Vintage Lens Recommendations

[softfascination]

Hi all,

I realize that there are probably a hundred of these kinds of threads on here but I find that it's a little confusing as there's so much info.

I'm determined to figure out and master the wily Arista Ortho Litho 3.0. I really like it's look. While browsing the film on flickr I noticed one shooter had some vintage glass (Steinheil München Anastigmat Actinar 4.5; 135mm) as well as some modern glass. The modern glass looked too sharp for what I'm interested in with this film. I'm looking to do macro as well and normal photography with this film and am looking for some recommendations for glass.

I prefer something in the $200 and under range. I'd like something in the 135mm range. A shutter is not necessary as my film speed is ISO 3 (but I'm open to the idea as I could then use faster films). Again I'd like to do normal as well as 1:1 & 2:1.

Brass barrel lenses look great but then I'm not sure what the mounting situation is with those (I'm open to making/printing my own lens board). I



My setup:
I have a Linhof Tech IV 4x5. My current lens is a Fujinon-W 135mm.

 

[madNbad]

Wollensak Grafex Optar 135 4.7. There are a ton of them out there and most are well under a couple of hundred usd. Nice camera, BTW.

 

[Dan Fromm]

What do you mean by vintage lens? I ask because the big divide between modern and other lenses occurred around 1892 when the first anastigmats came to market. Lens designs have improved -- greater coverage given aperture, better control of aberrations, sometimes even lower prices -- since then but nothing significant has changed.

The Actinar is a triplet. Another anastigmat type, another modern lens.

I don't know what you mean by macro, but the good cheap choice for closeup work is an enlarging lens, reversed if shooting about 1:1. The 150/5.6 Schneider Comparon, whose cells are direct fits in a #0 shutter, might suit you. Usually less expensive than the equivalent Componon/Componon-S.

 

[softfascination]

Wollensak Grafex Optar 135 4.7. There are a ton of them out there and most are well under a couple of hundred usd. Nice camera, BTW.

Thanks for the recommendation!

What do you mean by vintage lens? I ask because the big divide between modern and other lenses occurred around 1892 when the first anastigmats came to market. Lens designs have improved -- greater coverage given aperture, better control of aberrations, sometimes even lower prices -- since then but nothing significant has changed.

The Actinar is a triplet. Another anastigmat type, another modern lens.

I don't know what you mean by macro, but the good cheap choice for closeup work is an enlarging lens, reversed if shooting about 1:1. The 150/5.6 Schneider Comparon, whose cells are direct fits in a #0 shutter, might suit you. Usually less expensive than the equivalent Componon/Componon-S.

Basically I'm just looking for something softer than my modern Fuji. It's intentionally open as I want to see what people recommend so I can look up examples.

 

[John Earley]

You may like a Wollaston Meniscus lens http://re-inventedphotoequip.com/Formats.html

Some examples here http://www.re-inventedphotoequip.com/Guest_Gallery.html

 

[Paul Howell]

Many lens from the 30s, 40s, and 50s, as already recommended the Wollensak 135, Kodak 127, Bush and Lomb made a few Tessars, in 135, 210, for that matter single or uncoated German glass, I have an uncoated 135 5.6 Zeiss, pleasant softness. By the 70s most lens were becoming really sharp.

 

[removedacct1]

Any uncoated Tessar from the 1930s - 1950s will do. I have several Kodak Anastigmats and they are pleasantly sharp without being clinical, and they have reduced contrast because they are uncoated. I've used them with Ortho Litho and other high contrast emulsions (like Foma Liquid Photo Emulsion) to good effect. Example: https://flic.kr/p/2kRHzBG

 

[softfascination]

You may like a Wollaston Meniscus lens http://re-inventedphotoequip.com/Formats.html

Some examples here http://www.re-inventedphotoequip.com/Guest_Gallery.html

Any uncoated Tessar from the 1930s - 1950s will do. I have several Kodak Anastigmats and they are pleasantly sharp without being clinical, and they have reduced contrast because they are uncoated. I've used them with Ortho Litho and other high contrast emulsions (like Foma Liquid Photo Emulsion) to good effect. Example: https://flic.kr/p/2kRHzBG

Many lens from the 30s, 40s, and 50s, as already recommended the Wollensak 135, Kodak 127, Bush and Lomb made a few Tessars, in 135, 210, for that matter single or uncoated German glass, I have an uncoated 135 5.6 Zeiss, pleasant softness. By the 70s most lens were becoming really sharp.

