Wollensak 330mm Triple Convertible Lens

[J. P. Mose]

Thanks for all of this useful information....it sounds like a winner (at least at 330mm)!

[J. P. Mose]

I have an opportunity to buy the subject lens from a friend who would sell it for a reasonable price. I haven't commited yet and have some time to think about it. Since the lens is in another city, I would like to see if anyone is familiar with it. It would be used on 8x10 film, with enlargements not exceeding 30"x40". I know it is single coated, triple convertible lens with a shutter...that's about it. Thank you for your time.

Regards,

J. P. Mose

[RichSBV]

I wish I could comment on a triple convertible Wolly. I use T&R's and a Gundlach. I love them for what they are. An engineering feat that was also very practicle, and a sing of their times.

I have seen a slight variation in the quality of my convertibles. Some better than others. In general, they're all sharp with both elements. Difficult to work with a single element as the focus is touchy. With B&W, the simple fix is a yellow or 23a filter in front. That seems to make a single element as sharp as both together. But that wouldn't work for color.

If it was me, I'd grab it even just for the opportunity to 'play' with it for a while... If you don't want it, let me know! ;-)

[RichSBV]

Ohh, I should also mention that I only contact print so far, but do 10x loop the negs for comparison...

I also can't type worth a darn ;-)

[John Kasaian]

J.P. Mose,

john nanian uses a wooly triple convertable. Maybe he'll chime in and give us the lowdown.

Cheers!

[sanking]

I owned a triple convertible Wollensak of this focal length for many years but eventually sold it because it did not fit my needs in terms of coverage. The person who bought it has contacted me a couple of times since then to express his satisfacation with the performance of the lens. I found that the lens performance was very similar to that of a 12" Dagor, though coverage was not quite as great. As I recall, the combined elemenets of the Wollensak 13" triple convertible would not quite cover 11X14, whereas the Dagor does. And the single elements would not cover 11X14 either. However, if the intended use of the lens is 8X10" it would cover very well.

[Jim Rhoades]

My guess would be that it's a series Ia f/6.8. It is 13 inch 20 inch and 25 inches. At 13 inches it is quite sharp. 20 and 25 it's plenty good enough for contact prints. I don't enlarge my 8x10 so I cannot comment there. When converted use a #8 filter or stronger. I have not noticed any focus shift when using mine. Getting a filter can be a pain. It's an unknown size. I took a 62mm el-cheapo filter removed the ring and glass. I then filed down the threads a bit, just a touch. It is now a press fit. I then used some "GOOP" household glue to set the adapter. This is a perfect fit and removable.

I think that the Wollensak triple is under-rated. At 13" a 30x40 would be quite nice. You may want to push the development a bit to boost contrast. Maybe two minuets.

Quite a few of Mr. Adams most famous prints were taken with convertible lenses. Do not let the lens snobs intimidate you. Show the world your prints not your lenses.

[jnantz]

hi jp -

i have a wollensak triple ( 13-20-25 ) - i use it with an 8x10. i really can't say anything bad about this lens. it is in a betax 5 shutter which offers a sliding shutter speed so you can use "inbetween" shutter speeds. i can't really comment on how sharp enlargements would be, i don't have an enlarger big enough for 8x10, but i have made a bunch of paper negatives with it, and enlarged using a scanner - they look great. the photographs taken with single elements are pretty sharp.

i too think this lens is pretty underrated, and if it was offered to me again, i would buy it without hesitation.

- john

[Jim Galli]

Have owned one in the recent past. It is a fine sharp performer. Like Sandy I was dissapointed that it wouldn't reach out to 11X14. Still fine for 8X10. Compared to the Zeiss design for some reason Wolly chose to have longish narrow barrels that are quite restrictive on the ultimate angle. Protar VII's are more compact and wider to allow a bigger angle of coverage. They're sleeper's as far as what you get for what you pay.

[Brian Ellis]

I used this lens for several years on an 8x10 Deardorff. I never encountered any coverage problems. The contact prints from negatives made with the 330 length were excellent. The prints from the next longest lengths were barely acceptable, better than missing the photograph entirely but not especially good either. I never enlarged, only contact printed, so I don't know for sure but based on my contact prints I'd be surprised if the two longest lengths would be acceptable with enlargements of the size you're contemplating. If you buy the lens I'd do so with the idea that it's a 330mm lens and regard any acceptable photographs you make at the two longer lengths as pleasant surprises.

[Will Ewing]

I bought my Wollensak from Sandy King (as he mentioned above) and I think if that had been my first lens, it would have been my only lens. I have a 14 inch Dagor that has only a slight edge of contrast over the Wollensak at 13 inches. The individual elements are really quite good...if you contact print you will wonder why anyone would spend the big bucks for an Artar... Under a loupe the Artar will win, but unless you enlarge it is hardly an issue... the difference in price will buy a lot of Azo. Good luck

Will

[sanking]

Hi Will,

Glad to see you are still getting good use from this lens.

BTW, Wollensak made the 13"-20"-25" triple convertible for a very long time. The early version was called a Velostigmat 1a, and was not coated. Later versions are called Raptar 1a and are coated. Like Dagors the Wollensak triple convertible only has four air-to-glass surfaces so contrast is very good, even on the older non-coated version. The coated convertible Raptar has excellent contrast, better than older single-coated Symmars.

I agree with Jim. These lenses are real sleepers and the ones I have used compare very favorably to the Protar VIIa, except for coverage where the protar has a slight advantage.

Just so there is no mis-understanding, my reference to lack of coveage was in refrence to 11X14 and 7X17, where this lens just misses. For 8X10 use it would give ample coverage, with quite a bit of movement, even with the single elements.

[sanking]

A few words about using the single elements. The single elements are not quite as corrected as the two elements combined so it is always recommended to stop down the lens two or three stops, which will greatly reduce many of the lens aberrations, including astigmatism, coma, and longitudinal chromatic aberration.

However, stopping down will not improve lateral chromatic aberration, which in effect produce color images of different size. For this you should use a filter that cuts one of the colors. The best filter for this, IMHO, is a light orange filter, since the worst offender tends to be blue light.

The above applies equally to other convertible lenses, such as the Protar Series VIIa, the Gundlach convertibles, and the convertible Symmar.

[J. P. Mose]

Strange...my prior posting thanking all of you for your infomation is before your responses! I don't have a crystal ball...I posted that after Sandy King's final posting. Cyberspace I will never understand.