LENSES THAT SURPRISE!! your vote?

[Gary Tarbert]

Hi all, What would your vote be for the lens which is inexspensive but continues to impress you?Please do not confuse this thread with the recent Mud suckers thread.
The reason i ask this question is when i bought my first LF camera it had attached a Fujinon W 150 f6.3 before i took my first image with this set i had my dream lens kit planned and the Fujinon wasn't part of it.
I still own this lens because when i drop a tranny on the lightbox taken with this cheap little optic the image quality is impressive .
So much so that if i am looking at any new glass in the future Fujinon will be a strong consideration based on the performance of this little beauty!!
So what other little gems are out there ?
BTW I don't have a 300 Fujinon 300f8.5 is top of list any comments?

[Dan Fromm]

127/4.7 Tominon, ex-Polaroid CU-5. I bought it for the #1 Copal Press shutter it is in, tried it out and found that on 2x3 it is a super lens. Expected it to be good close up, found it is very very good at all distances. Probably won't do on 4x5, too short to put good image in the corners, but for 2x3 it is a keeper.

[JPlomley]

Rodenstock 135mm APO Sironar-S. Sharp, sharp, sharp. Reasonably priced on the used market, lightweight, excellent coverage (208mm IC), but probably a bit close in FL to your 150mm.

[evan clarke]

Nikkor W 135mm. Many say it's not sharp, but right now my most frequently used lens..tack sharp, nice look...EC

[David A. Goldfarb]

Symmar convertibles are usually excellent values.

[philbed]

Well I give a double answer

1/ a late (SN 11 XXX XXX) 90mm Angulon 6,8. I have owned a older 90mm some years ago and it did nover very much 4x5. This one give me a very good image circle and it's as sharp as my 90mm Nikkor.

2/ a very late (SN 14 XXX XXX) 360mm TeleTessar 5,5. I have rent a new 400mm ApoTessar to compare. Hard to say which lens is the best !!!!!

Oh, the appendix.I pay for the two lenses less than a third of the price of a brand new Schneider (arond $300) !

[Scott Davis]

I got it cheap ($150 +/-), and didn't realize what I was getting at the time. The lens is a Goerz Am.Opt. WA Dagor 4 3/8" f8. I don't think I've taken a single bad image with it, and the coverage on it is amazing - 5x7 with movement. The shutter is an older Rapax which when I got it was unreliable. It's still fussy a CLA later, but wow- what a great lens. I've recently seen some people trying to capitalize on the Dagor label on this lens and asking insane money ($600-1000).

[Nick_3536]

The whole Fuji W line. I've got the 150mm F/5.6 [not the 6.3 which is really a different lens then the rest of the line] the 210mm ,300mm and the 360mm.

All much cheaper then similar vintage lenses. But tend to have better coverage.

[Hugo Zhang]

It has to be my Wollensak Convertible 13" lens. I got it with my Kodak 2D camera kit. Sharp with full contrast.

[Ken Lee]

My old 150mm f/4.5 Braunschweig Heliar is sharper than my new 150mm Rodenstock APO Sironar-S.

And the bokeh ... forgettabout it.

[Jim Galli]

I've got dozens of them that fall in this category. I'll pick out one, a tiny Kodak 170mm f7.7. It may have been common in UK on some cheap camera of the 1950's, quarter plate perhpaps, I'm not sure. It is coated brilliantly and I knew when I bought it that it's lineage was the same as the more common 203 f7.7. It came in a nasty little Ibsor shutter, but the threads and spacing were same as Copal 0. It covers 4X5 and is one of the sharpest lenses I own.

[Mark Stahlke]

Nikkor-M 200mm f/8. Tiny, inexpensive, and razor sharp.

[Michael Graves]

I love my Fuji's also. But I don't consider them sleepers, because they're already somewhat legendary. One that suprised the heck out of me was a 165mm 6.3 Caltar II. Covers 5x7 (albeit with very minimal movements) and has excellent image characteristics.

