PDA

View Full Version : Wray Wide Angle Anastigmat f6.3 89mm



Ian Greenhalgh
12-Nov-2013, 09:42
I've spotted one of these for sale locally at a good price but the only info I can find on it is in the Vade Mecum:


Wide Angle Anastigmat f6.3 89mm (3.5in) for 5x4, 7in for 1/2plate. See Wra013 This is in the same design group as the Zeiss Topogon, with very deep external curves and a thick walled Gauss layout. The 89mm version is a generous design. In use it covers 90 at f11 and 100 at f16 or less, or as the B.J.A. 1950 p212 found at f6.3 it covers a 1/4plate, (75) almost perfectly, at f11 a 1/2plate with a little fall off and at f16 a 1/2plate is well covered. They said it would be ideal for a 5x4in camera, and: (a) it was available in an Epsilon shutter, but: (b) the illustration was of a lens in a barrel mount at No70,890 (advert. idem, p418) and these have been seen but are the uncommon version. (This coverage is a touch less than the Schneider Angulon and the contrast and corrections are probably a touch less good. But for many purposes the lenses are a close match. Users did find that the Wray had a lower contrast under difficult conditions and ultimately chose the Angulon as the more reliable. Today with multicoating it might be a closer run thing.)


This is the bit that intrigues me:
at f11 a 1/2plate with a little fall off and at f16 a 1/2plate is well covered.

From that can I infer that at f16 and smaller stops it will probably cover 5 x 7? Half plate is 4.25 x 6.5, right?

If my maths is correct, halfplate requires an image circle of 198mm, which is prettyclose to the 210mm required by 5x7.

Has anyone actually used one of these lenses on 5x7?

IanG
12-Nov-2013, 10:03
The 89mm was sold for 5x4 MPP Micro Technical cameras and never had a good reputation, they weren't very sharp. While I've never used one I have seen the results from one there's better lenses often for less money.

Ian

Dan Fromm
12-Nov-2013, 10:10
Oh, dear, the VM again. Inconsistent, infuriating. On the one hand, an 89 mm lens that covers 100 degrees covers 212 mm (learn to do the calculations, Ian). On the other, per Schneider the 90/6.8 Angulon covers 81 degrees, 154 mm; this agrees with reports here and elsewhere that it just covers 4x5.

Ian, if you can afford to gamble -- with resale the amount at risk should be slight -- buy the lens and find it whether it will do for you. Or buy this http://www.leboncoin.fr/image_son/406143420.htm?ca=12_s and stuff it into the front of an Ilex #3 (easier) or Alphax #3 (a little more work, more padding is required, but perhaps preferable because the tube is shorter).

Oh, yeah. The VM also says:


Wide Angle Lustrar There is an early postwar patent for what seems to be a wartime design.(B.J.A. 1946, p189) The lens covered 72 and may have appeared later in simplified form as the Wray Wide Angle anastigmat 89mm. (The B.J.A. 1945 p189 says it was redesigned to suit the RAF in the war.)

Inconsistent, infuriating.

Ian Greenhalgh
12-Nov-2013, 10:17
Thanks for reassuring me guys. I knew the Wray 89mm was sold for the MPP 5x4 and I knew the equivalent Angulon didn't come close to covering 5x7 so I was highly sceptical when I read that bit in the VM about the Wray covering halfplate at smaller stops, it just didn't sound right.

That Perigraphe is interesting, I happen to have a spare Alphax #3, the thing that bothers me about it is focussing at f14, the light up here in northern England is often less than bright, so I'm sceptical that f14 would work for me.

What's the IQ generally like of these f14 Perigraphes? The 6.8/110 Perigraphe I have is quite impressive in the centre even at 6.8, haven't shot it on 5x7 yet, only on 2x3.

Dan Fromm
12-Nov-2013, 10:50
I don't have trouble focusing mine. 60/14 on Century Graphic with Cambo SF-320 inline viewer or 12x magnifier. 90/14 on 4x5 Cambo with Cambo T-20 orT-21 viewer or 12x magnifier.

The consensus of the few f/14 Perigraphe users who've reported on them is that they are outstanding. I'm happy with mine. Henri Gaud recently tested an ancient one (remember, Berthiot made Perigraphes from the 1900s through the early '50s) against a post-WW II one, found the newer one better. It isn't clear whether the difference is due to changes in design and manufacturing or to the older lens' history.

IanG
12-Nov-2013, 10:54
Oh, dear, the VM again. Inconsistent, infuriating. On the one hand, an 89 mm lens that covers 100 degrees covers 212 mm (learn to do the calculations, Ian). On the other, per Schneider the 90/6.8 Angulon covers 81 degrees, 154 mm; this agrees with reports here and elsewhere that it just covers 4x5.



Dan, in this case the VM is probably correct, I just checked page 212 of the BJPA 1950. However it may have been taken from a Wray press lease. The military WA (1946 BJPA p189) used by the RAF is quite a different lens and has a limited aperture range I think from memory they only stop down to f11 and must have been optimises for wider apertures - people pay far too much for them.

The older 90mm f6.8 Angulons had better coverage and image circle (Schneider claimed 105) than the later and very common one with the 154mm 81 coverage, the equivalent Meyer WA covers 100. So 100 coverage from the Wray WA is not so far fetched but as the edge sharpness isn't good on 5x4 it has to be dubious at larger sizes.

Ian

Dan Fromm
12-Nov-2013, 12:14
Ian, coverage is a sometime thing. For example, pre-WW-I Berthiot propaganda claims that f/14 Perigraphes cover 115 degrees. Between the wars propaganda claims 106 degrees. And ~ 1950 propaganda claims 100 degrees. Coverage claims for f/6.8 Perigraphes shrank in parallel.

Cheers,

Dan

monkeymon
13-Nov-2013, 13:58
Thanks for reassuring me guys. I knew the Wray 89mm was sold for the MPP 5x4 and I knew the equivalent Angulon didn't come close to covering 5x7 so I was highly sceptical when I read that bit in the VM about the Wray covering halfplate at smaller stops, it just didn't sound right.

That Perigraphe is interesting, I happen to have a spare Alphax #3, the thing that bothers me about it is focussing at f14, the light up here in northern England is often less than bright, so I'm sceptical that f14 would work for me.

What's the IQ generally like of these f14 Perigraphes? The 6.8/110 Perigraphe I have is quite impressive in the centre even at 6.8, haven't shot it on 5x7 yet, only on 2x3.

Angulon 90/6.8 actually comes really close to covering 5x7.. it covers it with a bit of soft corners.

You can find a demo of angulon 90/6.8 on 13x18cm in this thread:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?47017-65mm-f6-8-Angulon-lens-Assistance-please

Is it usable, or desirable is up to the user..

IanG
14-Nov-2013, 02:36
Angulon 90/6.8 actually comes really close to covering 5x7.. it covers it with a bit of soft corners.

You can find a demo of angulon 90/6.8 on 13x18cm in this thread:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?47017-65mm-f6-8-Angulon-lens-Assistance-please

Is it usable, or desirable is up to the user..


Ole's 90mm f6.8 Angulon is the early version and not the later version which is the one commonly found. The later version vignettes rather than having a image circle that runs out of sharpness

Ian