Do you maybe know more about this Petzval lens?

[Misko]

This is Petzval lens that I have few moths ago in Belgrade, Serbia from a friend & used it just for few shots.
It is slightly short for 4x5 that I use it on but still interesting lens to play with.

I have measure it to be about 4.5" at ƒ3.2

I would love to know if anyone knows anything about this lens. I doubt it is anything precious or great… but who knows...

Measures:a
Length - 75mm
Rear glass width (visible) - 40mm
Front glass width (visible) - 39mm
Diameter of the aperture projection on the front of the lens - 36mm
Flange thread size - 53.5mm
NOTE: my electronic caliper run out of the batteries - so I have to buy new ones - and the measures above were made by the ordinary ruler.

It came w/o a retaining ring / flange so I've made one my self to mount it on my Graflex Speed lens plate.




http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3797/11283545844_112afd7875_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/milosgazdic/11283545844/)
Unknown / No-Name Petzval lens approx. 4.5" f3.2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/milosgazdic/11283545844/) by Milos Gazdic (http://www.flickr.com/people/milosgazdic/)

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5541/11283476255_be03cefe8d_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/milosgazdic/11283476255/)
Unknown / No-Name Petzval lens approx. 4.5" f3.2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/milosgazdic/11283476255/) by Milos Gazdic (http://www.flickr.com/people/milosgazdic/)

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5474/11283563124_e712cb3cb2_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/milosgazdic/11283563124/)
Unknown / No-Name Petzval lens approx. 4.5" f3.2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/milosgazdic/11283563124/) by Milos Gazdic (http://www.flickr.com/people/milosgazdic/)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7428/11283559866_370d20d00a_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/milosgazdic/11283559866/)
Unknown / No-Name Petzval lens approx. 4.5" f3.2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/milosgazdic/11283559866/) by Milos Gazdic (http://www.flickr.com/people/milosgazdic/)



Thanks in advance for any pointers & help,

Cheers,
Misko

PS Forgive me for not cleaning my lens - but I do it very rarely - and this lens was just traveling 8000km in boxes from my ex-home in Istanbul, Turkey to new hometown - Shanghai, China.

[Brassai]

Some educated guesses. First, it's probably for a quarter plate camera. Second, it was made as a photography lens rather than projection lens because it has a cut for stops. You might try getting the glass elements out so you can see the edges. There might be some writing on it, in pencil.

[Misko]

Unfortunately when I was opening the lens to rearrange it after buying it, I haven't noticed any pencil writings on the edges. Even the traces don't exist so I doubt it was ever there.

[Professional]

WOW, nice and clean detailed images.

I hope i can know more about this lens, i will read and search more about this lens hoping to find/learn something.

Thank you very much for posting those.

[Misko]

Thank you very much for posting those.

You are welcome Professional. I've said it will be begging of the week :)
Maybe I should have cleaned the glass before I done the shoot - but...

[Misko]

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3700/11285561776_1641ba8699_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/milosgazdic/11285561776/)
My Petzval Configuration (http://www.flickr.com/photos/milosgazdic/11285561776/) by Milos Gazdic (http://www.flickr.com/people/milosgazdic/), on Flickr

And here is the layout of the lens that I am using after checking it today.

[Steven Tribe]

This is a carte de visite size no. 1 Petzval. Of course, They have also been used for stereoscopics (in pairs!) or as enlarging lenses - I even found one that had been mounted on a magic lantern when it was surplus to photographic Needs!

I enclose a Photo of the Ross no. 1 - which is a little bit faster - and has the brass hood still intact.

[Misko]

So basically I am missing the rim on my hood? I could make one easily like I've made my retaining ring from a peace of brass and epoxy it to the basis of the hood.

Would you be so kind Steven to tell me what is the "Carte de Visite" size of image? Wikipedia shows it as: 54mm × 89 mm - but I am not 100% sure if that is correct?

[Steven Tribe]

Carte de visite is a very non-specific size which changed during the years due to fashion changes etc.
I enclose a typical late (1900) example where the photograph glued to the printed CdeV card is 6x9cm.
I have a CdeV of the same girls, five years later, where the size has become 5x10cm (standing figures).

Your lens have rather nicer brass finishing details than my Ross! The hood has been cut exactly there where the black finish end on the flat end. You can probably see/feel the cut. Brass is great joined by soft solder. Excess solder can be polished away.

