Wollensak lens

[anthony marsh]

How good is a 12" WOLLENSAK VELOSTIGMAT FOCUS SERIES IV in BETAX No.4?

[goamules]

It is 89.3% good.

[DannL]

It is 89.3% good.

How reliable would you say that figure is?

[John Kasaian]

It is 89.3% good.
Nah! It's 91.14% good.

[BrianShaw]

How reliable would you say the figure is?

approximately .999

[BrianShaw]

But to answer the real question: the lens is only good if it is mounted on a camera and there is film in the holder.

[DannL]

All seriousness aside, there are a number of Wollensak catalogs available to view at . . . http://www.cameraeccentric.com/info.html

You might find your lens there.

[goamules]

And if it helps, I never met a lens I didn't like. I've got a Series IV, it's little known, but worked well for me.

[anthony marsh]

The sarcasm is neither appropriate nor necessary

[BrianShaw]

... :o

[William Whitaker]

Velostigmats are good general-purpose lenses. Series IV was an f/6.3 anastigmat. Should be very serviceable, but I confess I've never used a series IV specifically.

[Mark Sawyer]

I've used one, nice little uncoated Tessar. Not worth a lot because it's fairly common, there are a lot of other f/6.3 Tessars out there, and people tend to like the f/4.5 Tessars. Still, a good lens for 8x10. Use it!

[anthony marsh]

Mark, is it suitable for 5x7?

[Mark Sampson]

A 12" Tessar-formula lens will cover 5x7 with tons of room to spare. I once had a 12" Velostigmat in a #4 Betax, but it's been gone a while and I can't remember if it was a series II or series IV. Mine had the 5 degrees of soft-focus around the front ring, and I used it on 8x10. It was uncoated, sharp, low in contrast, and worthless in any kind of backlight due to flare. But that was in 1981... so if I was using it now I could probably get better results from it.

[Jim Galli]

OK, being a little more empirical, at 4% light loss per reflective glass surface, this lens comes in with a whopping 32% non image forming light which makes it only 68% good. I don't think it's a tessar. Dialyt.

[Shen45]

Jim is correct. I had one for quite a while very sharp stopped down to 22. If you are tempted to take it apart remember the way it goes back together. Mine was four air spaced cells very similar to my Artars

Steve

[Mark Sawyer]

Definitely a Tessar. I just took the back cell of mine apart to be sure; it's a cemented doublet, while the dialyt is two singles. Maybe the Series Ia f/6.3 is the dialyt? Or the Series V?

[Jim Galli]

Series Ia is the cemented Protar like lens. Guess I'm just boogered. Funny how your memory works. Could have sworn I had one long ago that was 4 glass 4 groups. Thanks for setting me right Mark. In that case it's 76% good.

[Shen45]

Like you Jim my memory is probably !!! not what it used to be. But the one I had was definately a dialyte. Cannot say now what series it was. It was f6.3 though.

[goamules]

The Velostigmat Series IV was used by Ansel Adam's butler, I heard. Moon over Heraldo was shot with one, don't cha know?

[John Kasaian]

How good is a 12" WOLLENSAK VELOSTIGMAT FOCUS SERIES IV in BETAX No.4?
Good for what, exactly? Swirly bokeh? Image circle size? Color correction? Portraiture? Macro work? Lens speed? And what condition is the shutter in?
If it's in good condition and you're shooting an 8x10 it might be all the lens you'll ever want. I'm guessing it's an f/ 4.5? That will open up nicely for focusing in dim light. Wide open Velostigmat Series IV are noted for nice soft classic effects for portraiture (some incarnations even have a ring to add even more softness,) while stopped down they are quite sharp for capturing nuances of the landscape. It is classic glass, not modern and exactly how good of results you can expect will be entirely up to you, good Sir!:D
T'is the Indian, not the arrow.

[goamules]

I think that was our point!

You're thinking of the Series II, John.

[William Whitaker]

Series II is f/4.5. Series IV is f/6.3.

[Jim Noel]

How good is a 12" WOLLENSAK VELOSTIGMAT FOCUS SERIES IV in BETAX No.4?

"Good" depends on your view. Do you like sharp cutoff, high contrast images, or do you prefer more dreamy and realistic looking images, or somewhere in between. I lone my Wolly's, but others may lookj at them as trash.

[Mark Sawyer]

Series II is f/4.5. Series IV is f/6.3.

And the Series I and Ia were also f/6.3, which may have led to the confusion. But Jim said the Series Ia is a Protar-like design, which makes sense since it's a triple convertible. A dialyt would only be a double convertible, and not a very good one at that. I wouldn't be surprised if Wollensak had a Dialyt in the mix somewhere, but where? Maybe the Series V?

[John Kasaian]

I think that was our point!

You're thinking of the Series II, John.
Mea culpa!

[anthony marsh]

Thanks for the information. I'm just starting in LF. I should have stated that I want to use it for portraits and landscapes, it is 6.8. Tony

[jbenedict]

The sarcasm is neither appropriate nor necessary

"Ah, loosen up, Anthony. You're too tight"

[Carsten Wolff]

All jokes aside, its a nice lens. I personally think that there are very few truly "bad" LF lenses. All lenses have certain characteristics that deviate from "technically perfect" optics (whatever that is supposed to be); those are nitpicked over in countless photographic fora as flaws by many and opportunities by others; always with the danger that hipsters, collectors, the ill-informed and geeks (often technically well versed and perfectionist photographers that don't have a clue how to create a thought-, or emotion provoking image beyond detail-, or look-masturbation) overstate their importance.

Having said that: Wollensaks have been amongst my favourite vintage line of lenses/shutters for a while now, largely because most are both affordable and good. About the only drag with many Wollies is their filter sizes/darn push-ons, but that can be solved, too.

Anthony,
I hope you've seen fit to buy a good book on LF by now; hanging with an experienced and good LF photographer can also help tremendously. I didn't have the benefit of the latter, but you'll get by; the learning curve is about the only thing that may have a different slope, which is half the fun, isn't it?

[Mark Sawyer]

And the Series I and Ia were also f/6.3, which may have led to the confusion. But Jim said the Series Ia is a Protar-like design, which makes sense since it's a triple convertible. A dialyt would only be a double convertible, and not a very good one at that. I wouldn't be surprised if Wollensak had a Dialyt in the mix somewhere, but where? Maybe the Series V?

For the record, I pulled an old Velostigmat Series V apart today. Another Tessar...