what lenses do you dislike?

df carwell said:

Does anybody realize the formula for the Heliar was derived from cabalic symbols ?
( this'll be fun )

Click to expand...

heliar....phallic symbols? is it a size thing?

acroell said:

450 and 600mm? I assume these are f/9 Apo-Tessars, not regular Tessars?

Click to expand...

Yes. Carl Zeiss Apo-Tessar F/9, 450mm and 600mm. Both barrel lenses. I have yet to try them out, but I wonder how they are. Any comments from a users? They seem to sell dirt cheep on Ebay (if they get any bids and sell at all!)

Ryan McIntosh
www.RyanMcIntosh.net

df cardwell said:

Does anybody realize the formula for the Heliar was derived from cabalic symbols ?
( this'll be fun )

Click to expand...

I thought that was the Kabbalahinar-C design. Shows you what I know. I think the truth in all this will be revealed in Dan Brown's forthcoming book "The DX Code".

Lee

acroell said:

450 and 600mm? I assume these are f/9 Apo-Tessars, not regular Tessars?

Click to expand...

Arne, I didn't think you could surprise me. Wrong again.

I'm with you, ApoTessars seem more likely, but fast, relatively, Tessars of those lengths were made.

The VM, which isn't always right, mentions 23.25" Tessar IIb and 20" Ic pre-WWI. Krauss 500/4.5 Tessars keep surfacing.

Not directly relevant, but I have a Boyer catalog sheet from 1982 that mentions 600/4.5 and 700/6.3 tessar type Saphirs.

Cheers,

Dan

jss said:

i have a schneider f8/90.. it is also pretty dark. what's a good alternative? is there a good backpacker's version?

Click to expand...

The grandagon 6.8 is quite nice

Ryan McIntosh said:

Yes. Carl Zeiss Apo-Tessar F/9, 450mm and 600mm. Both barrel lenses. I have yet to try them out, but I wonder how they are. Any comments from a users? They seem to sell dirt cheep on Ebay (if they get any bids and sell at all!)

Ryan McIntosh
www.RyanMcIntosh.net

Click to expand...

How are they ? SUPERB.

Apo Tessars are high contrast, high resolution lenses, quite a different signature from Apo Artars, which, by comparison, are low contrast. Apo Tessars are superb, the only caveat being they may seem 'hot' depending on what one is used to using. They have a pretty out of focus image, but the difference between what is exactly in focus and almost in focus is very distinct with these lenses.

They are easy to use in flat lighting: the image jumps on the groundglass.

You have a treasure.

Pretty hefty, aren't they ?

.

df cardwell said:

How are they ? SUPERB.

Apo Tessars are high contrast, high resolution lenses, quite a different signature from Apo Artars, which, by comparison, are low contrast. Apo Tessars are superb, the only caveat being they may seem 'hot' depending on what one is used to using. They have a pretty out of focus image, but the difference between what is exactly in focus and almost in focus is very distinct with these lenses.

They are easy to use in flat lighting: the image jumps on the groundglass.

You have a treasure.

Pretty hefty, aren't they ?

.

Click to expand...

As far as hefty weight...they are really not that bad. I purchased a Apo-germinar 600mm and found it was WAY to huge and WAY to heavy for my camera. The Apo-Tessar is of decent weight actually.

As far as a hefty price, the 450mm was 50 bucks and the 600 about 80. Both are in near mint condition. Not sure why they dont sell for more money! They both have a very larger coverage on my 11x14 and seem quite sharp on the glass.

colrehogan said:

Jason,
No offense taken. Which three G-Clarons do you have?

Lachlan,
The thing that a lot of people like about the G-Clarons is their coverage on the larger formats, i.e. 8x10 and upwards.

p.s. Don't tell, but if you don't mind soft corners, you can get away with using a Kodak 203 mm f/7.7 on 8x10

Click to expand...

Seriously?! I have a Kodak 203mm f7.7 (which I like) that I use on my 5x7. I guess I'll be making a new lens board for the 8x10 this weekend.

Well, I'm sure it depends a great deal on what your subject matter is. I've only tried it once with mine, and it was a landscape. I'll have to dig out the neg and see if I had it printed at any time (I'm notorious for shooting and not printing immediately). I do know that I had it stopped all they way down to f/45 for the shot (this is the max for the Flash Supermatic shutter).

Ryan McIntosh said:

As far as hefty weight...they are really not that bad. I purchased an Apo-Germinar 600mm and found it was WAY to huge and WAY to heavy for my camera. The Apo-Tessar is of decent weight actually.

As far as a hefty price, the 450mm was 50 bucks and the 600 about 80. Both are in near mint condition. Not sure why they dont sell for more money! They both have a very larger coverage on my 11x14 and seem quite sharp on the glass.

Click to expand...

