Old German LF Lenses (pre-1945)

[Xipho]

Anyone using some old prewar (before 1945) german lenses?

What are nice lenses to seek or to grab?

There were many lenses for the 6x9/ 9x12 / 10x15 folders with Compur (00, 0, 1) shutters that can easily adopted to our modern camera lens plates.

The classic Tessar is certainly good, and readily availible at least here in germany. You just have to watch the ebay listings of old folders...

for 6x9 I have the 4.5/105 Contessa-Nettel Sonnar (Xenar), CZJ Tessar, and soon hopefully a good voigtländer Heliar . (compur 00)

for 9x12 I have the 4.5/135 (Compur 0) Meyer Görlitz DA Helioplan, Schneider DA Isconar, CN Sonnar, Steinheil Unofokal.

Have to test them all on the baby Technika (in my case) and will see which I like most for real use.


any suggestions or own experiences with such lenses?

[Dan Fromm]

I've used a number of pre-1939 f/6.3 Tessars on 2x3. All very good.

62/18 Protar, borrowed from a friend. I found it very hard to put to use, have since got a 60/14 Perigraphe that's functionally equivalent and easier to put to use.

40/4.5 Mikrotar, probably pre-1939. Superb.

130/6.8 Goerz dialyte type Doppel Anastigmat with no serial number or name that was soft and flary. Not all dialyte types are good.

And a 180/6.8 Fotokopist Spezial Reproduktions Optik that shot poorly at distance. I don't know who made it but Westlicht has offered them as made by Meyer.

Years ago I found a Busch Nikola Perscheid lens in a junk shop, sold it because I couldn't use it. I don't regret selling it -- there were good reasons -- but it is one of the few lenses I've sold that I sometimes wish I'd kept. Not because of the money it would bring now but because of what it can do.

If you want go 'round opening oysters, sorry, old folders, looking for pearls, sorry, usable lenses, by all means do. Don't expect to find a broad range of focal lengths -- nearly all of them, perhaps all, have lenses that are normal for their formats -- or lenses that are fully competitive with modern lenses. "Not fully competitive" doesn't mean unusable, it means that focal length for focal length modern lenses will have more coverage. My CZJ 130/6.3 Tessar made in 1912 is a super lens on 2x3. And it came from a Kodak folder.

[Michael Graves]

I have a 150mm Zeiss Tessar, circa 1938, that I use more frequently than I do my 150mm Fujinon. Technically, the Fuji is the better lens in terms of contrast and resolution, but I love the images I get from that Tessar. The Fuji comes out whenever I want to use that focal length on my 5x7 though, because it will cover the format and the Tessar won't.

[DrTang]

Heliars.. love me my heliars

seriously..for what I am doing (as of now).. ain't no better lenses

there are sharper lenses..there are cheaper lenses.. there are faster lenses.. but man o man

there are no better lenses

[Bill_1856]

I grew up in photography just after WW2, and always thought the reverence that old-timers gave to Zeiss lenses was pure nostalgia or a certain amount of snobbery. After all, there were Goertz, Steinheil, Cooke, Rodenstock, Leitz, Schneider, in fact I don't know how many great optical houses were in existence in those days.
It is my somewhat surprised experience with hundreds of cameras from the pre-WW2 days, that there is indeed something quite special about Zeiss optics -- they just seem to have better sharpness and contrast, and an unknown quality which I can only call a "brilliance" that others don't seem to have.

[Xipho]

Dr Tang, you are cruel... due to a german percel service strike my heliar is still on the way to me... Heaven knowns when it gets delivered...

"o Lord, won't you buy me a Heliar lens,
my friends all have Petzvals, I must make amends..."

[Michael E]

Heliar, Dagor, Protar, Weitwinkel-Ariostigmat - I use and love them. I also have a lot of Tessars. They are OK, but I am mostly a wide angle guy. The lenses from old folders are pretty much useless for me.

Michael

[Two23]

I have 90mm & 100mm Dagor from 1914 & 1922, Heliar 150mm from 1920s, Tessar 165mm from 1912, 240mm Dagor from 1932. All are really good, the Heliar is my favorite. I use them all on a Chamonix 4x5.


