Voigtlander lens identification.

[anton orlov]

Hi there,

I recently was lucky enough to get a Voigtlander SN 296xx, which according to the web places it in 1884.
It has a 7 engraved on the top, but no Euryscop, Rapid Euryscop or anything that would identify it further.
Any idea on how to ID it?

[goamules]

It's probably a rapid rectlinear before they called them Euryscops. But you'll have to unscrew the back and see if it's two air spaced, separate glass lenses, or one cemented double. If the latter, it's a RR/Euryscop. If two in the rear, it's a Petzval. They made a lot of models, and didn't usually engrave what they were.

[Gundlach]

Can't you just measure the diameter of the glass both front and rear and assume that if they are the same diameter it's a RR and if the rear is a larger diameter it's a Petzval? Learning here too!

Gundlach..

[goamules]

I've never noticed that ratio on a Petzval. But RRs are symmetrical, that's true.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Can't you just measure the diameter of the glass both front and rear and assume that if they are the same diameter it's a RR and if the rear is a larger diameter it's a Petzval? Learning here too!

No, that definitely does not work. I have seen many Petzval lenses which have the same diameter front and rear, and many which have a smaller in rear.

Where did you learn that?

[anton orlov]

Darn it! The rear element is not coming out! The front one unscrewed with ease, but the rear doesn't budge :/
It dose seem to have a focal length of 24 in and the front element is 4in across - so I guess it's f6.
I don wonder when they started cementing the rear elements?
Also - does anyone here have experience as far as which is 'better', or any particular traits that are particular to one or the other?

[Steven Tribe]

No doubt about what this is!

It is a series IV Euryskop size no.7!

Catalogue says 24.5" focal length, diameter of front lens is 4 1/8". Covers the magic 20x24"!!

The non-engraved Voigtländer Europscopes are from around 20 - 31,000. By 29,000, they seem to decided on their future series (F values) and lenses are easier to place in the adopted series. Cost 210usd in 1890.

[anton orlov]

Thanks Steven,

I can't wait to get this baby fitted on my Kodak 2D (I hope that camera will actually be strong enough to hold this beast). Going to my friend's wood shop later today to make up a lens board. Then I'll be ready for some pretty awesome wet plate work, which is what I've been getting into lately.

Also - this lens had a Benster Pneumatic shutter installed into it - anyone here ever worked with one? I wonder how that little flap that closes the hole affects the bokeh, since it is always in the image circle....

[Steven Tribe]

You must post the Benster as it doesn't ring a bell - or perhaps it does?

I fear a 2D is not up to the job!

[Jac@stafford.net]

Steve, how is it that you can positively ID his lens and not this one:
http://www.digoliardi.net/voigtlander7/index.htm

[Steven Tribe]

Need focal length and glass diameter!

An engraved "Portrait Euryskop" can only be a series II or III (or perhaps series I - the Petzval).
A size 7 series II would have a focal length of 17 1/2" and glass diameter of exactly 4 inches.
The sizes in the series III are usually given as 1A, 2A......8A.

[anton orlov]

Jac - I saw that lens while doing some searches and it seems that the claim of its age is way too early - shouldn't it be from 1885-6?

Steven - I'll post a shot of the shutter as soon as I get home and take a shot of it.

[anton orlov]

9180591806

Here are a couple of pictures of the Benster shutter. One is the blades with that odd, but ingenious little flap that closes the shutter completely and the second is the pneumatic assembly with a cord that I plugged into it. It works perfectly after 130 years.
Here's a link to a patent http://www.google.com/patents?id=dgVJAAAAEBAJ&pg=PP1&dq=339731#v=onepage&q=339731&f=false

I am indeed worried that the 2D is not going to be up to the task, but I guess there's only one way to find out and in 2 hours I'm meeting a friend who has a wood shop and we'll try to fit this 9lb monster lens onto some sort of an extended lens board (I want to extend it by 4-5 inches to give me a little more close-up capability)

[anton orlov]

What is indeed weird Steven, is that no matter how many times I measure that front element is still comes up with exactly 4" diameter - yet when I tried estimating the focal length in the garage by pointing out of the open door and throwing the image on the wall it is definitely not 17in... looks a lot more like the 24in. I would love for it to be 17 - as that would mean f4 and not 6 and it would also eliminate the need for me to extend that focusing board....

