Pullin London 14C/5682 100mm f/2.8 Pulnar No. F7140

[Ian Greenhalgh]

I acquired a brand new set of cells that are a complete mystery as I can find no info at all. Pullin were a maker of lenses and projectors but I can only find reference to their projection lenses.

The front cell carries the text: 'Pullin London 14C/5682 100mm f/2.8 Pulnar No. F7140' and the glass has blue coatings, both front and rear cells show four clear reflections, but in different layouts, the front cell has the reflections in two pairs, the rear one has a closely spaced set of three then one on it's own, so it's assymetrical but I have no idea what the optical schema might be.

Front cell has threads that look to be 40mm and the rear looks to be 36mm so it might fit a #1 shutter with a bit of luck.

Anyone ever seen a Pullin lens in shutter before? Can anyone decipher anything about it's layout from the reflections?

This is all the Vade Mecum has to say, it suggests the 2.8/100 Pulnar is a projector lens but I doubt what I have is a projector lens:

Quote:

Pullin Optical Co, High Wycombe and London, UK.
They were originally Measuring Instruments Pullin (MIP) but began to produce enlargers about 1946 (B.J.A.
1947, M.C.M. 12/1946, p31) and made projector lenses to fit, as well as photographic rangefinders, exposure
meters, and acted as Linhof agents. Mr H.W. Lee was with them for a period postwar. They later became part
of the Rank Organization in 1964, and as Pullin were agents for Nikon, Rank took this on, arranging servicing
and so on.
The most common Pullin item for collectors is a Pulnar f2.8 100mm (c.4in) slide projector lens, often ex-WD.
It has M39x26 thread but no iris or focus scale. It was seen at No47,20x. It was an early postwar product,
(MCM Dec 1946, B.J.A. 1950, p475advert.) The Pulnar was listed in 1955 as made in f2.8, 50, 100, 150mm.
There is a notice of the Pullin 35mm slide projector in B.J.A. 1947, p188, and the lenses were f2.8 in 8 foci
from 2in to 6in. They gave excellent definition and clarity. One of these has been reported in alloy and black
finish at Projection Pulnar f2.8/F=2" (50mm) No F104x.

Turns out the cells go straight into a #1 shutter and it covers all of the ground glass on my Century Graphic. Sadly I don't have a #1 with a diaphragm, just a Polaroid MP4 type Copal, so I'll need to find a normal #1 for it.

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20133/4077_DSC07884_1.jpg

Looks pretty good on the Century methinks:

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20133/4077_DSC07885_1.jpg

[Ian Greenhalgh]

Just to confirm the cell spacing in a #1 is correct, I stuck it on a set of bellows with my NEX-3. It is quite sharp wide open, but of course I will never shoot it wide open on the Century. Contrast is a bit low but I expect both sharpness and contrast improve a good deal when it's stopped down. Bokeh is very smooth and the dof is tiny. I wonder what optical schema it has, Tessar types don't usually have such smooth bokeh so it might be something else. Judging by how sharp it is wide open, I expect it will be very sharp stopped down.

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20133/4077_DSC07893_2.jpg

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20133/4077_DSC07888_1.jpg

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20133/4077_DSC07895_1.jpg

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20133/4077_DSC07895CROP_1.jpg

[Steven Tribe]

What Lens VM says seems very sensible - although it could have been supplied to the MoD for something "top secret!" rather than an enlarger or slide projector.
Nice to see a 14C number rather than the wartime 14A numbers!
The cells may never have been designed to fit any make of shutter - just the appropriate custom-made barrel. Like lots of, otherwise good, process lenses.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

What Lens VM says seems very sensible - although it could have been supplied to the MoD for something "top secret!" rather than an enlarger or slide projector.
Nice to see a 14C number rather than the wartime 14A numbers!
The cells may never have been designed to fit any make of shutter - just the appropriate custom-made barrel. Like lots of, otherwise good, process lenses.

Hi Steven

All I can say is it's military, quite what it was for I have no idea. It has no magnification figures printed on it so probably not for close up work. Why it's in cells threaded to fit a #1 is a bit of a mystery, maybe it originally was in a shutter, although it could have been in a barrel too. I'll have to find a #1 with an aperture so I can try it out. I might try to fit a cardboard aperture in my apertureless #1 to try it. Intriguingly, I bought it from a web dealer in Prague, I paid the princely sum of 10USD and they look like NOS to me, never been used.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

I made a cardboard aperture disk with a 12mm hole in it, which is approx f8 so I could try this lens in my apertureless Copal #1.

Wow is this thing sharp, a lot sharper than my Xenar 3.5/105.

#1
http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20134/4077_Scan1304120002WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20134/big_4077_Scan1304120002WEB_1.jpg)
#2
http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20134/4077_Scan1304130002WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20134/big_4077_Scan1304130002WEB_1.jpg)
#3
http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20134/4077_Scan1304130003WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20134/big_4077_Scan1304130003WEB_1.jpg)
#4
http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20134/4077_Scan1304130001WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20134/big_4077_Scan1304130001WEB_1.jpg)

[Sevo]

Why it's in cells threaded to fit a #1 is a bit of a mystery, maybe it originally was in a shutter

Or a side product of standardisation - most makers offered some lenses in both barrel and shutter mount, and used barrels prefabricated in standard shutter sizes for that purpose. Economy dictates that these barrels were also used for barrel-only lenses, wherever possible - at least Schneider frequently used barrels in standard shutter dimension (in old German language lists you'll often see these listed as "in Blendenkörper" followed by a number corresponding to the Compur shutter size).

