arne_croell

I own this lens (one of the sharpest LF lenses ever built in my opinion), and the Schneider rep. is correct. My lens takes 67mm filters.

Both lenses are smaller than the traditional 120mm Super-Angulon or equivalent lens that they replaced (only for 4x5 use in the case of the HM). I would not call them huge either. The HM 120mm is slightly longer than the 110Xl (80.3 vs. 60mm), whereas the 110 XL is heavier than the 120HM (425 vs. 370g for Copal shutters), mostly because the 120mm HM uses a Copal 0 vs. the Copal 1 of the 110mm XL. Both use 67mm filters. I own both lenses and both are superb. If the image circle is not a point, I would say within its image circle the HM is a tad sharper at f/16 or wider open than the XL. No discernible difference at f/22.

For anybody interested, the original patent by Rusinov/Roosinov/Roossinov has the US patent no. 2,516,724. You can look it up by inserting the patent no.into their search page:

 

http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm

 

Since these are old patents,it is only displayed as an image, and one needs Quicktime and ActiveX to view it.

 

It is interesting to note that the outer negative menisci of the original patent are deeply curved not only on the inside but also on the outside, much more than the Biogon, Super-Angulon or any of its successors. I assume the main reason would be cost, as these would be very expensive to produce, requiring a large amount of glass to start with, and the removal of a large portion of it in essentially a one-off process for each surface. The Soviet name for this lens type was "Russar"; some of those were made as a civilian 20mm lens for Leica screw mount, but larger versions have apparently only been made for military and mapping purposes. They show up occasionally at auction. Kingslake mentions that Bertele's patents are valid only for lenses with more than one negative meniscus at each side, since 2 single menisci were covered by Roossinov. I wonder if the S.-Angulon falls under the Roossinov patent.

 

As mentioned above, the first lens to use the Biogon name was a very different beast, a 35mm lens for the Contax based on the Sonnar design.

One additional information: I have a 355mm Repro-Claron with a 115xxxxx serial no., which is radioactive, and a 305mm one with a number 135xxxxx, which isn't. These serial numbers are in 1970 and 1978-1979, respectively. I also have a 135mm Xenotar with a serial no. 114xxxxx, which is not radioactive, whereas older Xenotars are. That would be 1969-1970. So it appears Schneider phased out the Thorium glasses in the early 1970's.

Jon, the yellow tint is not a reflection color from the coating, its when you look through the lens, for example at a white piece of paper. Its easiest to see if you take a lens cell, put it on a piece of paper and compare the paper color as seen through the lens cell with the normal white paper color. If there is a yellowish-brownish cast, thats it. And if one cell shows it, the other should too, as they are symmetric. Late versions of the Repro-Claron may not be radioactive and won't show the color.

Jon, as Jim Galli remarked, there are 2 thread versions around. The one you have seems to be the one that directly fits a Compound 3 shutter, Michael is right in his suspicion. Note that Compounds came in a few different versions with respect to the spacing, so you have to get the right one or have adapter rings made. The one I was referring to in my old post was the version for Compur 2, so those measurements won't help you.

Lentil vs. lens - did you ever learn German, Michael? Because its the same word in German, "Linse".

Both the 47 and 38mm XL work on the TK, with a recessed board. Optically, a few mm of movement with the 47mm, the 38mm is made for MF backs. Mechanically, no problem with the flexible TK WA bellows even though the standards are really crunched together. Note that you can't get the standards to their closest position when the front standard is at its foremost position (this applies for the TK 45, I don't know if the newer TK 45S, having a different front standard, is different)

Vivek, I don't own one of these (but would love to try one ;-) ). The remark about the remainining three is related to the fact that thanks to Arlens research we know there were 5 in existence, originally bought by the government. Now Arlen owns one, and another one was first bought and later sold by Lens and Repro (check the earlier thread mentioned above).

