Anyone know anything about a Voigtlander Collinear Series ll no. 6 f 6.3 focus 12 1/4

[Bill, 70's military B&W]

I picked this lens up at a 'lot sale', I do not know very much about it. It is at Flutot's being CLA'd right now.
It is a no. 6 I saw the exact same lens except it was a no. 8 for sale on line for about $2500. And yes I checked each and every part of the name/description.
I know nothing about vintage lenses, and I have not been able to take a picture with it yet. Does anyone have any knowledge about this lens. I've been talking about it on the Camera and Accessories section of the Forum but I have not come up with any really good information.
For example, what is this lens worth, what are it's special attributes? I was told that it will easily cover 8x10.
Carol says that the shutter is the best ACME shutter she has ever seen, but she also said that ACME shutters are of a poor design.
Any help/information would be appreciated.
Thanks, Bill

[goamules]

Is this deja vu, all over again?
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...us-12-1-4-inch

[CCHarrison]

Catalogue page for the lens

Dan

[Bill, 70's military B&W]

goamules, and CCHarrison, I was trying for even more information, this section of the Forum is just for lenses, Thought I might learn more,
This time I have a picture. Carol says it's in great condition, and the shutter works great.
I'm hoping for someone who actually used a lens like this to tell me about it.
Can I fit it on a Linhof lens board and use it on all my cameras? Will I have to drill a lens board to fit it or will it fit a standard size?
Thanks for all the help, I'm just trying to learn more, some practical information.
Bill

[sanking]

goamules, and CCHarrison, I was trying for even more information, this section of the Forum is just for lenses, Thought I might learn more,
This time I have a picture. Carol says it's in great condition, and the shutter works great.
I'm hoping for someone who actually used a lens like this to tell me about it.
Can I fit it on a Linhof lens board and use it on all my cameras? Will I have to drill a lens board to fit it or will it fit a standard size?
Thanks for all the help, I'm just trying to learn more, some practical information.
Bill

As has already been mentioned, the Voigtlander Collinear is a good lens with performance about on par with that of the Goerz Dagor, assuming good samples of each. Both lenses are formed by the combination of two anastigmatic objectives, each composed of three cemented lenses. The lenses themselves are different. In the Dagor the indices of refraction of the three lenses increase in the the direction of incident light. In the collinear there is a meniscus of low refraction between a double convex positive lens of refraction, and a double concave negative lens of medium refraction. Both types are based on patents from the late 1890s.

Dagors and Collinears cover about the same angle, up to about 80º-85º but with performance falling off significantly beyond about 75º. There are only four air-to-glass surfaces so contrast is quite good with these lenses, even uncoated. I don't know very much about the history of production of the Collinear but some late examples may be coated. Based on the shutter I guess your Collinear is probably uncoated.

Sandy

[Bill, 70's military B&W]

Sandy,
Thanks, I'm trying to understand what you said. Optics is not my strong suit.
Here are my thoughts, optics af all kinds has gone thru an evolutionary process. From ancient telescopes to todays current level. Why is this antique a desirable lens?
I do not know how old it is, but I'm pretty sure that it's older than I am. Modern lenses should out perform old lenses simply because of advances in the science/technology.
I know a guy who has a Model-T. I appreciate that, I understand it's place in history and the desire to collect/own a piece of history.
Everyone who contributes, says it's a good lens, a desirable lens...etc.
I'd like to know why...I hold it in my hand and look at it... it is not one of those shiny brass lenses that look so cool. I do not see any coating on the glass. Owning it because it is a collectors item, I understand. What I do not understand is what makes this lens so special. More than one person says that it should have good contrast, it will cover 8x10,... well there are a lot of modern lenses that have those same qualities, better glass? better technology?
I still do not get it. I would not want to drive that Model-T to work everyday, but riding in it once or twice a year is nice.

I definitely will take it out and shoot it when I get it back. I hope to be able to mount it on a Linhof board so it will fit my cameras.

Would anyone have any idea what this is worth?

Thanks, Bill

[Dan Fromm]

Bill, your analogy with cars isn't very good.

