Question on Steinheil Quinon-S

[Arne Croell]

I know this thread is more than three years old, but since I think I just found the answer to my own old question I'll add it here for completion.
A little while ago I acquired one of the 210mm V-Quinon enlarging lenses mentioned above. In the Steinheil book that I own, the lens diagram for the f/5.6 V-Quinons is given as the version in the no. 47 drawing shown below, which can be seen as a derivation of a Plasmat or a dialyte with cemented outer elements. The shorter and faster f/4 V-Quinons were listed as double Gauss Planar types, no.46 (left) in the book diagram below. This made sense, as the Planar type is better suited for larger apertures. When I had acquired the Quinon-S of the original question, I was able to take the front cell apart, and the front lens was clearly single and the group closest to the diaphragm showed the telltale signs of being cemented (two bright reflections and a faint one). It was also convex towards the front lens, which makes it a Planar type, too. When I examined the V-Quinon directly next to the Quinon-S, the lens cells when unscrewed actually looked the same, and the reflections looked the same. I then used my spherometer to measure the three lens radii that I had easy access to on each lens, and they were EXACTLY the same for both lenses. First conclusion: The f/5.6 210mm Quinon-S and V-Quinon are actually the same lens! Second conclusion: the drawing in the book on Steinheil is wrong or got mixed up, since the Quinon-S is clearly a Planar type along the lines of drawing 46 and thus the V-Quinon 210mm is one, too. Third conclusion: The speculation in the Lens Vademecum that the 210mm Quinon-S is a Plasmat is understandable, but also wrong, its a Planar.
As opposed to the Quinon-S, the V-Quinon had a serial no. on its mount, dating it to 1962, one year after it was first manufactured. This was also the year Elgeet in Rochester acquired Steinheil. The second image below shows both lenses next to each other; if one looks closely the font and style of the inscriptions is not the same. The lens cells themselves including the front ring do not carry any inscriptions. My assumption is therefore that Elgeet got the V-Quinon lens cells from Steinheil, put them into the new shuttered mount (Ilex no.4) and sold them as taking lenses.

[Bernard Kaye]

Does any of you know from such as ILEX instructions or using it if with an f4.8 Convertible Paragon 215-350 whether at 350mm. (14") (A) one uses the rear element alone where it is in rear just removing front element or (B) one places the front element in rear removing the rear element?
I ask this because of a focusng problem that probably is of my making.
Thank You,
Bernie

[Arne Croell]

Normally*, if only 2 focal length are given, as in the case of Schneider's Symmar or the Steinheil Quinon-S, the single cell for the longer focal length is the one behind the shutter, and it stays in that position. For a triple convertible like a Protar VII or the original Plasmat, both the back and front cell are used singly for different focal lengths, but mounted behind the shutter each time.

*The exception is the old Rodenstock Sironar convertible, where only the front cell was used in front of the shutter!

[Paul Fitzgerald]

According to an Ilex manual you would use the rear element alone, just remove the front to convert.

[Bernard Kaye]

Thank You, Paul & Arne,

Bernie

[Lynn Jones]

I've owned a 210 Steinheil Quinon (for about 30 years), it is convertible and definitely a plasmat.

The Ilex/Calumet f4.8 215mm single convertible is also a Plasmat (I was one of the co-developers of this absolutely incredible lens). It covered over 72 degrees and was critically sharp from1:1 to infinity. From Calumet they were available only in 215mm, but from Ilex they were 150, 180, and 215. From B&J/BBOI they were 150, 180, 210 and were f5.6.

Lynn

[Lynn Jones]

Hi Bernard,

The inventor was Manual "Manny" Kiner, brilliant optical physicist and one of my closest friends. Manny instructed all of us to remove the front lens group and shoot with the rear group.

Oops, sorry guys, I just realized that somebody had already posted that information.

Lynn

[Arne Croell]

I've owned a 210 Steinheil Quinon (for about 30 years), it is convertible and definitely a plasmat.
Lynn

It has taken me a little while to get around to answering this. One has to keep in mind that both Planars and Plasmats have 3 lens elements in each cell, two of which are cemented. A Planar single cell is a positive single lens in front followed by a cemented negative group. A Plasmat is a (negative) cemented group in front, followed by a positive single meniscus lens next to the aperture. It is therefore quite difficult to distinguish them from the outside (the front lens surface is convex towards the viewer, and the back surface is concave in each case), or using reflections. Each cell will show 4 strong reflections from the open surfaces and one weak reflection from the cemented interface. The one way to be sure is to take them apart.
I cannot be sure, but I doubt that Steinheil made two different convertible 210mm f/5.6 Quinon-S's. However, one would normally assume that such a large format lens is a Plasmat, because that is what nearly all of the "standard" view camera lenses at that time and today were, and this is reinforced by the convertibility. I assume that Lynn's opinion is based on this line of thought.
As I mentioned before, I took mine partially apart and I repeated this now, shown in the pics below. The left image shows the whole lens with the inscription, and maybe Lynn can comment if that looks the same as his. The center image shows the removed front lens: it is a single positive meniscus lens. I used a 6-LED lighted loupe (visible in the upper right hand corner) to show the reflections: two. The right hand picture shows the remaining group of the front cell in its mount; it has negative power. Three reflections of the 6 LED's are clearly visible, one is a little weaker and not colored by the coating: a cemented doublet. From the movement of the reflections, it can be deduced that the first lens of this doublet is a biconvex lens, and thus the second one has to be biconcave. This makes the front cell clearly a classic Planar and not a Plasmat. The back cell (not shown, but I disassembled it, too) has slightly different radii, but the same basic setup, so the whole thing is a Planar!

[Asher Kelman]

Arne,

How about a picture taken with the lens? Any to share? That would be a treat!

Asher.

[Arne Croell]

Arne,

How about a picture taken with the lens? Any to share? That would be a treat!

Asher.

Sorry, I have nothing I can show. Despite my lensoholism, I have a regular set of lenses that I use for my photography and that is pretty much a fixed set. The lenses for "playing" are separate from it. My regular lens in that focal length is a Germinar W 210mm f/9. Much lighter than the Steinheil!