Recommend a fast & cheap Rapid Rectilinear?

[Ari]

Hi,

I'll be slowly diving into wet plate over the summer, shooting only 4x5 plates.
I have a Petzval lens, quite large, that produces some beautiful, but soft-ish, images.
While that may suit certain situations, I personally prefer sharper lenses, and have been looking at RRs on eBay.
Only, I don't know much about them, and they mostly seem to be f8.

Can you recommend any cheap, sharp, and hopefully fast (f4?) RR lenses that I should be looking for?
Covers 4x5 and a little more?

Thanks in advance.

[Jim Noel]

YOu are going to need a formula other than RR if you want that kind of speed, they were generally f8. Of course your Petzval is "soft-ish", that is why so many of us cherish them.

[Patrick13]

The reason Petzval designs took off so fast and replaced RR lenses was their great speed advantage, iirc. Portrait photographers at the time were more than willing to give up a little sharpness for the big boost.

At least according to my history reading, RR down to F4 were made but they were actually less sharp than an equivalent Petzval.

[Ari]

YOu are going to need a formula other than RR if you want that kind of speed, they were generally f8. Of course your Petzval is "soft-ish", that is why so many of us cherish them.

I thought as much; thanks, Jim.
Many people like soft-focus lenses, I am not one of them. The Petzval I have covers 8x10, so, on 4x5 I hope to get the sharp, sweet spot of the lens.

Patrick, thanks for the extra information.

I'll dispense with the nomenclature, then.
Can you recommend a fast, sharp lens suitable for wet plate work that covers 4x5 with movements?
I don't know much about the older lenses, so any information, enough to get me started in a search, would be very appreciated.
Thanks

[Louis Pacilla]

Hey Ari

If you want a fast Rectilinear lens you can look for a Voigtlander Portrait Euryscope Series II @f4 or the Portrait Euryscope Series III @f4.5. Both are on the hard side to locate for sell and expect to pay in the same region as a higher end Portrait lens. So a Series III #6 16 1/2" f4.5 would run around 2 grand give or take a couple hundred.

Also look at the Voigtlander Euryscope Series IV that in most variations except the later versions with iris worked @ f6 or close to it and are better priced then the aforementioned II & III's but still not "cheap". You can expect to pay 350-500 usd for a Series IV #3 12"f6

BTW- Ari since when have you been able to locate a "Fast" vintage lens that was "cheap"?

[Ari]

Hey Ari

If you want a fast Rectilinear lens you can look for a Voigtlander Portrait Euryscope Series II @f4 or the Portrait Euryscope Series III @f4.5. Both are on the hard side to locate for sell and expect to pay in the same region as a higher end Portrait lens. So a#6 16 1/2 " Series III would run around 2 grand give or take a couple hundred.

Thanks, Louis.
And...yikes!

[BrianShaw]

... or look for a Kodak 3-A, the 122 film size camera. They are often dirt cheap inexpensive. I've used that RR for 4x5 and got great results. They came with different shutters. Mine has only one instataneous speed (1/50 or 1/60 or so) but that has never been a major problem. It is max aperture marked "4" but that is US so it is f/8.

[Ari]

... or look for a Kodak 3-A, the 122 film size camera. They are often dirt cheap inexpensive. I've used that RR for 4x5 and got great results. They came with different shutters. Mine has only one instataneous speed (1/50 or 1/60 or so) but that has never been a major problem. It is max aperture marked "4" but that is US so it is f/8.

This is when I wish there was a "thumbs up" feature on this forum.
Thanks, Brian.

[goamules]

...
I have a Petzval lens, quite large, that produces some beautiful, but soft-ish, images.
While that may suit certain situations, I personally prefer sharper lenses, and have been looking at RRs on eBay.
....


YOu are going to need a formula other than RR if you want that kind of speed, they were generally f8. Of course your Petzval is "soft-ish", that is why so many of us cherish them.

Isn't anyone going to comment on the obvious problem? Petzvals are very, very sharp! Yours must have something wrong with it. They are not soft focus lenses. The design is one of the sharpest ever made, and surpasses a Rapid Rectilinear in resolution.

A few things make people think, erroneously, that Petzvals are "softish":

1. They have a very curved field, so there is a lot of falloff from center. What that means is if you use one that is too short for the film size, your edges are in this falloff area. The center 2/3rds of the coverage is the sweet spot, and will be extremely sharp. As you move away from the center, the focal plane curves forward, so they are out of focus, which appears "soft."