[SamReeves]

Rodenstock Geronar 210mm. A great lightweight lens which does a darn good job.

[Nate Battles]

My Fuji 180 5.6 NW, Awesome lens, very sharp!

[David Karp]

For 4x5, my 125mm f/5.6 Fujinon NW and 210mm f/6.1 Caltar Pro (Xenar) were both very reasonably priced and provide outstanding performance. (My 150mm f/5.6 Fujinon NW was not a surprise - I already owned the 125mm!)

I also have a 180mm f/5.6 Fujinon W (single coated) for which I paid $100 and makes a super short focal length for my whole plate camera.

[Vaughn]

I had a Computar Symmertron 210/6.3 that totally surprised me. I had bought it new as a kit along with a Rajha 4x5 (Deardorff Special carbon-copy -- except for the quality).

Sharp not-so-little bugger. Nice 5x7 lens.

Vaughn

[Steve Hamley]

Cheap but good? Actually most older lenses. The problem with older lenses is people don't recognize the need for glass and shutter cleaning after 60-100 years and they get lumped in the "mudsucker" category, when most older lenses are actually much better than their reputations. Case in point is a late 270 mm G-Claron in black Copal which had an unexpectedly large amount of "old lens haze". I was underwhelmed until cleaned by S.K. Grimes, now it performs incredibly well. But I digress.

Older lenses: G-Clarons (not dirt cheap but still bargains), Kenro K2 (10-3/4" measures the same as my Golden Dagor except the front glass retaining ring is wider), Conley Series V, Protar series VII and VIIa. Not cheap but Heliars and Apo-Lanthars, Berlin or Series III Dagors.

Newer lenses: Almost anything with clean glass, esp. 120 mm Apo-Symmar, almost any Caltar, like the mint 360 mm version I paid just a little over $300 for. Although not in the cheap category, I particularly like the Schneider SS XL series, and second the Nikkor 200M. I also like my 180mm Apo Sironar-S, but the 135 mm version is bad about producing a terrible iris ghost at certain angles into the light.

Steve

[Ole Tjugen]

...
Older lenses: G-Clarons (not dirt cheap but still bargains), Kenro K2 (10-3/4" measures the same as my Golden Dagor except the front glass retaining ring is wider), Conley Series V, Protar series VII and VIIa. Not cheap but Heliars and Apo-Lanthars, Berlin or Series III Dagors. ...

I second that. Heliars, Apo-lanthars, Protar VIIa, Doppel-Amatar, Eurynar, miscellaneous Tessars, convertible Symmars, Angulon 90, 120, 165 and (pre-WWII) 210mm, and a heap of Aplanats, Rapid Rectilinears and casket sets are all amazingly good. All faults with my pitures are mine, and mine alone. The lenses are better than I am!

[Glenn Thoreson]

I agree with Ole. I have a bunch of old lenses that are perfectly capable of turning out fine photographs. If I can manage to keep my wits about me and do things right, that surprises me, not the lenses.

[walter23]

Nikon +2 screw-on eyepiece diopter for rollfilm cameras. Rigged it up a couple of days ago. It's a 320mm f/16 or so. Only took two shots with it thus far, and rushed ones at that, but it's a surprisingly usable little lens and I've got ideas for more interesting use.

http://ashphotography.ca/zenphoto/albums/ghetto-lens/Untitled-1.jpg

[Bill_1856]

For years I'd heard stories about the quality of Kodak Ektar f:3.7/105mm for the 23 Graphic. I finally got one on a used Crown. Indeed, the prints are FANTASTIC -- details in shadows and highlights, and perfect contrast. Incredibly easy to print. Then I looked at the negatives with a loupe, expecting to have my eyeball sliced. SURPRISE -- they were mushy and soft.

