Super Angulon 65mm f8 - Could someone measure one for me?

[Steve Smith]

If someone has a 65mm f8 Super Angulon and a vernier caliper with which to measure it, I would appreciate knowing what the overall length is from front to back as shown on my diagram (measured from the edges of the metal casings) with the lens mounted in a Synchro Compur shutter.

105811

I am mounting mine in a size 00 Prontor shutter (as I don't have a Synchro Compur) but need to modify it as the Prontor is threaded all the way to the front whereas the Synchro Compur has a recess in the front. Both shutters are 16mm wide.


Steve.

[Steve Goldstein]

I think the distance from the front of each cell to the aperture blades is also important...

[Steve Smith]

That is determined by the 16mm spacing of the shutter. My back cell is in the correct place as it fits flush to the back of the shutter. I just need a back to front distance so I know that the front cell is in the right place.

At the moment the front cell is too far forward, probably by only about 0.5mm. Images are razor sharp in the centre but blur slightly at the edges.


Steve.

[rdenney]

That is determined by the 16mm spacing of the shutter. My back cell is in the correct place as it fits flush to the back of the shutter. I just need a back to front distance so I know that the front cell is in the right place.

At the moment the front cell is too far forward, probably by only about 0.5mm. Images are razor sharp in the centre but blur slightly at the edges.


Steve.

I'll measure mine for you this evening when I'm home, if you don't get another response before then.

I have a Prontor Press 00 shutter, and the issue with it is that it is a 00 central opening and threaded barrel surrounded by a 0 shutter. There is a recess in the front of the Prontor, but the edges of that recess interfere with a decorative shoulder on the front lens cell, preventing it from screwing down all the way. I've thought about machining off that decorative ring, but I've been able to source a couple of Compur 00 shutters and have put it off. It is also an issue with my 47/5.6 Super Angulon, which I use with 6x12 and smaller formats in roll-film holders. But on that one, the part of the front cell barrel that interferes with the front of the Prontor Press shutter isn't merely decorative.

It's a challenge keeping lenses in 00 shutters in use these days.

Rick "who has a spare set of 65/8 glass from one of those shutter acquisitions" Denney

[Steve Smith]

Thanks.

This will be the third shutter I have had for this lens and I hope it's only a temporary measure until I can get a good 00 Synchro Compur.

I have already filed off the shoulder from the front cell to make it fit into the Prontor's front thread (I partially threaded it into the old shutter to both protect it from swarf and provide a guide for the file) but I think I need to make it go just a little bit further.

If this lens was on 6x6 or even 6x9, I don't think I would notice a problem but as it's on 6x12, the edges are noticably blurred which I think is due to incorrect spacing.


Steve.

[Larry Gebhardt]

57.44mm on mine.

[Steve Smith]

Thanks.

Rick, I'm still interested in knowing the spacing of yours. Hopefully, it's the same as Larry's. If not, that will add an extra dimension of doubt!!


Steve.

[Dan Fromm]

https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/super-angulon/data/8-65mm.html

[Steve Smith]

If not, that will add an extra dimension of doubt!!

Extra dimension of doubt now added by Schneider via Dan!


Steve.

[Larry Gebhardt]

Mine's in a 00 Syncro Compur, for what it's worth. Serial number is 7688043 if that gives you a sense of the age. Hopefully that can help remove some of the doubt.

[Steve Smith]

Mine's in a 00 Syncro Compur, for what it's worth.

That's what it's supposed to be in. In theory, that puts a 16mm spacing between the two cells. The Prontor is also 16mm but the front thread is a bit different:

105818

I'm just seeing if I need to remove a bit more metal to get the spacing right.


Steve.

[Dan Fromm]

Extra dimension of doubt now added by Schneider via Dan!


Steve.
Steve, I went to the archived old Schneider site and looked at the old brochure. Same dimension. How long is yours?

FWIW, I have a 65/8 Ilex that came to me in an electric shutter badged Opto Dynetics. Cells threaded #00, shutter tube length 10 mm. Steve Grimes insisted that lens and shutter were by Ilex, machined a regular (tube length 16 mm) #00 to accept the cells and give the right spacing. He muttered something about "the shoulder problem." If you have a #00 that seems too long, well, its the shoulder problem again and can be fixed.

[Steve Smith]

its the shoulder problem again and can be fixed.

I know it can be fixed, I'm just trying to determine how much fixing I need to do!

I'm going to aim for the 56mm in the Schneider data sheet and see what the results are. I don't know what the measurement is now, I just have a feeling that it's a bit too long.

