PDA

View Full Version : Ross LF Lenses



Neil Purling
5-Mar-2007, 13:15
Aside from the VM are there any publications whereby one might identify the construction of a particular lens?
I was beaten on the Ross 90mm Protar type, (in the last 15 secs).
My attention was attracted by a #2 Wide Angle Symmetrical 100mm f16.
By being symmetrical how many designs could the name apply to?
My first thought was a variant upon Dallmeyer & Steinheil's patents on cemented doublets.

Ole Tjugen
5-Mar-2007, 13:33
... My first thought was a variant upon Dallmeyer & Steinheil's patents on cemented doublets.

If you refer to the Aplanat / Rectilinear, you are most likely correct.

The Ross "Protar type" is a Protar, produced under license from Zeiss.

Rob_5419
5-Mar-2007, 14:06
There were a significant number of Ross lenses with early Zeiss like blueprints for their lenses.

Personally I wouldn't worry about being beaten on a 90mm Protar. There are plenty around and the Xpres type Tessar designs seem to outperform most British lenses in its era (excepting some by TTH) for resolution and character. Not sure Wide Angle Symmetrical is a very helpful description, but the earlier lenses certainly had fancy names like that, coupled with 'homocentric' descriptions, you'd wonder what was being offered in that auction site sometimes.

Neil Purling
5-Mar-2007, 14:15
I realise that the Protar and Aplanat are both pairs of cemented doublets.
Are the differences in the types of glass as well as in the shapes of each element in the doublet?
The Protar does 100-110 deg, yes? What would a W.A aplanat offer?

Rob_5419
5-Mar-2007, 14:22
A lot less character. Better for landscape work though.

Similarly, a lot less than later Xpres type lenses. I think of the period during which aplanats become widely available akin to 70's swirling carpets which were all the rage. Maybe it's just not an era of lens that interested me - my loss clearly - bit like the psychedelic 70's carpets in British homes ;)

Ole Tjugen
5-Mar-2007, 14:33
There are differences in both the glass and the shapes of elements. The Anastigmats became possible through the introduction of new glasses, replacing (eventually) the Aplanats. But the Aplanat was sold until well into the 1920's if not later, so they can't have been all bad!

A WA Aplanat can offer about the same angle of view as a Protar V, but with more astigmatism in the corners. Whether you call that "more character" or "less character" is up to you - personally, I like them. The central sharpness of a good Aplanat is better than that of Protars, but then it drops off more rapidly. So they tend to emphasise what's in the central 10 to 30 degrees (depending on design) in a way that no other lenses do.

Neil Purling
5-Mar-2007, 15:03
I don,t usually have anything more than 8x10's made, which may represent a cropping. Movements, if any may be front rise or forwards tilt.
Maybe a W.A. aplanat won't be that bad for my purposes.
Is the Protar not as sharp as the W.A. Aplanat centrally but keeps that sharpness into the corners because of the reduction in astigmatism?

Ole Tjugen
5-Mar-2007, 15:12
The Protar is better corrected for astigmatism, coma and field curvature. All of those improvements really help the off-axis definition, but do very little near the optical axis.

In my experience (backed up by Herr Schmidt's 1910 book) the best Aplanats are at least as sharp in the center as the best anastigmats.

Dan Fromm
5-Mar-2007, 16:06
Neil, save up your small monetary units and buy a couple of books. And then read them and think about what you've read and confront your lenses with it all.

Two books for you, m'boy. A Lens Collector's Vade Mecum. Cost you at most ten quid. It will clear up your confusion about licensing arrangements between Zeiss and Ross and Goerz and Ross and Steinheil and Beck. And then buy a copy of Hans Martin Brandt's The Photographic Lens. Don't buy more lenses, buy books. You need to know what you're about before you waste real money.

Ash
5-Mar-2007, 16:07
ok so what are the list of books we should all have?

is there a reading list (with synopsis) on the site somewhere?

AlaBill
5-Mar-2007, 18:01
Two books for you, m'boy. A Lens Collector's Vade Mecum. Cost you at most ten quid. It will clear up your confusion about licensing arrangements between Zeiss and Ross and Goerz and Ross and Steinheil and Beck. And then buy a copy of Hans Martin Brandt's The Photographic Lens. Don't buy more lenses, buy books. You need to know what you're about before you waste real money.

I can't find either of these books on Albris.com or abebooks.com. Any suggestions of where to find these books?

Bill

Rob_5419
5-Mar-2007, 18:24
Mr Colucci who advertises on some websites sells it:

http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/sell.htm


I'm still saving up for an old McKeowns :)

Ernest Purdum
5-Mar-2007, 19:03
Abebooks does have it. Search by the Author's name. It's expensive, though.

Kingslake's "A History of the Photographic Lens" is very useful.

Dan Fromm
6-Mar-2007, 04:15
ok so what are the list of books we should all have?

is there a reading list (with synopsis) on the site somewhere?Ash, I don't have a large library of books on lenses/optics. Cox' Photographic Optics, Brandt as mentioned, Kingslake's Lenses in Photography, S. F. Ray's Applied Photographic Optics. I have access to a copy of Kingslake's History. And I have a copy of the Vade Mecum.

