Linhof Technikon 100 2,8

[Linhof_]

Hello Everyone,
I have come across a beautiful Linhof Technikon 100 f2.8 lens. I have found that it is for 6x9 maximum format and produced by Rodenstock for Linhof. I have also read that Rodenstock's name for this lens was Heligon but after receiving a 1970 Rodestock LF brochure I am a bit puzzled because Rodenstock listed there only two Heligons for LF being 80 f2.8 and 95 f2.8. SN number (production date) matches the date of this catalogue, so it is from the same period. After acquisition(s) Rodenstock is Qioptric now and they do not have any more knowledge on top of what is in the old brochures. Has anyone used this lens, have some experience, data (i.e. flange focal distance)? Thank you very much for taking the time.

[Dan Fromm]

It seems that your lens could be a Heligon or a Xenotar. Both are fast double Gauss types, the Heligon has six elements in four groups, the Xenotar five elements in four groups. To tell them apart, count reflections in the rear cell. If a Heligon, you should see four strong reflections and one weak reflection, if a Xenotar four strong reflections and no weak reflection. The weak reflection, if present, may be hard to see. Count reflections with the diaphragm closed or, better still, the cell screwed out of the lens.

[Bob Salomon]

The 100mm 2.8 Heligon was Linhof catalog number 000313 for the lens in Compur 1 shutter. It had an 115mm image circle and took 58mm filters. Linhof does not list any other specifications for the lens. It is listed in the 1976 Linhof catalog.

Rodenstock listed the Heligon 95mm as being a 6 element Gauss type lens that covered about 60° and was "a kind of wide-field-lens".

I only have data sheets on the 95mm 2.8 version however. It was quite a bit smaller in diameter then the 100mm though. While the 100mm took 58mm filters the 95mm took 49mm filters. Finding the flange focal distance will not be difficult.

Turn off all the lights in the room and close the curtains and blinds. Take a large piece of white board, point the lens out the window at a distant object. Move the board towards and away from the back of the lens till it casts a sharp image of a distant object on the board. Measure the distance from the mounting flange to the board. That is the flange focal distance at infinity.

[Bob Salomon]

It seems that your lens could be a Heligon or a Xenotar. Both are fast double Gauss types, the Heligon has six elements in four groups, the Xenotar five elements in four groups. To tell them apart, count reflections in the rear cell. If a Heligon, you should see four strong reflections and one weak reflection, if a Xenotar four strong reflections and no weak reflection. The weak reflection, if present, may be hard to see. Count reflections with the diaphragm closed or, better still, the cell screwed out of the lens.

Except a Xenotar was made by Schneider and his lens was made by Rodenstock. That would also rule out it being a Zeiss Planar. Back in those days Linhof offered all 3. The Technikon (no it was not a Nikon either), the Xenotar and the Planar for the Technika 23 cameras and for up to 23 on 45 and 57 cameras.

[Linhof_]

Thank you very much for your replies. I can see (if I count them correctly) four strong reflections and one weak, making it Heligon being the main suspect. It is indeed mounted in Compur 1 shutter, but the front filter thread is 49 mm. Markings on the front lens group say Linhof Technikon 100 f2,8. Could it be possible that it is the same lens as Heligon 95 f2,8 due to the effective focal length being somewhere between 95 and 100 mm, so Rodenstock marked them 95 as Heligon and 100 for Linhof OEM supply?

[Linhof_]

And BTW the lettering is on the outer rim of the front lens group and, judging by colourful reflections, it is multi-coated rather than single one.

[Bob Salomon]

Thank you very much for your replies. I can see (if I count them correctly) four strong reflections and one weak, making it Heligon being the main suspect. It is indeed mounted in Compur 1 shutter, but the front filter thread is 49 mm. Markings on the front lens group say Linhof Technikon 100 f2,8. Could it be possible that it is the same lens as Heligon 95 f2,8 due to the effective focal length being somewhere between 95 and 100 mm, so Rodenstock marked them 95 as Heligon and 100 for Linhof OEM supply?

I checked another 1976 catalog and it does show a 49mm filter thread for the 100mm 2.8 Technikon and a 135mm image circle so the first catalog could have been a typo. This one shows the 100mm Xenotar as having the 115mm image circle and the 58mm filter thread. The other catalog did not have the Xenotar listed.

Since the marked focal length on almost any lens is the nominal focal length and not the actual measured focal length it might have been possible that these were closer to 100mm then 95mm but who cares now and what difference would it make? Linhof listed it as a 100mm 2.8 with a 58mm filter thread. Shoot with it and see if you are happy with it. If so keep shooting with it.

Would it be a collectible? Very unlikely.

As for main suspect, Xenotar was already ruled out due to it being made by Rodenstock and not Schneider.

