Have anyone ever heard of that lens: Rodenstock Munchen Pantogona No 2. f=12.5cm? As stated on ebay, should cover 11x14, apertures are from 1:18 to 1:72. Picture is lousy - brass barell, somewhat ruined (item number 7537035784). Lens is very interesting, price is low, but, for me unfortunately, seller does not ship to Erupe. However, I can call a friend in USA if someone can help me with some details about that lens.
Tnx
Do you believe a 5 inch lens could cover 11x14 inch negatives? I don't. Procede with caution.
Cheers,
Yes, I have seen this lens, the Pantogonal, and it will cover 11x14. This lens was Rodenstock's answer to Goerz's Hypergon: both covered a huge sphere, both had fierce fall-off, and neither were very sharp.
According to the Vade Mecum:
Pantogonal anastigmat f18, 80-750mm, or later 3.375, 5.0, 6.5in to cover 120-130°. This has a 1+2 layout as
in Rod002. This seems to be the same simple design as the wide angle Pantogonal below in 1906. (This
spelling is probably correct rather than Pantagonal.) The coverage was excellent at 10x8 with a 125mm lens
but sharpness was said to be very limited ie. it was soft, in the example reported, but then it was an old lens
and could be imperfect. The problem may be partly the use of film with a wider colour sensitivity than the lens
was designed for.
It was seen at Nr41,22x, on a brass finished 12.5cm lens, with stops f18 to f72. A unique feature is the graded
green-yellow centre filter, "Enixantos" which now seems fairly pale, but for ordinary film may have been quite
vicious in strength. It was used to even up the exposure, and was made from two cemented lenses of zero
overall power but the positive is colored and acts as the graded element. (B.J.A. 1906-1907). It has been
reported as being quite effective on a modern Angulon lens.
The Pantogonal should have about 120 to 130 degrees coverage, so a 5" lens could well cover 11x14" - or at least 8x10" with movements. The graded filter will help, also in reducing chromatic aberrations which this lens could have lots of.
At the moment the auction has reached $76.50, which is about as much as I would consider paying even with the center filter included...
Here's a little more information and a decent picture http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/rodenstock/rod21.html
I own the 165mm version of this lens. It has big coverage and big falloff (without center filter). Mine is tack sharp in the center (only 3 elements) and the edges are soft. The 165mm will just cover 12x20, best used in hyperfocal. These are really, really wide lenses, but a task to use at f 18 .
Yeah, truly nasty glass, the center filter isn't as effective as mentioned in the Vade. Even stopped down it was terrible. I had a 165mm and it was a great small lens but thats all it had going for it.
CP Goerz.
Tnx for your comments and additional informations... yes, f 1:18 is dark, with 120° I will probably include my tripods legs in the shot (won't be the first time ;-)) And the final price? just (by several times) over my budget: US $393.00! So, Ole... someone disagree with you... :-)
Tnx again.
Janko, I'm constantly surprised at the prices some of these old lenses get. And others don't - like the Emil Busch Weitwinkel-Aplanat f:16 #2 I got for less than $30. Coverage is slightly less than the Pantogonal at 110 degrees, but it covers 8x10" with movements.
Or the pre-WWII Angulon lenses which have about the same coverage - and even come in shutters. The last lens I bought was a 210mm f:6.8 Angulon, for use on 12x16". Still cost a lot less than the Pantogonal...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks