jdleffler

<p>Hasselblad produced one of their little 20 page booklets in 1980 named Ansel Adams Black & White Photography. Does anyone know anything about this booklet?</p>

<p>Thanks for any information.<br>

Sincerely, David</p><div></div>

Yes Q.G., Carl Zeiss does indeed label their Proxar's as you indicate in both black and chrome. This PROXAR does resemble a Japanese CAMREX filter, but they generally label their filters as well. I thank you all for your interest but, unfortunately, I now have to draw the conclusion that this is indeed an oddly labeled representation of a quite useful close-up attachment for a B50 Hasselblad lens. As I mentioned above this Proxar is very heavy and extraordinarily well built. I'll continue my research and let you know if I find anything further of interest.

 

Cheers,

David Leffler<div></div>

Excellent question. Please see additional photo.<div></div>

Gentlemen and Ladies,

 

I have two chrome Proxar Close-up lenses (Proxar f=0.5m and Proxar f=1.0m) that are marked with "Japan" on the

back. They seem massive when compared to my Carl Zeiss Proxar and Softar II lenses but they fit beautifully on

my 80mm Planar C. Does anyone know about the Japanese manufacturer that made these Proxar Close-up lenses for

the Hasselblad?

 

Thank you for your comments.

 

David Leffler<div></div>

Brilliant! My God I love this forum. Thank you so much.

 

Sincerely,

David Leffler

I have a Hasselblad C16 film back that belonged to a professional photographer. I opened the back of the film

magazine and found putty carefully fitted into just the center/middle of the hole (far away from any film) and

the film side of the putty was blackened. What might possibly this accomplish? Could this be some sort of light

leak problem with this back or some other esoteric film technique? Additionally (although it may not be related),

he had taped to the outside of the C16 "Wind to 9 1/2". Can anyone please explain this?

 

Thank you for your consideration,

 

David Leffler

I have a RTH front lens cap and I am curious to know what kind of a lens it derived from. Can anyone assist me? It is likely that this is for a lense made for a Leica? The size appears to be about a 50mm or nearly 2 inches ID. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you Colin for moving your comments to this post. I greatly appreciate your commitment to completeness in one post. Lord knows there isn't that much more information out there not represented here. Researchers in the future will thank you.

 

I thoroughly enjoy going back through some of the old archives and gathering information that would otherwise live only in the fuzzy, portable resting place of a professional photographers hat. I love this place.

Thank you gentlemen I believe this answers my question very nicely.

Frankly I don't think this can be done. Short answer would be no. However, I

had the question put to me and I did say I'd answer any question about this

enlarger lens. I can't say no if I don't know for sure. So, at the risk of

looking like a Leica/Leitz DOOFUS... Is this possible in some specialized

configuration? Perhaps with a Focaslide for copying or macro work but this

wouldn't be directly screw mounted to the camera?

 

I've scoured the Photo.net site for any reference to this possibility and none

was forthcoming. You'd think this would answer my question. Never-the-less, I'm

thorough if nothing else.

 

Anyway, thanks for any information.

 

David

As a matter of fact I did take a series of pictures by holding the Periscope lens up near my HP850 and shooting various distances. HP doesn't make a camera with a bellows. Their loss. Frankly, the light gathering properties of this lens are amazing. I had to set my exposure compensation all the way down to get a good image. Frankly, hand holding a lens out in front of a digital camera to get a focused picture is not optimal photography. Extraordinarily interesting but its hard to hold my breath and stop my heartbeat long enough to get a razor sharp image. Cool to shoot through a 100 year old lens and get a decent picture, round though it may be. I got a taste of what a photographer may have felt like 100 years ago. Rather thrilling.<div></div>

And another catalog<div></div>

R.D. Gray lenses were found on other cameras. However I have I have located so little information. Any help would be appreciated. I did find this in:

 

M. Wilkinson and C. Glanfield a lens collector's vade mecum*

 

"Montauk Camera Co. (G. Gennert), 24 East 13 St., New York, USA.

