Betax shutter. I shoot primarily at 12 and 19 inches with an orange filter when converted to 19 inches. At contact print size I think you will be surprised and pleased at the quality of the images it can produce at all focal lengths.

I performed the Fred Picker "tree braches at infinity test" using a telephone wire and it is sharp as a tack at 19 inches focal length. There is a construction crane in the image and you can count the spars in the boom. That's sharp enough for me any way.

They are heavy, but no more so than 3 lenses, probably less. Plus you have one shutter to deal with for accuracy. Speaking of shutters the Betax 5shutters are a bit funky so don't expect a high shutter speed of much more than 1/25 of a second. Speed isn't a problem at f32 or greater with a filter anyway. At and below 1/25 the speeds tested right on after a CLA.

They have plenty of coverage for back tilt and front rise but front tilt can be a bit problematic. The lens mounts are a bit long and can lead to vignetting in some instances. As luck would have it I never use front tilt so it's not a problem for me.

All in all I think they may be a bit under appreciated for what they are, which is affordable. Can't speak to color, don't shoot it. Flare isn't a problem, I avoid it.

Hope that helps.

Thanks for the information, everyone. I appreciate the cooments by those that actually own and have used one. I was hoping that it would be as sharp as reported. I had forgotten about using a yellow\orange filter to when using a single cell. I will be sure to do that. I'll probably use it mostly with the 12" configuration. It has an Ilex NO. 4 Universal Shutter. I don't own any vintage shutters, all my other ones are modern Copal\Prontor shutters. I assume that 1/25th, the middle setting, would probably be the most accurate. I'll test the speeds and find out.

All in all it sounds like a good lens for 8x10 contact printing and using a lens shade will probably help it a lot outdoors along with the filters.

Thanks again.

-R

I have one, but I haven't used it yet. Don't have a flange, don't have a bellows, don't have a lens board. Paid too much for the god damned thing too.

Looks like a good lens though.

Anybody know how old these are? Mine has got a serial number in the 2xxxxxx range (don't have it here) and is in a betax #4.

I have used mine only a couple times -- with the 28" cell behind the shutter and a weak orange (actually a warming filter) filter in front of the shutter. Both times I had the lens closed down to F45 or f64.

The negatives are a little soft in the corners. I would have to do more testing to see if it was truely the lens at fault or if it was the operator. My Zone VI is at its bellows limit to focus at infinity with the 28". Perhaps having the lens closed down all the way did the lens an injustice.

If I had an 8x10 back on my Kodak 2D, I would be able to play with the lens a little more, as it has enough bellows. I have never used the TR in the 12" and 21" because I have better lenses for those focal lengths, and there is some of separation in the 21" element.

Vaughn

Below is an image taken with the 28" element (neg scan).

JBrunner said:

There are definitely better, more modern convertibles, but for a vintage lens the TR triple performs quite well. It is, of course, better corrected when using the 12" configuration. The addition of a yellow filter helps to sharpen the 21" and 28" back up. I have one that I use quite happily on 8x10.

Edward Weston shot hundreds of negatives with this lens, (IIRC he didn't like the 21" focal length) so if the lens is in good shape, you won't be able to blame it for much.

Click to expand...

A quick question - I'm working on a series of work shot on 8x10 and it means I'm on the move and working out of back packs. However the prints for the gallery will be 60x40 and was thinking of finding a cookie triple conversion lens to shoot this on. QUESTION - do you think I will get sharper images shooting on regular schneider lenses than on the cookie lens? Your advice would be much appreciated.. Luke