Wollensak series IIIA focal length

I have a lens that has the following engraved on it:

"WOLLENSAK SERIES IIIA EX.W.A. f12.5 8 x 10"

So . . . what might the focal length be? Seems to be about 6". It is in good shape (but not coated), and is in a working Betax No. 3 shutter. I am in the process of putting together an 8x10 "system". I have just completed a cleanup/repair of a Kodak Master View and have a 12" Commercial Ektar mounted for it.

My other choice is a:

"W.A. DAGOR 6 1/2 IN F: 8"
"C.P. GOERZ AM. OPT. CO."

In a No. 3 Acme shutter. Any info appreciated. I only plan to shoot B&W. I am just getting started with this and I really appreciate the help I have already gotten on the forums from just reading the wealth of material on the forums.

Thanks!

i believe it is 159mm. I've shot w/ both the Wolly f/12.5 and the 6.5" WA Dagor and I'd go for the Dagor every time if it's in the budget. My sample was tack sharp.

If its available to you, check out Kerry's articles in View Camera Magazine on vintage wide angles. IMHO what the wolly has going for it is that it's a tiny little thing. I'd hazard to guess that it is going to suffer more from not being coated than the Dagor, but thats only a guess.

The wollensak IIIa is 4/2 lens type which has the same air to glass surfaces as the dagor so flare would be similar if uncoated. The later wollensak extreme wa anastigmat 159mm is a different lens I think. While I do not own the 8x10 IIIa I do have the 10x12 IIIa and its clearly some type of cemented 4 elements 2 groups lens type. I also have a later 159mm ex wa wolly not marked IIIa and it appears to be 4/4 air spaced and coated. Probably a double gauss wide angle similar to the meyer aristostigmat and the cooke VIIb, maybe.

The 1957 Wollensak catalog shows the Series III (no "a") Raptar Wide Angle f/9.5 with 8 elements in 4 groups and appears to be symmetrical.

Yes the series III f9.5 was another lens as well. I only just became aware that their might be two different versions of the f12.5 lens as well.

I have the same lens/shutter combo that I use on my B&J 8x10. With no Dagor to compare it to, I can't speak as to the difference, but I have been happy with my negs contact printed.

henrysamson said:

I have a lens that has the following engraved on it:

"WOLLENSAK SERIES IIIA EX.W.A. f12.5 8 x 10"

So . . . what might the focal length be? Seems to be about 6". It is in good shape (but not coated), and is in a working Betax No. 3 shutter. I am in the process of putting together an 8x10 "system". I have just completed a cleanup/repair of a Kodak Master View and have a 12" Commercial Ektar mounted for it.

My other choice is a:

"W.A. DAGOR 6 1/2 IN F: 8"
"C.P. GOERZ AM. OPT. CO."

In a No. 3 Acme shutter. Any info appreciated. I only plan to shoot B&W. I am just getting started with this and I really appreciate the help I have already gotten on the forums from just reading the wealth of material on the forums.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

The Wolly is probably a 6-1/2" or 159mm. Thats what mine is anyway. Between the two lenses with everything else being equal (condition, price etc...) I'd personally go for the Dagor. The Wolly will be a smaller lens (if thats important to you---if you're plans include back packing it should) but the brighter f8 and the uncoated performance of the Dagor should be a noticable improvement. My Wolly is a f/9.5 version and coated. I like it a lot on the 8x10.

159mm Wollensaks

Regarding the brightness of the Wollensak 159mm, the f/12.5 is the minimum recommended aperture. It actually opens to about f/6.8 or so for composition and focusing, and I haven't detected any focus shift when stopping down. There's supposedly a set-screw that needs to be removed to allow them to open fully, but I've never seen a 159mm that was restricted, so I'd guess many (if not most) have been allowed to open fully.

I have two of the f/12.5 Wollensaks, an older uncoated and a newer Wolcoated. The older is "sharp enough for nice contact prints" on the 8x10, but starts losing it noticeably even at a 16x20 enlargement. The newer one has very good contrast and is quite sharp.

I also have coated and uncoated 210mm Dagors. The uncoated Dagor is slightly sharper and crisper in contrast than the uncoated Wollensak 159mm, but the coated 159mm can (I think) stand side-by-side with the Gold-rim Dagor in resolution and contrast, except at the very corners, where the 159mm loses out very, very slightly to the Dagor. I was pleasantly surprised.