This is, by no means, the smallest size Petzval used in Photographic Studios. GEM/postage stamp sizes were quite common.

[Jim C.]

The hood has been cut exactly there where the black finish end on the flat end. You can probably see/feel the cut. Brass is great joined by soft solder.

Steven, are you sure it was cut and not broken off ? I can see remnants of solder in the picture that Misko posted
my Darlot had the hood detached and there wasn't a lot of solder used to attach it.

[Steven Tribe]

I think I can see some black paint which overlaps the brass edge. The hoods are often made of very thin brass compared with the rest of the brass construction so are very prone to damage and distortion!

[Ian Greenhalgh]

What effect does reversing the rear element have on the sharpness and overall quality of the images? Making things more swirly at the expense of IQ doesn't seem a good idea to me.

[goamules]

If you misconfigure a petzval, you get a mess. Basically you are adding all the aberrations back in, linear, astigmatism, tons of coma, spherical. The circle of what tiny bit is sharp will be decreased. That part will be less sharp. All you get is "look at how WEIRD this old lens looks!"

There used to be a thread with photo examples of a member who tried a Petzval in all misconfigurations. Keep that word in mind, "misconfigued", this design has only one correct combination of the rear, airspaced lenses. Both the original and Dallmeyer versions have their most severe curves on the inside, "nested." Flipping both together, to make the thick glass to the rear as Dallmeyer did, does little. But un-nesting them makes the lens about as nice as shooting though the bottom of a coke bottle.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

That's what I suspected Garrett - that the corrections would be all over the place. I don't quite 'get' the attraction of weirdness, Petzvals render so beautifully, why mess them up?

[goamules]

Just photographer's preference to do "weird" I guess. I buy a lot of petzvals, and can always tell if it's misconfigured just looking at the ground glass. The look will be blown out, with everything from just outside the central 20% appearing to blast straight out like a supernova. Sometimes, there is a severe ring of swirl, then it goes back to sharp at the perimeters! Just panning the camera slightly makes the entire view distort and breath in and out. Kind of like an acid trip, I suppose. The center is not very sharp at all.

When I get one that way, I unscrew the back and invariably find it's set up the wrong way. I actually got one (a good French maker) that had been misconfigured then GLUED that way in the rear. It took me about a week to melt the glue, flip the lens elements, and bring a perfect Petzval back again.

[Nathan Potter]

I'm largely ignorant of these old Petzvals but I'm wondering if different index glass was used in any of the four element two group formats. Was there a mix of crown and flint for instance for improved correction of aberations?

Nate Potter, Austin TX., Chatham MA.

[goamules]

Yes, almost all lenses after the Wollaston used just two different refractive index glass (Crown and Flint), until Jena glass started making many more available in the 1890s. First were Anastigmats from Zeiss, then many more modern lenses.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

Just photographer's preference to do "weird" I guess. I buy a lot of petzvals, and can always tell if it's misconfigured just looking at the ground glass. The look will be blown out, with everything from just outside the central 20% appearing to blast straight out like a supernova. Sometimes, there is a severe ring of swirl, then it goes back to sharp at the perimeters! Just panning the camera slightly makes the entire view distort and breath in and out. Kind of like an acid trip, I suppose. The center is not very sharp at all.

When I get one that way, I unscrew the back and invariably find it's set up the wrong way. I actually got one (a good French maker) that had been misconfigured then GLUED that way in the rear. It took me about a week to melt the glue, flip the lens elements, and bring a perfect Petzval back again.

Thanks for the description, I've seen similarly wierd things with other lenses with flipped elements, why you'd want one like that is beyond me.

[Misko]

I also think some ring was detached from the flat part of the hood - since it seems like having edge where it could join. But what is visible in the photos is glue that holds velvet on the brass…

And regarding CdeV size - seems that 6x9 or similar is average size - meaning this could be cool lens for that format (excluding the swirls). Thing is that when in the configuration recommended by Petzval's drawings - my lens doesn't swirl much. On the other hand - there are at least 3-4 different looks of the image that I can see depending on the various configurations…

[Misko]

I would love to thank all people here for taking part in this discussion & helping me learn about the subject!

I also believe kind of a ring was detached from the flat part of the hood - since it seems like having edge where it could join. But what is visible in the photos is glue that holds velvet (what look like black paint is in fact velvet) on the brass…

And regarding CdeV size - seems that 6x9 or similar is average size - meaning this could be cool lens for that format (excluding the swirls). Thing is that when in the configuration recommended by Petzval's drawings - my lens doesn't swirl much. On the other hand - there are at least 3-4 different looks of the image that I can see depending on the various configurations…



What effect does reversing the rear element have on the sharpness and overall quality of the images? Making things more swirly at the expense of IQ doesn't seem a good idea to me.

I have managed so far only to scan one shot made with this custom configuration Ian, since I was moving between two continents in last few months, but judging other shots that I have made with it - sharpness seems to be ok.

Here is the only one image I've scanned so far. Please note that either my wife or my camera have moved slightly during the exposure which created small motion blur - but you can still see that originally image was sharp:

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5339/10224396636_c3fb79e846_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/milosgazdic/10224396636/)
Yetti Betty (http://www.flickr.com/photos/milosgazdic/10224396636/)



If you misconfigure a petzval, you get a mess.
I would only partially agree with this. Or I would agree fully - but would not be 100% against it, since sometimes bad things help in creative expressions. Since I am new to large format photography I would love to learn both it's advantages & "miss-advantages" if we can call this that way & hopefully use them in my behalf in the future. I try to learn things by testing, discussing & reading… so I can repeat processes if I like them or avoid if I don't. I have also learned that what works for others doesn't necessarily works for me - even if I love the results by the other person. Our spirits, moods, tastes make us obviously different & that is the beauty of this world & creative process - otherwise we would not need more than one photographer in the world.



All you get is "look at how WEIRD this old lens looks!"
I am 100% sure that if you would ask 50% of Petzval lens owners why they bought their lenses - this would exactly be the answer. Other 25% will do it for the amazing traits that those lenses have when utilized appropriately and for the others - there must be reasons like collecting & such…


There used to be a thread with photo examples of a member who tried a Petzval in all misconfigurations.
Would love to see this thread. I was searching for something like that but was unable to find it. Will give it a try once again. Hope people would not mind me resurrecting some old, dead tread?


Flipping both together, to make the thick glass to the rear as Dallmeyer did, does little.
Do you know / can tell me what did Dallmeyer achieved with this (miss)configuration of his Petzval type lens? Unfortunately for me - I don't have funds to buy a lot of petzvals. I could afford this cheap one & I am trying to see what I can get out of it.


But un-nesting them makes the lens about as nice as shooting though the bottom of a coke bottle.
During some photography festival in Madrid some years ago I have seen photos shot through the cut of bottom of the drinking glass. Macro shots. They for sure looked weird & pulled lots of attention especially since they were developed very roughly in trays with some terrible technic which gave them additional gritty & pinky look that rounded the process and added to the concept.



can always tell if it's misconfigured just looking at the ground glass.
After these few hours spent over my little petzval I can say it is very easy to recognize which element is flipped. I might not be able to describe the things happening in either good english or in technical terms (comma, aberrations… etc) but I could probably point myself now to the element that needs reconfiguring. I probably went through all the possible variations…


The look will be blown out, with everything from just outside the central 20% appearing to blast straight out like a supernova.
When I got my lens it was configured this way. I didn't know much about LF and Petzvals back then so, in field I have altered it a bit and managed to gain some nicer results on two shots that followed on the same shoot. I have to say - I disliked that look totally.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5528/10959437003_f929f9f32e_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/milosgazdic/10959437003/)
Tamara 01 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/milosgazdic/10959437003/)


On the other hand I would love to read some book about Petzval design - so if anyone knows a good reference please point me into the right direction. I would be really thankful.

Finally - I am still looking to find out about the lens manufacturer who might have made this little cheap lens of mine.

[Misko]

Are these all the possible missconfigurations?

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7410/11300647096_722ba73d5d_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/milosgazdic/11300647096/)
Petzval Lens (miss)Configurations (http://www.flickr.com/photos/milosgazdic/11300647096/) by Milos Gazdic (http://www.flickr.com/people/milosgazdic/)

[mylek]

This is the link Goamules was talking about in tread #13,,,

http://www.mauritsbollen.com/Petzval-Lens-Swirl

[Steven Tribe]

Plus all the permutations when the achromat is used as the real cell! Some projection Petzvals had this arrangement.

[goamules]

Are these all the possible missconfigurations?