[Dan Fromm]

I second that. Heliars, Apo-lanthars, Protar VIIa, Doppel-Amatar, Eurynar, miscellaneous Tessars, convertible Symmars, Angulon 90, 120, 165 and (pre-WWII) 210mm, and a heap of Aplanats, Rapid Rectilinears and casket sets are all amazingly good. All faults with my pitures are mine, and mine alone. The lenses are better than I am!Ole, I'm pretty much with you but a few of my old lenses are noticeably less sharp than the others.

To name two, 4.75"/7.7 Aldis Uno and 210/4.5 Industar-51. The Uno is usable, don't get me wrong, and it covers 2x3 but its just a little soft all over the field. Same goes for the I-51, and that was a surprise.

But, and I'm ashamed to admit it, these two are still better than I am. My shots rarely fail for lack of sharpness, although I do have intermittent spells where I just can't focus any of my cameras. But no matter how hard I try exposure errors and poor compositions still sneak in ...

[Benno Jones]

I got a 150mm (4.5? 5.6? I can't recall sitting at my desk at work) Xenar (fairly modern version, at least single coated) that came on a Century Graphic that is my favorite 4x5 lens. Great 3-dimensionality to the images.

[Ole Tjugen]

I think I've posted a shot from the most unsharp combination lens I have - presumably a "portrait" combination in that casket set, since there are two very different rear cells with exactly the same focal length.

"Noticably unsharp" doesn't even begin to describe it. There's so much coma I call it "the comatose lens"! But yet it does have its qualities, and its uses. As does the uncoated chipped 135mm f:4.5 Rodenstock Eurynar, which can make anything look like a foggy day...

My favorite lenses seem to be two 150mm's - an Apo-Lanthar and a Doppel-Amatar. The Lanthar lives on the CI, the Amatar on the Speed Graphic. :)

[Jan Pedersen]

My B&J 8x10 came with a 240/5.6 Schulze & Billerbeck. Had never heard about it but it is a wonderful lens and about 100 years old now. It has huge coverage, the B&J does not have movements enough to get dark corners but i have taken photos where the bellows will show up instead. It is sharp and still very pleasing without that over contrasty look from modern lenses.
The price for the lens in that combination must have been less than 75$
Another favorite, also cheap in the combination it came in is my 210/3.5 Heliar. It must be my overal favorite on my 5x7 2D

[Maris Rusis]

Commercial Congo 210mm f6.3 in Copal #1 shutter was bought new (A$450) for the Tachihara 45GF camera. Its published image circle of 235mm promised it would be good on 4x5 with adequate movements.

Guess what? It covers 8x10 with 2mm spare all round; best bargain ever!

[Robert A. Zeichner]

Kodak 203mm Ektar. Sharp, nearly apochromatic and so compact it folds up inside my Deardorff 5x7.

[Alex Wei]

Commercial Congo 210mm f6.3 in Copal #1 shutter was bought new (A$450) for the Tachihara 45GF camera. Its published image circle of 235mm promised it would be good on 4x5 with adequate movements.

Guess what? It covers 8x10 with 2mm spare all round; best bargain ever!


I was thinking to sell it, but now I am going to keep it for sure. Its very small and coated. I use it on 4X5 sometime, I never run out of coverage. I remember once I use all the rise the camera can handle, until the bellow get in the way, I still got a good image without dark corners. Should be a very good whole-plate lens :)

Another sleeper is Komura lens, I have a 210mm F6.3 also, it is multi-coated. I brought it on ebay for the shutter, because the rear element has separation problem. I just managed to glue it back together, I chipped the rear element during the process, leaving an ugly scar, but otherwise it looks very good. I will run a test to see how it performs. It looks sharp on GG.

[darr]

Docter 240 f/9: sharp, compact, and single coated. I leave it on my Ebony 45SU packed in a Gnass camera case. It has became my favorite lens. Filter size is 35.5mm, but not a problem as I found a new/old stock 35.5mm Agfa lens shade that easily lets me place Lee filters in front as needed. A nice little setup.

