chauncey_l._walden

Michael, Ctein's suggestion of using a graphic arts fine half-tone

transfer as a "negative" worked great for me. While not quantitative,

it is certainly qualitative and makes comparisons between lenses on

resolution, contrast, and color fringing easy - even between two

specimens of the same lens model.

Fabio, I took a Kodak Series IX adapter ring No. 91 (which is a

screw-in for something huge) and slightly relieved it until it was a

tight slip fit over the lens. It works perfectly and the filters are

often available quite cheaply. Good luck.

The old Kodak 135mm Wide Field Ektar is one of my favorites and the

one that stays on the folded camera.

John Sexton uses T-Max RS at 1:9 in his Jobo 3006. His development is

extremely consistent. Maybe the 3010 is pushing it.

Wow Roger, that has to be one rare Medalist! The standard lens for the II was a 100mm f/3.5 Ektar which uses series VI accessories. Neither Kodak advertising booklets I have, for the Medalist and Medalist II, mention any lens other than the 100. Could your 135 be an aftermarket swap? Tell us more, please.

Chauncey

Just as a point, the 1600F and Kiev 88 I had would not interchange backs. As I remember, one was an innie and the other an outie, or something like that.

Hi Keith, I think you've hit on the real requirement of lens

selection, testing. I went through this having rounded up a dozen

lenses from eBay and my local camera shops and using Ctein's (Post

Exposure) recommendation of using half-tone screens as images. The 135

EL-Nikkor and 135 Componon I tested lost out to the 135 Componon-S I

tested. The big surprise was the 150 EL-Nikkor which not only

performed beautifully but also covered 5x7. It appeared to be better

than my 180 APO-Rodagon, but I have remounted that one and will retest

it when I get a chance. There seems to be as much variation between

specimens of the same lens as between different brands so hands on

comparison is a must in my book if you want the best possible. All of

the lenses were "good" and users would have been happy with them -

some are just "better". Good luck.

I'm sure Pete has the math to back his statement up, but it would make

sense to me that the physical size of the aperture has something to do

with the diffraction effect. Since the circumference - the portion of

the aperture that is diffracting light - varies as the diameter, while

the area - the undiffracted light that is also exposing the film -

varies as the radius squared, it would seem that the smaller the hole,

the greater the proportion of diffracted light that is created the

image. There use to be a "rule of 4" that said it would be best not to

go below the focal length divided by 4 as regards the aperture. Anyone

remember that?

I'll second that. If you have one to work from, they are very easy to

make from two sheets of hobby shop aluminum and some epoxy.

Sometimes the leaf shutters become sluggish and don't fully close before they reopen. The easiest way to check this is to use the timer function on the lens which will allow you to observe what happens between release and shutter activation. Ross Yerkes can fix it if this is the problem. Good luck.

My 9th edition (1951) of Optics The Technique of Definition by Arthur Cox says:

"Another modification of the triplet construction is the Ross Xpres lens in which the compounding of the back crown is carried a stage further with the aim of obtaining among other things a still better correction of zonal spherical aberration."

The Xpress seems to be a longer, slower version of the Xpres, covering 50 degrees instead of 45.

The diagram shows what would otherwise be a Tessar except that the cemented rear doublet is instead a triplet, hence 5 elements in 3 groups.

Cox apparently considers the Tessar to be derived from the Cooke Triplet, however, Rudolph Kingslake in A History of the Photographic Lens (1989)says:

"It is certain that the Tessar was not a modified Triplet, as the series of steps followedby Rudolph in going from the Anastigmat to the Tessar are well established, but for some of the later designs it is not always clear whether they should be regarded as modified Tessars or modified Triplets."

About the Xpres:

"The Tessar was such an excellent design that other workers would have liked to copy it but were prevented from doing so by patent limitations. The simplest way out was to use a cemented triplet in the rear instead of a doublet. Several designs of this type appeared in 1913, including the Ross Xpres by J. Stuart and J. W. Hasselkus..."

Hi All,

I picked up an interesting old German Kodak yesterday and have been

unable to locate it in my less-than-current McKeown. It's a 6x9 folder

in the Art Deco body style of the early 30's but the struts are

similar to the Model B of the late 30's, only less elaborate and

finished in nickel. What attracted me most, however, was the

10.5cm f/4.5 Schneider Xenar in Compur shutter with Kodak Art Deco

faceplate. Some of the body's black enamel is a little bubbly but the

glass cleaned right up and the shutter works fine. The leather

case needs just a little polish but then, what do you want for $28?

