denys_ivanichek

<p>It looks like Rolleiflex Carl Zeiss Planar 2.8 or 3.5 to me.</p>

<p><img src=" alt="" /><br>

What is so interesting about this lens? Is it better then the other medium format lenses?<br>

It is unique. It's not for everyday use, but it is a special tool in the arsenal of creative photographer. Its imperfections are its advantages.</p>

<p>Robin, again, it is not my theory, I can't tell what is correct or what is wrong in it, just interesting thing to discuss.<br>

Both of my eyes are -1.75, not too bad, but I'm wearing the glasses when driving. I see everything, that is at least 30 feet away from me slightly blurry, but on the other hand, I can focus both of my eyes at the subject, that is at least 2 inches from my eyes, I can easily see a microprint at the bank notes. I can place an image, taken by the 135 mm lens on the instant film at about 135 mm distance from my eyes, and I can clearly see the stereo effect. I do not know, maybe that is just one of those optical illusions, or it has some other explanation?</p>

 

<p>Here is the theory: Human eyes provide stereoscopic vision. Located at slight distance from each other, our eyes provide slightly separate images. However it's important to note that having vision in both eyes (stereoscopic or binocular vision) is not the only way to see in 3D. People who can only see with one eye (monocular vision) can still perceive the world in 3D. Photograph can also reproduce 3D image, even though it was taken with a single lens. In this case the diameter of the lens is the thing, that matters. The lens of the similar to a distance between our eyes diameter produces the image, that can be recognized by our brain as a stereo image. The focal length is important too. That is why images, taken by the large format cameras ( I mean those, with the huge brass lenses) look different. And that is what makes images, taken by medium format cameras look a little different from the images, taken by 35 mm cameras.<br>

There is another interesting fact: people with Myopia (Nearsightedness) can focus on the image at the distance, equal to the focal distance of the lens it was taken with. This makes it possible to see the image in 3D. I'm nearsighted myself and I can prove that. <br /> Please, don't throw the stones at me, if I'm wrong. It is not my theory.</p>

<p>Kent, I'm keeping a close eye on antique lenses for about six years and I can tell, that carte de visite cameras and lenses for those cameras are very rare. I remember the only one time I have purchased a real carte de visite Petzval lens made by Darlot. It was very small, about two and a half inches long, without any focusing gear, because there was at least four of them used on the same lens board at the same time. The lens was sold to gentleman from Italy on the same day I have listed it for sale. They are very rare. The majority of antique brass lenses available today belong to projectors. They have the same glass, as would be used on the photography lenses of that period, but their coverage is also pretty much the same: at least 3x4 inches plate. Also, those smaller coverage lenses are in high demand, therefore, sold for enormous money<br /> http://www.ebay.com/itm/121203474320?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649</p>

<p>Lex, thank you! It is a specialty lens, indeed. Not for everyday use, but rather for fine art photography. It is just an instrument, and different photographers can achieve different results using it. Some will like a swirls, other might use it for soft focus or close-up portraits or still lifes. There are millions of tack-sharp lenses on today's market, but pictures taken by those lenses look pretty much the same.</p>

<p>Dan, funny thing is that some people assume that their own opinions, beliefs, preferences, values and habits are 'normal'. <br /> As I have mentioned before, it is just a matter of personal preferences. Why every lens supposed to be amazingly sharp? What's wrong with the people still using Imagons? The same effect can be achieved by clicking one button in editing software. Or, what is so terribly wrong with the people, spending thousands of dollars for antique Voigtlander's and Dallmeyer's lenses? <br /> I guess, nothing is wrong with them. They just want to use it, no matter what other people think about it.</p>

<p>Dan, maybe you are right, but it is just a matter of personal preferences. As a portrait photographer, I would prefer to have a good old Sonnar 2.8 180 and this "one-trick pony", rather than a whole bunch of wide angle lenses.</p>

<p>JDM von Weinberg: Yes, that swirly part used to be cropped out on the images of that period by using the larger coverage lenses on the smaller size cameras. But now the lens design's flaw seems to be the only reason for that much of attention. <br>

Here is a link about the independent test of the Lomography lens:<br>

http://framework.latimes.com/2013/10/23/putting-the-new-lomography-petzval-portrait-lens-to-work/#/0<br>

The main reason, why my lens is designated primarily for the medium format, is because 35mm frame can not give that feeling of volume, that many people like about large format. And the medium format is little closer to that, yet more convenient and affordable. Therefore, my lens is not the same as Lomography Lens, but because of it's longer Flange Focal Distance it is versatile enough to be used on many full frame 35 mm cameras.</p>

<p>Anthony, thank you for your inquire! I will try to keep it at 450$. Here is a link to the Flange Focal Distance chart: http://ivanichek.com/ffd.htm As you can see, the FFD of the Hasselblad is a little longer, than of Pentacon Six, but very close to it. I will think about building another one with Hasselblad mount.</p>

 

<p>Robin, thank you for your interest! As I have mentioned above, I will try to keep it at about 450$. I do not think that I will be able to get the attention of many people interested in financing this small project, because I have never advertised the lens before, but if there will be at least one hundred supporters, then I will go ahead and start working on the production of the small order of the lenses. </p>

<p>Rodeo Joe: Yes, you are absolutely correct: the focus fall-off is making the image composing a harder task, as well as a very shallow depth of field. The Petzval design is a very early lens scheme, it has a lots of uncorrected optical flaws and comparing it to the modern lenses is like comparing the steam engine to the monorail train. I do not even mention that fact, that PhotoShop is a huge competitor to the analogue photography in general, but millions of photographers still prefer film to digital.<br>

There is one more thing in the lens' defence: as you know, modern full frame digital cameras can be used for taking the video. Using this kind of lens can be very useful for creative videographers. </p>

<p>Uncle Goose, JDM von Weinberg: Thank you for your interest! You are correct, building the working prototype here, in the US was very expensive. I will try to keep the price as low, as possible. If I will be able to find at least a hundred people, who will be interested in getting the copy of the lens, then it is going to cost me about 450$ a piece to order the CNC machining and manufacturing of the glass elements for the small batch order.</p>

<p> About three years ago I have assembled my Petzvar 120 mm portrait lens. It is made by the original Petzval scheme, non-improved or re-engineered, but given a contemporary lens barrel with the iris diaphragm and 72 mm filter thread mount for easy use. I must admit, it has become one of my favorite lens. Here you can see a sample images: <br /> http://ivanichek.com/Medium%20format%20Petzvar%20Petzval%20lens.htm<br /> Do you think, this is an interesting lens to try a small batch production project, or should I just keep playing with it myself?<br /> Please, share your opinion or suggestions.<br /> Cheers,<br /> Dennis.</p><div></div>