Kent in SD

[Leszek Vogt]

I think my Voigtlander 203mm F5.4 is from 1905. Haven't used it yet, presuming the quality is good. Not necessarily into older lenses, but this one fell into my lap.

Les

[Xipho]

wich type of the old lenses has a chance to be a good 1:1 macro lens for LF?

Is the "tessar" a good choice, or maybe others?

[Dan Fromm]

You'll have to ask the lenses. A priori a dialyte type is more likely to be good closeup than a tessar type.

There are, though, some tessar types optimized for 1:1, e.g., CZJ's Apo-Tessars. Apo-Planars, too. Perfectly symmetrical (quick test: do the two cells have the same focal length?) double anastigmats should be good at 1:1 too.

But to be sure you'll have to ask the lenses, not people here.

[Xipho]

I will ask then, just wanted to know which type to ask first....

[plaubel]

wich type of the old lenses has a chance to be a good 1:1 macro lens for LF?



I have had not so good experiences with 1:1 and old lenses.
So I took an Schneider Componon S in a Copal, this works great.

For normal ratio, I love my Xenars, the 135mm and the 210mm, too.

A surprising lens is my Rodenstock Eurynar.

Yes, I love my old lenses,
Ritchie

[IanG]

Kodak sold their 203mm f7.7 Ektar and the older uncoated Anastigmat version of the same lens for use from Infinity to 1:1 and marked the magnification on the base rails of their Half plate medical camera (in the UK).

So a good dialyte is one option.

Ian

[Xipho]

Does anyone know for sure what type a "Dominar-Anastigmat" is? should be from Ica, but was sold also later with Zeiss Ikon Folders like the Maximar. Is it a cooke or a tessar type ore something different?
Could not find valid information, and maybe could get a 165mm ....

btw, my first post was wrong, the 105 lenses I have are compur 0, and the 135 Compur 1...

[jcoldslabs]

Looks like the Dominar is a Tessar-type:

http://kolstad.us/ebay/Ica Lenses.jpg

Jonathan

[Xipho]

fantastic! thank you for the infos and pictures!

[Dan Fromm]

Um, Harald, you should learn how to count reflections from a lens' elements. Remove a cell from the barrel or shutter to avoid confusing reflections from one end with those from the other. Then illuminate with a bright point source and count. An air-glass interface will give a strong reflection, a glass-cement-glass interface will give a weak reflection that may be hard to see.

Your homework assignment is (a) decide how many strong and weak reflections you should see from each cell of the lens types shown in post 16 in this thread and (b) look at your lenses, count reflections, and decide which of the types above each is.

Repeat the exercise for 6/4 double Gauss and plasmat types when you have a lens that might be one of either in hand.

[Xipho]

usually i open the lenses anyway for cleaning. Bur I dont have the Dominar, it was just an ebay offer...

But, as it is drawn, it is a bit different to a classic tessar, as lens 3 is not flat towards the shutter, but konkav.
Classic tessars have a typical look when you have woth parts, back of the frontside is strongly konkav, the front of the back group is quite flat...

today, the heliar came, very good in a nice compur Ring shutter, also voigtländer labeled.It came with a near mint 6x9 roll film camera...

[Xipho]

had some lens tests this weekend.

Compared the Steinheil Unofokal 4.5/135, the Schneider Isconar 4.5/135, Meyer Helioplan 4.5/135, CN Sonner (Xenar) 4.5/135 and the Heliar 3.5/105 to the postwar coated Xenar 3.5/105 (plazs the 4.5/105 Heliar) with architecture.

the Isconar (a dialyte) performed superb, very sharp even wide open, really comparable to the postwar coated Xenar, only a little less contrast for sure.
Also the Sonnar (prewar Xenar) was very good, also at 1:1. I tried a reverse use of the Sonnar for 1:1 but this is much worse... No use.
With teh good results of the Isconar, I will try this for macro work too, as it is symmetric.
The Meyer Helioplan is not so good as my Isconar (it is also a uncemented dialyte) It is good but less sharpness and contrast than the isconar, so this will be my lens for use...

The Unofokal was horrible, lots of flared, even on the ground glass view. But after examination i have seen that it is not clean inside, so it has to be cleaned and reevaluated!

