Zeiss vs Bausch & Lomb Protars: Any difference?

Does anyone have any experience or data comparing the Carl Zeiss and

Bausch & Lomb versions of the Protar lenses? I assume the specs were

identical (correct?). Quality control at Zeiss was always high, was

that also true at B&L? I have read of the quality, even by today's

standards, of the Zeiss Protars but little about their B&L

counterparts. Are they just as good? They seem to sell for a lot less.

 

Also, any comparisons of the convertible protars to the convertible

Symmars? Thanks.

 

Ron Gratz

There was a later version (VIIb?), post 1910, of the Protar VII that was made only by Zeiss, while B&L, Ross, and the other licensees continued to make the 1895 version. As I recall the newer version had slight better corrections. I seem to recall that at the same time, 1910, Zeiss and all of their Licensees switched from using mm to mark focal length to cm. So, any Zeiss Protar VII which is marked in cm is the "newer" version, for what ever that may be worth.

Ron: I have assembled some Zeiss and B&L official data and the specs per the manufacturers do not appear to be identical. The official focal lengths for the B&L's are slightly different than the Zeiss numbers, for example. Does this mean the B&L are made exactly the same way but measured differently? I don't know. Considering the significance of the design the amount of information which can be found "web surfing" on this subject is minimal. A few other thoughts...I think this question is essentially unanswerable for a number of reasons. The variety of "protars" is considerable within company lines. The triple convertibles, doubles, single elements with smaller diameters meant to be used behind an aperture, the f:18 wide angle series, etc., etc., etc. So the question is which protar is being compared across company lines? Unless some historic sample to sample test data surfaces, you'd have to find someone who happened to have exactly the same lens in both product lines. (And why would you spend your money to acquire that, these aren't inexpensive lenses.) And even that one-of-a-kind test on just two samples doesn't tell you anything you can take and then apply to different samples, since the sampling is too small. You don't know if the two samples you test are representative of their own product line, either. Add in the fact that the lenses within and across company lines are ageing more or less gracefully with different imperfections in the surface glass and, especially, balsam separation, and I'm not sure a one on one modern test would mean much. I can say I have one B&L protar which is a combined 14 and 19 inch lens which is extradordinarily sharp by even modern standards when combined. Its performance as single elements behind the iris is quite acceptable to me up to 16X20 prints from 5X7 negatives. I have a slightly longer focal length B&L protar (combined) which is acceptable but isn't astounding. Why not as good? Ihave no idea. The single elements from that one perform about the same as the other. If you want to use Protars and not get burned, I think you have to buy with a return privilege.

I don't have a definiteve answer to your question and doubt that anyone else does either.

 

What I can say is that I owned at one time both a 183cm Zeizz Protar Series V lens, and a B&L 8X10 Series V of the same focal length. Both were originally barrel mounted. I made side by comprison tests of the two lenses with my 7X17 camera, both shot at f/22. There was absolutely no difference in sharpness on the negative that I could discern in looking at the negatives through a 10X loupe, and contrast and coverage were virtually identical. Both of these lenses were coated, which I think implies a fairly late date of manufacturer.

 

The only real difference is in going price, as the Zeiss Protars generally sell for a lot more than the B&L specimens. That is why I sold the Zeiss version and used the money to have the B&L lens mounted in a modern Copal #1 by Mr. Grimes.

 

 

 

Sandy King

The only real difference is the price, B+L Protars I have found tend to suffer less from separation than the Zeiss versions.Not that either company will ever be close to Goerz in quality control but the lesser devil is B+L.

 

Why do Zeiss cost more? name recognition and status, its certainly not based on the image quality of the lens. Some people just have to have a Louis Vuiton I guess ;-)

 

Ron W mentioned to me once that B+L took the Zeiss designs and improved them a bit when the patent date came up. He also mentioned to switch the front and rear cells when using a series IV Protar for better edge results, this does not work with the series V or III versions, there is nothing that can be done to a series II to improve it!!.Strange that a lens company gets its lenses backwards but...

 

CP Goerz

Ron,

 

As everyone has already commented - one would be hard pressed to tell any

significant difference between the Zeiss and the B&L Protars. There is just too much

variability in both of them. A case in point - Sandy mentions he's successfully used

the

183mm-V Protars on 7x17. I had the B&L 183-V Protar and found my particular lens

failed to cover 11x14 - it vignetted the corners by about 1 1/2". As always it's best if

you can 'try before you buy' when considering these old lenses.

 

Cheers,

Roger...

Just to clarify, both the 183 Zeiss Protar Series V and the B&L

8X10 Protar Series V that I compared clipped the corners slightly

on the 7X17 format. The diagonal of the 7X17 and 11X14

formats are almost identical (465mm and 468mm as I recall) so

Roger's comments that the 183mm Protar that he used did not

entirely cover the format is consistent with my experience with

this lens.

 

Sandy King

Thanks for the clarification Sandy. I'm beginning to think Kerik is the only one who

has a 183 Protar V that covers 7x17 without vignetting. :-)

 

Cheers,

Roger...