Quote Originally Posted by IanG View Post
I agree only Double Protars, ie one lens that can be split, However not like the Triple convertible lenses that seen to be mostly a US thing and the Cooke XV was aimed at the US market because by then their major market was the US and Hollywood.

As to why Ansel Adams would be using a camera like this (regardless of disputes as to the exact format) they are just so small compared to most US made cameras of similar/equivalent format, also practical and had the best optics then available.

Ian
Quote Originally Posted by David Lindquist View Post
Could you elaborate on this Ron? The books I have indicate he used this lens on 3.25 X 4.25, 4 X 5 and 5 X 7 film. My Zeiss catalogue shows the 14.5 cm Double Protar covers an 8 3/4 inch circle "at small stops" which is cutting it close on 5X7.

Thank you for reminding me about the bayonet fitting. I have some memory now of hearing about this years ago, probably even pre-internet!
David
Quote Originally Posted by David Lindquist View Post
I wondered about proper terminology when I wrote this and checked my circa 1933 Zeiss catalogue. (This is a reprint of their catalogue published for the U.S., bought it on eBay). They use "Double Protar" for an objective made up of two (f/12.5) Protar lenses whether the two are of the same or different focal lengths.

I identified this lens as such not because I could really tell by looking at the photograph but because Ansel Adams refers to using a 5 3/4" Protar as well as its 22 and 29 cm components in some of his older books that I have. And to my eye the lens shown looks consistent with the 14.5/22/29 cm Double Protar that I have. (My Zeiss catalogue shows focal lengths both in inches and centimeters with 14.5 cm being the same as 5 3/4 inches).
David
Protar's came either way in Series VII. Many were 2 equal focal lengths together which gives a double combo at f6.3 Many more were triple convertible and quite possibly still referred to in literature as double protars. Calling them triple or triple convertibles may have been an Americanism. Ron's comment about 9X12 is appropriate. These were small cameras and you likely might be able to use the single 22 but probably wouldn't have bellows enough for the 29cm. Most of this type camera was sold with Tessars or their equivalent. Entry level cameras for their day, although I would suppose the Zeiss was top of line for this type.