Thanks for the post and the photos, Arlen. Interesting information for us lensoholics! So only 5 of those were made. Wow. Now where are the other three......? ;-)

Thanks everybody for the informative answers and pictures!

 

Arne

That should have been Vivek, of course. Sorry for butchering your name!

Yvek, how can one distinguish the two? Is the one Klaus shows in the picture the old one?

Arne

Your lens was part of a batch of 75 21cm Tessars in Compound III finished on June 28, 1948. The design of the lens was by W. Merte from Zeiss and dates back to 1929.That does not mean it is obsolete though: It is the same one used for the last Tessars made under the Zeiss Jena label in 1991.

The 210mm Xenotar is now listed on the Lens&Repro web site (used dept.), with the remark "recementing". I guess they sent it off to take care of that one blemish mentioned above. The price column just says "Call..."

Here is a short update on the general results for the Docter lenses so far. Thanks to everybody who has responded!

 

First, I did not get any input on barrel versions. I wonder if Docter ever sold any of them.

 

Fo the shuttered versions, the numbers are quite small:

Apo Germinar and Apo-Germinar W: Most serial numbers I received are below 1050, all are below 1100. This would indicate a maximum production of not more than 100 lenses per type.

 

I had no responses on the Doctar WA and Germinar S lenses. For the Germinar W lenses, there seem to be at least 150 units of the 150mm version, lower than 50 for all others.

 

The Tessars are more difficult to figure out. Apparently, serial numbers are not that consistent there, since I received 4 different nominations of Tessars without any serial number at all, one or two high serial numbers that still follow the Zeiss series (8XXX, 15XX) but are marked Docter otherwise, and several following the regular numbering scheme in the low 10XX range ? those are all below 1050.

 

So far the numbers indicate a very low production for the 4-5 years Docter was making these lenses, but more input is needed.

 

Please keep those numbers coming!

 

Michael, thanks for the suggestion. I was not expecting any former Docter employees here. Unfortunately, the existing successor company does not have anything to do with the Saalfeld plant where the old lenses were made, but I will try if anybody can be found.

Some of you may know that I wrote 2 articles on Carl Zeiss Jena lenses

and Docter Optic lenses for View Camera (2003), as well as a shorter

previous <a

href="http://www.largeformatphotography.info/docter-optik.html">online

article </a> on largeformatphotography.info.

 

The one information that eluded me so far are the production numbers

for the lenses produced by Docter in the 5 years between the time

Bernhard Docter bought the Zeiss Jena plant (August 1991) and the stop

of production after the bankruptcy (some time in 1995/1996). The Zeiss

Jena numbers until mid-1991 are known, but not the Docter numbers. For

an update of the online article I would like to have that information

and ask for your help:

 

Docters serial number system followed the model of Zeiss Jena after

1980, where each lens type had its own numbering sequence starting

with 1001. Therefore it is possible to deduce the production number

from the highest serial number.

 

I would be glad if everybody who owns a Docter lens could send me the

type, shutter type (or indicate barrel), and the serial number. I am

not asking you to do that publicly on this site, e-mail it to me at:

 

docter_lens_query@web.de .

 

I promise to not give the numbers to anybody else; I will only use

them to estimate the highest number rounded up to the nearest 10, 50,

or 100 (whatever appears most reasonable), and will post the results

of this query here.

 

The lenses in question are: Apo-Germinar (240, 300, 360, 450, 600,

750, 1000mm); Apo-Germinar W (150, 210, 240mm); Doctar WA

65mm;Germinar W (150, 210, 240, 305, 360mm); Germinar S (270, 600mm);

Tessar/Doctar lenses for 4x5 and up (135, 180, 210, 250, 300, 360mm).

 

In addition to lenses marked ?Docter Optic Wetzlar? please include

also lenses marked ?Carl Zeiss Jena? but only those that came in a

modern Copal, Compur, or Prontor shutter.

