Which convertible lens for Ihagee Zweiverschluss?

[medform-norm]

Dan, Ole and other old camera lovers, your help is wanted!
We happened upon a nice old Ihagee Zweiverschluss Duplex camera in the 6,5 x 9 format in restorable condition. It came with a clean Rodenstock Eurynar 105 mm lens in a Compur shutter, which works beautifully, but which is not the original lens. We tried, but it's not convertible, giving only a sharp image in the centre. The original does seem to have been a convertible type, judging from the extra marking on the folding bed "hinter linse" plus infinity symbol. Measuring from both normal scale and infinity focal point of the back lens element indicate we should be looking for a lens with a combined focal lenght of 105mm or maybe 110mm, and a single focal length of something in the range of 190mm. We can't find much helpful info on this camera on the net, so we hope someone can help us in identifying a possible candidate lens to replace the Eurynar eventually. We're possibly looking for a Meyer lens, maybe a double anastigmat?
The Ihagee is a lovely, well built camera with a sturdy housing and a very ingenious system for the shutter curtain, plus some horizontal and vertical shift on the front. All in all, it might be a useful addition to the collection.

Aha, I did find something in the LVM!!: It could have been an Ihagee Doppel aka Meyer Veraplan in 4.5 and 6.8 - but I don't know in what sizes these came. Also, I have never seen these lenses before. In case these are hard to find, would there be alternative dialyts in this size that anyone knows of and which can be found easily?

 

[medform-norm]

Hmm, some fast research has tempered the enthusiasm upon learning it is not the best lens to look for, this Veraplan. Sharp but not contrasty. Okay, next station: perhaps a sharp + contrasty double convertible 105mm lens? Does it exist? Need I look for a Plasmat? A Dagor type lens in the unlike size of 105mm? I'm open to suggestions...

 

[Ole]

I don't know about your camera, but one of mine is a Rodenstock 9x12 - perhaps made by someone else, but clearly marked with "Rodenstock" imprinted in the leather on all sides. The lens is a 135mm Eurynar. This camera also has a second infinity mark, labeled "Hinterlinse allein".

Searching through the literature a little I found that the Eurynar was indeed marked as "convertible", although with the warning that when used as such it must be very well stopped down to give satisfactory sharpness.

So my guess is that you do indeed have the original lens!

 

[medform-norm]

I don't know about your camera, but one of mine is a Rodenstock 9x12 - perhaps made by someone else, but clearly marked with "Rodenstock" imprinted in the leather on all sides. The lens is a 135mm Eurynar. This camera also has a second infinity mark, labeled "Hinterlinse allein".

Searching through the literature a little I found that the Eurynar was indeed marked as "convertible", although with the warning that when used as such it must be very well stopped down to give satisfactory sharpness.

So my guess is that you do indeed have the original lens!

Hi Ole,
thanks, that's interesting. I did recall correctly then that you had an Eurynar as well. We thought it was not the original lens since the shutter doesn't fit quite well on the front standard "platelette" - the hole is much bigger. Perhaps they have kept the lens but changed the shutter. It's possible. We checked again with one lens element and it does get sharper when stopped down to f36, but the performance is underwhelming, esp. in the corners. But this seems to be a problem with these older convertibles, even dagors. Have you tried your Eurynar with one element? Can it only be used on infinity?

 

[Ole]

I haven't even tried my new & improved Eurynar yet - only the old cracked original one. But that one was so bad that it was actually marginally better with the "Hinterlinse allein"!

According to Herr Hans Schmidt (my standard reference for old stuff) only the four-elment lenses were any good when converted. Three-element lenses like the Dagor definitely need stopping down farther. And in a way the Eurynar can be said to be a three-element lens - just that the center element is air not glass. Herr Schmidt didn't like convertibles at all, in fact. Only "Satzobjektive" were usable in his opinion, and even then he declined to mention "Satz-Aplanate" except that there were far too many of them sold to uncritical photographers...

I just went and had a look at my old camera. With the rear element only the bellows is stretched to the limit with focus on infinity, and the "infinity mark" matches the position of the inner end on the rail. So I won't try anything closer! With the new lens it's easy to see that the ceter 3cm or so are reasonably sharp, while the rest is increasingly bad. The corners show nothing recognisable at f:4.5, even with a SatinSnow ground glass.

Does this sound like a refurbished plate camera? It is. Coated Eurynar, SatinSnow ground glass, cleaned and adjusted shutter... Nice.

 

[medform-norm]

Does this sound like a refurbished plate camera? It is. Coated Eurynar, SatinSnow ground glass, cleaned and adjusted shutter... Nice.

Coated Eurynar? Did someone coat that for you or was it that way when you got it?

I've been browsing thru the LVM to see if Rodenstock delivered lenses to Ihagee, but no mention of that. Only Meyer and Laack, so far found. This lack of info makes me start to doubt again whether it is the original lens indeed....

Our Eurynar seems to have four seperate elements in two groups, so possibly convertible. It behaves like yours when used converted. Dramatically bad corners.

Our GG is now too SatinSnowed -with a bit of superfine wet sanding paper and some saline toothpaste. As good as new.

Back is in process of being converted from plate to roll film with an old Rada back. Image plane needs slight adjustment. It's worrying to see how the prices of these backs have gone up over the past month. Who are these people that think these old back are of any use anyway ?

What will be really exciting, is the restoration/renewel of the curtain shutter material. Speeds up to 1/1000th! It's not a complicated job at all, with two straightforward shutter curtains to be replaced. No tedious slit making like with the old 1A Graflex.

Ah, and the front standard needs some work, as it is not quite in line with the film plane any more after an apparent drop on a hard surface (small dent in shutter lever).

When it's all done, it will be almost like a miniature Linhof or a tiny Speed Graphic. Hmm, should we add a Pola back as well?

 

[Ole]

I have a feeling you're right - Rodenstock is an unlikely source of lenses for a Dresden-based camera maker. Meyer, Laack, Busch, Zeiss, or even Simon are more likely. Nor should there be any reason for them to get lenses from far away when there were so many good lensmakers in the neighborhood!

Coated Eurynar? Did someone coat that for you or was it that way when you got it?

I bought it here on APUG - and it was coated when I bought it. But the serial number is less than 100 from my old one, so some previous owner must have had it coated. And a coated Eurynar is a very fine lens indeed - sharpness and clarity comparable to the very best modern lenses! It certainly outperforms any old Dagors, Tessars and suchlike I have laying around

I wish you hadn't told me about the camera. Now I want one

 

[medform-norm]

I wish you hadn't told me about the camera. Now I want one

Ah, and I wish you hadn't told me about the coating. Now I want one too - perhaps I could ask Gervorg Artanyan from Arax.
Who did you buy your lens from? Can you ask the previous owner where he/she got it coated? And are all the surfaces coated? That's a big job.

I'll send you some pics when it's finished. Plus results, if possible. (Then you'll really want one!

 

[Ole]

I bought it along with something else - from JG Motamedi? To be honest I can't remember - and I've cleaned out my inbox in the meantime...

But I do remember asking, and being told that it was coated when he got it. And yes, all eight surfaces are nicely coated. Whoever did it did a good job.

I should get a box of 9x12 Ektachrome to test it, I think - I've run a roll of 120 through it, only to find lots of light leaks in the rollfilm back