[wfwhitaker]

Orbit 375mm (14 3/4") f/6.3. Very pleasing rendition, similar to a Kodak Commercial Ektar. Covers 11x14 with movement. Price: FREE

Sold my Kern 14" f/8 Dagor and kept the Orbit.

[Jan Pedersen]

Will, is the Orbit similar to the Ilex Calumet Caltar 375/6.3?
I have one coming and expect good things from that lens.

[wfwhitaker]

Jan,

Don't know for sure if they are, but for some reason I always think of "Orbit" and "Caltar" together. I'll be interested to hear what you think of yours.

Make no mistake about it, the Kern and the Orbit are two completely different lenses. The Kern is blazingly sharp and there are some subjects and applications where it probably would be the better lens. When I compared results side-by-side, however, it was abundantly clear that for the kind of photography I'm interested in doing, I preferred the overall look of the Orbit to the Kern. The economics had nothing to do with it. Really!!

[Jan Pedersen]

Will,
Should not be a big surprice that the Orbit/Caltar/Ektar is different than the Kern, Arent they all Tessars? (Except the Kern of course)
I have a similar comparison to do between a 19" RD Artar a 20" Caltar. I'm sure there's a difference between them but is it visible in a 8x10 contact print??
I am pretty much like you more interested in the overall look and not so much into the micro details although i do like the RD but it is in a barel and the Caltar is in a shutter.
Not unimportant.

[Salty]

Orbit 375mm (14 3/4") f/6.3. Very pleasing rendition, similar to a Kodak Commercial Ektar.

I have a 375mm Orbit in an Ilex 5 shutter that works like a soft focus lens. Wide open it's very soft and gets sharper as it stops down. From the front it looks identical to my 375mm Ilex Acutar but the back cell of the Orbit is shorter. The Orbit doesn't have a serial number on either cell and the actual focal length is around 300mm.

[Chuck Pere]

I like my 120mm Osaka Wide Field. I use it on 5x7 with no problems. Very small, modern Copal shutter and MC. And cheap.

[Joseph O'Neil]

Ilex Agulon 90mm, F8 - made in USA, this lens looks to me to be an exact copy of the Schneider Angulon of the same size.

Amazingly good lens, cost me all of $250. My real bargan however was another older Ilex Paragon Anastigmatic (spelling?), basically a tessar design, it is in inches but roughly works out to around 161mm. I bought it for $50 because the shutter it came in was in excellent shape, but i found the lens itself is pretty darned good.
joe

[Rob_5419]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi all, What would your vote be for the lens which is inexspensive but continues to impress you?Please do not confuse this thread with the recent Mud suckers thread.

Is a 'mudsucker' a real entity like an inveterate or an invertebrate species anyhow?

Favourite and inexpensive lens: TAYLOR HOBSON !!!!

Brass Series III 7inch half-plate lens from the 1890 era, post triplet-era. Just like my avatar ;)

Just gorgeous and creamy skin tones with a slither of sharpness and that all so perfect English cup of tea of bokeh. The lens is so quintessentially crisp at the smaller apertures that delicate details evoke rapturous smiles with a finesse of resolution that makes any lens described as 'sharp' fit only for toilet cleaner.

[LH1H17]

despite being a copal 3 lens, my Fujinon CM-W 450mm is much, much lighter than my Nikon W 360mm (although still heavier than my Nikon M 450mm F9).

[Frank Petronio]

Just the plain vanilla Rodenstock and Schneider Plasmats, the common 135-150-180 -- had a bunch over the years and never had a dog...

For the money they are a safer bet... $100 more than a questinable brand or vintage and you know you'll get a decent lens.

[wfwhitaker]

I have a 375mm Orbit in an Ilex 5 shutter that works like a soft focus lens. Wide open it's very soft and gets sharper as it stops down. From the front it looks identical to my 375mm Ilex Acutar but the back cell of the Orbit is shorter. The Orbit doesn't have a serial number on either cell and the actual focal length is around 300mm.

