The wages of sin,

[dan_fromm1]

i.e., of giving into a temptation to acquire, is paperweights, at

least for me.

 

One arrived today.

 

On one level it wasn't a bad snag. A 14"/5.6 WW-II vintage military

surplus Aviar, made by Taylor, Taylor, & Hobson themselves. Engraved

"Anastigmat," not Aviar, with serial number TT 286842, and a dialyte.

I guessed from the sketchy description on the site I got it from that

it had to be an Aviar, and now its here I think I was right. It

might even be coated, but that could be wishful thinking. I have a

5"/4.5 Aviar, s/n 292229, that is for sure coated, and early coated

TTH lenses have a pale blue coating that almost looks like haze when

first seen. This one has that look. The price was quite right, so I

have no complaint on that score.

 

On the practical "now what will I do?" level, it was a mistake. Now

that I have it in hand, not on foot yet, thank heavens, I see that its

just too big and too heavy for the application I had in mind for it.

But it will make a dandy paperweight until I get a big camera for it.

Not my only paperweight, or the most costly.

 

Anyone else want to fess up to seeming good purchases that were

recognized as, um, blunders after they arrived? I'm not thinking so

much of items that were DOA as ones that seemed like a good idea but

didn't work out as hoped.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[gene m]

I once bought a MASSIVE barrel lens that I was sure would work on my Toyo 4x5 view camera. It even had the mounting ring. I figured I'd make my own lensboard. The project ended due to the fact that the lens weighs nearly ten pounds. It's still around here someplace.

 

Never drink too much wine while on eB.

[Andrew in Austin]

My Zeiss-Ikon 532/16 Super B fitted with a Opton-Tessar and Synchro-Compur MX shutter. It's the heaviest camera I own. Paid a 120 bucks for it, CLA'd the booger myself and used it twice. It's been sitting in a glass case for over a year. I also have an original lens hood and filter set for it.

 

My Agfa Record III, which is much lighter by the way, is a definite runner up. The only way I can hold it still at shutter speeds below 1/100th is two sit down and rest my elbow on a table, car door or whatever else is solid.

 

There is more to the Record III story. One of the accoutrements that I bought for the Record III is an old Durst 609 enlarger. It is built and operates like an old piece of farm machinery. It resides on precious shelf space in my walk-in closet.

[jonathan_bundick]

I have a wonderfully clean 240mm f/4.5 Xenar in barrel. I paid a whopping $54 plus shipping. I had originally thought I would mount it in a Compound shutter, but the cost of mounting it, as well as the difficulty in finding a clean compound shutter of the right size, put the breaks on the project very quick.

 

I went so far as to contact a local machine shop and find out the cost of making a ?square? nut type flange to replace the 4 inch flange that came with the lens. This was because the original flange was too big for the lens board on my Super Graphic. It was doable, but too expensive to be practical for a 240mm for 4x5. I picked up a nice Caltar 254mm f/6.3 for $125 as an alternative. Not as fast, but much more usable.

 

I still have hopes of using the lens for 8x10 if I ever get one. It would make a nice lens for star trails, but for now is just taking up space in it's box, packed away in the closet.

[neal_shields]

How about a Beatie Imperial 90 TLR with 110 volt shutter and motor drive and a slot to write school children's names on. Takes a couple of hundred 3 1/4 X 4 1/4s on 90mm wide film.

[dave_s]

This is embarrassing, but twice (!) I've bought a front lens cell by mistake, thinking it was a complete lens.

[mike_elek]

Ugh -- the total waste of cash. You mean those, right?

 

Worst purchases ever:

 

-- Kowa 35mm SLR -- didn't work and it's ugly.

 

-- A Miranda SLR that died the 10th time I advanced the shutter.

 

-- The Super Ikonta A that cost a lot of money arrived disassembled from the Ukraine seller after a three-month journey and many e-mails. (I think it can be fixed)

 

-- Ilford Sportsman (or some such model). Stripped it for parts within minutes.

 

-- Agfa Optima. Sort of cute ... stripped it for parts.

 

-- Super Ikonta B. Ditto.

 

-- Retina IIIc ... I ruined the shutter. What was I thinking? Later used the lens. Still using part for it.

