old triplet lenses? are they good or bad idea?

[desertrat]

That lens was made by Spencer Lens Co., who manufactured microscopes and accessories from 1895 to 1935 when they were bought by American Optical Co. and became AO's scientific instrument division. Microscopes with the AO-Spencer logo were manufactured into the 1980s. Steve Neeley's AO-Spencer microscope website has some old Spencer catalogs, and this lens shows up in the 1924 catalog:

http://webmight.com/~psneeley/downloads/1924Cat.zip

After downloading the file, unzip it and the catalog pages are on individual .jpg files. The 'pictorial' lens is on page 117. This appears to be the only photographic lens they were making during that period, and I don't think they were ever big in photographic lenses. I have a couple of Spencer microscopes from that period, and the optics are pretty decent. The lens in the catalog has an iris diaphragm, and the catalog states it can be made sharp enough to compare to standard landscape lenses by stopping down to f12 or smaller. The lens on Ebay doesn't seem to be quite all there. I would avoid it, unless it was selling for less than $50, which it isn't.

If you're looking at old lenses on Ebay, there's a 12" Turner Reich Triple up right now with the current bid at $9.99. Item number 130681874682. It appears to be an early one in an ancient volute shutter, and the glass appears to be OK. The shutter appears to be intact, but the seller doesn't mention and probably doens't know if it works. Front and rear cells are present, but the seller only mentions the focal lengths of the front cell, at 12" and 28". 12" would be the combined focal length. The rear cell is probably 21". The seller only has 6 feedbacks. Normally this would make me cautious, but he recently sold, shipped and delivered a $75 item, and appears to be trying to get established as a seller. Since he has few feedbacks, the lens will probably go for less than 100 dollars, but of course these things are hard to predict. I would be tempted to bid on it if I didn't already have one in a Betax shutter that looks and works almost like new.

The 300mm/f6.3 Ilex (Tessar types) often go cheaply, and are a very good lens.

I agree. Igor's Camera has a 12" f6.3 Ilex Paragon for sale for $95. He lists it as 'EX+', but also 'as is'. Might be worth an email to see how good/bad the glass is and how many of the shutter speeds are working.

You can also do landscapes with your 9-1/2" Wolly. It may not cover into the corners, but there's no rule that says you have to make a full size 8X10 print from the negative. You can make a smaller print, say whole plate size or 6-1/2" X 8-1/2" by making a mask for you printing frame, or you could put an oval mask in front of an 8X10 print. Lots of possibilities.

[Peter Gomena]

Your 91/2-inch lens would serve very well as a portrait or general-purpose lens on your 4x5 camera. It's an excellent portrait focal length for that format if you have enough bellows, and it should.

Peter Gomena

[E. von Hoegh]

Spencer Buffalo was a class act. I have a set of their 7x50 binoculars made for the US Navy in 1943, coated, and when compared to a modern pair of Swarovski 7x50s, you realise just how many "improvements" exist only in the minds of the advertising copywriters.

[E. von Hoegh]

Your 91/2-inch lens would serve very well as a portrait or general-purpose lens on your 4x5 camera. It's an excellent portrait focal length for that format if you have enough bellows, and it should.

Peter Gomena

Yes, it would be an excellent 4x5 lens, if a bit long for a possibly small studio. Most 4x5 cameras will have long enough bellows, which cannot be said for 12"/300mm lenses. I have a 9 1/2" Dagor that I use on 4x5 almost as much as I use it on 8x10, I like the focal length on both.

[goamules]

The seller of that projection lens has learned that if she puts the word "Cooke" in the title of any salvaged projector lens she'll get more lookers, and occasionally sell one for about 5 times the going rate. Saying a projection lens is a "Cooke Triplet", while technically correct because that company came up with the design, is like saying any petzval with the thick rear element at the very back is a "Dallmeyer Petzval." Or calling any tessar a "Zeiss Tessar" even if Zeiss didn't make it.

[jessicadittmer]

whew! thank you for all this good information! lots to look at and I'll keep at it with the one I have too.

[John Kasaian]

For a longer lens for your 8x10 you might consider a 14" or longer for greater effect. A 14" Commercial Ektar or 375mm Ilex Paragon would give you good service. If you prefer a convertible, may want to consider a Wollensak 1a

[Steven Tribe]

I think this is a lens to avoid - I found the listing.
Spencer made a lot of contract projectors for the US government.
They were called Delineascopes (or something like that).
I am pretty sure that this lens has be removed from (an unsaleable) projector.
You can see a typical Spencer projector at 150800849343. A complete projector costs far less than the lens removed from it!
I am sure that the 300+mm triplet is well suited to 5x7" work, but would require you to either mount front stops or cut a slot in the barrel for waterhouse stops.
This can be a difficult operation for barrels mounted in a sleeve.

[Chauncey Walden]

Yes, these projectors would be hard to move these days. Some years ago I bought a very nice AO Spencer Corporate Boardroom Projector with 5 late coated lenses of various lengths (all triplets), all sorts of replacement projection bulbs, and condensers for $35. My intent was to use it for 6x9 transparency projection.

[jessicadittmer]

wow thanks...I learn new things all the time here, so glad to be a member with people that know what they are doing and offer advice. I have so much to learn...