Wollensak lens

[John Kasaian]

How good is a 12" WOLLENSAK VELOSTIGMAT FOCUS SERIES IV in BETAX No.4?

Good for what, exactly? Swirly bokeh? Image circle size? Color correction? Portraiture? Macro work? Lens speed? And what condition is the shutter in?
If it's in good condition and you're shooting an 8x10 it might be all the lens you'll ever want. I'm guessing it's an f/ 4.5? That will open up nicely for focusing in dim light. Wide open Velostigmat Series IV are noted for nice soft classic effects for portraiture (some incarnations even have a ring to add even more softness,) while stopped down they are quite sharp for capturing nuances of the landscape. It is classic glass, not modern and exactly how good of results you can expect will be entirely up to you, good Sir!
T'is the Indian, not the arrow.

[goamules]

I think that was our point!

You're thinking of the Series II, John.

[William Whitaker]

Series II is f/4.5. Series IV is f/6.3.

[Jim Noel]

How good is a 12" WOLLENSAK VELOSTIGMAT FOCUS SERIES IV in BETAX No.4?

"Good" depends on your view. Do you like sharp cutoff, high contrast images, or do you prefer more dreamy and realistic looking images, or somewhere in between. I lone my Wolly's, but others may lookj at them as trash.

[Mark Sawyer]

Series II is f/4.5. Series IV is f/6.3.

And the Series I and Ia were also f/6.3, which may have led to the confusion. But Jim said the Series Ia is a Protar-like design, which makes sense since it's a triple convertible. A dialyt would only be a double convertible, and not a very good one at that. I wouldn't be surprised if Wollensak had a Dialyt in the mix somewhere, but where? Maybe the Series V?

[John Kasaian]

I think that was our point!

You're thinking of the Series II, John.

Mea culpa!

[anthony marsh]

Thanks for the information. I'm just starting in LF. I should have stated that I want to use it for portraits and landscapes, it is 6.8. Tony

[jbenedict]

The sarcasm is neither appropriate nor necessary

"Ah, loosen up, Anthony. You're too tight"

[Carsten Wolff]

All jokes aside, its a nice lens. I personally think that there are very few truly "bad" LF lenses. All lenses have certain characteristics that deviate from "technically perfect" optics (whatever that is supposed to be); those are nitpicked over in countless photographic fora as flaws by many and opportunities by others; always with the danger that hipsters, collectors, the ill-informed and geeks (often technically well versed and perfectionist photographers that don't have a clue how to create a thought-, or emotion provoking image beyond detail-, or look-masturbation) overstate their importance.

Having said that: Wollensaks have been amongst my favourite vintage line of lenses/shutters for a while now, largely because most are both affordable and good. About the only drag with many Wollies is their filter sizes/darn push-ons, but that can be solved, too.

Anthony,
I hope you've seen fit to buy a good book on LF by now; hanging with an experienced and good LF photographer can also help tremendously. I didn't have the benefit of the latter, but you'll get by; the learning curve is about the only thing that may have a different slope, which is half the fun, isn't it?

[Mark Sawyer]

And the Series I and Ia were also f/6.3, which may have led to the confusion. But Jim said the Series Ia is a Protar-like design, which makes sense since it's a triple convertible. A dialyt would only be a double convertible, and not a very good one at that. I wouldn't be surprised if Wollensak had a Dialyt in the mix somewhere, but where? Maybe the Series V?

For the record, I pulled an old Velostigmat Series V apart today. Another Tessar...