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7410/11300647096_722ba73d5d_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/milosgazdic/11300647096/)
Petzval Lens (miss)Configurations (http://www.flickr.com/photos/milosgazdic/11300647096/) by Milos Gazdic (http://www.flickr.com/people/milosgazdic/)

Good job drawing all these. But you forgot to add misconfigurations due to: A) one element missing, B) adding an element from a different lens type, C) smearing materials on the lens (vasoline is always recommended by the uninitiated, but I recommend catsup), and D) smashing one of the lenses with a hammer for a "star pattern" effect. There must be hundreds of ways to mess up a perfectly good portrait lens.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

This is the link Goamules was talking about in tread #13,,,

http://www.mauritsbollen.com/Petzval-Lens-Swirl

Thanks for the link, very useful, I learn a couple of useful things, firstly hat I need a longer than 9 inch Petzval for my 5x7 camera to avoid all this swirly mess and second, how to check a lens to see if it's assembled correctly.

Now all I have to do is find a Petzval lens suitable for my 5x7 caera.

[Misko]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7397/11321513953_9eb888aa1b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/milosgazdic/11321513953/)
Petzval Lens (miss)Configurations' effects... (http://www.flickr.com/photos/milosgazdic/11321513953/)

I have pass through some of the miss configurations yesterday & shot them with mobile phone… Just to see what happens.

So if anyone is interested - please contact me through personal messages if I will gladly send the images shown above, separately in higher resolution via email. I will choose few of these miss configurations & test on film too in near future and previously finish the test with the mobile phone.

Please note - these tests clearly show different type of swirls that happen with all the given miss-configurations. Variations on the sharpness are not so clear because all the images were shots of GG only - so once again please keep in mind that THESE ARE SHOT WITH MY iPHONE AND AS SUCH ARE NOT REFERENT IMAGES!!! but some people still might find them interesting. Also - note that board is overlapping with the previous board - for the MISS configuration layout reference.


Further, I would kindly ask Mr. G. Allen to keep away from sarcasm. Not all of us are able to buy every lens we want, and not everyone is here into large format photographyas long as others. I hope I was not hurting anyone with the things I have asked, discussed & shared with others and I don't see the reason why any other member should make posts like his. I am really happy if he honestly thinks my drawing was a good job… As for the rest of the miss-configurations he proposed I will for sure try to shoot petzval with some elements (rear air space group removed - utilizing the lens as a soft portrait lens). Proposals from points B, C & D - I will have to miss - since: I don't have the appropriate glass element that would fit into my Petzval lens, I keep food away from my equipment and finally - I am not rich enough to destroy things I have.


There must be hundreds of ways to mess up a perfectly good portrait lens.
Finally - we all know I can always put my lens back to Petzval's proposed configuration after testing, no place for worries.



Plus all the permutations when the achromat is used as the real cell! Some projection Petzvals had this arrangement.
That is true! I have just recently shot 2 shots with two lenses of mine using them other way around just to compare how they work that way since they are generally similar in construction to other lenses just mirrored in layout…


...I learn a couple of useful things, firstly hat I need a longer than 9 inch Petzval for my 5x7 camera to avoid all this swirly mess...
Dear Ian, Please note that length of needed Petzval depends what you gonna shoot with your 5x7" camera. Petzval generally being portrait lens should be used predominantly for that purpose but you can still shoot various enlargements with your 9" lens. I strongly believe that in original, correct configuration and with close up, head & shoulders type of portrait your lens would create very nice, non-swirly type of images which you seem to like.



This is the link Goamules was talking about in tread #13… http://www.mauritsbollen.com/Petzval-Lens-Swirl
Dear Mylek, thanks for the pointer. I doubt this is what Garrett was thinking of. As I've understood somebody went down the same path that I am trying… and shot various miss-configurations. Link you have shared, although great reference, has basically very limited number of tests done. Still, thank you.


Once again - I am still looking for anyone able to tell me about possible maker of the small lens I own. TIA

Cheers,
Misko

[Ian Greenhalgh]

This is the sort of rendering I want from a Petzval, this one was a 5 inch on an APS-C DSLR, no swirl, exploding of any of that messy stuff, I just want the smooth but sharp look, that's why I think I'll need a 11 or 12 inch one for 5x7:

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20127/big_4077_DSC04677BWWEB_1.jpg

[Roger Hesketh]

Ian I like that one. Nice shot mate.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

Cheers Roger, it was a lucky shot, an f2.7 lens that you focus by sliding in and out of a tube made up of three sets of extension tubes requires quite a lot of luck, for every good shot I've gotten with it, there must have been 50 bad ones. :)