Until now I only looked at the negatives (sunny weather now prevents me from scanning...) but I will deliver some pictures her soon...

[Xipho]

today I did some field testing with the Double Anastigmats.

all three, Isconar, Helioplan and Unofokal are unsymmetric, although the look quite symmetric. f135mm of the whole lens, the front anastigmats alone give about 270mm, the rear parts about 200 mm.
So, they are not ideal for macro? But the performance of my Xenar ist very good at 1:1 anyway...

does anyone know if a heliar has good macro abilities?

[Dan Fromm]

Harald, you seem to be extracting lenses from old 9x12 folders. No lens fitted to one of these cameras will be very good closeup. The cameras were all made to be used at normal distances.

You seem to be fixated on German lenses. The only between-the-wars macro lenses that were made in Germany that I'm aware of are CZJ Mikrotars. Pre-WW-II process lenses (Apo-Tessar, Apo-Planar) might do what you need but they weren't fitted to folding cameras.

Heliars as macro lenses? If they're truly symmetric (about the center singlet, not about the diaphragm, which can't be in the middle, and Eric Beltrando's prescriptions indicate that only the earliest were) then they should be ok closeup. If not, not.

FWIW, Voightlaender made f/10 Heliar process lenses between the wars. These are symmetric and, based on perfomance of my very similar Boyer Apo-Saphirs, should be very good lenses at all distances. There are, however, process lenses that are better at apertures larger than f/16. Dialyte type Apo Nikkors, for example.

[Xipho]

fixation to german lenses is because german old folders are easily availible here in germany.

I need no real macro lens for the technika, I only check what lens suits most if needed.
Today I will do a little testing with the heliar....

[Dan Fromm]

The problem with old folders is that they are fitted with lenses normal for their formats. They don't come with wide angle or long focal length lenses. A proper kit for an interchangeable lens camera should have lenses that aren't normal for the format.

There are many old folders here, mainly made by EKCo. I harvested f/6.3 Tessars (most B&L, one CZJ) and other lenses from them. Problem was, Kodak offered few focal lengths in good (= Compound or Compur) shutters. The range was from around 85 mm (Tessar IIb, cover 2x3) to around 170 mm and the majority are 127 to 135 mm. F/6.3 Tessars are good lenses, I gained little from spending money and time on others of similar focal lengths. But our tastes may differ.

[IanG]

Harald, you seem to be extracting lenses from old 9x12 folders. No lens fitted to one of these cameras will be very good closeup. The cameras were all made to be used at normal distances.

Many of the pre-WWII German 9x12 cameras were designed to be used from Infinity to 1:1 so have double extension, but of course there's a big variation in lenses used on them. Just checking some adverts and many state the cameras can be used to copy life size, bottom of the range models generally have no front rise/fall and are not double extension.

Some of the Dialytes like the Rodenstock Eurynar will be excellent for close up work as will similar lenses from other manufacturers, but when companies like Goerz sold 3 or 4 different Dialytes of the same focal length there's obviously going to be a big difference in quality between the Dogmar, Tenastigmat and the Kalostigmat, there's a significant difference in price.

There were of course a few German 9x12 cameras that took Interchangeable lenses, usually with a bayonet type fit similar to the type used by Exactas, they could use Wide angle and telephoto lenses.

Ian

[Xipho]

there were no wide angles for the 9x12 folders, but ai have a Linhof schneider Angulon anyway.
Für my 6x9 with 105 mm a have options of 135mm, 150mm and maybe 165mm in Compur 1 or 2 shutters.

At least the Schneider Isconar DA 4.5/135 was very convincing, i just have to get a proper lens hood for these uncoated lenses.

Does anyone know the filter size for these Compur 1 size lenses, is it 35.5 screw and A37?

Anyone knows the filter diameter of the 4.5/105 lenses, ist it 29.5 screw? then maybe I have a hood from my contaflex...

Many of e better folders, especially these with the high end lenses and shutters, had double extension bellows, so they were macro capable.... When would be a point when retro use of an unsymmetrical lens is usful, close to 1:1 or only far beyond 1:1?
The compur 1 has 2 identical sizes for the front and rear group, so if the front group is not too deep to hit the blades, retro mount is technically easy...