[Steven Tribe]

The unlisted (series-wise) Euryskops which are big, never seem quite to manage the F value of the smaller ones!
I have a large one too, but can't get the F down to 6 either! It has a much longer focal length than the glass suggests - much nearer F7.6 (series VI).

There is a long previous thread which gave lots of examples of these pre-Euryskop versions.

If you are sticking with the 2D then perhaps you can swap to something which is appropriate?

I think the shutter is related to the Studio Shutter - which may even be a development of this original design. Looks easier to maintain than the SS.

[anton orlov]

I'll test it out tomorrow and see - if it doesn't hold I'll stick with the 24in Goerz Apo that I have and should have been using all along. But somhow I have the brass bug now that I started doing wet plate - I like the whole 'period' thing.

Benster shutter is probably the original leaf shutter - I mean 1886! When was the SS invented?

[Steven Tribe]

But somhow I have the brass bug now that I started doing wet plate - I like the whole 'period' thing.

Perhaps you didn't have protective gloves on, when carressing the big brass lens? The only known cure is lack of funds or a sensible partner!

[Tim Deming]

Cool shutter!

Steven is spot on with the lens ID as usual. I have had one of these, and I use a 2D, and if you want to use these two together, you will certainly need a custom board (the flange for this lens is much bigger than a 6" 2D board), and you will Ned to put additional support (tripod or monopod) under the lens as well.

Cheers

Tim

[anton orlov]

Perhaps you didn't have protective gloves on, when carressing the big brass lens? The only known cure is lack of funds or a sensible partner!

Yep, didn't wear protection and now it's got me. No partner here, but funds are indeed tight... I don't know if I'm as sick yet as to be buying up much more brass, but I have about 6 nice old barrels and maybe that will hold me over for a while, at least that's what I'm hoping for.

[anton orlov]

Cool shutter!

Steven is spot on with the lens ID as usual. I have had one of these, and I use a 2D, and if you want to use these two together, you will certainly need a custom board (the flange for this lens is much bigger than a 6" 2D board), and you will Ned to put additional support (tripod or monopod) under the lens as well.

Cheers

Tim

Finishing the board today - I'll have to look for my monopod....

[Jim Galli]

Sounds like an ordinary early - ish Serie IV #7. Why so stingy with the pictures? Voigtlander had patent concerns from other makers and left engravings off the early ones.

[anton orlov]

Well - Steven and Tim were right - I finished the lens board and tried putting the lens on a camera while stupidly using the Crown #4 tripod... let's just say that I'm on the way to Home Depot right now for some wood glue and clamps. Thankfully the lens seems to have survived the meeting with Mr. Pavement.

[CCHarrison]

91866

Benster shutter

Dan

[goamules]

Well - Steven and Tim were right - I finished the lens board and tried putting the lens on a camera while stupidly using the Crown #4 tripod... let's just say that I'm on the way to Home Depot right now for some wood glue and clamps. Thankfully the lens seems to have survived the meeting with Mr. Pavement.

That would have been a shame if it had smashed the front glass, after surviving 4-5 generations of owners for 120 years. You have to be careful, and not try fitting a studio lens on a field camera. It's too risky, and this size Euryscops are valuable.

[Tim Deming]

That would have been a shame if it had smashed the front glass, after surviving 4-5 generations of owners for 120 years.

Too true. I was fortunate to buy a Voigtlander orthoscop lens a few years ago, in a lot of different lenses. The seller shipped it across the Atlantic, with all the lenses thrown together in a box, no padding. The rear element on the orthoscop was smashed by flying against other stuff in the box. These lenses are very hard to find, and this one lasted 150+ years until someone didnt bother to think and was very careless. I wasnt too happy either, even after getting my refund.

Fyi, I used my euryscop on a 9"x9" board on an Anthony studio camera. No problems.