 

-- Minox ML. Shutter was sticking from the minute I bought it. Thought I could fix it. Boy, was that a dumb thought.

 

There's gotta be more, I'm sure. I'm just not thinking hard enough!

[Brian]

Ricoh Diacord - very nice condition, but I paid twice as much for it as my old beater Yashicamat, and too be honest because of the lack of interlock it was less easy to use, and the results were no better than the Yashica, so it gathered dust for a while and then I sold it. And I can't persuade myself to become a TLR collector, when there are so many 35mm vintage cameras calling out to me....

[tito sobrinho]

Mistakes:

 

Seven years ago, I bought a coated f4.5 Heliar 14" (355mm)+ retaining ring in barrel to be used on my 8x10. It's so massive it weighs 3.5 Lbs. The filter's size is a mere 115mm! If I ever decide to use it, I would need 2 tripods; one for the camera and another one for the lens!- paperweight!

 

The cute, small and rare Narciss, SLR 35mm Russian camera. After the 3rd winding it gave up.-display. (Perhaps, it's worth fixing).

 

Rolleiflex MX- A piece of junk! Good only for parts.

 

Exakta RTL1000. After the 10th winding, "kaput"- paperweight.

[connealy]

Hey, Andrew, I have had about the same experience as you with the Super Ikonta, though I paid twice what you did for it. Mine works just about perfectly except for a little dust in the viewfinder. I've gotten a couple of sharp images out of it, but I just can't get myself interested in lugging the thing around. I'd sell it, but know I'll only get half of what I paid for it, so it sits on the shelf beside the junkers and display pieces.

[robert_davis2]

"I went so far as to contact a local machine shop and find out the cost of making a ?square? nut type flange to replace the 4 inch flange that came with the lens. This was because the original flange was too big for the lens board on my Super Graphic."

 

Make a thicker then normal lens board. Thick enough that the front is forward of the normal position. Basically you've got a mild extension board. Place the flange on so you can get enough screws into the board to hold the lens in place. The rest of the flange will be hanging off the sides of the lensboard.

 

Been there done that-)) This is actually relatively easy. Now how about having a 4" lensboard with a 3" hole in it-))

[dan_fromm2]

Mike, I wasn't really asking about total wastes of cash, although those are interesting too. I was asking about items bought with the idea that they could be used, that arrived in good order, and turned out to be unusable after all. Still and all, thread drift and seemingly off-topic replies aren't all bad ...

 

Tito's 355 Heliar is a blunder like my 14" Aviar. They're both perfectly fine lenses, just not fit for the use they were bought for.

 

Jonathan's Xenar is that class too, but I bet it could be rescued by an investment in a Speed Graphic. A lens in barrel doesn't always have to be put in shutter to be used. For example, I have a 12"/4 Taylor Hobson Telephoto that is bigger, probably heavier, than that Xenar. It is too big to put in shutter or even front mount and it has so little back focus it can't be adapted to a roll film SLR. It works just fine, though, on a Speed Graphic; all of the lens is in front of the board.

 

Cheers, thanks for the replies,

 

Dan

[jonathan_bundick]

"Been there done that-)) This is actually relatively easy. Now how about having a 4" lensboard with a 3" hole in it-))"

 

Robert,

 

When I first thought of this I considered the big hole needed in the lens board, and thought of doing just what you suggested with Plexiglas. Building a thicker than normal board and milling it on a router table. The normal thickness of a standard metal board might be a little thin with so much metal removed, but then again maybe not. It is still a tempting project as the lens looks as if it just left the factory.

[david_goldfarb]

I have a 360/4.5 Heliar, and it's a great lens. I've added some big washers to strengthen the front end of my Gowland 8x10" (which is only slightly heavier than the lens!), and it holds up, even with the front-mounted Luc shutter. If I can use it on my Gowland, I'm sure it will work with just about anything.

 

Back to the original question, I was a bit taken aback by the massive size of the Norman FS-10 fresnel spot strobe when it arrived, not to mention the quantity of light it puts out. "A converted Bardwell and McAlister Mini Spot? How big could that be? A 10-inch fresnel?" I thought, not exactly realizing that designations like "mini" and "junior" are just on a different order of magnitude from the rest of the world in the context of theatre and cine lighting. That said, I bought a cine stand for it, and it's one of my favorite strobe heads.