[Dan Fromm]

When would be a point when retro use of an unsymmetrical lens is usful, close to 1:1 or only far beyond 1:1?

Lenses are optimized for large subject in front, small image behind. Above 1:1 there's a small subject in front, large image behind. Getting whatever advantages the optimization offers above 1:1 requires reversing the lens.


The compur 1 has 2 identical sizes for the front and rear group, so if the front group is not too deep to hit the blades, retro mount is technically easy...

Eh? Wot? All of my #1 shutters (Compur, Copal, Prontor Press) have front tubes threaded M40x0.75, rear tubes threaded M36x0.75. What are you looking at?

[IanG]

Xipho, I've seen a couple of 9x12 folding cameras with Meyer WA lenses which were interchangeable, in fact one was for sale on this forum a few years ago.

Ian

[Dan Fromm]

Bergheil, perhaps, Ian?

[IanG]

Bergheil, perhaps, Ian?

May have been Dan, one was an Edelweiss camera a short lived company. There was a Zeiss Ideal camera with inter-changeable lenses as well and I think one or two others manufacturers made them as well. None are that common.

Ian

[Peter Yeti]

Eh? Wot? All of my #1 shutters (Compur, Copal, Prontor Press) have front tubes threaded M40x0.75, rear tubes threaded M36x0.75. What are you looking at?

Dan,

he's right:
dial set Compurs #1: front and rear cell M36 x 0.5
dial set Compurs #2: front and rear cell M41 x 0.5(?) or M50 x ??

Your specs are right for the later rim set Compurs and modern shutters.

Xipho,

I'm confused about what's your goal. Do you look for an excellent lens for close-up? Do you look for an old folder coming with a lens suitable for close-up? Do you look for old lenses because of their specific "look" to be used for close-up? Or do you just want to collect lenses maybe usable for close-up? The ansers to these questions may be very different.

Peter

[Dan Fromm]

Thanks, Peter.

[Xipho]

so the dial set compur give the opportunity to reverse the lens... So I am looking at my lenses (some of them I have as collector items like the "Sonnar" lens) and it is useful, if you have some 135 with different construction, which one is the best for 1:1 at the end, and if it gives an advantage to reverse it.

My stardard "Linhof" Xenar 3.5/105 semms to give very good macros 1:1, so the (quite similar, also xenar, but older) Sonnar. The reversed sonnar gave inferior quality in a try. As the isconar performed very good (at infinity) I will give it a try at 1:1 normal and reversed.

I dont want to use the Technika as a primary macro cam, it is for landscape/architecture because of the movemwnts. And it gives me the possibility to use my old lenses on a sturdier and better built camera than the original folders of the 20s.
My Contessa Nettel Sonnar camera is fully working, even with a linhof ground glass, but the lens stand is quite wobbly and the exchange of the ground glass back to the rollex back is inconvenient.

I am collector that also like to use old lenses/cameras if they are good. I like to go out with the linhof, or the Nikon F, or the Zenza Bronica.
Why shouldnt I use fine older lenses like a heliar when iit is so convenient with the technika....
And the old 135s and the 150 give my different focal lenghts to the original 65 and 105 of the camera.

[plaubel]

so the dial set compur give the opportunity to reverse the lens...


Here I use some old 135mm lenses like Xenar, Tessar, Eurynar...
some have a broken shutter, and unfortunately, depending on the lens construction, each of my Compur is different, so I can't interchange nor reversing the shutters/lenses.
In some cases either the barrels of the Compur are longer , compared with another Compur, or the two barrels of the Compur are different in length.

As hoods or filter holders, I bought some of this old "pull over" holders with clambs, and I planned to build a solid pull over adapter with a useful thread.