2. Petzvals are quite fast lenses, with corresponding short depth of field. Eyes may be in focus, when ears or other items further back on the face are not. That's not soft focus, again, it's out of focus. Great look for portraits.

3. Dallmeyer and Wollensak altered the designs with a gimmick that purported to create "more roundness". This was eventually interpreted as a "soft focus" feature. But actually, it just changes the focal length, cause UNfocus, again. Try this with one, focus on your subject. Change the "turn for soft" feature until the image is fuzzy. But now, refocus your camera. The image will transform back to the same extremely sharp image as before. The adjustment basically "unfocuses" and/or perhaps changes the field curvature a little.

No one should ever consider a Petzval a soft focus lens.

[Ari]

Isn't anyone going to comment on the obvious problem? Petzvals are very, very sharp! Yours must have something wrong with it. They are not soft focus lenses. The design is one of the sharpest ever made, and surpasses a Rapid Rectilinear in resolution.

See? That's why I like this forum. :)
The images, on film, that I've produced with the Petzval are kind of soft, and I don't have stops for the lens either.

This is with a RR f8 that I sold long ago:
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3718/10071580923_25718784fe.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/gkZu7X)Wonderful III :) (https://flic.kr/p/gkZu7X) by Ari4000 (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr

This is with the Petzval:
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2897/14182241163_44f457edf4.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/nBeGcn)Zsuzsi (https://flic.kr/p/nBeGcn) by Ari4000 (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr

Both shot wide open on 8x10; the Petzval is f4.
Will sharpness be greatly affected or rendered differently on wet plates?

[goamules]

Ah, you bring up another interesting affect of Petzvals, that is rarely an issue! How early is yours? Because the early, pre Lerebours improvement Petzvals (from invention to about 1853, if I recall Lerebours alteration) were not optimized for actinic light. In other words, with wetplate the blue light is the main thing operating on the collodion, but the early petzvals would focus on regular light. So what looks sharp on the ground glass, would not be quite so on the final wetplate. Early photographers knew this, and would focus, then slightly move the focus a predetermined amount more towards the blue. That worked, until Lerebours optimized the design.

[goamules]

But now I read more closely, (and recall you mentioning this before in other posts, don't I?) you say the softness is on film. In that case, I go back to my earlier diagnosis; you have a faulty or poor quality Petzval. What is the maker?

[Ari]

Garrett, I have no idea of the vintage; the only engraving on the lens is G&C (Gasc & Chardonnet).
If I understand you correctly, the lens will focus on all wavelengths, but collodion will only "see" the blue light.
That could make for some interesting portraits or still-lifes.

If I completely mis-understood, and the lens is ultra-rare and worth $100K, I can take the truth.

EDIT: I just read your second post, and no, the softness is not on the film, the lens is a little soft.

Here's another example, also 8x10 and wide open:
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2939/14251331333_48c26fc289.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/nHkNic)Rosa (https://flic.kr/p/nHkNic) by Ari4000 (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr

[Ari]

And here is the FS ad (the lens is no longer for sale), so you can see some photos of it: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?113525-FS-G-amp-C-Petzval&highlight=petzval

[goamules]

Gasc and Charconnet are usually fantastic lenses. I sell my Darlots and keep them! But remember, each lens was hand ground, inspected, ground some more, until it was deemed ready for sale. There are people (I'm not one of them) who compare particular lenses from a maker (even Dallmeyers, etc.) looking for a "good one". Their reasoning is there was variation between the lenses made each week. I don't believe it, these things were the most expensive instrument that could be bought in the 1850s - 1870s, and they would not let a bad one out the door. Still, some may have a slightly different look than others. Also, there is a chance someone has replaced one of the elements in the past, thereby messing up all that careful adjustment during manufacturing. No, you can't just swap out one piece of glass from one lens to another, and expect the same results as the original factory work.

[goamules]

That looks like their "Quick Acting" version, which I have one of. It's a very sharp, very fast lens (you sure it's only F4?). Your softness could also be lens flare...from no hood. They really need hoods.

[Ari]

Garrett, thank you very much for the extra information.

You are right, I have actually measured it to be somewhere around f3.5, but I say f4 for simplicity's sake.
There is a sizeable chip in the rear element, those shots were done in shaded areas, but facing the sun (mostly) and were over-exposed. Hence the possibility of softness.
And yes, the hood is always on the lens.

As for swapping out lens elements, before buying the lens, I received a photo of the disassembled lens, all elements were there.
The seller is a forum member who teaches wet plate photography, and I have no reason to doubt the quality or integrity of the lens.

EDIT: You were right about the softness being on the film, I didn't put 2+2 together when you first said that.
Over-exposure and over-development softened the images.

[goamules]

Glad to help. And I meant it's possible someone years ago changed the glass, it could have been 75 years ago!

[Ari]

And I meant it's possible someone years ago changed the glass, it could have been 75 years ago!

Understood.
Best to evaluate its performance when exposure and processing are done correctly, but I suspect the lens will be a sharp performer, if the lens' owner can get his sh!t together.

[Michael Graves]

I'm not a lens expert in any sense, so I'm not sure what constitutes a Rapid Rectilinear. But you might consider an Ilex Paragon. The 5.5" through the 8.5" lenses were all 4.5 max. aperture and deliver very fine results when stopped down. When shot wide open, they have a very dreamy look with virtually no depth of field. And you can usually get them cheap. (cheaply?)

[Toyon]

Wollensak made RR's in both f8, usually designated as Voltas lenses. They also made an F6 version called the Versar. Wollensak often utilized out-of-date lens designs, but they made them very, very well. I suggest the Versar, although they are no longer cheap.

[Ari]

Thanks, Michael and Toyon; excellent suggestions.

[Jody_S]

... or look for a Kodak 3-A, the 122 film size camera. They are often dirt cheap inexpensive. I've used that RR for 4x5 and got great results. They came with different shutters. Mine has only one instataneous speed (1/50 or 1/60 or so) but that has never been a major problem. It is max aperture marked "4" but that is US so it is f/8.

I have one of these that I've used on 4x5 from time to time. It's an OK lens, sharp if you stop down, not particularly 'dreamy' or whatever wide open. However, it is slow at f8, and slower still before you get to a point where it's really usable. Since you don't need a shutter for wet plate, I'm going to suggest a regular old B&L Tessar. You should be able to get the 5x7 f4.5 for under $100. They have a beautiful tonality wide open, and they're quite sharp by the time you stop down to the range of the RR. And the build quality is far superior to the mass-produced RRs from Kodak's roll film cameras.

[Jim Galli]

As has already been said; pick one. There are a few rare fast ones - not cheap. And there are zillions of cheap ones - not fast. An f4.5 early - ish anastigmat by most any of the makers would serve you better.

[Bill_1856]

My ramshackle Conley camera came with a 6 1/2x81/2 Centar Series II lens, which turned out to be a convertible RR. I was/am blown away by the look! Sent the Eastman shutter off to Carol at Flutots who did her best to resurrect it. IMO its probably the best LF lens I own -- I can see why Edward Weston loved it so. Wish it were coated.
I don't see why the F:8 aperture matters, since it's gong to be used stopped down to f:22 or 32 or 45, anyhow.
It's now on my whole-plate Gandolfi. Varoom varoom!

[Ari]

Jody, Jim, Bill: thank you, great suggestions and advice.
I did come across a few anastigmats in eBay searches last week, but my unfamiliarity with the design kept me looking in the obvious places.
Bill, sometimes we get lucky; enjoy the lens!

[BrianShaw]

So... speaking of old f/4.5 anastigmats, another dirt cheap option are the Kodak Nr 31 or 33's. The ones I have are yet "untested" and have only shone upon the GG so I can't tell you anything about how they perform. But the image on the GG is pretty... and rather sharp looking.

Another interesting option, but not so cheap I think, and not soft at all, is the Gundlach Radar... if you are interested in Tessar variants.

[CB33]

I have some lenses that I'm guessing were from some sort of TLR since there are two mounted on each board one lens with no iris. Both sets are Ilex Paragon "Portronic". There is a set that is 6 3/8" and one that is 10" in focal length. Both are f4.5.

They are completely untested and I have very little info about them. However, if they interest you then I'd be willing to part with either of the iris free lenses of the set. A stranger gifted a 4x5 film holder modified for wet plate today and I would like to repay the kindness. ;)