Tim

[anton orlov]

That would have been a shame if it had smashed the front glass, after surviving 4-5 generations of owners for 120 years. You have to be careful, and not try fitting a studio lens on a field camera. It's too risky, and this size Euryscops are valuable.

Yep... I am so thankful that the lens is OK... I have a high degree of reverence for vintage equipment and this was the first bad move I've made in over a dozen years of being a serious photographer. I think it can still work on that camera, but I'm going to have to hunt down a Majestic tripod (or something similar) before I attempt to use it again and will indeed back it up with a second tripod as now I did find that second place for it.
Well - I guess I'm stuck with a Goerz for now as my portrait lens, which is not at all the worst lens to be stuck with :)

[Steven Tribe]

Tim's experience is something I have thought about a lot - especialy when buying a "lot" of lenses. Years ago, I received cars parts for a vintage car (Singer) where a heavy loose item had hurtled around inside the package and destroyed brake lining sets. I had a near miss a few weeks ago with a 3B where the front achromat was loose in the burnished mount and could have fallen out inside the lens during transport!

My personal thought about the Voigtländer and 2D is that you have had a "wake-up" call. This situation will arise again - even though you buy a more substantial tripod or supporting tripod. These long heavy lenses can only be secured safely on Studio cameras or very heavy duty Tailboard cameras. I have a number of similar lenses that I would to try out in the field ( Graf variable, large Petzvals etc.) but make do with the miniature versions which just cover the format. The only long lenses I dare use are things like large landscape meniscii (PortLand, Plasticca).

Unless you have a leaning towards Portrait or Still life and have room for a Studio Camera set-up, then I would repeat what I said earlier about using this as a Trading article for an equally exciting brassy which will give you safer and more convenient photographic experiences. Of course, I am not so logical about my own purchases/collection!

[Jac@stafford.net]

I sometimes use an exceptionally heavy lens on 4x5, but this would work for any view camera: I have a long, stout rail that supports the camera and up front it has a vertically adjustable 'V' shaped rest for the lens. It was made just for this purpose. The pictures of it are in one of my archives. If you like, I will look for it and post a link.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Here is the platform I use for managing large lenses on a view camera. The lens shown is not the largest I've used, but it is as heavy as the whole camera, and tended to pull the lensboard off.

91998

[anton orlov]

Thanks for the ideas folks, I'll work on making a better support for this lens before I attempt to use it again.

Here are a couple of pictures of the beast.

92459
92460

[Steven Tribe]

A very appropriate combination (periodwise) - the shutter looks like a very solid design.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I agree with Steven and the rest. Don't chance putting this on a 2-D. Lenses like this are hard to come by. I've got a smaller one a Series III Portrait Euryscop 16 1/4" and only use it on my Century 8A 11x14 studio camera or my solid 14x17 camera. I built the front of the 14x17 to take a beast like that.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Is there something wrong with my remedy for large lens support?

[anton orlov]

Jac - I don't think there's anything at all wrong with your solution and I would use it if I had a rail camera.
For now I'm going to find a way to rig up a thread to this thing so I can put a separate tripod under it AND I'm going to try simply using the camera on a table - I think that's going to be the safest, but not most convenient. Well, I doubt that anything connected to 8x10 and lenses of this size can be called convenient to begin with.

And yes, how I wish I had some funds to get me an 11x14 or 16x20 camera.... I'll just keep my eyes open and fingers crossed for now.

[Gundlach]

Jason, I guess I learned it from reading the 1871 catalog that has descriptions of voigtlander lenses - as I recall the front and rear lenses were different sizes in each description. I guess it would be incorrect to say ALL petzval designs followed this deduction, but it appears it applies to voigtlander petzvals?

G

[anton orlov]

Well, thanks for the help guys - I think I have given up on putting this lens on my 2D (unless I'm actually in a position to use a table for a tripod). I'll work with the Goerz 24in instead for now - it's just a shame that that one is f11 and this beauty is f6. Someday I'll make me a 20x24 camera and then this piece of brass will come in handy indeed.

[Steven Tribe]

Strange co-incidence! There is another Benster in good working order. They must have been over-engineered!
This time in Fowlerville, Michigan - but not on a Voigtländer.