thomas_vaehrmann

Hi Ian,

 

nice picture! You didn't tell wether you tilted front or back, but rise alone could be a reason because 127mm lenses haven't a large image circle. Check out centering first, then first rise, then tilt. Stop down and look for vignetting. It's difficult to see such things out in the field ecpecially when it's in the sky-area.

Hi Garrett,

 

I'm very sorry but I don't own one 'cause my familiy would be freightend by that huge thing about 40'' long. Götschmann in Germany build them but stopped years ago. They were common before WW II mostly in universities etc and were made still after the war from Liesegang. They show up at ebay, have coated optics if after '45. There main problem is the lamp which isn't modern halogen but heavy 3-500 watts, rare and expensive.

Still a dream that could come true!

Hi John,

after theory from Jim a little practical note from me, not to the artars but to uncoated dialytes. I've uncoated two (Collinear), three (Xenar, Heliar) and four (Eurynar) element lenses. The two and three element lenses show a little bit more flare than coated versions if you shoot against light sources. Four element lenses are beyond that, even under best conditions the contrast is low. I wouldn't spend much money on that!

Hi William,

 

as far as I can remenber, the design is the same. What does it mean: "film"? If it's in barrel mount, one can unsrew the front and back elements as one part. If the "film" is inside towards the f-stop, it can perhaps be removed. Ask the seller wether he would try this for you. Otherwise stick to the Apo-Ronar which will be good enough if in good condition. The dialyte-type is senible to mounting and centering, so don't try to unscrew the single lenses. Rodenstock glued them in the mounting in the version with lower tolerances (CL if i remember right). Docter Optics offerd a spacing-ring to give up the symmetry and optimize the lens for infinity.

The pros and cons of the Dagor are well known. It suffers from coma except at 1:1 thanks to it's symmetrical design. The Amatar is similar but gives up the symmetry to get better correction. Anything else is allready said, so try and enjoy!

Patrick,

the Celor is a dialyte-type with 4 lenses / 4 elements. Others are Eurynar, Syntor or Artar and this type is still common in repro-work as Apo-Ronar Apo-Artar or Repro-Claron. It will have coma. Because your Celor is uncoated and f4.8 isn't that fast, i think every coated Xenar or Optar will do the job better. They have a shutter and will be cheap. Consider that the contrast will be low and flare is a problem, so check out before you invest in a shutter to use it often.

Hi Guoming,

 

slide the upper part of the rails back. You can release release it by pushing the locks on the right side of the rail down. And the normal wide-angle-postion for Technika is: drop the board and tilt the standard back, otherwise the board could appear on the neg if your're shooting portrait.

Hi Stefano,

 

it might be a tele-type for portrait on Technika

Hi Arlen,

it is the greek letter "delta" and means "Duroptan", Schneider's sign for coating. Zeiss named it T or T*, Voigtländer AR and Steinheil VL. Usually the dropped it when coating was common. Your Xenotar is an excellent performer and collecor's item!

the Compound V has 90mm flange diameter, the rear lens diameter should be a little smaller. Your Technika will accept 84mm. And consider bellows length and lens weight. It's a great lens, but not on your Technika.

Hi Emile,

 

perhaps you've got an older copal 3? My two copal 3 shutters are about 20 years apart and have slightly different flange ring sizes.

Hi Bryan,

 

look at http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/depth_of_field_tables/

Hi Chauncey,

 

the Eurynar was still listed in in 50ies but only in the longer f-lengths. The other lenses were Eurygon for portrait and Ysar/Ysarex for standart situations. Perhaps they kept it because old photographers demand it. The red "A" could indicate the coating. I've a pre-war Eurynar which performs good, but lacks coating, so contrast is low and it's prone to flare. Be glad your's is coated and enjoy it.

Hi Nick,

 

the Fujinon-C is a repro-lens and dialyte-type (4 air-spaced lenses), the Fuji-Tessar-type is called Fujinon-L. And the Rodenstock Geronar is a Triplet, the Rodenstock-Tessar-type is called Ysarex. I've both plus Xenar and can say they are as sharp as plasmats. Because they are old or budget lenses, they are single-coated except Nikon-M-series. The 4-lenses/3-elements-design will give brilliant images. Technically the main difference is covering: Tessar-types cover about 55 deg, Plasmats about 70 deg. If you look on mtf-curves Tessar-types give a better resolution in the center (spec. on 5 lines/mm) and go down towards the edges. If you don't need to tilt or shift, a Tessar-type will be as good as a Plasmat although some people think it's an "inferior" lens.

As you mention the "feel" may be different, depending on the grade of correction, but this effect is not limited to Tessar-types. Try it out and choose the lens that fits your taste.