 

Again, I am looking for type, shutter type (or barrel), and the serial

number. If you have several lenses of the same type, the highest

number is of course sufficient. This text will be crossposted on the

forums on largeformatphotography.info, photo.net, apug.org,

rec.photo.equipment.large-format.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Arne Croell

I started out with a 75-150-300mm combo, to cover a reasonably wide range. That is what I used for several years. The equivalent of my favorite 35mm lens (85mm) was the 300, but it turned out that I used the wider ones more than in the 35mm days, especially the 150mm. I missed something in between though, so my next acqusition was a 120mm/210mm combo (the 120 has now been sidelined by a 110mm, because that fits better in the line, and the 75 by an 80mm). The 120/110 and 210mm are the ones most used now, so in retrospect I should have started with those maybe. After that came a 450 on the long side, and then a 55mm on the short end. That is my standard "large" kit for 4x5 now: 55-80-110-150-210-300-450mm (I have others to play with nowadays, but this is the main kit). For a 2 lens kit, I'd go with the (old) 120mm and 210, for a 4-lens one with 80-120-210-300.

Schneider's official literature states that the Apo-Symmar L can be used for reproduction ratios from infinity down to 1:3, so typical table-top setups are well covered by this range. A more important practical criterion might be filter size if you have already standardized on a certain size - the Apo-Symmar L has a 77mm and the Apo-Sironar S a 72mm thread (off the top of my head).

Arlen, you wrote:

"I also wonder if the "N" (normal) designation I see on the barrel mount lenses as opposed to shutter mount lenses means the lens is optimised for flat field at lower magnifications as opposed to a lens optimised at infinity."

 

I don't think so; the capital N is common on German barrel lenses and usually means "Normalfassung" (standard barrel mount). All the barrel mounted Zeiss Jena Tessars usually say something like N55 or similar, with the number being a nominal diameter, but there is no optical difference compared with shuttered versions.

That should have been a few micro-Sievert/h, not milliSievert....

Jim, this thread may be of interest to you then:

 

<a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005obo>href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005obo<a\>

 

Maybe you can get them back to near normal colors with some UV bleaching. At least for the 135mm f/3.5 Version the radioactive lens is the back one, so it can be irradiated by a UV lamp without problem. I am not sure, but for the 150mm its probably the same lens.

 

Kelly, I actually measured my 135mm with a counter half a year ago, and it is certainly radioactive - in the range of a few milliSievert/h (factor 10-100 over background at sea level).

 

Darin, the serial no. of the 210 indicated early 1960's - at that time it might have still used thorium glasses. I once measured a Voigtländer Apo-Lanthar from 1966, and that one was certainly still radioactive (despite the claim in the Lens Collectors Vade Mecum that Voigtländer switched already in 1956 - not everything in there is correct).

 

Arne

Thanks everybody, especially Arlen, for the info on the lens (I was another bidder, btw, and was quite curious about it). In addition to nonexistent information on the Schneider web site, there was also no mentioning of it in the German printed lens lists that I have, which often list obscure items, or in the Vade Mecum.

 

Jim, as Thomas mentioned, early Xenotars are radioactive like Apo-Lanthars or Repro-Clarons (in the Xenotar case its the last lens element which is "hot"). Could it be that the color rendition is due to the yellowish-brownish discoloration (yellow+blue=green, so a bluegreen sky sounds like it) of these lenses? How do they look like when held over a piece of paper? My 135mm one is certainly yellowish. If this is the case, they did not have that rendition originally, and could also be "cured" by exposure to UV as described elsewhere on this forum.

Arne

Badger Graphic lists them:

 

http://www.badgergraphic.com/search.asp?x=largeformat

I made the little exercise Andrew suggested: the inflation calculator on the consumer price index web site (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm) gives a factor of 19.09 between 1914 and 2004. So in todays money, an 8 1/4 Dagor in Compound would be $1,500. Since we are comparing list prices, that is not so different from a modern 210mmm.

Alright, that 35" one would be $20,500 in todays money.... ;-)