Old Lenses... Which Are The Stand Outs?

[Scott Rosenberg]

i am just getting started and want to build a lens kit of classic lenses - Dagors, Artars, Lanthars, Ektars, etc. i like the look of the old glass, and for what i shoot, i am not looking for razor sharpness, but rather the smoothness of the old glass.

with all the various color dots (red, gold) and various options out there in focal length and aperature, i was eondering if there were any widely accepted STAND OUT lenses of the classics available. the 135/6.3 and 203/7.7 ektars seem universally praised - but what else out there in older glass has a great reputation for making smooth, pleasing images?

conversly, are there any real dogs... certainly every focal lenght dagor can't be wonderful!

[Scott Rosenberg]

hey fellas... this question was asked by a buddy of mine. i couldn't answer for him - i use mostly modern glass - so he posted here on the forum, but it was tagged to my account.

just so there's no confusion!

scott

[John Kasaian]

Scott/Andrew

Except for two Nikkors, everything I have is old and out of production. While some old glass is very very good, I think the real value of using a "stand-out" lens is psychological. A Dagor won't make you a Stieglitz any more than a Cooke will make you an Ansel Adams or a Verito will turn you into a Hurrell, but---and this I think is important---if you have such a noble lens you won't be able to make excuses that your equipment let you down. I think that can be a benefit, especially with the high tech mindset that is all too common these days. That said, one of my favorite "stand out" lenses is currently an ancient 10-1/2" G. Gennert(?)

[John D Gerndt]

Its the light not the lens that will make your shot, but if you want a collection you'll need a Ektar (Tessar), a Dagor, a Protar, and maybe a Heliar. These four are only the ones I can speak of from experience and that might be readily found. These all have their "look". Most modern lenses are made along the same lines, usually a Plasmat in design and all doing quite well in things that can be measured. Going way back pre-anastigmat yeilds lots of "character" but you may not like it. (Soft-focus is a topic unto itself.)

Try these out and if you cannot tell the differences between their renditions then forget the whole notion of classic lenses and concentrate on focal length.

Cheers,

[Ole Tjugen]

The APO-Lanthar is an updated version of the Heliar - same formula, same smoothness, better correction. I love mine. I love my Heliar too...

The Tessar lenses look far "sharper" than the Heliar/Lanthar, which is not always a good thing. The difference is obvious - I have no difficulty seeing the difference between negatives shot with a Xenar and an APO-Lanthar if there are out-of-focus elements in the picture. When sharp, they are equally sharp.

[Scott Rosenberg]

are there any specific lenses that you would recommend... ie a 150 heliar, 203 ektar, some specific artar or dagor? i'm planning to start with 3 lenses but have no idea which three. there's such a variety of designs and focal lengths out there, i thought you 'old glass guys' could call out a few specific lenses that have a really pleasing look.

do you have an absolute favorite that you use?

also, where does one go about buying these lenses? Scott usually buys from Jim at midwest, but it seems like jim sells mostly modern glass.

A

[Ole Tjugen]

It is usually much easier to see what you can find, and then find out if they are interesting. The only "classic" lens I've ever hunted specifically for was the 150/4.5 APO-Lanthar, and that was because I had sold a 210/4.5 of the same and realised I missed it.

Heliar, Protar, Dagor, Eurynar, Aplanat, Rapid-Rectilinear Convertible, Tessar Ser. Ib and even the "original" 210mm APO-Lanthar I have all aquired through coincidence.

[Jim Galli]

Busy weekend. Took delivery of a 95-100 year old Sanderson "hand or stand" camera that I'll admit to buying to have the lens. It had an original Bausch & Lomb "Zeiss license" Protar Series VII 6 3/8" - 11 3/16" f6.3 convertible on it and it is in perfect shape. Like this thing has been in a drawer in a warm indoor environment for it's entire life and time has stood still. The camera has me smitten even though I really only wanted the lens. Gorgeous piece and immensely useable even now. It's 3 1/4 X 4 1/4". Obviously built for the American market, it's British made, but the US 3X4 holders slide right in. The original B&L Volute shutter works perfect at all of it's settings right up to 3 seconds. The lens is smaller than a current 5.6 135 but will cover 5X7 with movements. Another camera purchase to get the lens recently was a Graflex D that had a 240 Dagor in original aluminum Goerz shutter. Again, perfect and the shutter is accurate.

[Chad Jarvis]

This is my classic kit.

Pantar kit. Goerz Dagor look, six cells, one shutter, many focal lengths. Very rare, but a near-ultimate prize. Has been my primary set for six years.
Busch Vademecum. Another casket set with outrageous versatility. Anyone who owns one will vouch for this.
Wollensak Velostigmat 16.5" f/4.5 variable focus . Absolutely velvety.

[Mark Sawyer]

Ektars and Dagors seem to have the cult status, and they are pretty nice.

Wollensak Velostigmats are wonderful, (I have a 6 1/4", 9 1/2", and 12", and like them all.) They're pretty common and often underpriced.

Carl Meyer lenses are reputedly a bad line; the name being a cross between Hugo Meyer and Carl Zeiss.

Zeiss Tessars are pretty nice.

Turner Reich triple convertables are one of the most famous classics, but have a mixed reputation, possibly a quality control thing. They all seem to have separation problems, too. And I've never found a convertable lens that I liked with one of the cells removed.