Sounds like the cells got mixed up with those from another lens. The 375mm Orbit is a sharp lens.

[Mark Sawyer]

I have a 210mm f/6.8 Gold-Rim Dagor which, to no one's surprise, is very, very nice. The big surprise is that in a side-by-side comparison, my cheap little 215mm f/4.8 Ilex Acuton is every bit as nice in contrast, sharpness, coverage, and it's general "look". The Acuton is a bit bigger, but it's brighter, comes in a nicer shutter, and converts to a nice 360mm with a factory dual aperture scale...

[Diane Maher]

Cheap but good? Actually most older lenses. The problem with older lenses is people don't recognize the need for glass and shutter cleaning after 60-100 years and they get lumped in the "mudsucker" category, when most older lenses are actually much better than their reputations. Case in point is a late 270 mm G-Claron in black Copal which had an unexpectedly large amount of "old lens haze". I was underwhelmed until cleaned by S.K. Grimes, now it performs incredibly well. But I digress.

Older lenses: G-Clarons (not dirt cheap but still bargains), Kenro K2 (10-3/4" measures the same as my Golden Dagor except the front glass retaining ring is wider), Conley Series V, Protar series VII and VIIa. Not cheap but Heliars and Apo-Lanthars, Berlin or Series III Dagors.

Steve

This is good, I am waiting for Grimes to finish putting a Series III Dagor into a shutter. :D I agree with the Protar VII and your comments regarding older lenses. My surprise has been in using a 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 Crown Anastigmat Series I. When I got it, it looked like it was in the mudsucker category, but after a CLA and a new piston for the Compound shutter, it works great. Even with a scratch on the front element, it works great, even for color. I just have to make sure I shade this lens from the sun.

Diane

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Rob_5419,

"Just gorgeous and creamy skin tones with a slither of sharpness and that all so perfect English cup of tea of bokeh. The lens is so quintessentially crisp at the smaller apertures that delicate details evoke rapturous smiles with a finesse of resolution that makes any lens described as 'sharp' fit only for toilet cleaner."

Are you sure it doesn't say 'Heliar' around the front? :D

Lenses that suprised, 3:

14 inch Heliar bought on a whim = a never used NOS from 1911, internals look like it was machined this morning, glass is pristine. This one gets buried with me, love the look.

21cm Heliar = stollen war booty from Russia, never used NOS, works well on the SpeedGraphic.

36cm Heliar = bought it for the mounting flange, total roach, water damaged, half the barrel turned to white powder and fell away = war booty, never used NOS, pristine glass and internals, worth the repair. Yep, someone's grandpa was a THEIF in uniform.

100 year old New Old Stock lenses are out there, have fun finding them. :eek:

[Carsten Wolff]

108mm Cooke WA Anastigmat; sensational in 4x5 and 5x7; fast becoming my favourite lens by far (at a third of the total cost and half the weight of a SSXL). Was frontmounted on a Copal #1, but just got put into a Copal #0 by SKG, because it deserved it :).
165/4.5 Wolly (4x5) - 159 WA Wolly (5x7): Very different lenses, but both lovely.
10" Conley V Anastigmat (to 5x7): Looks excellent in 5x7 both for E-6 and b/w: I got quite a shock when I frist used it: Shaaarp!
Komura Commercial 210/6.3 (5x7): Great look to it and didn't cost much; might be selling it though one day, as I'm happy with my 75-108-159/(165 in 4x5)-254-450/765 line-up.
Lastly, my 135 Symmar-S, which was the lens that got me into LF in the first place (was a freebie). I used it a lot initially, it's small, bright, sharp and gives a pleasant look, but now lingers a bit, as I've changed my focal length line-up, which originally was 90-135-210-300-480 ....and 4x5 mostly, with the odd 6x17 shot.
5x7 has really stuffed up a lot of things for me ;).