Ritchie

[Xipho]

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/403/18911112014_59d5f8687f_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/uP7oKq)K5HMacro capability of a old CN Sonnar (Xenar) = 4 lens tessar type (https://flic.kr/p/uP7oKq) by xipho68 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/xipho68/), auf Flickr

That is what the Sonnar 4,5/135 (Xenar 135) can do, Macro, 1:1,3 , and this is a 1x1 cm part of the negative, F11

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/305/19345513310_de8207d8f7_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/vtuP7W)K5HA5171Voigtländer Heliar - Macro Test Old Lenses-sonnar-11-bearb (https://flic.kr/p/vtuP7W) by xipho68 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/xipho68/), auf Flickr

But the Meyer Helioplan DA is Close in that test:

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/512/19345509310_98ac4c5954_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/vtuMVY)Voigtländer Heliar - Macro Test Old Lenses (https://flic.kr/p/vtuMVY) by xipho68 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/xipho68/), auf Flickr

[Xipho]

And this is what the Schneider Iscaonar 4,5/135 Doppelanastigmat (4 lenses, 4 Groups) can do: F9

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/444/19508886706_de665dd878_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/vHW9kC)Old lens performance (https://flic.kr/p/vHW9kC) by xipho68 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/xipho68/), auf Flickr

and the clock, 3mm on the 6x9 Picture, scanned 1:1 with DSLR/Macro Lens/16MP

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/385/19347005948_6738ab1c17_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/vtCsQ5)Testfoto Objektiv Schneider Isconar 4,5/135, 1933 (https://flic.kr/p/vtCsQ5) by xipho68 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/xipho68/), auf Flickr

[Xipho]

still not so easy with the Compur cell diameters...

I just got a nice Snchro Compur Ring Shutter 1951/52 Size 0 that also has two identical cell diameters...

It came with a Minty Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar T coated 3.5/105 made 1949 in GDR.

But my "Linhof" synchro compur Size O 1954 has the larger front diameter, also a 1954 Scynchro Compur Size 1...

I also belive that the prewar Ring Compur are still symmtrical...

[IanG]

The pre-WWII rimset Compur Compur Radid and post war Compur #0's are same thread front & rear. M29.5 x0.5. My Linhof Compur #1 is a slightly dfferent shutter to the usual Compur's of the time but the same threads as a modern Copal and other pre and post WWII Compur #1's (I have quite a few), M40 x0.75 front & M36 x0.75 rear

The specific Linhof Synchro_Comur shutters aren't marked with a size and it's possible you have a #1 with a reduction sleeve in the rear, the way these shutters are made Copur couldn't make a #0 shutter with a larger front thread. I've Dialset Compurs with sleeves - one sleeved at the front, and quite a few sleeved #0 Pronto/Pronto etc shutters, and also Alphax shutters where I had to remove rear sleeves.

Ian

[Xipho]

sorry, my mistake. my Linhof snchro Compur 0 (Xenar 105) is alsy symmetrical, only the opening in the front plate is bigger because the front part of the lens has a larger diameter than its mount.

So I can easily interchange the Tessar and the Xenar 3./105 in the mount, only the linhof sunshade only fits the Xenar.
For practical reasons both lenses should perform very similar. Some they the Tronnier recalculated Xenars might be a little bit superior to the original Tessar. The 1949 Tessar T from Jena is a prewar calculation I think...

Are there any unsymmtrical compur 0 shutters later?

my No 1 shutters 1920s and 1950s are both 40/36

[Xipho]

I measured my shutters and my Size 0 and 1 are according to all standard measures.

But I have a shutter, Rim Dial 1933 Compur for Voigtländer, with a 4.5/105 Heliar.

This has some strange sizes, shutter diameter is normal 58 like a size 0, but the mount flange thread is 29, (32 with compur 0) between sizes 00 and 0. Thats why I thougt it would be a 00 size, but it is too large.
Lens mount front and back is about 28mm

Any idea why this is such a strange size...? It is shutter and lens that you see above in the macro picture...

[Xipho]

I have an old 1920s Dial Set shutter that is clearly Size 0 in all dimensions, lens 29,5 front and backside,
and I have two Rim Set Shutters from the 1930s that have equal outer dimensions to a regular 0, and the front lens mount is also 29.5, but the rear lens is smaller (but larger than the 22.5 of the size 00)
Also the back mount size of the shutter is smaller than the 35.5 of 0, but does not fit into a 00 plate, the size is about 29mm

Have not seen this size listed anywhere yet?