Does anyone actually use cult lenses?

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Dan,

"Friend, recent events of the coast of Somalia notwithstanding, the days of piracy are pretty well ended. Really interesting lenses for a couple or ten monetary units ($US, UKP, Euro) are quite scarce. there are entirely too many people looking for them entirely too hard and too intelligently."

OOPS, I really do have to stop hitting the BIN button. Last week it was 2 absolutely stellar NOS lenses, a 19" f/11 APO Artar for $75 USD and a Kodak Ektar f/3.5 100mm, the nicely coated, lanthanum glass, heliar version for $20 USD.

If anyone thinks cult lenses are nuts, check out woodworking hand planes.

[Dan Fromm]

Paul, thank heavens for ignorant sellers.

About the 100/3.5 Ektar, it is harder to use than one would think because its shutter is cocked by the Medalist's film advance mechanism. Still and all, for $US 20, how can you possibly have gone wrong? Two good snags.

But are you going to use them or put them safely in your lens shrine?

[Struan Gray]

I'm not sure it's just ignorance - fashion and celebrity play a role too, especially with vintage optics. Goerz and Zeiss go for high prices, as do some Zeiss licensees like B+L or Ross. But other Zeiss licencees don't, and there are other quality manufacturers besides the big fish.

How much do 480 mm Dagors fetch these days? Not enough for me to sell mine (:-), but very similar 3-3 lenses go for nothing like the price:

http://cgi.ebay.de/BUSCH-DOPPEL-LEUK...d=p3286.c0.m14

I guess this is where 'cult' takes over from 'quality'.

[Dan Fromm]

Interesting point. The name Dagor is trusted, other equivalent names aren't. Ignorant buyers can be sellers' best friends. Perhaps we really are sheep.

Struan, how did you find that Doppel-Leukar? I ask because I find the current foto, camcorder section of ebay.de almost impossible to browse.

Yours with a cheery baa baa,

Dan

[Struan Gray]

Struan, how did you find that Doppel-Leukar? I ask because I find the current foto, camcorder section of ebay.de almost impossible to browse.

With a baa baa here and a baa baa there.......

I periodically have a bimble through:

Foto & Camcorder > Photographica > Alte Kameras > Plattenkameras
Antiquitäten & Kunst > Technik & Photographica > Photographica > Objektive
Antiquitäten & Kunst > Technik & Photographica > Photographica > Plattenkameras

I *hate* the new eBay style of having to search broad catagories, especially on eBay.de where you could usually rely on teutonic discipline to put even oddballs into the correct sub-catagory. eBay.fr has become truly unusable unless you know the brandname of the thing you want.

Baa Humbug!

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Dan,

"Paul, thank heavens for ignorant sellers."

Yep, the Ektar was listed in enlarging lens with a BIN, so I did.

"About the 100/3.5 Ektar, it is harder to use than one would think because its shutter is cocked by the Medalist's film advance mechanism. Still and all, for $US 20, how can you possibly have gone wrong? Two good snags."

Yep, so I bought a Supermatic #2, will swap the face plates and call it good. Now I will see the difference from the uncoated version off a Medalist I.

"But are you going to use them or put them safely in your lens shrine?"

Yes, when I get the time. I have already mounted the Artar and do like the look, it also stands up well to a 20mm eyepiece, fine detail. The Ektar will go on the Graphic View, heliars are alway fine at close-ups, maybe flowers. Wasn't the Ektar 100/3.5 the very first Hasselblad lens?

[Dan Fromm]

Thanks, Struan.

Paul, you may be thinking of an 80/2.8 Ektar.

With respect to eBay and their shift to serving buyers who want to buy new and know what they want, Amazon does that much much better.

Cheers,

Dan

[Pete_6109]

Does anyone know anthing about this lens? I got it for free with a camera I purchased. It's marked "Taylor, Taylor and Hobson" and then it says "Cooke-Kodak Anastigmat". It's focal length isn't marked, but it appears to be 170mm when I compare it to other lenses I have. I wonder if this lens was a result of a collaboration between Cooke and Kodak, or perhaps Kodak copied a Cooke design under some license agreement? I just shot some film over the weekend with it so I don't know how well it performs yet.

[Dan Fromm]

The lens was made by Taylor, Taylor, and Hobson for Eastman Kodak Company. TTH licensed the Cooke triplet design from T. Cooke & Son, who last traded as Cooke, Troughton, & Simms. The Cooke triplet was first designed by D. Taylor (no relative of the TTH Taylors), an employee of Cooke's. Cooke's licensed the design to TTH because they were really microscope makers and weren't interested in making photographic objectives.

EKCo bought lenses from many makers before they started making their own. AFAIK, none of the lenses EKCo bought in, except perhaps the occasional Goerz Dagor, is a cult object.

I have, somewhere, but not where I can find it now, a link to a site in the UK that lists some of the lenses that were fitted to Folding Pocket Kodaks. Its just amazing.

[Pete_6109]

The lens was made by Taylor, Taylor, and Hobson for Eastman Kodak Company. TTH licensed the Cooke triplet design from T. Cooke & Son, who last traded as Cooke, Troughton, & Simms. The Cooke triplet was first designed by D. Taylor (no relative of the TTH Taylors), an employee of Cooke's. Cooke's licensed the design to TTH because they were really microscope makers and weren't interested in making photographic objectives.

EKCo bought lenses from many makers before they started making their own. AFAIK, none of the lenses EKCo bought in, except perhaps the occasional Goerz Dagor, is a cult object.

I have, somewhere, but not where I can find it now, a link to a site in the UK that lists some of the lenses that were fitted to Folding Pocket Kodaks. Its just amazing.

Thanks for the info Dan.