Looking to acquire a Petzval for my 8X10 Deardorff

[paulbarden]

The world of Petzval type lenses is unfamiliar and new to me. I see plenty of Petzval type glass for sale on fleabay, but I have no idea how to evaluate each item to determine whether it has coverage for 8X10 or not (sellers typically do not say). Can anyone guide me through this issue, please? I'm feeling quite lost without knowing which lens will work with my Deardorff! Thank you. I'm looking specifically for a lens suitable for (mostly landscape) wet plate work.

Paul

[Mark Sawyer]

Sellers typically don't know how to figure coverage, speed, or focal length, so unless it's marked on the lens or you're familiar with that particular model, you'll be making an educated guess. Usually you'll need at least 14 inches in focal length. Keep in mind that if you want a classic Petzval signature on 8x10, you'll need a fast (therefore large) lens. I'd recommend an f/3.8 16-inch Vitax or the like, but those are too large for a Deardorff board, and too heavy for the front standard. So something like the slightly slower f/5 Vesta at 14 or 15 inches might work better for you, even though you'll lose some (but not all) of the Petzval look.

[Jim Galli]

Anything that actually covers an 8X10 plate is either too large for the Deardorff front standard to handle or slower than what makes them desirable. A couple of notable exceptions. The Wollensak Vesta was offered in 14" focus and may be light enough for the 'dorff. Gundlach Series B 15" might work if you can find one. And Dallmeyer Series D No. 4 is a possibility, although slower than either of the other 2 mentioned. Bausch and Lomb had a slower series also that worked at f5 and there was a 14". These show up with all kinds of names on them as they were shopped out to big photo houses that had their own names engraved on them.

On my Kodak 2D I can just squeeze a Dallmeyer Series A no. 3 which is 16 inch. But the Kodak is a little sturdier in the front, at the cost of front movements of course. You bump up against this wall with all of these trade-off's. Contact me off line. I may have something.

[Steven Tribe]

What helpful replies - I was expecting "go read some books" responses!

I am afraid that only a tailboard camera will be enough to support the 2 kilo Petzval unless you get some over kind of extra support. There is some advantage is using the later designs of F5/F6 Petzvals (French) which don't have the (obselete) brass sleeve and front focussing.

[paulbarden]

Thank you, everyone, for your feedback. It appears that perhaps the Deardorff isn't a good match for a Petzval lens. Shame, but oh well.

[Steven Tribe]

I have just checked the Roussel et Berteau F.5 42cm Petzval I have from 1897. It weighs just 1.32 kilo including the flange. It is the plain barrel type and covers well over 8x10.

[brandon13]

I have just checked the Roussel et Berteau F.5 42cm Petzval I have from 1897. It weighs just 1.32 kilo including the flange. It is the plain barrel type and covers well over 8x10.

love to see that lens Steven. Paul there is currently a 14 inch vesta on the auction site. They are relatively cheap at $7-800. A Dallmeyer 4d albeit slower would be awesome but they are starting to hit the 1500$ mark.

[paulbarden]

love to see that lens Steven. Paul there is currently a 14 inch vesta on the auction site. They are relatively cheap at $7-800. A Dallmeyer 4d albeit slower would be awesome but they are starting to hit the 1500$ mark.

Thank you Brandon.
While that looks like a great lens, I'm not sure a 14" lens is what I need right now for landscape work.

SO, I gather the general opinion of folks is that most Petzval type glass is simply too weighty to attach on the front of my Deardorff. Steven has just stated that he has (and presumably uses) an approx 3 pound Petzval type lens and I assume that is a recommendation that up to 3 pounds can work. What do the rest of you think? What's the weight limit I should consider?

Thank you.
Paul

[Steven Tribe]

Here it is.

Very clean design, just like late Big French Aplanats. Roussel et Berteau existed for a few months and made a series of demonstration lenses exhibited and sold in Sweden. Roussel had a great career, but Berteau didn't!
The brass design can add a lot of extra weight - the Cooke "knuckler" is 1/2 kilo heavier than simple designs (10.5" version).

[Mark Sawyer]

It might help us give better advice if you described what you want from the Petzval. Are you looking for swirls or curved field, or the "roundness" associated with Petzvals? Or is it the faster speed and shallower depth of field? Or something about using a historic lens? All are fine reasons, or there may be another reason altogether...

[Steven Tribe]

Here is weight distribution on a large Hermagis, which covers a size more than 8x10!

lens cap (pill box type). 0.517 kg
barrel including hood. 1.904 kg this is more usual as there is an extra thread for a flange (Double-ender)
brass sleeve. 0.810 kg
lens cells with glass. 1.200 kg

This approaches5 kilos. The available petzvals are grossly over engineered. The early telescope makers made do with formed card and paper, and many survive to this day.

[Cameron Cornell]

Here are photos of a 13" Wollensak Vitax (Petzval) that weighs over six pounds mounted to a 7x11 Eastman View No. 2.

In the close-up image, you can see the support that I knocked together. The support screws up tight under the lens and transfers the weight from the front standard to the front rails. The Eastman has a tripod mount that allows it to slide back and forth on the rails so that you can put the tripod under the camera's center of gravity. That is pretty important with that much weight forward. I seem to recall that Jim Galli shoots an 18" Wollensak on his Eastman View No. 2.

Where there's a will, there's a way!

167024

167025

Cameron Cornell
Washington State