Hi Tim,

 

your Steinheil is from 1946. If it's original fitted to your Linhof, it might be an early or pre- III. After world war II they started with spare parts, fakes were also made (so says the Linhof-book Bob already mentioned).

Hi Joel,

 

<p>

 

guess you have an old Kardan-Color, that is front and back of the

Technika mounted on a monorail from the 60's. So you have to look for

Technika-type lensboards. I think both 6x9cm and 9x12cm/4x5'' take

the lensboards from 4x5'' Technika.

Hi Mark,

 

<p>

 

the Tessar-lens design is still one of the best in its class. Apart

from coating and quality control, new glasses gave significant

improvements after World War II. The lenses you mention are

all "normal" lenses with about 50 degrees angel of view. So 120 mm

for 4x5'' is extremely thigth. I've experiences with pre-war lenses

in 35mm, MF and LF. Tessar-types are good, sharp in center. Triplets

like the mentioned Trioplan are not not up to that grade of corretion

and a little bit softer. Modified Triplets like Heliar are different:

sharp on edges but loss of fine details. Because speed was a problem

at that time, every lens faster than f4,5 is a softer compromise,

f4,5 is normal and slower is best. To answer your final question: if

it's your hobby to play around with old lenses an the prices are very

low, buy. Remember that "budget" lenses (mean Tessar-type coated post

1950) are cheap to buy too. Look out for working shutters, fungus in

cemented lenses, scratches.

Hi Michael,

 

<p>

 

none of the old lenses will take such pictures because they are all

better corrected. If your custom-modified lens is just a part of an

normal lens, any single convex lens e.g. loup will do the job. The

Rodenstock Imagon is also an special lens wich is not full corrected

and would give similar effects.

Hi Ole,

 

<p>

 

sounds like you've been offered one of the 50's or 60's modell from

Liesegang. The lower part is bulid like a table and made of wood, the

upper part is a metal column. At least I used such an enlarger years

ago and it worked fine. 4x5'' should be the max. format so you

wouldn't be able to enlarge your 5x7''. You'll need a 150mm enlarging

lens for 4x5'' too. Check out the condensors and the illumination of

the neg's with 150mm lens (!) to get the right condensors for that

size.

Hi David,

 

<p>

 

if you use a flash, all the light that will exposure your neg will

come from the flash except the daylight is very bride or you want to

mix daylight and flashlight. So the normal case is flashlight only:

choose the f-stop you like or need, set it on the lens and on the

flash and the sensor of the flash will do the rest. That means if the

time or lightning from the flash should be long enough to get the

right exposure the sensor will stop it. This happens within milli-

seconds. Therefore you can choose any time on the shutter (because it

is a central-leaf-shutter), but the choosen time shouldn't be so long

that the daylight could affect the exposure or shouldn't be shorter

than the longest flash-period (could be 1/400 sec, so avoid 1/500 sec

on the shutter). Because the short time of the flash is practically

identical with the exposure-time, a normal speed of 1/60 or 1/125 sec

on the shutter should be best. The right f-stop can also be

calculated if you set your flash in manual mode. f-stop=guide-

number/distance. Yor flash has guide-number 45 for 100 ASA.

Hi Francis,

 

<p>

 

the Globica is a little bit old-fashioned and only for studio or

indoor working. The Tessar 210 is the standard-lens for 13x18 and

still a good performer, but image-circle is thight so you will not

have any room for movements. Look wether film in 13x18cm is available

for you. On the other hand $ 100 looks like a bargin, you could make

your first steps in LF and play with it. If you want to dig deeper in

LF and enjoy all the shifting, tilting aso you should upgrade the

lens to a Symmar or Sironar which will offer room for camera

movements.

Hi Calvin,

 

<p>

 

the Compur-Electronic-shutter is long out of production and,

concerning the electronic parts, hard to service. Linhof says that

you can use 3x1,5 volts batteries instead of the no loner produced

4,5 volt ones. Some like this shutter, others not. Because of the

battery-problem my advice is: avoid, if it's your main taking lens.

If it's size is 96x99 mm it could be a Linhof-Technika lensboard.

They used to have an excentric hole.

sounds like Zeiss Protar Satz-Anastigmat, so look for information for

that lens. Should be a decent performer if it's condition is right.

Hi Tony,

 

<p>

 

the Tele-Arton should be a good tele-lens (actually I don't have one)

and should be a better performer than the Tele-Xenar for LF. Your

85mm for the Retina is a different design. In case of the 240mm for

LF, consider that there were two different lenses for 2x3'' and

4x5''. The pros and cons of tele-lenses are discussed on this forum

often.