I also have a number of books on general photography and photomacrography. All very helpful for learning how to solve problems, none useful guides to buying lenses.

The only one of them that has been at all helpful for deciding which lens(es) to pursue has been the VM. It is the only book I'm aware of that gives any indication at all of how well lenses perform. It isn't always correct or even internally consistent, it is far from complete, but its the most useful guide we have.

Ole Tjugen
6-Mar-2007, 04:46
I have Kingslake's "A history of the Photographic Lens", Hans Schmidt's "Photographisches Hilfsbuch für ernste Arbeit" (printed in Berlin, 1910 - great for old German lenses), Dr. H. Naumann's "Das Auge mainer Kamera" (1937, printed 1951), and a bunch of old German leaflets, pamphlets and magazines from the 1930's.

I also have a copy of the Vade Mecum, but if the lens in question is German I start with the German books.

As you can see I have a slightly different "library" from most others, which is probably why I keep finding myself trying to translate German into English without getting to confused by my Norwegian brain. :D

Rob_5419
6-Mar-2007, 06:00
Those are some great reading recommendations.

I get the impression that the cost of shooting large format photography, particularly trawling around for antiquated barrel lenses which no one in their right mind would want is becoming so affordable, relative to the earnings of the users who pursue LF photography such that enthusiasts pick up and experiment with this or that lense with hardly any cost implications, even if the lens is a complete dud (i.e. worse than a pinhole camera lens). For the price of a box of film, serendipity and an internet trawling site seems to have replaced referencing for lens construction' on a wider scale..

Dan Fromm
6-Mar-2007, 07:47
But Rob_5419, I don't chase antiquated barrel lenses that no one in his right mind would want. They're nearly all too long for the format I shoot.

I chase relatively modern, i.e., mainly post-WWII, lenses that were first rate in their day. It really helps to have an idea of what's worth trying, as many lenses in that class are poorly-known or hard to recognize. Some of my great treasures were neither very inexpensive nor easily recognized as desireable. For example, my 12"/4 TTH telephoto. Badly identified by the seller, i.e., with no information about maker, only focal length and maximum aperture. If I hadn't been sensitised to that lens by the VM I'd not have gambled a small pot of money on something that seemed likely to be one.

Just the other day I received an apparently cheap lens -- 1 Euro for the lens, 25 Euro for the post office -- that is pretty enough, probably good too, but can't be used on any of my cameras. That's a small ouch, more than half the price of having a shutter scaled. And I have a shutter waiting to be scaled.

And hardly a day goes by when no one asks a question of the form "I found it, do I dare buy it and try it?" here or on some other forum. It may be that you are richer or more willing to risk buying a dud than the people who ask these questions.

You brought up the idea of "referencing for lens construction." Why should anyone cover about that? More exactly, I don't see a strong relationship between design and image quality on film. Please feel free to explain to me how and why I'm blind. What matters to me is whether a prospective new (to me) lens is likely to shoot well enough.

Cheers,

Dan

Neil Purling
6-Mar-2007, 12:13
I haven't paid over the odds for the two aplanats I have.
The heaviest expense has been in getting retaining rings and lens panels drilled. When that was being done I have had the shutters timed and I will work from the test results and not the posted shutter speeds.
Ole has advised me on the likely behaviour of the Rapid Rectilinear design. While the Beck 6" covers 4x5 I wouldn't expect razor sharp edges & corners.
I wouldn't expect miracles of the Ross Symmetrical with it being a aplanat and bid what I thought it was worth.

Jim Galli
6-Mar-2007, 12:45
Ebay has added a whole new twist for those of us who enjoy the learning process as much or more than all the other processes in this hobby. You can buy it, play with it, and re-sell it. How much can you lose for that enjoyment and learning when the guy who lost to you was willing to pay within $2.50 of what you were. And the knowledge base you gain helps in the long run. How many times have I stumbled into some antique lens listed incorrectly by a seller who really doesn't care (welistit4Uinc) and get something really fun for a few bucks because I DO know what it is and what it can do.

I lost that gamble last evening with the sorriest looking front half of a Busch f5.5 anastigmat still on the top side of earth. Pehaps I'll give it a decent burial. I brag when I win one and I suck up when I lose.

Weren't there about a billion 5" Ross Wide angles made for her majesties aeroplane services in WWII? If it was one of those, you didn't lose a thing :D

Rob_5419
6-Mar-2007, 13:09
But Rob_5419, I don't chase antiquated barrel lenses that no one in his right mind would want. They're nearly all too long for the format I shoot.

Not you Dan - that's Ash I'm referring to :)

Again, I don't go buying loads of lenses - I have a lot left over from when I used to do some teaching. I guess I'm lucky to live in London where any lens/barrel etc that doesn' t have a lens flange, I can just head over to Mr Cad and pick something up which probably will fit without having to get it sized up by a specialist.