Linhof had other Technikon lenses in that period. They also had 000304 the 58mm 5.6 Technikon and the 180mm Tele Technikon. Linhof also sold a 270mm 6.3 lens that was made by either Rodenstock or Schneider called the Linhof Portrait-Anastigmat lens about that same time frame or later and, of course, Rodenstock also made the 95mm 3.5 Linhof Technikar lens that was mounted on the various versions of the Linhof 220 cameras.

[Corran]

I have a Xenotar 105mm f/2.8. The filter thread is actually 49mm.

I've always assumed the Technikon was a Xenotar relabeled but I had no real basis for that, just an assumption. I didn't know Rodenstock even had a 95mm f/2.8 lens.

[Bob Salomon]

I have a Xenotar 105mm f/2.8. The filter thread is actually 49mm.

I've always assumed the Technikon was a Xenotar relabeled but I had no real basis for that, just an assumption. I didn't know Rodenstock even had a 95mm f/2.8 lens.

Whenever we asked the Export Manager at Linhof he told us it came from Rodenstock.

[Linhof_]

Since the marked focal length on almost any lens is the nominal focal length and not the actual measured focal length it might have been possible that these were closer to 100mm then 95mm but who cares now and what difference would it make? Linhof listed it as a 100mm 2.8 with a 58mm filter thread. Shoot with it and see if you are happy with it. If so keep shooting with it.

That is the best one. Who cares, if the performance is great than the lens is great. Thank you

[Francisco J. Fernández]

Hello, if it is useful for someone.

I will have a Linhof Technikon 95mm f: 2.8 and covers 4x5 "with open aperture (approach 5 m, and also at infinity).

When the diaphragm is closed to f22 allows decenter about 2 cm in all directions focusing on infinity. Something more coverage to 5 m.

The Linhof Zeiss Planar 80mm f: 2.8 covers 6x12 cm, almost without decentering. But does not cover 4x5 ".

But perfectly covers the 6x9 format with about 2cm of runout in all directions.

[Edgar]

has usado el super angulon 90mm en 6x9? estoy tirando los primeros rollos de prueba con el respaldo de cambo. por tener en cuenta alguna experiencia previa.

[Dan Fromm]

Francisco, cual sentido de "cover" usa? Illuminar las esquinas o poner imagen de calidad aceptable en las esquinas? Los dos conceptos son muy differentes.

For English speakers, which concept of cover do you use? Illuninate the corners or put acceptable image in the corners? The two concepts are very different.

[Francisco J. Fernández]

Francisco, cual sentido de "cover" usa? Illuminar las esquinas o poner imagen de calidad aceptable en las esquinas? Los dos conceptos son muy differentes.

For English speakers, which concept of cover do you use? Illuninate the corners or put acceptable image in the corners? The two concepts are very different.




You are right.

Not the same thing ... when I say "covers" and I mean large aperture. then it means that there is light at the corners.

but when I say the same "cover" to f22 so if I speak also of acceptable quality.

I never open iris photographs. use only the diaphragm to focus

[Francisco J. Fernández]

has usado el super angulon 90mm en 6x9? estoy tirando los primeros rollos de prueba con el respaldo de cambo. por tener en cuenta alguna experiencia previa.



Yes, I use it often. My most used lenses are 75, 90, 150 and 210 .... the rest of little use

[Edgar]

la verdad que con el f8 me cuesta mas enfocar, tengo las dos versiones dle mismo el f5,6 va mejor.

[Francisco J. Fernández]

la verdad que con el f8 me cuesta mas enfocar, tengo las dos versiones dle mismo el f5,6 va mejor.

Use a magnifying glass or a black cloth to cover while looking at the ground glass, or use a fresnel lens or angle viewer. For years there was no 5.6. Just had f8 and large pictures you did. In fact the model f5, 6 only have a circle of greater coverage. But I've used both and just find differences in sharpness from f22.

[Dan Fromm]

Senores, aqui hablemos ingles. Los participantes en el foro hablan y lean solo ingles, no pueden leer espanol.

El foro gran formato hispanoparlante esta alli: http://www.granformato.eu/

[Francisco J. Fernández]

I am sorry very much.

I did not realize not happen again.

[Edgar]

well sorry for that people. i just saw francisco is from the same place as me thats why i was writing in spanish. i just said that i find hard to focus using the super angulon f8.
And Francisco i use a magnifier and a dark cloth. Can be for the bad shape of my ground glass, will need to buy some aliminium oxide and try to do my own.

[Bob Salomon]

well sorry for that people. i just saw francisco is from the same place as me thats why i was writing in spanish. i just said that i find hard to focus using the super angulon f8.
And Francisco i use a magnifier and a dark cloth. Can be for the bad shape of my ground glass, will need to buy some aliminium oxide and try to do my own.

What about a Fresnel?