The film sticker recommended Verichrome (V620) or Regular (620) film

but the closest I could come is some VP620 now thawing. If anyone has

a reference work that includes this camera, I would appreciate knowing

the exact date range and any other tidbits. Thanks.

Chauncey

Harry, the 1965 B+J catalog lists that Wollensak lens as "to cover 3

1/4x4 1/4". For 5x7 it was the 4 1/2 inch Wollensak.

Michael, I made a shelf for my $10 garage sale pack frame out of inch

and a half by one eighth, inch by one eighth, and three-quarter inch

by one eighth aluminum strap from the hardware store. I bent the heavy

stuff into a flat-bottomed "U" and attached the ends to the frame with

regular frame pins. The small stuff became 45 degree braces pinned to

the frame and bolted to the "U". The medium stuff became shelf cross

bars with the ends bent 90 degrees and bolted to the "U". It was easy

and only cost a few dollars and my packed 8x10 is happy back there.

Rob, I have 100 sheet boxes of 10x10 Ilford MGIV RC in both satin and glossy in the freezer, so they have made them. I assumed they were a normal production item since I haven't had to look for more, but maybe not.

Chauncey

Anthony,

An old Ednalite 616 adapter will take it to Series VI. The thread

diameter on the adapter is about 33.7mm.

For 625 mercury's (and maybe others - I've lost the URL to check)

contact Arthur at batteries@who.net. I got four, promptly delivered by

priority mail, for $23.20.

I've been shooting 5x7 Velvia which expired in 1994. It's been out of the freezer for several years and beyond a slight, quite pleasant, magenta shift, is working well.

Or, if 159mm would work for you, a Wollensak Extreme Wide Angle will

cover 8x10.

Hi Kevin,

There's an article in the January/February 1996 issue of view camera,

History of Lens Design Part Three by Lynn Jones, which discusses the

the various designs of the Ilex/Calumet(Caltar)/Burke&James/Burleigh

Brooks cooperative. The first Caltars (mid 60's) were f/6.3 computer

designed Tessars, followed by the 90 f/8 Wide Field Caltar of 103

degrees coverage, and an f4.8 Plasmat series (some convertible)

covering about 77 degrees. Some were marketed by Ilex as Paragons. B&J

marketed them as Acutar, Acugon, and Acuton, respectively. Burleigh

Brooks marketed them as Acu-Tessar, Acu-Veriwide, and Acu-Symmetrical.

Apparently, the only one they felt was not a top-notch performer was

the 375 Tessar.

Hi Marcus,

In the January/February 1996 issue of View Camera is Part Three of

History of Lens Design by Lynn Jones. From this article I would guess

that your lens is late 60's and was designed to be convertible by

removing the front elements. It is a plasmat design, and the Acugon

denotes marketing by Burke and James. Coverage is about 77 degrees and

"performance was truly impressive."

Hi William,

A close examination of an old shutter I just picked up at an antique

shop revealed that it is a "Luc". It is 100mm in outside diameter with

about a 43mm six-bladed shutter and a recess 51mm in diameter for the

front of the lens. The shutter is locked in place on the lens by three

setscrews operated by milled knobs. There is a dial on the front which

opens the shutter for focusing and the shutter operates at about

one-thirtieth of a second via a standard cable release which both

cocks and releases. Cute, but obviously pre-war. Good luck in your

search.

Bob, don't let the lensboards put you off. They are easily made from a

couple of sheets of hobby shop aluminum, a jig or jeweler's saw, and

some epoxy. Just cut the smaller, inner sheet with a tab that's

folded over to receive the holding pin. Looks impressive when you're

finished but no trouble and quick to do.

Hi Mark,

Large format is a thoughtful process (or a process full of thought!).

If the shutter speeds don't match the markings, but are consistent and

you know what they are, the shutter doesn't need fixing. Your light

meter and a little thought will get a good exposure. And I wouldn't

worry much about the speeds over 1/30 - unless you're going to try to

use it as a press camera. Large format lens mounting is not brain

surgery. A coping saw and a quarter's worth of hobby shop plywood or

aluminum and maybe some epoxy will do the job. For the short term, or

maybe longer, your lenses will be just fine. Spend your money on film.

Use your camera. Experiment with the movements. Enjoy.

I have one of these lenses on a 4x5 Pacemaker Speed Graphic (so no

shutter required) and have used it for landscape. The images are

extremely sharp and contrasty. Focusing at f/10 was not a problem

(helped by a Biz-Mart plastic page magnifier on the viewer's side of

the ground glass.) Total cost of this system, by the way, was $75.79

which includes $50 for the Speed Graphic, $25 for the mint lens, and

.79 for the page magnifier. Have fun.