[bennybee]

A rather nice W-Komura Uni Auto 35mm/f2.5 lens with a dedicated SP adapter (Pentax screw mount) for which I was sure to find a Nikon adapter on eB someday... I never did. Bought a Pentax srew to Nikon adapter instead but somehow forgot that this way infinity would remain behind the horizon somewhere.

Then there is that beautiful boxed Graflex XL body and RH-10 film back for which the necessary Graflok back adapter and lens are still lacking. Got me a non-fitting Graflex handgrip for it though... (same grip but different hardware - must be for another Graflex model !) I fear this is a project that will never materialize.

And just today (!) I received a minty Topcon 6.5x viewfinder in its original leather case, intended for a RE or Super D(M) body that is still at large. Why did I buy that for? Speaking of paper weights.

Any takers please email off forum ;-)

[robert_davis2]

The lensboard I made was out of wood. Either 3/4" or 7/8" I don't remember. The only part that is the normal thickness is the small area that fits the lenboard grooves in the camera. It was very easy to make with the bandsaw. The big problem was the screw holes on the flange wouldn't line up on the board. Finally decided having half the screws was good enough to try. Worked. Not sure I'd hold it upside down-)

[peter_chiappini]

I've made a bunch, mostly with lenses, as Dan helpfully pointed out to me in most cases; he also recommended the lens collector's vade mecum, which is extremely useful but just made me want to buy more lenses, most of which are very big and not very useful until I get that ultra large format camera. But the most disheartening is when I buy a camera and attempt "fix" it. I broke a poor little pax m2, I think beyond repair; I only bought it for $15 but I couldn't stop shaking for almost a week. I also completely disASSembled the optimo shutter on a Kodak 3A Autographic Special... I think these still count, because they were actually working fine before I messed around with them. I got it in my head somehow that they was broked and needed some fixin up, and that really didn't work out well. I bought a 75cm f/9 apo tessar I havent been able to do anything with except to point it at a light fixture and smile at its clumsy twin dancing on the wall. Same with a 300 f/5.6 S-Tessar that didnt have an aperture, and a gigantic aero-xenar 32cm f/3.5 I never got to do anything with, but sold. I just got a speed graphic that fixed a few of my mistakes, among many unmounted lenses there are the taylor-hobson ental enlarging lenses I thought were LTM, but are going to be glued onto 4x4 lensboards and renamed as macro lenses. I dont know how well they'll work, but it will make me happy for the time being. The sad thing is that after Tito mentioned the heliar I went looking for one on ebay, I couldn't find one though. I really can't help myself I'll buy just about any big lens with an aperture and clean glass that I can get relatively cheap even if I know I won't be able to use it. Seriously, if anyone wants to sell me a really big lens that I can't possibly use I'll probably buy it.

[dan_fromm2]

Peter, since reading it has got you into more trouble, I apologize for suggesting that you buy a copy of the Vade Mecum.

 

About the Entals, why don't you buy an LTM flange and use that to hold them to a board? I make the suggestion because glue is too permanent. Also, my experience with enlarger lenses as macro lenses has been mixed. The ones I've tried have been fine, but not all have been equally fine; at magnifications below 1:1, most have been not that great above. Most, I think, would do better reversed above 1:1. Also, think about coverage. Short ones, in particular, don't have a lot even at 1:1.

 

A while ago I suggested to Daniel Iggers that he just say NO. I've been trying to do that, with a little success. You might try it too. FWIW, I have a couple of mantras that help me say NO to lenses. "I have too many at that focal length already." "It isn't as good as what I already have." "It won't work on any camera I have or plan to get." This last didn't keep me from getting a 600/9 Apo Ronar in the hope of making a Baby Bertha sooner or later, but at least its price was right.

 

Charlie Barringer the Zeiss collecting guru recently told me that my heap of gear lacks, um, coherence. Interesting thought, and its implications have helped me say NO too. On the other hand, Charlie's heap, which is much taller than mine, is slowly losing coherence as his focus shifts from Zeiss to "neat stuff."

 

Cheers,

 

Dan