Thank you all for these great recommendations!

 

[AnselMortensen]

I second what Paul said above...
Uncoated Tessars are inexpensive, readily available and are not super sharp until stopped down.
Early Schneider Xenars are Tessar-type, I have one and love its rendering.
Other Tessar-type lenses like Wollensak Velostigmat Series II f4.5, & Ilex Paragons are good choices.
Also, triplets like Hugo Meyer Trioplans have nice rendering, but are becoming pricey.
Avoid the temptation to buy an Oscillo- Anything lens.

 

[maltfalc]

Avoid the temptation to buy an Oscillo- Anything lens.

a 75mm f/1.9 oscillo-paragon would be great for macro, but only macro.

 

[Dan Fromm]

a 75mm f/1.9 oscillo-paragon would be great for macro, but only macro.

Interesting if true. Why do you believe that?

 

[Mark Crabtree]

I know I'm late to this, but wanted to offer a couple suggestions. I've moved backwards too, probably in part related to the eye poking sharpness, contrast, and color of modern images. I like most of the lenses mentioned here but I think the rapid rectiinear/aplanat type lenses are an obvious answer too. In the past I was totally dismissive of these, but was surprised how good these lenses actually are, and you sure can't beat them for cheap. Very large rr's can go high but 4x5 and 5x7 are often give aways anywhere but ebay. I've given away a half dozen or so this past year.

The downside is that they are commonly f8. Wollensak Versars are f6 and the small ones show up in your price range; these have a slightly softer image wide open, but sharp stopped down. Faster than that suddenly gets in to big prices. The other issue to be aware of is that these come from an era when US (Uniform System) stops were common. Be sure to read up on that so you can recognize those and understand the actual f stop. These lenses are usually symmetrical so should be good for close distance, plus are convertible to longer length by using only one cell. Some, like Wollensak Voltas, are triple convertible. There is also the odd situation that these probably cost a bit more in barrel than the funky early shutters.

I don't know if you do portraits, but the other lens that can sometimes be found for cheap are the petzval type projection lenses. Ebay is tough for those since they got to be a fad, so probably a trusted seller like someone here or the large format forum is better. The cheap ones will be without aperture control, but not too fast for your use.

 

[nosmok]

Find an old 3A format folder (Ansco has been my got-to brand, they are underpriced compared to Kodak). Some have 'good' lenses (Goerz Dagor, TTH Cooke, Zeiss/BL Tessar) but the cheapest ones (Ilex in Bionic Shutter, say) will work a treat, and will cover 4x5 all right, since they were designed for 3-1/4 x 5-1/2. Main drawback is many are calibrated in "Universal" stops for the aperture (8 - 256 in powers of 2). If you can't find it anywhere else I have a U-stop to F-stop conversion chart. My shutters, more than 100 years old, have been spot on-- either luck or previous work on them. The old Bionics took a shot of PTFE (removed the lens elements first) and drying in the sun. They were so cheap I felt I could take a flyer cleaning them myself-- the Dagors etc I'd send to a pro.

 

[GKC]

+1 for the Wollaston Meniscus.
Old Magic Lantern lenses also.
You could also degrade the sharpness of your modern lens by rubber banding some nylon hosiery over the front, or for selective sharpness, putting a thick schmear of K-Y jelly(because it's water soluble so easily removed) or Vaseline around the edge of a filter.

 

[lobitar]

Re. old Tessars: by way of warning here's what Andreas Feininger wrote in one of his very last posts in his column "Large Format" in Modern Photography (must have been right around 1970): (his opinion was that prewar/uncoated lenses) "were every bit as sharp as modern lenses, especially the 6,3 Tessars".
Personally I like the prewar Rodenstock Eurynar Anastigmat (dialyt-type); they are cheap lenses but gives a fine, mellow sharpness. Likeways for some Rapid Rectilinears, by the way.

 

[gone]

I agree w/ the post above, don't necessarily expect an uncoated Tessar to not be sharp (but it will be sharp in a completely different way than a modern lens). The uncoated Tessars on a Rolleiflex and Crown Graphic I had were very sharp.

