Voigtländer Bessa II APO Lanthar 105mm: why so expensive?

[darkosaric]

I see that Voigtländer Bessa II APO Lanthar 105mm folder cameras are more than 8000$, is this some rare collector item, or it has some magical properties ? I mean, Plaubel Makina is already expensive, but this one is 3 times the price.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Cult lens. Nice, if overly complicated inside, camera.

 

[removedacct1]

Apo Lanthar lenses come with their own Geiger counter. That's why they are $$$ ;-)

 

[JPD]

The Heliar was already a cult lens since half a century, so the design wasn't improved much upon because Voigtländer wanted to keep its characteristics. But with a new name the design team could basically have free hands, and they developed the Apo-Lanthar. It's similar to the Heliar (Dynar, rather) design but has Lanthanum glass for better colour correction. It's a step up from the Heliar, but from the pictures I have seen taken with the Bessa II with Apo-Lanthar the difference isn't that great. But it's more rare and a cult lens.

I have no desire to get a Bessa II with Apo-Lanthar. I'm happy with the E-Bessa with uncoated Heliar. But I wouldn't say no if someone who didn't know what they had wanted to sell one for $100.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The lens is legendary with the frisson of radioactive glass, and I love Heliars, but it might be a waste to use an Apo-Lanthar on the body of a folding tourist camera. I used to have a Bessa-II with a Heliar, and I thought it had film flatness problems. I have real doubts about film flatness on any older compact 6x9 folding tourist camera. If you compare any of those cameras from the 1950s to something like a sturdy 6x9 Linhof Super-Rollex back, you’ll see the back weighs almost as much as a whole folding camera.

I think 6x6 is the sweet spot for the compact folding camera. After experimenting with a few folders ranging from 35mm to 6x9, I settled on the 6x6 Voigtlander Perkeo II as the keeper. It’s more compact than many 35mm cameras and the film flatness of the smaller square frame is quite reasonable. Now if that came with an Apo-Lanthar...

 

[itsdoable]

I'd like to point out that the apo-Lanthar uses lanthanum doped glass, which it not considered radioactive.

It is thorium doped glass that is radioactive. They get mixed up a lot because both types of glasses were intorduced around the same time, and used for higher end optics.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I'd like to point out that the apo-Lanthar uses lanthanum doped glass, which it not considered radioactive.

It is thorium doped glass that is radioactive. They get mixed up a lot because both types of glasses were intorduced around the same time, and used for higher end optics.

The famous 1950s Leitz 50mm f/2.8 Elmer lens used lanthanum glass. Some of the Pentax Takumar lenses from the 1970s had the thorium glass, including my 50mm f/1.8 sample. It has a slight yellow tone.

 

[Alex Varas]

The lens is legendary with the frisson of radioactive glass, and I love Heliars, but it might be a waste to use an Apo-Lanthar on the body of a folding tourist camera. I used to have a Bessa-II with a Heliar, and I thought it had film flatness problems. I have real doubts about film flatness on any older compact 6x9 folding tourist camera. If you compare any of those cameras from the 1950s to something like a sturdy 6x9 Linhof Super-Rollex back, you’ll see the back weighs almost as much as a whole folding camera.

I think 6x6 is the sweet spot for the compact folding camera. After experimenting with a few folders ranging from 35mm to 6x9, I settled on the 6x6 Voigtlander Perkeo II as the keeper. It’s more compact than many 35mm cameras and the film flatness of the smaller square frame is quite reasonable. Now if that came with an Apo-Lanthar...

I have never had a Bessa II 6x9 so I can’t say much about its film flatness but I agree is the main problem of them, I still have one Inos II 6x9 and 6.5x11 and this design (no film pressure plate) gave my so far pretty good negatives. Another problem with folders of this size is the plate holding the shutter, many times bended due bad closing from previous owners so different sharpness from left to right, other 6x9 folders I have sold them after first roll, still I like this Inos II, very compact for a 6x9.
Perkeo II, yes, a keeper!

 

[Dan Daniel]

Is a yellow tint exclusive to thorium glass? Both Schneider Xenotars on early Rolleiflexes and the Ektar in Kodak Medalists have a definite yellow tint to the rear groups.

 

[itsdoable]

Is a yellow tint exclusive to thorium glass? Both Schneider Xenotars on early Rolleiflexes and the Ektar in Kodak Medalists have a definite yellow tint to the rear groups.

Yellow tinting over time is a sign that the glass may contain thorium. Thorium is a alpha emitter, which causes dislocations in the glass matrix when it interacts, Accumulation of these dislocations in the glass causes the yellow tint. All of the thorium doped lenses that I have encountered are noticeably yellow when you hold them up against a white background.

Yellow tint can also come from the balsam used to cement doublet/triplets. Canadian balsam was used because it did not yellow, but a lot of the Russian/Ukranian L39 lenses show this yellow tint, and are not radioactive. This yellow is slightly different from the thorium yellow, balsam yellow tinting is slightly brown. You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference unless you have both side by side.

A gieger counter is the best way to tell, thorium doped lenses (and radium dial watches) are easily detected thus. Most university physics departments, and radiation therapy cancer centers will have one if you want to check.

I am not aware that the Medalist's Ektar has thorium. Some early Xenotars have been reported as using thorium doped glass, but I thought they were only on larger format lenses.