[Steven Tribe]

Yes, this is very nice.
Obviously no trees in Cumbria anymore.
Very striking civic art. Does the coal get stolen?

[jocl123]

I just remembered I've seen the name
Check the bay: 330879423819

And there was a second one in a regular projection mount without a thread.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

That's a good point Sevo, I have a couple of Componons I have put in shutters and a repro-claron 8/135 that is going in a shutter as soon as I find one for it. I wish Rodenstock had done like Schneider, I also wish Staeble/Agfa had done the same with their Helioprint/Repromaster lenses as those are much easier to find than G-Clarons and cheaper.

Hi Steven. It's Haematite iron ore, Millom used to have a large ironworks and nearly 30 mines. We have loads of trees but my health is poor atm so I'm limited to a small radius walking distance.

I forgot to mention the shots are on Kodak Industrex MX125 x-ray film which is blue sensitive only so tonality can be less than ideal, and it's double-sided so without stripping the back side with bleach, the sharpness is a little less, but I got a lot of it for pennies and I use it for lens testing etc.

Now to find a Compur/Copal/Prontor #1 with an aperture...

[Ian Greenhalgh]

I just remembered I've seen the name
Check the bay: 330879423819

And there was a second one in a regular projection mount without a thread.

That's interesting, cheers. Looks to me like that's a diy adaptation into a focusing barrel, but very nicely done.

[MMELVIS]

I recogonize the building in shot #3, that is the building with the great clock.Nice to see you are working with larger formats. Very nice work with the xray film.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

Cheers, that clock is only 200 yards from my house so I often shoot it when trying out lenses, I find the clock dial a suitable target to check sharpness. I'm really enjoying shooting 6x9, and really fancy try 4x5 now. :)

[Ian Greenhalgh]

I found a mint fully working Synchro-Compur #1 for a really good price so finally I can put this lens to good use. I expect this will become my 'normal' lens, supplanting my Xenar 3.5/105.

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_DSC07985_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_DSC07985_1.jpg)
http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_DSC07986_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_DSC07986_1.jpg)

[Corran]

That would be fun to shoot in comparison to my 80mm f/2.8 Xenotar. I just got it and the 2x3 Century recently and absolutely love the results. Recently reversed my front standard, and now it's simple to shoot it basically the same as I shoot my 4x5 for landscape - perfect for travel and more casual hiking outings where I know I don't need a full sheet of 4x5 (i.e. anything that I don't plan on printing larger than 11x14 or so, if I print it).

[Ian Greenhalgh]

Hi Corran. I'd love a Xenotar. Does it cover right to the very corners on the Century? I have a mamiya 2.8/80 from a broken tlr and it is excellent on the Century but the last 3mm or so in the corners is dark.

[Corran]

I've only shot 6x7, which it definitely covers. I've used movements too. I don't have any plans to shoot 6x9 as I prefer the aspect ratio of 6x7, but it certainly illuminates the whole ground glass.

I got lucky - I got this Xenotar with the camera for a steal.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

That's good to know, and congrats on finding one cheap.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

It's been raining no-stop for days on end here, but there was a brief break in the rain yesterday and I managed to make a couple of test shots on Kodak Industrex MX125 x-ray film. First one is at f16, second one is f2.8. I think this is an excellent lens, really sharp and with excellent contrast. Bokeh is pleasantly smooth, I think this is going to be my new 'normal' lens for sure.

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1305140001WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Scan1305140001WEB_1.jpg)

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1305140002WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Scan1305140002WEB_1.jpg)

[Dan Fromm]

Ian, I understand why you use Xray film. Economy.

Read the specifications: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/business/aim/industrial/techPubs/ti2342/ti2342.pdf Short version, it has two layers of emulsion, one on each side of the base. This makes it inherently somewhat low resolution, so it isn't the best film for evaluation how well a lens can separate fine details.

It is hard to tell much from the small scans you post -- softness, if seen, can be due to lens, film, development, scanner, scanning and post-scan processing -- but to my eye all of the images you've posted seem soft. Fuzzy, even. This is not necessarily a defect.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

I already know all about the issues with it being double-sided, but you can still see appreciable differences between different lenses in the full res scans. The difference in sharpness to a conventional film like fp4 is visible, but not as great as to be a deal-breaker. I'd point the finger more at my crappy ancient scanner, it's the weak link in my system atm and the next thing to get replaced.

I save the 'good' film like fp4 for worthwhile shots, the x-ray stuff just saves me a lot of money when testing lenses, shutters etc, this was also the first time I'd tried the Compur I mounted it in, so now I know lens/shutter is a working combo I can happily commit some 'good' film to use with it.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

One more with Industrex:

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Market_SquareWEB_2.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Market_SquareWEB_2.jpg)

And a couple with Agfa Litex 0811p:

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1305170001WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Scan1305170001WEB_1.jpg)
http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1305170002WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Scan1305170002WEB_1.jpg)