Vade Mecum...............

[Charles Webb]

As I have said many times before, it don't take much to fool me!

What the heck is a "Lens Collectors Vade Mecum" ? I keep seeing these adds on ebay, I have a faint idea, but anyone want to bring me up to speed?

The name Vade Mecum sounds a lot like the "gozenta" that holds the "crovisrovis" in place on the front of a HMI synced antique Terraplane shutter. Perhaps I am wrong in my assumption, so a better explanition would be appreciated.

Charlie......................................

 

[Andy K]

Vade mecum is a reference book or handbook. It is a latin term meaning 'goes with me' I believe. Why these people can't just write 'a Lens Collector's Handbook' is beyond me.

 

[Dan Fromm]

It is a catalog of lenses. Incomplete, inconsistent, sometimes incorrect, in places infuriating, but on the whole invaluable. Where it differs from other lists of lenses with descriptions of their designs is in giving assessments of how well many of them shoot.

Andrew Glover says that many of the lens diagrams were lifted from H. M. Brandt's book the Photographic Lens. I have it too, find the VM much much more useful.

 

[Magpie]

It is a catalog of lenses. Incomplete, inconsistent, sometimes incorrect, in places infuriating, but on the whole invaluable. Where it differs from other lists of lenses with descriptions of their designs is in giving assessments of how well many of them shoot.

Andrew Glover says that many of the lens diagrams were lifted from H. M. Brandt's book the Photographic Lens. I have it too, find the VM much much more useful.

Is this the CD version? I have seen it advertised on the net at about GBP 5.00 plus shipping.

Is it worth having?

Brendan

 

[Mongo]

As Dan said...incomplete, inconsistent, incorrect, infuriating, but invaluable. If you're interested in lenses, it's just too good to pass up. On the other hand if you only have an occasional question, you can generally just ask and someone with the file will look up the answer for you.

Still...at the price it's almost impossible not to get a copy if you like lenses.

 

[Whiteymorange]

Got mine here:
http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/sell.htm

Seems pretty useful. Since copyright is an open question and there is no way I can verify if this is THE Vade Mecum spoken of in reverence by so many here, I don't claim anything for this thing other than it's usefulness as a reference. I bought mine about two months ago and learned a lot right away about lenses I have.

Truth in advertising: I have no connection to the supplier of this CD. I don't know the guy and I don't benefit in any way from anyone buying this CD. It just seems like a useful collection of information. I'd buy it again in a minute since most of the gear I own comes from the back rooms and bottom drawers of more serious collectors - and has little in the way of personal history or provenance. It even answered a question that I posed here some months ago to no avail. The Rietzschel camera that I own has two different distance scales on the bed. The Vade Mecum showed me that the camera had come with a casket set of lenses. Aha!

 

[Charles Webb]

Thanks Guy's. it turns out to be just what I thought it might be! I do appreciate everyones input. I ordered a copy, so I will have something new to play with.

Charlie.....................

 

[df cardwell]

incomplete, inconsistent, incorrect, infuriating, but invaluable

In short, exactly the kind of thing that has spread error, confusion, and misinformation in photography for decades.

Where it differs from other lists of lenses with descriptions of their designs is in giving assessments of how well many of them shoot.

Which may or may not be trustworthy... repeat a story often enough, it passes as true... but is not necessarily true.

Vade Mecum ? Caveat Emptor.

 

[Dan Fromm]

incomplete, inconsistent, incorrect, infuriating, but invaluable

In short, exactly the kind of thing that has spread error, confusion, and misinformation in photography for decades.

Where it differs from other lists of lenses with descriptions of their designs is in giving assessments of how well many of them shoot.

Which may or may not be trustworthy... repeat a story often enough, it passes as true... but is not necessarily true.

Vade Mecum ? Caveat Emptor.

df, the VM hasn't led me seriously astray yet. Its helped me find obscure lenses that shoot very well and that fit my small budget. I've been disappointed by few of the lenses that the VM is strongly positive about.

Most of the errors I've found in it have had to do with which design a lens is. With all due respect, whether a lens is a tessar or some other design makes little difference to me. And every source going is wrong about some, e.g., Boyer Saphirs. What matters most about a lens to me is how well it shoots; design doesn't predict that well enough to be used as a guide to purchasing.

If you want to stick with well-known, usually modern, lenses, you don't need the VM. But its a great help for those of us who chase old and obscure ones.

Cheers,

DF

 

[Dan Fromm]

Is this the CD version? I have seen it advertised on the net at about GBP 5.00 plus shipping.

Is it worth having?

Brendan

The VM won't answer all questions about older lenses and is very weak in several areas, but its well worth the money if you're interested in acquiring older or obscure lenses and have a limited budget. If, though, you have enough money, it would be better to buy everything, test everything, and make your own decisions.

Where's it weakest, IMO? US-made lenses, French-made lenses, and modern lenses from all countries, including nearly every lens made for 35 mm SLRs after autofocus came in.

Where's it strongest, IMO? UK-made lenses, German lenses. My neighbor the Zeiss collector says it isn't that good on Zeiss, but he's a perfectionist.

The alternatives are books, are hard to search very well, are much, much, less complete, and say nothing about how well any lens works.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[df cardwell]

I know, I know... but I've spent a LONNGGG time sorting the rubbish from the true in all kinds of photo publications. The worst are always the ones that rehash the 'legends' but never go near primary sources.

I was fortunate to have been around knowledgable old lens shooters starting out in the '60s, to have been around truly knowledgeable shooters along the way, to have been around a lot of neat old glass, and to have found the time to be able to shoot many of these lenses in controlled circumstances.

On my best day, I was only a second rate scholar. And I'm no expert. But it is sad to see much of the 'old knowledge' winnowed by time, and the Internet's knack for giving credibility to stories most often repeated.

The best thing that can happen - I think - is that we share our results, especially the positive results. Understanding WHY a particular lens performs well, and WHEN is more useful than having another list and some hearsay.

AND if we go after old catalogs and primary cources. An example of the latter is the 1934 American Journal of Photography, featuring a fine article by Verne Beckmeyer: "The Sharpness of Photographic Lenses". It is a thorough, and technically rigourous, comparison of the optical world of 1934. Beckmeyer described the performance of Elmars, Tessars, Biotars, Kodak Ansatigmats, Rapid Rectilinaers, Plasmats, Protars and a few others ! The most useful thing, to me, was Beckmeyer's methodology enabled me to do my own studies.

Old bookstores and librairies are still full of that stuff. For a little while, at least !

d