[Steve Hamley]

Diane,

Yep!

Steve

[Rob_5419]

"Just gorgeous and creamy skin tones with a slither of sharpness and that all so perfect English cup of tea of bokeh. The lens is so quintessentially crisp at the smaller apertures that delicate details evoke rapturous smiles with a finesse of resolution that makes any lens described as 'sharp' fit only for toilet cleaner."

>> Are you sure it doesn't say 'Heliar' around the front?


I've tried Heliars for 35mm and medium formats and can't say I really find that they stand out much and most have okay-ish contrast. Nothing stunning. But that's inevitable with us who have got used to modern Schneider lenses. I would try one again in the future, although they have always struck me as nice lenses, rather than the only lens I would want to shoot with. Lenses that need to come with an army of other lenses put me off. That's why the Taylor Hobson III series lenses appeal to me.

More is less ;)

[zoneVIII]

my 150mm Heliar is tack sharp

[ic-racer]

I picked up a Symmar-S MC 210mm cheap for an 8x10 camera project I am working on. I was not sure if this was an 8x10 lens or not. The Schneider site lists only coverage for the NON-MC lens, and they list it as 294mm.

I am just starting to process some negs and prints from this lens and the 'light circle' is clearly larger than 310mm as there is no vignetting at the corners of my 310mm diagonal frame. In fact I even get a few mm of movement!

[archivue]

i've bought a recent 150 xenar (last batch) on black copal.
Actually, i've bought a black copal... but while it doesn't have the IC large enought for my architecture pictures, i really like the clear image it produce... i have to make a comparison test versus my Apo sironar S some days !

[Hany Aziz]

My first LF lens and still my favourite. A Caltar IIN 135 mm (basically a Caltar labelled Sironar N). Bought from Adorama with a mint Anba Ikeda 4x5 for $375 for the bundle. Absolutely tiny (40.5 mm filter size), and tack sharp. Remains my most used lens to this day, despite going on a mad spending spree and now owning an entire gaggle of lenses, including 5 at 135 mm!:o

Sincerely,

Hany.

[Armin Seeholzer]

My Universal Heliar 360mm is my bummer!
Very heavy and still going strong at f 22 its almost as sharp as my sharpest modern lens but is more the 60 years older!
And yes it can also get soft!

Armin Seeholzer

[Ron Marshall]

Fujinnon 300 C f8.5. Light, sharp, tiny, fairly bright.

[Maretzo]

G-claron 9/210. Amazingly sharp and nice for close-up.

[Nick_3536]

Komura Commercial 210/6.3 (5x7): Great look to it and didn't cost much; .

I got one of these also. For less then the shutter was worth. Nice light weight 5x7 lens.

[Joseph O'Neil]

How about on the other end of the scale- enlarging lenses. I use a wollensak 1622mm enlarging raptar on my enlarger. Bought it used for $20, in mint condition - looks like it was never used.

My Rodenstock, Nikkor and Schenider enlarging lenses, for the most part, sit in the drawer unused. :)

[Colin Graham]

Though maybe not in the spirit of the OP, I was surprised how indifferent I was to the sironar s 150mm, funinon 240 A and 450 C. All sold.

[JOSEPH ANDERSON]

One lens that surprised me is a tiny Graflex 90 mm 6.8 optar WA. I got it for $53.00 near
mint. It's in a wollensak shutter with bi-post X,f,and m sync. I don't know if wollenask
made the optar glass for graflex or not. This lens very sharp,very good contrast and
is small and light. If movement is not needed.( my Schenider 90mm SA stays home.)Covers
4X5 nicely and will allow just a tiny bit of rise and shift. I never tried swing or tilt with
it. That might be stretching things a bit. BTW, I agree with Ole.The lenses and cameras we use are far more capability than we are at getting that maximum capability from them.

JOE A