Bausch & Lomb Rapid Rectiliniar

[Pete Watkins]

Gentlemen (and Ladies),
I recently aquired (at a really stupid price, postage cost more than the lens) a B&L RR lens. It came in a Kodak shutter with patent dates of 1910 & 1913 on the shutter. The shutter speeds are B,T,25,50 & 100. The lens focal length is about 7 1/2 inches (approx 190mm). It's f4 - f128 and the biggest shock of all is that it covers 5x7 with room to spare.
I assume that the lens is from a large folder as there is little mention in the VM and the catalogues on Camera Eccentrics site.
My question is as follows. In the U.K. the start of the First World War is being commerated this year and re-inactment events will be taking place. Would this be an authentic lens, as far as the date of manufacture goes, to use at such an event?
Thanks for any help,
Pete.

[BrianShaw]

It likely did come from a Kodak folder. I transplanted same lens from an old folder to my Cambo and it is a really nice lens. Much sharper than I expected. I did not have the top-o-the-line shutter like yours; mine had a Kodak TBI shutter. The aperture is likely in US stops, if you didn't know.

As far as the histroy question... I would think so. But it would be a lot more authentic if it were on the Kodak folder.

[DannL]

That sounds like the lens/shutter that I use on my 5x7 and 8x10. It may have come off a No. 3A Folding Pocket KODAK like mine, or a similar Kodak folding camera as previously mentioned.

Kodak Camera History Link

If that is the case, I would say then you're good date-wise.

8x10? If you remove one of the elements (front or back) you may notice the lens then covers 8x10 also. I like this B&L RR because of mild distortion near the edge of the field.

[jp]

I've got a B&L Planatograph which is pretty much the same thing. It produces authentic results, but my setup isn't authentic. (old lens, 2013 lensboard, 1940's camera with 1950's front standard) The way it renders trees in the background is very much like old photos did.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/13759696@N02/8669974874/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/13759696@N02/8671910282/

[Pete Watkins]

Thanks for your help lads. I forgot to mention that it did seem very sharp and clear as well. I still can't believe the coverage.
Brian I think that the stops are possibly standard (4, 8, 16, 32, 64 & 128) but I'll do a test soon. The shutter doesn't sound bad either, well there's a different speed at each setting so that's not a bad start. I could always set it on "T" and use my Sinar shutter but I can only cover 4x5 & 8x10 with that.
Thanks again,
Pete.

[Louis Pacilla]

Thanks for your help lads. I forgot to mention that it did seem very sharp and clear as well. I still can't believe the coverage.
Brian I think that the stops are possibly standard (4, 8, 16, 32, 64 & 128) but I'll do a test soon. The shutter doesn't sound bad either, well there's a different speed at each setting so that's not a bad start. I could always set it on "T" and use my Sinar shutter but I can only cover 4x5 & 8x10 with that.
Thanks again,
Pete.

Hi Pete

Your lens seems to be in "US" stops like Brian suggested and NOT "f" stops. A rapid rectilinear type lens works @ f8 = US4.
(4, 8, 16,32,64,128)US stops
(8,11,16,22,32,45) f stops

[Jim Noel]

I had one years ago and wish I still had it. It is marked with Universal System (US) stops. 16 is the same as f-16 and you just need to count from there using the f-stop system.

[Pete Watkins]

I thought that I had a nice fast lens. Many thanks for the help.
Pete.

[Jim Galli]

Pete, no war correspondent would have been caught dead with an old US RR when his compatriot's were running around using 'Cooke's'. Hurley's images from a dozen years earlier done with a Cooke come to mind.

[Pete Watkins]

Hi Jim,
I've got an Aviar tucked away but I have no idea of its age. I also have a couple of old CZJ Tessars but I can't remember how old they are. I'm not in your class, I need a shutter somewhere in the system (not a Galli shutter, I'm a bit of a control freak). So it's my Copal 3 front mounted using step up rings or a totally out of period Sinar.
I need to think.
Thanks,
Pete.