I have experimented with only modest success with some aerial lenses and wonder about the outcomes of our members with the same. So far the only lenses that have produced adequate land-level outcomes are the 3" Pacific Optical, a couple of Biogon 75mm, and Metrogons with major hassles (remember when they were about $5 each?)
Input?
No I sure don’t remember those prices. I was not in the game.
Of what use is only the front 1/2 of 3” Pacific Optical?
I have it in a DIY lens board for a 4x5.
In the 1980s, I once passed up on bidding on a lot of probably a dozen or so Biogons at an auction. The lot went for under $100 and have regretted not bidding on them ever since.Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net
I cannot believe I misspelled Aerial! How humiliating.
Thread title fixed - not to worry! - Oren
Last edited by Oren Grad; 3-Jul-2018 at 19:45.
Try it and inform the rest of us. I am tired of the lens and I have maybe six of them.
Oh, here is a true 3-inch Pacific Optical with shutter.
Jac - what quality are you looking for? Superior resolution/sharpness? Or just moderate, good results as would be attainable with more run-of-the-mill lenses?
As you know I have a 6" Metrogon. Seems pretty good to me but I don't have anything similar to compare. My 75mm Biogon on 4x5, shot at middling apertures, has produced amazingly detailed chromes, but I wonder if that's just because it has better optimization for those apertures (wider than f/22 I mean) compared to typical lenses.
Let's see, I have used a 12.5cm f/2 Schneider Xenon that is lower contrast than newer lenses but definitely gives plenty of detail, but I'm not sure I've evaluated it critically. Instead I've used it more for special effects. Oh, after having a number of Aero Ektar lenses, I feel like they have variable quality. The yellow-dot versions definitely seemed better, but maybe that was just chance. Nothing outstanding but sharp enough, good enough for the DOF effects they tend to be used for in the area of focus anyway.
One of these days I'd like to use the 20" f/5.6 B&L lens I got in an estate lot and has been kicking around for a while. Wasn't that an aerial lens originally?
The Vade Mecum is, on the whole, down on aerial lenses.
It recommends only one, the 38/4.5 Biogon, which flew on several aerial cameras. This is same lens attached to the Hasselblad SWC. Medium format. I have two, one its native AGI F.135 shutter and another that Steve Grimes put in a Copal #0 for me. It and my humble Century Graphic are worthy competition to the much more expensive 'blad.
The VM speculates that the 1.75"/2.8 Elcan might also be useful. I have one in barrel. It is the shortest lens that can be used on a 2x3 Speed Graphic. A 47 Super Angulon is a better proposition. Medium format, again.
TTH furnished 4"/2 and 12"/4 telephoto lenses for Vinten F.95, Williamson F.134 and AGI/Williamson F.139 cameras. I have one of each. The 4"/2 covers 2x3 well and is very usable but lighter slower lenses in shutter are easier to use and no worse at the apertures I normally use. Medium format, once more with passion. f/2 brings a weight penalty and only a small increase in usefulness. The 12"/4 tele is a great lens that is supposed to cover 4x5. Just. It is the longest lens that's comfortable on a 2x3 Pacemaker Speed Graphic, should be useful on a 4x5er. But its in barrel and fairly heavy, so useless on cameras that don't have a big behind-the-lens shutter. Again, there's a weight penalty and no advantages at the apertures we most often use.
I understand that Zeiss sold a fair number of 75/4.5 Biogons in shutter. They're useful for people who want low distortion, good performance at largish apertures and minimal movements on 4x5. Putting the aerial camera versions and more-or-less equivalents in shutter is expensive and for most of us these huge things offer only small advantages over 75 mm lenses made for terrestrial cameras.
On the whole aerial camera lenses are poisoned gifts. Heavy, difficult and expensive to put to use and no better than "ordinary" lenses at the apertures we normally use. Some, like the 200/2.0 S.F.O.M. I used to have, go far beyond absurd. For 4x5, JAC.
Its easy to forget that we use lenses to take pictures and that the picture is much more important than the lens used to take it. Its also easy to forget that decent lenses of the same focal length and coverage are functionally equivalent, weight and cost aside.
The only advantages I see with Aerial lenses is wide aperture (as with the Aero Ektars), and low price (as NOT with the Aero Ektars). One thing I'd warn people about is that many are telephoto and have long barrels, and thus give considerably less coverage than expected for a lens of their marked focal length.
"I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."
Bryan, I had considerable fun learning about lenses used on aerial cameras and trying them out. But the fun ended after I learned what I needed to know. All of my lenses from aerial cameras except for the 38 Biogon are retired. And now that I have a 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon I don't use the Biogon very much.True Dan but you forget the slightly more ephemeral element of "fun" when it comes to shooting oddball lenses.
Perhaps I'd feel differently about a few of them if I shot 4x5 with a Speed Graphic. My 100/5.6 S.F.O.M. comes to mind, but I got it for a very good price. These things are quite uncommon. At the going rate they make little sense as users.
Apologies for talking about medium format lenses, but that's where I live. The VM, which reported on lenses from aerial cameras that cover formats up to 9" x 18", and I agree that most are unsuitable for normal use.
That said, some photographers have got good results with 7"/2.5 Aero Ektars on, mainly, 4x5 Speed Graphics. Not for me, also not completely useless. Same goes for 8"/2.9 Pentacs.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks