Puyo lens

[Steven Tribe]

I won't have time before the end of the weekend to do real testing.
I am sure that Garrett (quoting the Ph.D thesis) is right about the scales showing the actinic correction because there are small changes in the real distances between the marks on the scale - not much - but they are there. I think this would only work for when there is no rear lens in the fixed flange lens?
The casket is definitely designed to cover landscape meniscus, tele landscape meniscus, single lens portrait, double lens portrait!
There don't seem to be many around of this variety (but there are lots of varieties!). I think this one is from before the de Pulligny collaboration - but is essentially the same as the Darlot engraved version.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

...you just KNOW the potential to make world shattering pictures is at hand, if you could ever figure out how it works.

Yes, anyone who has ever tried to use a Busch Vade Mecum, a similar design, can attest to just how hard these lenses are to use. What-you-see-IS_NOT-what-you-get.

[Steven Tribe]

Well, sorting out the casket Puyo was a lot easier than I thought.
The "reknown photo amateur" Puyo was sensible enough to have small difference between the barrel front and rear bayonet fixtures - so there are no options or doubts.
I have called the lens cells A, B (those without T- trousse marks), C and D (those with T marks).

A and B are around 70cm. Identical in focal length, but not in cell mount thickness and length of pins. The physically longer cell B fits into the real barrel flange 2. Cell A will only fit in the front position. This is acheived by a combination of pin lens and ridges on the cell rims.

Likewise cell C (30cm) will only fit in the front.
The -ve cell D will only fit in the rear sleeve bayonet position.

So, in summary:
Front lens can be cell A or C or nothing
rear lens can be B or nothing
Sleeve lens can only be D or nothing.

This matches up with the description of the adjustable landscape lens as well as the "d'Artiste" lens.

[Tri Tran]

I just saw this threat . I hope I'm not driving up the price for these lenses but they are truly exceptional lens for portrait work IMO. These 11x14 Platinum and Carbon Transfer portrait prints was taken with the Darlot Trousse 15 ish Puyo Anachromatic .

[Steven Tribe]

delated due to duplicate-strange things happening tonight!

[Steven Tribe]

Tri-Tan, "15 ish" = 15"?
This must be the 40cm version, originally used for 18x24cm - 15.74".

I have read on-line the book by de Pulligny and C. Puyo called "Les Objectifs d'Artiste (200 + pages).
The description there shows quite clearly that the set of lenses I have - called a trousse, then - later got the name O d'A and that the casket I have is very similar to all later O d'A sets from Darlot and their successors. The book describes the optical principles in great detail and shows how a negative lens at the rear can be used. The O d'A difference compared to mine is that the plano concave has been replaced by a plano convex.

Old books are always great because of the period adverts at the end. This one has the following:

A detailed description of the O d'A on offer from Turillon (succr. de A. Darlot). This is from 1906 and is a little earlier than CCHarrison's shorter ad in Soft Focus part 1. It confirms the two sizes made for 13x18 and 18x24 but also gives their focal lengths 30 and 40cm, respectively. They announce the arrival soon of their version of the adjustable landscape lens. The O d'A at this stage contained the pair of identical meniscii, and extra meniscus and a plano-convex lens.Amazingly, it announces 2 qualities!

Series 1 is with a real iris made from "1st quality crown" (Jena?).

Series 2 (30% cheaper) is for waterhouse stops and with crown glass from St. Gobain.

So it should possible to identify series 1 and 2 - even with no engravings.

Also advertising an adjustable landscape anachromatique was the company of "Grande Fabrique Francaise" at Ligny.
In addition, they had an anastigmatic Apoquartz ( calculated by M.E. Morin).

[Petzval Paul]

Isn't the FL on these lenses variable? Perhaps that's why I is mentioned as being ~ 15"? I don't know too much about them and have no experience using them but thought that they were a bit slow for portraits??? On the other hand, there seems to be so many variations to the Puyo lenses that I get really confused by which one is which.

[Steven Tribe]

What I am about to write now is , perhaps, heresy for some, Paul!
The Landsape (adjustable) version has definite changing (tele) focal capabilities.
I think all later O d'A have this capability too - but only through use of different combinations of the 4 lenses supplied.
The question is:
-were O d'A ever supplied without the two extra lenses? Some are engraved O d'A and others O d'A trousse - but this could be just a change in marketing methods!
The focal length I have given ( and in the enclosed ad) is for the normal symmetrical meniscus at both ends layout.

Looking at CCHarrison's list (Soft Focus 1) of 4 lens variations for the O d'A, I have the thought that these 4 could just represent the 4 opportunities available with the standard O d'A - rather than separately sold lenses.

About speed, Paul - the standard set up with 2 symmetrical meniscus lenses is F5. With the front lens replaced by the much shorter alternative meniscus, the combined focal length is 20cm and it becomes an F3.

The de Pulligny/C. Puyo book I mentioned can be read at e-corpus.org using the search function from the starter page. Not possible to make a copy (for me at least) but each single page is printable.
I enclose the 1906 ad for O d'A - the print quality is very weak, I apologise!

[Petzval Paul]

I just can't wrap my head around all of these variables....smoked too pot as a junior high schooler, or something! I was under the impression that they were quite slow, like the Dallmeyer Bergheim lenses before them. F/5 would definitely be great for portraits, though!

[Jim Galli]

I just recently did comparison photos of a 385mm O d' A and an identical 560mm bigger version. What was interesting is the smaller one had all of the usual Puyo info on inscribed as usual but the big one had only the scale at the waterhouse slot, nothing else. So now I'm curious if the big one that lacked some of the inscriptions was the 2nd series quality. The glasses on it were noticeably thicker although o/wise consistent.