Lens weight is actually quite variable depending on the age, that is whether they used brass or aluminum mounts. I have several 300mm Apo-Tessars, from a prewar uncoated one to the last version before the discontinuation. I don't have the numbers here, but the old one is easily 50% heavier than the latest one, with identical design and size of the mount. The comparison to the 600mm Apo-Germinar has to take into account that a) the Apo-Germinars 600mm and up have 6 lenses vs. the Apo-Tessar's 4 and b)that Zeiss used very hefty mounts for the Apo-G's. For instance, the shuttered version of the 600mm in Copal 3 from Docter Optic is nearly half the weight of the barrel version according to the official numbers (1255 vs. 2350g).

df cardwell is right in his characterization of the lenses. 2 years ago, I read a report on the development of the Apo-Germinars (which are based on the Artar design) at the Zeiss Jena archives, which contained a comparison by Zeiss, including test prints. The Apo-Tessar had clearly higher contrast, but more falloff of the resolution towards the corner, where astigmatism reared its ugly head. The Apo-Germinars had high resolution evenly across a larger field, with less contrast. For this reason, the official coverage for Apo-Tessars was 43° and for Apo-Germinars 46° (for demanding process applications).

The price obviously depends on the condition. Are yours coated? If yes, they should fetch more than what you paid - it depends on the presentation. The most desirable last models can easily be distinguished by three wedge-shape indentations around the perimeter of the cemented back cell, at 120°. They are inside the lens but outside the image forming area, easily visible from the back. I can only guess that they were used for improved centering of the elements.

If there's any lens I dislike, it must be the 14" Petzval. Because I don't have a camera big enough to mount it uet with a film size small enough to use it!

The 12" "Cabinet" petzval, however, is a lovely lens. It fits two of my "big woodies".

And the Schneider Gottingen Aerotar 500mm f:5;5 - it's big, fat, heavy beyond reason, and a tele lens to boot. I dislike the jammed mounting flange on it - it means it won't sit still in an iris mount. The lens is quite likely to be very good, though.

Dan Fromm said:

Arne, I didn't think you could surprise me. Wrong again.

I'm with you, ApoTessars seem more likely, but fast, relatively, Tessars of those lengths were made.

The VM, which isn't always right, mentions 23.25" Tessar IIb and 20" Ic pre-WWI. Krauss 500/4.5 Tessars keep surfacing.

Not directly relevant, but I have a Boyer catalog sheet from 1982 that mentions 600/4.5 and 700/6.3 tessar type Saphirs.

Cheers,

Dan

Click to expand...

Dan, I have an advantage in having sources in addition to the VM. I did a short check in there before I answered. There is a guy in Germany, Hartmut Thiele, who researched the old production lists of Zeiss in their archives. The result of this effort of several years are several books that cover all the serial numbers and main data of the Zeiss photographic lenses (East and West) from around 1890 to 1997 (3 volumes) and an additional volume on Voigtländer lenses. They are essentially printed spread sheets. There are holes in there, because paperwork got lost over many years and 2 wars, and he tried to fill these with information from collectors. All in all it is a substantial data base. He also has some other books on German lenses in general. In addition, I have material I copied when I was at the archives myself, including a partial book manuscript from Ernst Wandersleb (initially Paul Rudolphs assistant and later the head of Zeiss' photo optics department) covering the Tessar development in detail.
I know that there were long Tessars beyond the usual 360mm (I think some where used for aerial photography in WWI) , but they are quite rare and the focal lengths are different (e.g. 500mm), whereas the 450 and 600mm where typical for the process lens and Apo-Tessar range throughout their production time (140, 180, 240, 300, 360, 450, 600, 750, 900, 1200mm).
Thieles books do not cover the licensed production and I forgot about that possibility.

Hermagis Eidoscope. Completely awful.
All Gundlach lenses! Especially the stupid ill conceived HYPERION.
Veritos. Blaaa
Vitax. a real POS
Petzval's : any. They suck like the Military Service.
Pinkham & Smith! Nasty! The only thing worse is a Cooke. Any Cooke. They make me want to puke.
Voigtlander. They haven't made a decent lens yet. They all suck. Except maybe the uncoated f4.5 Skopar. That's a valuable lens.
Bausch & Lomb. What a pile of refuse.

I agree entirely Jim, but being a good friend to all, if you'd pay the shipping (oh, heck, I'd split it with you), you can send all that junque here and clear your decks for some real lenses. Really, I would do that for you.

Russ

Arne, Charlie Barringer lives quite near me. When he's at home we talk a couple of times a week. And he also has the Thiele books. But just now he's away so I can't consult him.

As I keep saying, the VM is incomplete, occasionally incoherent, sometimes inconsistent, often incorrect, and on the whole invaluable.

When there are libraries one doesn't have to own every book that's been published.

Cheers,

Dan

I am suprised that no one has yet to mention the dreaded Wollensak Oscili-Raptar. Yeow!