Jump to content

Retrofocus wide-angle lenses for SLRs - redux


Recommended Posts

A recent post on tasting cell phones led (me, not the others) into the topic of why wide angle lenses are often hard to find, expensive, and rare for older classic cameras.

I have posted something about this situation before (LINK1,LINK2, and I am not alone LINK3), and this is just a reminder of those "pioneer" days when Leica, Exakta, and Praktina ruled the world.

 

Here is a Contax RF mount wide angle lens, in this case a Soviet Jupiter 12 35mm. Note how much of the lens is back of the lens mount.

440671047_Jupiter-122.JPG.ca178b2724a17a9f1c93f1f40203df45.JPG

 

The rear lens element nearly touches the focal plane shutter (and does sometimes, so some range finder cameras, even, will not allow such a lens to be mounted on their bodies.)

 

Come the 1930s! Probably (don't quibble about weird and rare second-world thingies) the first 35mm single lens reflex, the Exakta, is introduced. Now that empty space behind the lens mount is filled with a reflex mirror. No room there for anything like the wide-angle lenses of the time. (BTW, some early fisheye lenses required mirror lockup to use)

 

Now as a child, you may have looked through the wrong end of a telescope and noticed that it had a wide-angle effect. This is basically what is known as "retrofocus" (LINK). According to that link, the term retrofocus was trademarked by Pierre Angénieux, but note that this protects the name, not the design. In any case, one of the first (1950) wide-angle lenses for SLRs, specifically, the Exakta, was the P. Angénieux Retrofocus Type R1 35mm f/3.5 lens.

This is often cited as the absolute first lens of this kind, but in the same year of 1950, the East German Zeiss Jena introduced what was in all essentials the same lens:

 

1222423939_Flektogon_Angenieux110815_0004w.jpg.f4f12a59027b38e94867783a2e35d15f.jpg

The two contenders.

 

 

Both lenses were introduced in the same year and it seems that gearing up for production would have taken some time --

so they are likely what we archaeologists call "independent inventions" - a similar response to the same problem. My copy of the Flektogon 'retrofocus' 35mm f/3.5 is in the Praktina mount, East Germany's pioneering "system" camera (Exakta more "growed" than was designed from the start to be the system camera it became).

 

But, as if it mattered, which one was actually FIRST?

 

In the past, not today, I tried to find out, but had no luck. Anyone who knows or is more adept at finding the dates in question, go to it.

 

Here follows some lagniappe:

 

1556904945_Angenieux-R1-35mm-f35.jpg.59002e5ae98e3e6dc852dae37f094a01.jpg

 

Angénieux pamphlet

 

flektogon35-28.thumb.jpg.cd15b0239d3b9e036ddddc0afb8a6aaf.jpg

Carl Zeiss Jena pamphlet

 

F or those of you who are Luddites,I do actually shoot pictures with my 'collection' although they may just confirm your prejudices.

 

with the Praktina and Flektogon

Praktina-Flektogon-1.jpg.fc5b7a4b47496717f3d1dd164bd7c63b.jpg

 

and my old Lab (perhaps preparing to dump? Note the down curved tail) with an Exakta and the Angénieux.

1991641051_Angenieux-35_20080930_14.jpg.8cf7c8076dd02f48e5e53c27334b27b6.jpg

Das ist alles, ser geherter Damen und Herrn.

Edited by JDMvW
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the pecuniarily engaged,

 

the Angénieux 35mm R1has pretty consistently sold over the last few years for around US$500. The 28mm version goes for much more.

 

 

The Flektogon 35mm sells for around $200, sometimes more, sometimes less.

Edited by JDMvW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"sehr geehrter"

 

I knew that looked funny

 

Did I ever mention that my first native-speaker teacher of German was Swabian? It is claimed that this Alemannic version of German is 40% mutually intelligible with standard German:)

Edited by JDMvW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent, JDM, nice to read another of your scholarly dissertations. Obviously, the Flektogon went on to become a popular lens in it's many manifestations, but the Angénieux seems to have had much more selected range, in common with most Angénieux lenses. Thanks for an interesting post!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As always, JDM, an interesting post. I enjoy reading about the gradual progression of the 35mm wide angle from its earliest (and expensive) designs to the 70's or so where the 35mm wide angle was the least expensive wide angle for many years. Somewhere among my old photo magazines I have an issue that lists all the lenses available for the current year. I'll have to look for it now. Even with the huge variety of retrofocus wide angles available today I still enjoy using the 35 whenever I can.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still enjoy using the 35 whenever I can

 

For sure.