The idea of looking for a specific type of lens (i.e. Petzval, a Planar or Gaussian Doublet or older triplets) is to at least have some idea of what the lens' limitations are. Specifically with the Zeiss legacy (pre-peri-post war), the lens construction, either in East or West Germany or post-war Germany or the now Soviet Union makes a huge difference for discerning users. But that's not LF stuff in any case..

Ash
6-Mar-2007, 13:33
Hey, I just love experimenting.

I spent £15 on about 5 condenser lenses hoping one lens would yield one good photo. One did, So it's all good :D

I don't mind spending a bit of money on the 'loser' lenses, if I can't use them then they make nice ornaments :)

Ole Tjugen
6-Mar-2007, 14:11
... Specifically with the Zeiss legacy (pre-peri-post war), the lens construction, either in East or West Germany or post-war Germany or the now Soviet Union makes a huge difference for discerning users. But that's not LF stuff in any case..

Oh no?

Try an Industar 300mm f:4.5. Or a Zeiss Jena Tessar. Or get a cheap Leitz Hektor 135mm, toss away the Leica extension tube and use the rest as a barrel lens for 4x5" (a Leica on my LF :D).

I've picked up a couple of losers myself - lacking elements, shutters rusted solid, and whatnot. And a few very very nice lenses which I can't use for some reason, like them being just too big to mount on anything smaller than an airplane (Schneider Göttingen 500mm f:5.5 Aerotar).

But inbetween the junk there are lots of OK lenses, some good ones, and a few real treasures - Zeiss Doppel-Amatar and Doppel-Protar, E. Busch Weitwinkel-Aplanat Ser. C No.2, Steinheil Aplanat (very early, possibly first year of production) and Gruppen-Antiplanet, or the nice little casket set I bought with camera included. :)

Rob_5419
6-Mar-2007, 14:44
Are you getting decent covering power with those Zeiss Tessar type LF lenses?

Maybe I'm too cautious....

I agree - there's a lot of European junk lenses out there ;)

The British lenses are the ones which interest me most, maybe because they're more abundant here. A bit like Dunkin' Donuts in the States. Not to say British lenses and donuts have anything in common otherwise.

Dan Fromm
6-Mar-2007, 16:06
Rob, I dunno, I'd swear I'd seen some TT&H lenses with holes in the middle.

More seriously, if you owned and had read the books that have been recommended in this very thread, you'd know that f/6.3 Tessars cover somewhat more than their focal lengths -- the VM says 70 degrees stopped down, which may require a loose definition of "cover" -- and the f/4.5s also cover their focal lengths and then some. Early f/3.5s don't cover their focal lengths.

Since you're interested in British lenses, you really need the VM. It is strongest on them. Not perfect, but it is orders of magnitude better on them than on, say, French lenses.

Those of us who buy lenses to find out what they are get the occasional unusable doorstop or paperweight. Doorstops aside and paperweights aside, most of us have learned, and quickly too, that among lenses that cover the desired format -- let's not discuss what "cover" means here, if we start that discussion there will be riots, bloodshed, and censorship -- there are only two kinds. Good enough and not good enough. The good enough ones are all interchangeable with at most barely discernable differences in the results.

Ole and I don't agree on I-51s; perhaps mine is much worse than his. Which raises another issue that the numskulls who ask how good an old lens is just don't understand. As made, some lenses are worse than other supposedly identical ones. Not all makers have (or had) stringent quality control. And as aged, some lenses are worse than they were when new. The question "how good is this here old lens?" can't be answered on general principles. The only way to answer it is to ask the lens itself.

Rob_5419
6-Mar-2007, 16:16
Thanks Dan.

I do read, but memory isn't that good nowadays. Tessars might cover 4x5 with no movements at full aperture or even more than stated. That's why it's good to ask those who use their own lenses. I guess my memory really isn't very good, particularly for things I don't own.

I'm saving up for a McKeowns!

Ash
6-Mar-2007, 16:35
The lens collector's vade mecum appears available for 'download' or on a CD. Is it me, or are ' real hard copies impossible to find or non existent? EDIT: I re-read some of this post, I get the impression it's only gonna be good for download.

Maybe LuLu will bind it :D

Dan Fromm
6-Mar-2007, 17:41
Distributed on CD or, now, by download.

Ole Tjugen
7-Mar-2007, 06:13
And of course I've mislaid my copy. I have it on the other PC, the one with the crashed power supply, but I can't find the CD.

Just as I happened to come across a Dallmeyer Adon Ser. VII No.4, whatever that is...

Dan Fromm
7-Mar-2007, 08:44
Ole, the VM is pretty unclear about Adons. Just buy it, and then you'll know.

Cheers,

Dan

Ole Tjugen
7-Mar-2007, 10:44
Ole, the VM is pretty unclear about Adons. Just buy it, and then you'll know.

Done.

Cheers,

Ole.

BTW - everything is unclear about Adons. I have a small one already, which seems to be an add-on since it doesn't focus anything - it's completely afocal.