 

[JPD]

While browsing the film on flickr I noticed one shooter had some vintage glass (Steinheil München Anastigmat Actinar 4.5; 135mm) as well as some modern glass. The modern glass looked too sharp for what I'm interested in with this film.

I looked at the Actinar photos on Flickr and liked them, but there is no way that Steinheil designed the lens to perform like that. The Actinar is a triplet, but the photos looke like they were taken with an achromat, periscope or even a simple meniscus lens. Even with the lens stopped down only a part in the center is somewhat sharp. A triplet shouldn't behave this way, unless maybe the middle lens element has been flipped around.

I would recommend a triplet in a good shutter, like the Meyer Trioplan, Friedrich Corygon and similar lenses used at large apertures. Stopped down the sharpness and corners improve.

Doppel-anastigmat dialytes like the Eurynar, Veraplan, Helioplan, Dogmar, Celor, Syntor, Coronar, Isconar, Sytar and others, are often sharper than the Tessar even out in the corners. They just have lower contrast and are prone to flare.

 

[removed account4]

you might look at old folders and box cameras
and harvest the lenses off of them. the cameras are a dime a dozen
and since you will be using slow film you don't need a shutter.
have fun!
John

 

[JPD]

you might look at old folders and box cameras
and harvest the lenses off of them. the cameras are a dime a dozen
and since you will be using slow film you don't need a shutter.

Or get a Zeiss Ikon Box Tengor and use it as it is, since it's 6x9. It has a Frontar achromat lens with three aperture stops and built in lenses for closer distances.

The Box Tengor can produce photos that resemble the ones taken with the (faulty?) Actinar examples on Flickr.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/droidmedia/8552339101/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nickademusss/32703645148/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mosbies/8852219781/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/leavingorbit/48026230221/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/allaspectsphotography/49405795577/

 

[Arthurwg]

I've used a Graf Veriable lens on my Super D. Adjustable from sharp to soft via F stops. Works great.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

You are probably objecting to the contrast of modern lenses. Get an old uncoated lens. The Eurynar suggestion is a good one. I have a 135 f/3.5 Eurynar and it is a nice lens. Not too sharp and the contrast is less because of all the uncoated glass. My first lens was an uncoated Zeiss Tessar. That was sharp enough and again, the contrast was less than anything modern. I have a Rapid Rectilinear around here somewhere. Same thing. There are lots of good suggestions for you in this thread. Get something in a shutter though. It just makes everything easier.

 

[softfascination]

You are probably objecting to the contrast of modern lenses. Get an old uncoated lens. The Eurynar suggestion is a good one. I have a 135 f/3.5 Eurynar and it is a nice lens. Not too sharp and the contrast is less because of all the uncoated glass. My first lens was an uncoated Zeiss Tessar. That was sharp enough and again, the contrast was less than anything modern. I have a Rapid Rectilinear around here somewhere. Same thing. There are lots of good suggestions for you in this thread. Get something in a shutter though. It just makes everything easier.

That's a good point re: the shutter. Would give me a whole lot more usability with it.

 

[softfascination]

Or get a Zeiss Ikon Box Tengor and use it as it is, since it's 6x9. It has a Frontar achromat lens with three aperture stops and built in lenses for closer distances.

The Box Tengor can produce photos that resemble the ones taken with the (faulty?) Actinar examples on Flickr.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/droidmedia/8552339101/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nickademusss/32703645148/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mosbies/8852219781/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/leavingorbit/48026230221/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/allaspectsphotography/49405795577/

Love this look.
I found one on the Bay for $30. It's got me GASing.

Thank you!

 

[outwest]

Older lenses often have diaphragms with a great number of leaves that give a very round aperture which can give a different look to out of focus areas.

 

[maltfalc]

Interesting if true. Why do you believe that?

it's a symmetrical lens specifically designed for shooting at or near 1:1, it won't cover 4x5 unless doing macro, it's an easy to focus f/3.9 at 1:1, it comes with a good shutter, the image quality is decent, it doesn't require much bellows extension and it gives a natural looking fov at 1:1 similar to a 150mm lens shooting a regular non-macro subject.