Tele-Peconar anyone?

[Paul Schilliger]

I have purchased this lens for 4x5 out of curiosity. It is a 500-1000 variable lens, probably at least 50 years old. I thought it would screw directly into a Copal 1, but it doesn't. An adapting ring will probably cost more than the lens itself, so before I get into spending more money, has anyone tested the lens in the long range (750-1000mm)? Is it worth the effort? If someone would have a table for the numbers engraved on the barrel, for the corresponding focal length and openings, this would be most welcome! Thanks!

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi Paul

Sound like there where build by Plaubel in Germany. Because they had some lenses in the past in there programm and Plaubel Peco cameras are still many to find on german ebay and Peconar and Peco sounds very familiar. I would ask Plaubel. Good luck Paul!

[Ernest Purdum]

Armin is correct in that the Tele-Peconar is a Plaubel tradename. There were more than one lens type with this name, so if you do write Plaubel, be sure to give them as much data as you can.



These variable focal length (as opposed to zoom) lenses were not up to modern standards either in sharpness or in freedom from aberrations. Most had disappeared from the market by the time the Tele-Pecconars came along. Busch had designed the first fixed separation telephoto, the Bis-Telar in 1905 and this design soon became more popular despite the advantage of being able to choose from a large range of focal lengths.



Since the aperture reduces as the focal length is increased, the lens will probably be quite slow at the longer range, so maybe you could try it out without a shutter. Having an adapter to a shutter made might not be too expensive. It's a relatively straightforward job which could be done by any competent machinist equipped to cut metric threads conveniently.

[Lutz Goldermann]

Hi Paul, try this site for detailed information about your particular lens: www.syzygyst.com/JoePhoto/tpec/index.htm. I tried one out and the results were meagre to say the least. The apparent ease in varying the focal length is indeed tempting, but forget about sharpness and contrast. The pictures looked a bit like some sort of early Tele-Holga. I didn´t like that then, but that´s a matter of taste, now I use the Peconar as a pocket-telescope. The Bis-Telar is indeed a much better lens, it´s a real early telephoto-design, and they´re still not expensive. Much more picture-making ability in that one. Have fun, Lutz

[Paul Schilliger]

Thanks for the feedback, Lutz.Then I should probably try to mount it casually to a lensboard and see for myself before doing anything at cost. The problem is to find a retainer that fits. I'll let know of my findings. Armin, I have written to Plaubel, but doubt however that any of the current staff will even know what I am talking about... Ernest, do you have an idea of how old the Tele-Peconars are?

[Ernest Purdum]

Paul, I wish I could give you a good answer. My impression is that they are relatively late as variable length telephotos go, probably 1920's, but I could be off.

[Paul Schilliger]

Ernst, thanks for the scans of adverts you sent me! It looks like I am getting involved with antiques! I have had an answer from Plaubel. They apologized for not being able to forward any infos on this outdated product.

[Ernest Purdum]

Paul, while looking for something else (naturally), I came across a Plaubel catalogue listing the Tele-Peconar. It says that the "f" value is obtained by multiplying the aperture of the positive lens by the magnification scale provided. The smallest Tele-Peconar, which covers 9X12cm at a magnification of two has an f3 positive lens. The two larger sizes have f4.5 positive lenses. If you email me your mailing address, I will send you a copy of the catalogue pages on the Tele-Peconar.

[Void]

Does someone have some photos made by this lens?

[Jim Noel]

I had one of these for 4x5 years ago. I don't think I ever made a negative worth printing with it and finally gave it away. It was soft at all apertures, but not soft in a way as to make good portraits. Just ugly.
By the way, I like and own good soft focus lenses and own and use several.