[goamules]

...
Further, I would kindly ask Mr. G. Allen to keep away from sarcasm. Not all of us are able to buy every lens we want, and not everyone is here into large format photographyas long as others. I hope I was not hurting anyone with the things I have asked, discussed & shared with others and I don't see the reason why any other member should make posts like his. I am really happy if he honestly thinks my drawing was a good job… As for the rest of the miss-configurations he proposed I will for sure try to shoot petzval with some elements (rear air space group removed - utilizing the lens as a soft portrait lens). Proposals from points B, C & D - I will have to miss - since: I don't have the appropriate glass element that would fit into my Petzval lens, I keep food away from my equipment and finally - I am not rich enough to destroy things I have.

Oh sure, you can ask me to keep away from sarcasm. Or anything else you want to ask me to do! Go ahead, ask! See where it gets you! I bet you can just ask, and ensure everyone on the internet and in the world will agree with everything you write and do!

Or if you want me to be a little more direct, how about this quote: "Lighten up Francis." (Stripes 1981)

[goamules]

Yeah, I meant to add, excellent shot Ian!

The post from a few years ago where a member was swapping the different elements around.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?66676-Swapping-lenses-in-a-Petzval

[Ian Greenhalgh]

Thanks Garrett, I'm hoping that is the sort of rendition I can achieve from a Petzval on 5x7.

BTW, the lens I took that shot with is in poor condition, it has severe balsam separation in the front, loads of scratches front and back, a chip in the front glass and a little crack in the back glass.

Just goes to show though, even the beaten-up ones can be pressed into service.

[Misko]

Dear Garrett,

I didn't ask anyone to agree with anything I've posted. Or if I did - I was not aware of it & in that case I am really sorry. Please don't forget I am not native English speaking person & there might be some problems with the posts I make or read here… (i.e. I didn't know till you posted it that ketchup can be spelled catsup). Whole thing here is about:
1) possibly finding out who made the lens I own;
2) testing it's possibilities and variations so I could eventually use it in my benefit & sharing my findings with others

And - yeah - Stripes is cool movie and Psycho is wicked character - and I hope I am not perceived that way here :)))


The post from a few years ago where a member was swapping the different elements around.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?66676-Swapping-lenses-in-a-Petzval
Thanks a million for the link! I will check it out in detail now.


Dear Ian,
I strongly believe that for such a close up shot your 9" lens will be enough for 5x7" camera. Did you try it so far?
Beautiful shot with you 5" petzval up there. Such a sweet look with a obvious kid spirit. Especially great when I hear about the shape of the lens that took it :)


Just goes to show though, even the beaten-up ones can be pressed into service.
Seems that rear elements on most of the lens designs are the ones that will cause more problem on the image quality than the front ones. I personally don't have possibility to choose best lenses & most of the ones I use are exactly as described in your post & I am still happy with them!

Cheers,
Misko

[Steven Tribe]

Just a few points before this thread "dies".

A 9" Petzval is the Cabinet size 1, which is quite a big (heavy - also for personal economics) lens.

As many of us have odd pieces of brass tubing lying around - the extra thin type suitable for hoods - not for brass sleeves, I would suggest you measure up the diameter of the missing hood and place a wanted ad here. It would just cost you the postage.

[Misko]

As many of us have odd pieces of brass tubing lying around - the extra thin type suitable for hoods - not for brass sleeves, I would suggest you measure up the diameter of the missing hood and place a wanted ad here. It would just cost you the postage.

Dear Steven,
was this message - regarding my missing part of the hood? If so - unfortunately - I am currently living in Shanghai, China & I am originally from Belgrade, Serbia so shipping to both destinations would not be cheap. On the other hand - I usually make all my retaining rings alone, back in Serbia where I also buy brass and other metals if needed. I strongly believe that it will be much cheaper to buy a peace & cut it to measure on the mill than ship from USA.

[Steven Tribe]

Understood! It will be well worth the effort of making a lens hood. I could measure up the size of my Ross CdeVs? It is very thin brass and the front edge is turned over to give a little more rigidity.

PS. Post from Denmark goes directly to China - not via the USA!

[Jim C.]

One thing to consider regarding lens hoods is that they don't have to made from tubes,
getting the correct diameter and wall thickness can be very difficult.
Examining my Darlot the hood it looks like it is a flat sheet that was slip rolled
and either soldered or brazed to form a tube.