I think lens names are a good source for baby names and had I known, my daughter would be named Darlot and my son Voltas.
Nate Potter Austin TX.
I think lens names are a good source for baby names and had I known, my daughter would be named Darlot and my son Voltas.
Nate Potter Austin TX.
Hey Dan,
What is the lens on the top camera in your post? Is it a Waterbury Lens?
Wayne
Originally Posted by CCHarrison
When I started camera collecting back in 1992, I had no plan as to what to collect...I had $ 20 Kodaks mixed with a $ 3500 Walker American Challenge Camera. A few years later a wise, and experienced collector told me to focus on one aspect of cameras and dont stray.... this helps from accumulating junk, taking up space in ones home and keeps the hunt even more exciting.... So, I only collect 4x5 or smaller, pre 1890's, American made wood cameras. This narrow focuses causes me to buy one or two items per year....very selective..... and when I find a rare item, I may sell off an item in my collection thats not as rare, to help fund the purchase and keep my display cases small, but to the point.... this has worked for me !
Dan
American Optical 76 Camera with Scovill Waterbury lens
Antique & Classic Camera Blog
www.antiquecameras.net/blog.html
For me, I collect "user" lenses and my "collectible" lenses are intended as users. I have a few soft focus lenses (Cooke knuckler, Verito, Fujinon) but these were bought with the intention of making photos, not simply to own them. Likewise I have a couple of early Heliars (1903 & 1904) but these were also bought to be used. On the other hand I started out with a couple of Symmar convertibles which has led to me getting nearly every focal length in the Symmar and Symmar-S range plus whatever of the D.A. and triple Symmars I could find. Fortunately my willpower is strong enough to prevent me buying APO Symmars, Super Symmars and Macro Symmars.
I think if you have 10 collectors, you'll have 10 different reasons why. Disregarding the tongue in cheek talk about names, the original poster sounds like he is really collecting older, respected companies, which is fine. Others may like to collect obscure, not well known makes. Sleepers, if you will. Most of us photographers may go by function somewhat. Soft, or fast, or wide. An antique enthusiast may go for just the oldest. Some concentrate on one maker. It's all good, but I've always been interested in what makes us collect? If a man decides to get a camera, soon he wants another. A mountain bike? How about all the colors made. A gun? I need one in each caliber. Nobody can eat just one.
all true, except that I am actually not collecting. (my girlfriend claims that what I am doing is to save the lenses from the evel collectors.....)
But ifI had the money, I'd be collecting.
as it is now, I don't want a lens I can't use..
I'm just waiting for some of these lens collectors to die off - your widows will be selling off those Heliars and Pinkham & Smiths for pennies on the dollar! Bwahahahaha...
Robert, as it happens I know a collector who's more-or-less on his deathbed. I've talked things over with him and his executrix (daughter, not wife). Unless there's some unforeseen catastrophe, his good stuff -- mainly Zeiss -- will be consigned to Westlicht. Pennies on the dollar isn't likely. Some collectors think of their heirs and assigns.
The reason I have collected a bunch of lenses is so that I know that if I ever take a picture it will be a picture as good as AA or ES or you name em did.
I don't actually take the picture, so I will never be dissillusioned.
Best at takeing pictures in my mind
Bill
I've never been a collector of lenses (books + photographs are another matter) and have always purchased only what I needed. However, I've always wanted to have a Kodak 8x10 2D, not to use, just to have, only because that's what Stieglitz used.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks