Wollensak Velostigmat Wide-Angle Series III F/9.5 (121mm) weirdness

[Kino]

I seem to have a problem with my Wollensak Velostigmat Wide-Angle Series III F/9.5 (121mm) lens.

One side of the negative is heavier than the other, and there is a rather abrupt transition where the exposure changes.

See photos on left hand side. I do have light leaks on some of the film holders, but it is on the opposite side of the increased exposure.

Any suggestions as to what is going on here? The two exposures were on separate film holders; holder #2 and #3 respectively below...

 

[Kino]

Oh, in retrospect, I think I know what happened...

I was playing with the back swing, as this camera has a very limited amount of swing, and I just have learned that the Wollensak Velostigmat Wide-Angle Series III F/9.5 (159mm) lens must be used dead-on. That's probably the fall off of the image circle.

Man, this lens is totally unforgiving; hard to focus and (apparently) no movement whatsoever for 5x7 (although it was marketed for just this format).

Maybe I should make a dedicated box and mount this lens on it; a point and shoot 5x7!

 

[btaylor]

Hmmm, I see what you’re talking about in the first pic of the building, it’s pretty dramatic. But I wonder if the light leak compensated for the vignette by flashing it a bit thereby raising the exposure slightly. The second pic of the trees looks okay to me, with the expected slight vignetting on both sides.
I am interested especially because I have this lens, though I have not yet used it.

Edit: was writing my response as you posted you answer- yea, that makes sense, you moved the vignette! Also, I thought this lens was supposed to just cover 8x10? I’ll see I guess when I finally take a picture with it. I’m just not much of a wide guy.

 

[Kino]

Hmmm, I see what you’re talking about in the first pic of the building, it’s pretty dramatic. But I wonder if the light leak compensated for the vignette by flashing it a bit thereby raising the exposure slightly. The second pic of the trees looks okay to me, with the expected slight vignetting on both sides.
I am interested especially because I have this lens, though I have not yet used it.

Hard to say. Just shot with it today for the first time. I had about 3/8 to a 1/4 inch of focus room on my rails before I hit the back standard.

Nuts.

I was really shocked at how WIDE this lens is; maybe too wide even for me!

I was shooting at f45 today; maybe it will lessen if I back off to the f16 region?

At least I got to use my Jobo 3005 drum today. Love it. So easy and great, even results (at least processing wise).

 

[MTGseattle]

Wow. I thought the f9.5 version had an image circle that was only a few mm shy of 8x10 (which would still make it reasonably good for 5x7),

I've got my scanner on mothballs again, but I have a recent 8x10 neg exposed with the f12.5 version. I too question the "wide-ness" for the format.

 

[argent_negre]

I have the 12.5 version of the lens and it covers 8x10 with some room for movements. However, the image quality decreases substantially on the edges before reaching the end of the image circle. It is a very wide lens. I have to be careful not to include the bed of my camera in the field.

 

[Kino]

You might have a variant that will cover 8 x 10, but mine is specifically for 5x7. Mine is in a Betax #2 shutter; I think the 8x10 is in the Betax #3.

The documentation on these lenses is pretty poor.

EDIT: I just realized this lens is 121mm, not 159!

No wonder it's crazy wide...

 

[argent_negre]

I misunderstood you, sorry. My lens is the 159mm one, which is wide enough for me. I’m surprised that the 121mm one seems to cover 8x10. In fact, mine allows substantial movements. It is tiny also. I haven’t tried to enlarge any of the negatives I have made with this lens, though.

This image was taken with the 159.

 

[Kino]

The error was on my part; I looked at the wrong focal length on the chart and misidentified my version as 159mm in the original posting (can't edit post #2 now).

The above illustration was taken from the 1914-1915 Wollensak Lens and Shutter catalog, but from reading around on the net, it appears there might have been poorly documented changes/evolution to the designs.

So the focal lengths for this 1914-1915 9.5 series are:

#3 -- 120.65mm for 5x7
#4 -- 127mm for Whole Plate
#5 -- 152.4mm for 8x10
#6 -- 203.2 for 10x12
#7 -- 228.6mm for 11x14

As stated, mine is in a Betax #2 shutter; I have seen other examples of the f9.5 in Betax #3 and larger shutters, but I don't remember or couldn't determine the focal length from the poor pictures.

As you state, you have the f12.5 version, which is a somewhat different from the f9.5 version I believe.

Anyway, it's an interesting early wide angle lens.

This image was taken with the 159.

Very nice image.

 

[MTGseattle]

I too zeroed in on the 159mm in post #2.

 

[MarkS]

alphaxbetax.com is the best source for Wollensak information.