This is what it is doing at the moment:

105819

Sharp in the middle, blurry on the outside.

I like the effect but it would be nice if I could control it. i.e. correct spacing screwed all the way in, unwind a few turns for blurry edges!


Steve

[Larry Gebhardt]

I don't see how my lens could get any shorter, short of removing metal. I wonder if they changed the design at sometimes during the run. So what else could account for the almost 1.5mm longer length vs the published specs?

[Dan Fromm]

Larry, its a question of the lens cell's design. Some flare a little, have shoulders and won't screw as far as necessary into a shutter that's threaded normally. The solution is to bore the shutter tube out to accept the shoulder.

[dave_whatever]

I wonder if they changed the design at sometimes during the run. So what else could account for the almost 1.5mm longer length vs the published specs?

This might be a bit offtopic but I'm sure that they did change things during the run. I used to own a 65/8 super angulon that was in a compur 0 (i.e. NOT 00) shutter, and I've never heard or read of another instance like it. Mine was in a non-original shutter which originally came from a rodenstock 65/4.5, but when inspecting the threading on the lens cells everything to my eye looked as if it was all original and "factory". No sign of machining or anything like that. I have a couple of photos from when I sold it:

http://www.lf-photo.org.uk/forum/download/file.php?id=146

http://www.lf-photo.org.uk/forum/download/file.php?id=147

It was sharp edge to edge so I can only assume all the cell spacing was correct. Sorry I didn't measure it before selling it Steve.

[Steve Smith]

I haved heard of them being fitted to size 0 shutters before but I haven't seen one. I assumed they used threaded barrels to make them fit into a larger diameter opening.


Steve.

[rdenney]

Steve, what measurement have you achieved so far? I wouldn't start machining just yet. That Schneider fact-sheet was for the lens mounted in a Copal shutter, which I suspect makes it newer rather than older. I wouldn't count on Schneider telling the whole story in those fact sheets.

Rick "who has a couple he can measure" Denney

[Dan Fromm]

Rick, I went to the archived old Schneider site too. http://web.archive.org/web/20100922053809/http:/www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/archiv.htm The '67 W/A lens brochure shows a lens in a Compur, says that the 65/8 SA goes in a #00 and that its total length is 56 mm. Go see for yourself.

[rdenney]

Rick, I went to the archived old Schneider site too. http://web.archive.org/web/20100922053809/http:/www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/archiv.htm The '67 W/A lens brochure shows a lens in a Compur, says that the 65/8 SA goes in a #00 and that its total length is 56 mm. Go see for yourself.

Heh, sure enough. We'll see what my calipers say. I have two lenses--I'll probably see two different measurements.

Rick "stay tuned" Denney

[Steve Smith]

Steve, what measurement have you achieved so far?

I'm going to take it into work to measure tomorrow. All I have here is a sort of go/no go gauge I machined today with a 56mm gap. I would guess at about 58mm.

I can't imagine it was 2mm shorter in the old shutter. 0.5mm perhaps, 1mm at most. Unfortunately, I threw out the old shutter. Although the refuse collection isn't until tomorrow so I should go out and find it!

I would be interested in the measurements of your two lenses.

This is a bit like thermometers - If you have one, you know what the temperature is, If you have two, you're not sure!


Steve.

[Steve Smith]

Update: My current measurement is 58.4mm.

I have just found a CAD drawing I made about five years ago when I was building my 6x12 camera to show clearances in the focusing mount and I have drawn the lens with an overall length of 56.75mm.

I would have drawn it based on actual measurements and as this was in its original shutter, this is the distance I will be aiming for.

So I now have to get the front 1.85m closer to the shutter.


Steve.

[IanG]

I just checked my 65mm f8 Super Angulon Compur #00 (Linhof selected) and it's 57.46mm overall length, it's sharp to the edged at f22, in 25 years I doubt I've used it any wider maybe f16.

There's likely to be a slight variation between individual lenses, you may need to test to get the optimum spacing. I know two of my WA lenses are shimmed - a 75mm F8 SA and a 90mm Grandagon.

Ian

[Steve Smith]

Thanks. Yours is closer to Larry's 57.4mm .

I'm going to aim for 56.5mm for mine as that is the measurement I took from it when it was in its original shutter. I can then do some tests winding it out a whole turn at a time and if necessary, make a shim for it - and write down the actual measurement and store it in a safe place!



Steve.