Recently designed lenses shine with respect to the earliest modern lenses (that is to say, anastigmats) in two respects. Coverage and maximum aperture given coverage. Recently designed lenses take advantage of coating to use more air-spaced elements without loss of contrast. The biggest gains since coating was invented and lens design programs were written have been in zoom lenses for small formats. These beasties are essentially impossible without coating. Some that came to market were barely possible with what we now call single coating. The Angenieux 8x8B on my first Beaulieu cine camera, for example, had very low transmission. Newer higher ratio zooms are much brighter and flare resistant.

The really big and significant improvements in LF lenses since anastigmats were introduced have been in wide angle and telephoto lenses. The latest most best have advantages over ancient anastigmats of the same focal lengths and coverage, but between the extremes the improvements aren't that great.

To name names, tessar types have long been used as normal lenses. Plasmat types of the same focal lengths have more coverage than tessar types, are much preferable for LF when much in the way of movements are needed. But for formats and focal lengths where a tessar type has more coverage than is needed newer types' advantages are minimal. When coverage isn't an issue decent lenses of the same focal length produce results that are hard to tell apart, differences in design type nothwithstanding. We get hung up on worrying about this nonsense because we're more concerned with inputs than with outputs.

For me, older anastigmats' charm has been their combination of image quality (high) and price (low). Good lenses cheap, that's the ticket. Expensive good lenses are out of reach for such as me. For more on this, read http://www.galerie-photo.com/telecha...2011-03-29.pdf

I can't explain the current bokeh fad that abuses ancient non-anastigmats (Petzval lenses, mainly) by shooting them on formats larger than they cover. That cult's participants seem happy and harm no one. Let 'em be, don't question their tastes.

You've been expressing concern about making a bad mistake for some time now. If this is because you can't afford mistakes, then pay the price for recently designed lenses or don't shoot large format. Not matter what we all say, photography isn't a poor person's hobby and it never has been. Not being able to afford the toys (or tools) you want isn't a crime. Do what you can within your budget and be happy.

[Bill, 70's military B&W]

Dan, You have helped me a lot, really. I read most of your experience with lenses that you 'made work' on the Graphics. You are very industrious and skillful, and you must have one hell of a curiosity factor in you. Do you have any other papers you wrote? I'd really like to read them.

I do not have enough experience on the bokeh fad, believe me it's in the 35mm world too. Mostly when a lens is being sold.

As far as making mistakes, well I'm good at it, I almost did not send the lens to Carol because I didn't think it was worth repairing. That would have been a mistake.
I'm like you in that I like a bargain, I always enjoy getting it done at half the price. I do try to budget the photography gear, and I think I've done pretty good so far. I'd bet most feel the same way, what with prices of film gear as low as it is. Folks that bought a long time ago probably are not so happy.

Speaking of money, I've asked many times with no response yet, what would this lens be worth? Just curious.
Thanks again to everyone, when I get this lens back I'll want to mount it on a Linhof lens board and take it out and shoot it.
I'll let you know how that goes.
Bill

[Steven Tribe]

As far as value goes, it is difficult as these are not in the market very often.
The price you found for a no. 8 cannot be compared with a no. 6, as the value of classic lenses that cover 11x14" and more (like the no. 8) is suffering from ultra inflation!
I would find the current price for something like the Goerz Dagor (series III) no.5 (270mm) in a working shutter and add a few extra % for novelty value.

[premortho]

I'm not going to address the dollar issue, because it doesn't matter...you already own the lens. What I would like to discuss is the quality of drawing. Voightlaanders have always leaned toward a quality of roundness, or 3 diminsionallity which some of us love. Compared to a Zeiss which is almost clinically harsh and flat. Before the use of computers in lens design, each lens grinder had his own "touch". Sort of like brush stroke charistictics of oil paint artists. Leica built it's reputation on the Elmar lenses which are well known for their quality of "roundness" Leica built upon that base and made lenses for every purpose since then. So, all of these classic lens makers have their own signature. And the question should be ; does my pre-visulation of what I want to produce co-incide with what this lens produces? Voightlander probably never made more than 25% of what Zeiss or Bausch & Lomb produced, but they are highly valued by those who appreciate their qualities. If I could afford a lens of that quality, I'd insure it for $2000.00 and tell my heirs to not sell it for less than 1200. I would never part with it until I could no longer squeeze the bulb to make the exposure.