Ross LF Lenses

[AlaBill]

Two books for you, m'boy. A Lens Collector's Vade Mecum. Cost you at most ten quid. It will clear up your confusion about licensing arrangements between Zeiss and Ross and Goerz and Ross and Steinheil and Beck. And then buy a copy of Hans Martin Brandt's The Photographic Lens. Don't buy more lenses, buy books. You need to know what you're about before you waste real money.

I can't find either of these books on Albris.com or abebooks.com. Any suggestions of where to find these books?

Bill

[Rob_5419]

Mr Colucci who advertises on some websites sells it:

http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/sell.htm


I'm still saving up for an old McKeowns

[Ernest Purdum]

Abebooks does have it. Search by the Author's name. It's expensive, though.

Kingslake's "A History of the Photographic Lens" is very useful.

[Dan Fromm]

ok so what are the list of books we should all have?

is there a reading list (with synopsis) on the site somewhere?

Ash, I don't have a large library of books on lenses/optics. Cox' Photographic Optics, Brandt as mentioned, Kingslake's Lenses in Photography, S. F. Ray's Applied Photographic Optics. I have access to a copy of Kingslake's History. And I have a copy of the Vade Mecum.

I also have a number of books on general photography and photomacrography. All very helpful for learning how to solve problems, none useful guides to buying lenses.

The only one of them that has been at all helpful for deciding which lens(es) to pursue has been the VM. It is the only book I'm aware of that gives any indication at all of how well lenses perform. It isn't always correct or even internally consistent, it is far from complete, but its the most useful guide we have.

[Ole Tjugen]

I have Kingslake's "A history of the Photographic Lens", Hans Schmidt's "Photographisches Hilfsbuch für ernste Arbeit" (printed in Berlin, 1910 - great for old German lenses), Dr. H. Naumann's "Das Auge mainer Kamera" (1937, printed 1951), and a bunch of old German leaflets, pamphlets and magazines from the 1930's.

I also have a copy of the Vade Mecum, but if the lens in question is German I start with the German books.

As you can see I have a slightly different "library" from most others, which is probably why I keep finding myself trying to translate German into English without getting to confused by my Norwegian brain.

[Rob_5419]

Those are some great reading recommendations.

I get the impression that the cost of shooting large format photography, particularly trawling around for antiquated barrel lenses which no one in their right mind would want is becoming so affordable, relative to the earnings of the users who pursue LF photography such that enthusiasts pick up and experiment with this or that lense with hardly any cost implications, even if the lens is a complete dud (i.e. worse than a pinhole camera lens). For the price of a box of film, serendipity and an internet trawling site seems to have replaced referencing for lens construction' on a wider scale..

[Dan Fromm]

But Rob_5419, I don't chase antiquated barrel lenses that no one in his right mind would want. They're nearly all too long for the format I shoot.

I chase relatively modern, i.e., mainly post-WWII, lenses that were first rate in their day. It really helps to have an idea of what's worth trying, as many lenses in that class are poorly-known or hard to recognize. Some of my great treasures were neither very inexpensive nor easily recognized as desireable. For example, my 12"/4 TTH telephoto. Badly identified by the seller, i.e., with no information about maker, only focal length and maximum aperture. If I hadn't been sensitised to that lens by the VM I'd not have gambled a small pot of money on something that seemed likely to be one.

Just the other day I received an apparently cheap lens -- 1 Euro for the lens, 25 Euro for the post office -- that is pretty enough, probably good too, but can't be used on any of my cameras. That's a small ouch, more than half the price of having a shutter scaled. And I have a shutter waiting to be scaled.

And hardly a day goes by when no one asks a question of the form "I found it, do I dare buy it and try it?" here or on some other forum. It may be that you are richer or more willing to risk buying a dud than the people who ask these questions.

You brought up the idea of "referencing for lens construction." Why should anyone cover about that? More exactly, I don't see a strong relationship between design and image quality on film. Please feel free to explain to me how and why I'm blind. What matters to me is whether a prospective new (to me) lens is likely to shoot well enough.

Cheers,

Dan

[Neil Purling]

I haven't paid over the odds for the two aplanats I have.
The heaviest expense has been in getting retaining rings and lens panels drilled. When that was being done I have had the shutters timed and I will work from the test results and not the posted shutter speeds.
Ole has advised me on the likely behaviour of the Rapid Rectilinear design. While the Beck 6" covers 4x5 I wouldn't expect razor sharp edges & corners.
I wouldn't expect miracles of the Ross Symmetrical with it being a aplanat and bid what I thought it was worth.

[Jim Galli]

Ebay has added a whole new twist for those of us who enjoy the learning process as much or more than all the other processes in this hobby. You can buy it, play with it, and re-sell it. How much can you lose for that enjoyment and learning when the guy who lost to you was willing to pay within $2.50 of what you were. And the knowledge base you gain helps in the long run. How many times have I stumbled into some antique lens listed incorrectly by a seller who really doesn't care (welistit4Uinc) and get something really fun for a few bucks because I DO know what it is and what it can do.

I lost that gamble last evening with the sorriest looking front half of a Busch f5.5 anastigmat still on the top side of earth. Pehaps I'll give it a decent burial. I brag when I win one and I suck up when I lose.

Weren't there about a billion 5" Ross Wide angles made for her majesties aeroplane services in WWII? If it was one of those, you didn't lose a thing

[Rob_5419]

But Rob_5419, I don't chase antiquated barrel lenses that no one in his right mind would want. They're nearly all too long for the format I shoot.

Not you Dan - that's Ash I'm referring to

Again, I don't go buying loads of lenses - I have a lot left over from when I used to do some teaching. I guess I'm lucky to live in London where any lens/barrel etc that doesn' t have a lens flange, I can just head over to Mr Cad and pick something up which probably will fit without having to get it sized up by a specialist.

The idea of looking for a specific type of lens (i.e. Petzval, a Planar or Gaussian Doublet or older triplets) is to at least have some idea of what the lens' limitations are. Specifically with the Zeiss legacy (pre-peri-post war), the lens construction, either in East or West Germany or post-war Germany or the now Soviet Union makes a huge difference for discerning users. But that's not LF stuff in any case..