Ever since I got my first 35mm lens-- a bargain Steinheil Culmigon 35mm f4,5 in M42 mount--I have always seen it as a great focal length on a 36x24mm image size.

 

The Flektogon seems to have a real cult following, for whatever reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, JDM--I was amazed when I opened up the package with the Jupiter 12 35 mm f/2.8 that I got to use with my Contax III and saw how close the rear element was to the shutter after owning lots of wide angle lenses for SLRs. I knew about retrofocus lenses but never realized how close rear elements were with most RF lenses until seeing that one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Flektogon seems to have a real cult following, for whatever reason.

 

The f/2.5 overshadowed it for a long time, but interest in the f/2.8 has steadily ramped up in recent years (esp the later, uniquely close focusing variations). The blessing/curse of mirrorless 24x36 digital: ten years ago you couldn't give one away in Exakta mount, today they sell briskly (and anything Zeiss in M42 thread mount goes for appreciably more).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used my father's Canon VI with the Xenogon 35/2.8 for some years.

 

When I bought my own camera, a Nikon FM (not long after it came out),

I bought it with the AI 35/2.0. About the price of the 50/1.4.

 

For some years, it was the only lens, any maybe still my favorite, with the FM.

 

Also, I had at the time the Vivitar 283, which covers a 35mm lens width, so they

work well together.

 

Otherwise, the Xenogon doesn't go deeper than the threaded part of the lens mount,

though for M39 that is still too far for an SLR.

 

But yes, the retrofocus lenses, with the large front negative lens element,

are interesting to look at, and compare to more ordinary lenses.

 

I thought the story I remembered was that retrofocus lenses originated

with movie cameras.

-- glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nikon made a fine 21/4 that required locked up mirror, came with a surprisingly accurate optical finder. Wish I kept it but needed Canon F1 film advance precision for multiple exposure slide graphics.

 

This one:

 

Nikon F 7.5mm f5.6 Fish-Eye #750323 | eBay

 

has been on eBay for a long time but still not sold.

 

I am not sure now which cameras can do lock-up for such lenses.

 

The only one I know is the F, I believe what it was designed to work with.

-- glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The vintage Nikon F-mount Nikkor superwides and circular fisheyes that required mirror lockup are not technically retrofocus: they're normal "rangefinder" or non-reflex designs like the Hasselblad Biogon or Leica M Summicron (which is why they require mirror lockup: the optics don't factor the mirror being present).

 

These Nikkor oddballs were designed for the initial wave of Nikon F, F2 and Nikkormat cameras that had mechanical mirror lockup feature. I believe they'll also work on an F3, but starting with the F4 things get sketchy (its probably not a good idea to use them on any Nikon film body with built in motor drive, even if the body has a lockup feature). Use on a DSLR could be very dangerous as the deeply inset rear barrel could scrape the sensor glass, and the ray angle of the exit pupil gives garbage results on digital anyway (color casts etc).

 

All retrofocus really means is a wide angle optical formula that keeps the rear element out of the mirror box of SLR cameras (or originally, away from the spinning mirror/shutter of cinema cameras). As things turned out, even in our "mirrorless" digital era retrofocus is still necessary to optimize field coverage on modern sensors with microlenses (which is why many legendary Leica RF non-retrofocus wides perform terribly on Sony A7 or Nikon Z bodies).

Edited by orsetto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The vintage Nikon F-mount Nikkor superwides and circular fisheyes that required mirror lockup are not technically retrofocus: they're normal "rangefinder" or non-reflex designs like the Hasselblad Biogon or Leica M Summicron (which is why they require mirror lockup: the optics don't factor the mirror being present).

 

 

(snip)

 

A single element lens focused at infinity is about its focal length away from the film plane.

 

A multi-element lens will have its rear element less than the focal length away.

 

The way it was explained to me years ago, is that a true telephoto lens is one that

is physically shorter than its focal length. If that isn't obvious enough, consider a

telextender on a normal lens, which will often be shorter than the final focal length.

 

The combination of lenses to do this has a negative lens as the last lens element.

 

Turning this around, gives a lens with a negative lens element as its first element,

usually a fairly strong negative lens. To me, that is the sign of a retrofocus

lens, though also the rear element being farther from the film plane than the

focal length.

 

As I understand it, the retro in the name comes from reversing a telephoto lens.

 

In the rangefinder days, a 35mm lens could be made non-retrofocus,

and maybe 28mm, but I suspect not a 24mm.

 

There are disposable panoramic cameras, which I believe have an ordinary

(non-retrofocus) 24mm lens, and mask (or just print) the 12x36mm strip in the

middle of the frame.

 

I am not so sure how wide you can get without retrofocus, but I suspect

that true fisheye (close to 180 degree field of view) is always retrofocus.

  • Like 1

-- glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A single element lens focused at infinity is about its focal length away from the film plane.

 

A multi-element lens will have its rear element less than the focal length away.

 

The way it was explained to me years ago, is that a true telephoto lens is one that

is physically shorter than its focal length. If that isn't obvious enough, consider a

telextender on a normal lens, which will often be shorter than the final focal length.

 

The combination of lenses to do this has a negative lens as the last lens element.

 

Turning this around, gives a lens with a negative lens element as its first element,

usually a fairly strong negative lens. To me, that is the sign of a retrofocus

lens, though also the rear element being farther from the film plane than the

focal length.

 

As I understand it, the retro in the name comes from reversing a telephoto lens.

 

In the rangefinder days, a 35mm lens could be made non-retrofocus,

and maybe 28mm, but I suspect not a 24mm.

 

There are disposable panoramic cameras, which I believe have an ordinary

(non-retrofocus) 24mm lens, and mask (or just print) the 12x36mm strip in the

middle of the frame.

 

I am not so sure how wide you can get without retrofocus, but I suspect

that true fisheye (close to 180 degree field of view) is always retrofocus.

 

I was taught, when I took large format classes, that a telephoto lens is one which has its optical center in front of the aperture. Any lens with it's optical center at the aperture is considered a "long lens".

 

As to the wide angles, I was taught that any wide angle 35mm lens had to be retro-focus at focal lengths less than 25mm.

 

Whether the above are absolute maxims, I don't know, but they were in my class notes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(snip)

 

As to the wide angles, I was taught that any wide angle 35mm lens had to be retro-focus at focal lengths less than 25mm.

 

Whether the above are absolute maxims, I don't know, but they were in my class notes.

 

That would be for a 24x36mm frame.

 

For a 12x36mm frame, it should be slightly less, so maybe 24mm is about right.

-- glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
Pierre Angenieux applied for a patent on the retrofocus design in 1950, and it appears that he beat Zeiss to it by a hair. A really nice retrofocus is the Auto Takumar, 35mm f2.3, which has marvellous bokeh (similar to, but more pronounced than the Angenieux)_DSC1090aa.thumb.jpg.93c121fbf1ddac4cc3d6f83172e0a147.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First lens that I bought myself, instead of borrowed from my father (LTM lenses)

is a Nikon AI 35/2.0, which I still have. I didn't know much about retrofocus

before then, but the front element is easy to see.

-- glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

glen_h wrote, in post #9 above:

 

I thought the story I remembered was that retrofocus lenses originated with movie cameras.

 

H. W. Lee of Taylor, Taylor & Hobson invented the inverted telephoto lens, later dubbed retrofocus by Angenieux, for Technicolor cameras.

 

glen_h wrote, in post #14 above:

 

I am not so sure how wide you can get without retrofocus, but I suspect that true fisheye (close to 180 degree field of view) is always retrofocus.

 

The Goerz Hypergon, a symmetrical lens, with "star" covers, depending on the catalog, 135-140 degrees. Rodenstock's 35/4.5 Apo-Grandagon covers 120 degrees. There are also several Schneider lenses that cover 120 degrees. All of these are rectilinear, illumination off-axis falls off with cos^4 theta. Fisheyes have much less falloff, thanks to high distortion.

 

dennisbrown wrote, in post #14 above:

 

As to the wide angles, I was taught that any wide angle 35mm lens had to be retro-focus at focal lengths less than 25mm.

 

It really depends on the designs, lens and camera.

 

Tessar types, which aren't retrofocus, can be made fairly thin, i.e., with back focus -- the distance from the rear element's vertex to the film plane -- not much shorter than focal length. Hence 43 mm tessar type "pancake" lenses for some 35mm SLRs. 43 mm is the normal focal length for 24 x 36, a 43 mm lens has to cover 53 degrees, which is very possible with a reasonably fast tessar type.

 

And the camera has to have a short flange-to-film distance and, possibly, a short mirror. Both have been done ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...