They agented other lenses, including Tessar, Dagor, Heliar early this Century, but did list lenses which seem to be of their own brand.

 

Gray's Extreme Angle Stigmatic for 90-95? f11 4.5, 5.375, 6.5in This seems to be a Portable RR. It was suggested to use 5.375in for 10x8in (at small apertures?).

 

Eoscope f5.0 6-14in Portrait lens, probably a Petzval.

 

Sylvar Series 111 f6.8 5-17.5in It was suggested to use 12in for 10x8in. This was a symmetrical anastigmat, of 3+3 glasses, and possibly a Dagor version.

see also reference to Gennert above."

 

Anastigmat

 

The outer parts of the simple lenses are unsharp partly because vertical lines and horizontal lines are focussed at different distances from the lens. (Correctly they are tangential and sagittal lines.) This was seldom corrected in lenses up to 1890, largely as the limited range of glasses then available made it hard to correct both spherical and astigmatic aberrations in the same lens, and designers and customers wanted a sharp central image to focus on. Actually astigmatism is more serious in degrading an image than spherical

and some designers tried to correct it. Some early attempts may be:

 

Pantoscop by Busch. Probably a very valid claim.

 

Antiplanet by Steinheil. Another valid claim.

 

Piazzi Smyth Petzval with field flattener- an uncertain claim.

 

M. Mittenzwei of Zwickau seems to have tried with the new glasses in c.1887.

 

R.D.Gray of New York also.

 

E. Hartnack and A. Miethe of Berlin (a Pantoscope type design?) which is said to have failed due to the choice of glass.

 

K.Fritsch of Vienna, in an Apochromat.

 

F R. von Voigtlaender of Brunswick but with no details available.(It was probably to be the Kollinear)

 

Commercially viable lenses were developed with the Concentric of Schroeder for Ross, 1888-1892.and Anastigmats of Rudolph and Zeiss (1889-1890) and the Double Anastigmat of von Hoegh and Goerz (1892).

 

See also Steinheil, Beck, Dallmeyer and TTH for innovators.

 

If anyone finds out anything else more substantive please let me know.

 

Sincerely,

David Leffler<div></div>

Here is the Manufacturer's Name on the side.<div></div>

I seem to be having trouble with accessing or adding to a post so I'll start

again. I hope this is OK.

 

I have an American made lens and am having an extraordinarily difficult time

finding out more about this American manufacturer and general availability of

the "Periscope" lens. I have heard that R.D. Gray invented the Secret Vest

Camera and that he also invented a Secret Cane Camera among other camera related

inventions. Does anyone know much about these lens (Serial No.s etc.) presumably

manufactured by R.D. Gray in the late 1880 or 1890s? Additionally, were they

found on Gray manufactured cameras or on other large format cameras.

 

Literally all I know is found in an old sales catalog:

 

"The Periscope Lens is a rectilinear combination of the wide-angle variety,

having an angle of 80 degrees, and is suitable for taking interior and exterior

views?a very satisfactory instrument for general open-air work.

The largest apeture, f-14 admits sufficient light for instantaneous views. The

larger sizes are suitable for taking life-size portraits in the studio."

 

 

Thanks for any information, David Leffler

 

Please see below for an example.<div></div>

As well as...<div></div>

Just for fun another look (or two) at at the oft mentioned Leica IIIf.<div></div>

Thank you Christopher. I agree that Mohir's practice of unconditional refund minus shipping is completely fair and I intend to embrace it in all transactions not specifically designated as "as-is". My integrity need stand up to the scrutiny of a global audience and I would be foolish indeed to not heed sage wisdom born of years of experience.

 

Additionally, I fully intend to use a more rigorous methodology to determine how I frame my description of an item so that even an "as-is" listing is just as clearly delineated as a high-grade item. People have a right to know what they are spending their money on.

 

Further, I am now using the penlight method suggested by Arthur and Adrian, among others. I wish I had known about this technique long ago. It's amazing what can be seen lurking in the shadows of an older lens. Had I known about this technique my critiques might have been much more "objective".

 

The more time I spend canvasing forums like this, and educating myself on the instruments I sell, the more I can imbue confidence in those who would want what I offer. A worthy pursuit.

 

 

P.S. Why is it that we are no longer allowed to sell on this forum? It would seem as if a healthy and honest discussion of what was transacted (pros and cons) using a policy akin to Mohir's simple no-risk criteria could only lead to better overall acquisitions and happier members. After all, all upsets are caused by a lack of communication. There is certainly no dearth of communications here.

I am singularly impressed with the consideration and sensitivity all of you have shown in answering my question. As usual I have gleaned a great deal of invaluable information. Certainly, from now on, I will thoroughly examine all of David's optics by moving the beam of a small but powerful penlight up, around and through the lens.

 

Interestingly, I reexamined an old optic I had previously (and I had thought carefully) examined with a gooseneck lamp and good magnifier. I am delighted to note the penlight technique is a far superior diagnostic tool. I was able to note imperfections in the older lenses I had not been able to see before and will now be able to document and disclose for buyers to consider.

 

Further, I take to heart the advice offered with regard to rigorously performing a thorough and exhaustive evaluation of cosmetic, mechanical and optical condition of each component ensuring that clients are well pleased when receiving items that meet and may often exceed their expectations.

 

Everytime I come here I am left with a feeling of wonder and awe in the power of a knowledgeable and caring community.

 

I'll be back with more questions. I may be ignorant but I'm not stupid.

As usual the advice and support I get here is stellar. I have so many more outstanding lenses and camera accessories that I can't let this get me down. These things are made to be cared for and used and I appreciate the encouragement and the advice. I've got a bright MagLite that I am going to use (Thanks Adrian) so that I can make a more accurate assessment and offer a better lens description in any future listing. Which begs a question: Is there a good way to photograph a lens so that someone like yourselves can make a judgment with a reasonable hope of a considered outcome. What I mean to say is, if you can't hold it in your hand, what would you like to see in a photograph that would assist you in making a informed decision in purchasing a lens online?

 

Cheers,

David

And here is the back.<div></div>

I have a question about a fogged lens. I sold a Leica IIIf on eBay. (I suppose I

should have offered it to a more discerning and appreciative audience here on

Photo.net.) I take great pride in offering only the best when I part with

something and the buyer paid about $600 for the camera and many nice accessories

that came with it (this seemed a reasonable price). I loved that beautiful Leica

camera and, although I am not a professional as many here, I considered it a

beautiful example. (I sold a IIIg at the same time and the buyer was thrilled.)

Nevertheless, at the time I sold the IIIf the lens certainly looked clean and

clear to me. After the buyer received the camera in January, and subsequently

shipped it to Hong Kong, he is just now publicly decrying that the camera is

old, my pictures unclear and there was fog in the lens. I am appalled. Could

shipping a camera to Hong Kong cause a lens to fog. I'm distressed that this has

happened and I would like to better understand how it could have happened and

how to avoid any possibility of it ever happening again. I enclose pictures of

the Leica and the lens. Can this type of lens be cleared of fog easily or is the

problem deeper and more complex? Any assistance would be appreciated.

 

Sincerely, David Leffler<div></div>

I have a 45 degree angle Leitz Wetzlar eyepiece that I believe is for the

Focaslide or Mirror Reflex Housing. Is this used for either or both?

 

Thank you,

David<div></div>

Thanks Vivek, this is interesting information indeed. Do you know of any online references I can access with regard to various lens manufacturers Quality Control specifications that would validate marking a lens with an <EP>? Or perhaps your information came from some prior research or a book or brochure?

 

I had hoped that this was the case but I am finding it difficult to find authoritative validation in this instance.

 

Thank you so much for what you have provided so far and certainly I would appreciate any further information.

 

Sincerely,

David

Hi Vivek,

Could you tell me what Q.C. means please.