wollensak convertable

[avandesande]

Hey are these things any good?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...MEWN:IT&viewitem=&item=160077331349&rd=1&rd=1

 

[removed account4]

hi there

i have an earlier version of this same lens ( i think .. )
it is a 13.5, 20, 25" in a betax shutter.
it covers 8x10 with ease, and i have been told
that it will cover 11x14 ( but haven't tried that yet .. )
i use it on an 8x10 and make contact prints and
the sharpness is good. i use it wide open as well as stopped down at
all focal lengths without any major drawbacks.
it has the w encircled by a c which means that it is coated ..

if i saw one, and didn't have one ( and needed a good lens ) i wouldn't hesitate to buy it.

 

[pgomena]

I had one on my 8x10 and was generally pleased with its performance. Decently sharp at 13", good at 20" with a #15 yellow filter to cut chromatic aberration. I found the 20" conversion most useful. At 25" it was maybe not as sharp, but my old camera was so shaky I can't honestly say, and, at 25", it's a big pain to focus and use camera movements. Unless you're really tall, your arms just aren't long enough . . .

I think I paid $350 for mine, maybe should have paid $300, but I got my money's worth out of it. They don't seem to be particularly rare -- I've seen several come up for sale over the past couple of years.

Peter Gomena

 

[avandesande]

It appears from the catalogs at cameraeccentric.com that it is a protar design. Would this perform as well as a B&L or Zeiss protar?

 

[pgomena]

I was told it's an "exact replica of a Zeiss convertible Protar." I don't know the credentials of the person who told me as it was passed on from an internet source.

How well Wollensak copied and made it, I don't know. My particular copy had a very slight haze behind the front element somewhere, but it didn't seem to affect performance. Lenses that old probably vary more due to their individual histories than to pedigree. Mine was a well-made beast that performed reliably for me. Your results may vary.

Peter Gomena

 

[sanking]

Hey are these things any good?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...MEWN:IT&viewitem=&item=160077331349&rd=1&rd=1

I guess this is the 330mm convertible Raptar 1a. If so, I used one of these lenses for several years and found it to be a very good preformer, as good as a Dagor of the same period IMO. It did not cover quite as much, though, probably about 75 degrees at most in comparison to about 85 degrees for the Dagor. My 330 Raptar 1a did not quite cover 11X14 so I sold it. It must have been a good performer for 8X10 because the person who bought it contacted me several times over a period of 2-3 years after the sale to let me know how pleased he was with the lens.

As someone notes in the thread, it is a Protar type design, and a very well-made one at that. I have owned several convertible Protar lenses, both Zeiss and B&L, and the Raptar 1a was the best of them.

As I recall I got $250 for the one I sold, and that was 4-5 years ago. If you can get one for that price today I would think it was a real good deal. Assuming of course that your format is 8X10 or less. I see that the auction ended at $182 so the buyer got a real nice lens at a good price IMO.

Sandy King

 

[jimgalli]

Protar-ish but they seem to me longer and narrower than my Protar's which affects the coverage. Did Wolly maybe use slightly different glass that needed to result in thicker elements making the tube or seperation longer? Maybe I'm dreaming.

 

[avandesande]

Maybe it suffered the same fate the later dagors faced... they reduced coverage to improve center sharpness.