Backyard stroll with Kodak Vollenda

Lately I've been aiming at motifs in my back yard to test older

cameras. These shots are my first from a Kodak Vollenda 6x9 folder

that I got recently. The lens is an impressive-looking Kodak

Anastigmat f/4.5 10.5cm job on a Compur shutter. I hoped this lens

would compare to the Kodak Anastigmat f/6.3 that I have grown to love.

This lens focuses to under 1 meter (front cell focusing), so I tried

some close views that I cannot get with other cameras. While the

central region was very sharp, this lens seems to have severe dropoff

of acuity near the edge, which I attributed to the near-focusing front

cell. The black and white shots are with respooled-to-620 APX 100 in

D-76 1:1.<div></div>

First closeup...<div></div>

Another...<div></div>

And a last from this session.<div></div>

The Vollenda is fun to use. I suspect the edges will look better for distance shots, but I can imagine ways to use the soft edge definition for some shot such as portraits. I'll be trying some more to find the sweet spot for this lens. These pix were mostly around f/8 to f/11 in open shade. One last detail below shows the fringing in the blurry zone from one of the hosta pix... a little more severe than I would have expected from a Kodak Anastigmat.<div></div>

nice results!

Excellent work!

 

I am thinking of purchashing a Kodak Monitor. Just waiting for one for the right price... hehe

Nice images - I think this is where the web fails (at least me) to see the problem(s). What

were you stopping the lens down to? Would the f stop affect end-to-end sharpness?

Bill, since you are watching for a Kodak Monitor, look especially for one having the Kodak Anastigmat Special lens--this is a true Tessar design, and should outperform the standard Anastigmat, which is based on the Cooke triplet design... still a good performer in most circumstances.

 

?Beepy, sorry about the small sizes--I'm trying to keep the pix on the page by following the 511 pixel maximum length rule. In the pond picture, the lily pads in the top 1/2 inch show fringing on their sides, looking like an extra edge around the top or side of the sharper main pad. The "highlight detail" picture shows the fringing on the top edge of the flowers. These were all shot between f/8 and f/11, which for an f/4.5 lens should be close to the ideal correction point. So I think there might be a little misalignment in the elements. Still, the sharp zones are wonderfully sharp. The overall character of the lens is part of the fun of getting to know an older camera.

I seem to be in a permanent state of confusion about Kodak lenses. Part of the problem, of course, is that names like Ektar indicate quality rather than a particular lens formula.

 

Were all f4.5 Anastigmats Cooke triplets? I have a few Kodak Recomar folders, (made by Nagel just like the Vollenda) and I always thought the f4.5 Anastigmat on my Recomars was a Tessar type. Is there any web site that gives formulas for the various pre-war lenses used by Kodak?

Don -- Thank you for that bit of info.

 

I have much to learn before I purchase a Kodak Monitor. Pictures of this old folder put mighty tender feelings in my heart. Perhaps I'm just another sucker for a pretty face but I feel my latest life mission is to possess one of these 620 beauties. (That sounded a little odd even to my ears.)

Michael, I am going from info in this excellent article: http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/BN_Photo/KA_KASIntr.htm . Kodak marketing used whatever spin they needed to, sometimes garbling an otherwise predictable mapping between lens names and types on various cameras. I have one Anastigmat that is just so good, it is now the benchmark for my relative comparisons among folders with Kodak lenses.

 

Front-cell focusing always compromises the near focusing environment in some manner--looks possibly like color for this lens. I accept this, but I'm anxious to come across a folder which moves the standard for focusing. Nope, I am not in the sort of money for a Bessa II!

Don,

 

Before the war many makers had a unit focusing roll film folder (usually without rangefinder). So long as it doesn't say Zeiss or Voigtlander on the front the price is usually in the $25 range. I found an Ihagee with unit focusing Zeiss Tessar on eBay for $25 - it's even convertable into a plate film camera. Good luck

 

Thanks for explaining why I'll remain confused about Kodak lenses.

Those photos were very, very nice, especially the first one. I wished it had been in colour.

On Kodak lens names: Kodar is the name of what the lens was made from.

It seems the plastic would/should/did/is good for making lenses.

 

Kodak sez: "Kodar PETG copolyester 6763 is a glycerol modified polyethylene terephthalate (PETG). PETG is a substantially transparent amorphous polymer, in which a second glycol cyclohexanedimenthanol is added during the polymerization stages to make the modification. The second glycol is added in the appropriate portion to produce an amorphous polymer. PETG will not crystallize and thus offers wider processing latitude than conventional crystallizable polyesters. As such, plasticizers or stabilizers are not required for PETG, which offers an excellent combination of clarity, toughness and melt strength which makes it very useful for the end user."

 

Aren't you glad you know that ...

Correction to last post about the etymology of 'Kodar'.

 

Pocket Kodaks 1A & Co., c 1925, were fitted with Kodar lenses.

 

The connection with the name of the plastic and the name of the lens may be non-existant. Or - they named the plastic after the lens it was used in - the plastic replacement for the old glass Kodar. Or - Kodar lenses aren't made from Kodar.