[JimL]

Mine measures 57.53mm... S/N in the 10 millions. I bought the shutter and cells separately (lucked out on the right shutter... I think) and also wondered whether the spacing was off after looking at the schneider data page... and a scan of a 1967 Schneider brochure (about the age of my lens) from a Schneider archive also shows an overall length of 56mm. Maybe that's where the figure on the web page is from.

Edit: BTW, my shutter is bored for the shoulder

[Steve Smith]

I have done a bit more filing and got it down to 57.85mm Any further and I'm in danger of preventing the shutter from moving.

I think I will leave it like that and try some film to see if it has improved. The thread pitch is 0.5mm so I can do six shots with the lens unscrewed half a turn each time. that would give me 57.85mm to 59.1mm in 0.25mm steps.

Then I can decide which one I like the best (if any!).


Steve.

[rdenney]

Dang it! I forgot last night. Watched a movie with my wife.

Rick "now even more curious" Denney

[Steve Smith]

I think I know what's going on - For the benefit of anyone else daft enough to do it, this is what I have found:

My front cell measures 21.30mm front to shoulder and the rear cell, 20.35mm Add in the 16mm shutter distance and you get 57.65mm which is very close to the measurements others have given.

Take the 56.75mm figure from my CAD sketch and assume I was temporarily dyslexic and it could easily have been 57.65mm in reality.

Add in the fact that I have just discovered that the rear cell also has a shoulder which interferes with the shutter thread and that would explain why my measurement was too big.

After a bit of filing on the rear cell, it now fits fully up to the shutter. My new figure is 57.2mm which makes me think that I should now unscrew my front cell a whole turn to add 0.5mm to it.


Rick "now even more curious" Denney

Me too. If Rick's measurements are similar to the rest, I will take an average and try it there.

Thanks to all for your information and help.


Steve.

[Steve Smith]

So far we have an average of about 57.48 from three lenses with the biggest deviation from mean being 0.05mm.

I have unwound my front cell by about half a turn so my spacing is now 57.45 and with a piece of ground glass at the film plane, distant street lights appear as very sharp dots right up to the edges. If I wind it out a couple of turns (1mm) they get less distinct.

Obviously, I'm going to need to test it with film but I think I'm there.

Next time I need to do this, I'm using a lathe instead of files!


Steve.

[rdenney]

Okay, I've finally found a confluence of 1.) being home and 2.) remembering. Last night I had a music gig and my brain was still into the Fanfare from La Peri when I got home.

I have two 65/8 Super Angulons, one with a serial number of 9689xxx (ca. 1966) and the other with 7652xxx (ca. 1962). Both are in what appear to be identical Synchro-Compur #00 shutters. Both measure 57.56 when I attempt to use the same measuring technique. But I think the shape of the lens makes them extremely difficult to measure with calipers. It's too easy to hold the calipers at a slight angle, and the thicness of the barrel edge can spread the measurement a but. As I was trying to hone my technique, I was getting measurements sprayed across 0.18mm. And then I discovered that the newer lens front element is just a touch out of square, or something. I put both on a true surface and then laid a straightedge across the top of them, and I could only get three edges to touch at once. I will have do some experimenting of my own to decide which of these to use. I bought both of them for their shutters (I have a 65/5.6 that I use with the 4x5 camera), as backups for the shutter in my 47/5.6. I will use the better one on the Wanderlust.

My suspicion is that the difference between 57.48 and 57.56 is not going to affect performance. Or, whatever effect it has might be as much affected by sample variation, in which case the perfectionist will want to fine-tune the spacing as you are doing anyway.

But it would appear that the value in the Schneider literature that Dan linked is incorrect or measuring some slightly different dimension (which is what I suspect).

Rick "not sure I helped" Denney

[Steve Smith]

Both measure 57.56 when I attempt to use the same measuring technique

Thank you. I think about 57.5 or 57.6 is about right. I must have measured mine as 57.65 and entered it as 56.75 when I was drawing it (I do that sometimes).



I think the shape of the lens makes them extremely difficult to measure with calipers.

I put some flat material of a known thickness over the whole of the front and rear and subtract from the reading. It gives two parallel surfaces to measure to.



Rick "not sure I helped" Denney.

You did. You added information which confirmed what I already suspected.



Last night I had a music gig

What do you play?


Steve.

[rdenney]

What do you play?

Tuba. It was a brass quintet gig at the Metropolitan Club in DC. Not my usual scene, heh.

Rick "no photography allowed" Denney

[Steve Smith]

Success!!!

Today's film shows the image to be sharp right to the edges.

Thanks to everyone who joined in.


Steve.