PDA

View Full Version : Industar-37



Laskadog
28-Jan-2016, 04:14
Hi all,

I just bought an Industar-37 for my DIY 5x7. Mine is brand new, but most that are for sale are seriously worn. I'm a Photojournalist and my gear goes through the ringer but isn't as worn as most of these lenses. Most modern LF gear is almost always in excellent shape so why are these lenses so beat up? What are they actually used for? They all say that they are used for aerial photography. Are these things pulled off of old spy planes or something? Just curious if anyone knows where most these lenses come from. They almost never come with a mounting ring either.

I guess while I'm at it, any other comments (sharpness, built quality etc) or advice about this lens?

Dan Fromm
28-Jan-2016, 04:38
Use Google first, then ask if necessary.

Laskadog
28-Jan-2016, 08:24
Use Google first, then ask if necessary.

What is this Google you speak of Dan? ...Of course I googled the topic. I was on page 5 before I gave up. Lots of chatter about sharpness and shutters and mounting and Tessar design etc, but nothing on their common use in Russia. Next time I'lll specify that I have already Googled, thanks for your input.

goamules
28-Jan-2016, 08:30
Try Bing then.

But seriously, if you can't find anything about it on the world wide web, with millions of users, I doubt you'll learn anything novel here. Other than what someone who is good at Google regurgitates.

Here, 8 seconds later, 3rd link: http://ussrphoto.com/wiki/default.asp?WikiCatID=25&ParentID=2&ContentID=1527

"...used with 18 x 24cm FK and FKD [large format] cameras as the lens does not have a focusing mount."

And now my personal answer. They are probably so beat up because the USSR was a closed society for 72 years. No outside goods came into the country, and the Russians had to use what their Communist enterprises could make. Also, they had very little income. So if you could afford a LF camera and lens, you used it for the rest of your life. Then the next generation would start using it. If you owned one of these cameras, you were probably a professional, and used it daily. That's why they are worn.

Dan Fromm
28-Jan-2016, 08:33
What is this Google you speak of Dan? ...Of course I googled the topic. I was on page 5 before I gave up. Lots of chatter about sharpness and shutters and mounting and Tessar design etc, but nothing on their common use in Russia. Next time I'lll specify that I have already Googled, thanks for your input.

https://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=industar-37&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=fkd&as_oq=soviet+camera&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=

Laskadog
28-Jan-2016, 08:58
I've already read all the above links, thanks, but they do not answer my specific questions. Is there a reason why are they so worn? Are they used only on FKD cameras? Does anyone know of any other specific applications of this lens? Some of them are so worn and brassed that they seemed to have been used on a daily basis for many years. I don't know that many LF photographers that put that much mileage on a process lens.

I realize that no one may have these answers, but I've been surprised by the pool of knowledge on the LF forums, so I figured I'd ask.

Dan Fromm
28-Jan-2016, 09:15
They're plain vanilla f/4.5 tessar types, not process lenses. Why do you think they're process lenses?

What you haven't found probably isn't there.

Why did you buy one without knowing what you were buying?

Laskadog
28-Jan-2016, 09:42
@Dan Fromm. Sorry my bad. Wrong use of Process. I needed a 300mm fast lens for my 5x7 for Wet plate head shots in studio. I don't need a shutter but need it to be 4.5 or faster since I am using ALL my available flash power just to get an image (tested and proven with a borrowed lens. f5.6 doesn't do it). 300mm because I want to limit the bellows extension for the same reason. Not many lenses fit that description, keeping in mind I'm making my own camera to save money (and have fun). For 100$ I'll give it a try. The comments I've read all seem to say the optics are good enough for my needs. Am I wrong?

goamules
28-Jan-2016, 10:08
I've already read all the above links, thanks, but they do not answer my specific questions. Is there a reason why are they so worn? Are they used only on FKD cameras? Does anyone know of any other specific applications of this lens? Some of them are so worn and brassed that they seemed to have been used on a daily basis for many years. I don't know that many LF photographers that put that much mileage on a process lens.

I realize that no one may have these answers, but I've been surprised by the pool of knowledge on the LF forums, so I figured I'd ask.

What part of my link i posted, "...used with 18 x 24cm FK and FKD [large format] cameras as the lens does not have a focusing mount." doesn't answer your question "what were they used for?" Oh, now you know "what else were they used for?" Nothing.

What part of my reply on why they are worn don't you understand? I said why. You don't know many LF photographers that put that much mileage, because today LF is a special, niche market for amateurs. When the I-37 was made, LF was a common industrial and commercial format. What would a LF photographer have done in 1960 Russia? Lots, and probably moved his camera around a lot. What do YOU think causes wear on an item that shows a lot of wear? The lens didn't go to space on a Soyouz, it probably wasn't used in the battle of Stalingrad. But anything else, like factory or school portraits, yes.

Laskadog
28-Jan-2016, 10:33
@Goamules. Yes I know they were used for FKD cameras. What I was trying to ask was what OTHER uses did they have, which is why I tried to be more specific in my follow-up post. Many russian sellers mention "But is also used aerial photography". I was curious to know more about this usage or other applications. If my lens was on a Mig-25 that would be interesting :)

Thank you for your explanation on why they are worn. That makes lots of sense. The one I bought was sold as new, but I'm starting to regret not buying an older worn lens. I love to imagine all the things the lens has seen over the years, especially a cold war Russian lens.

goamules
28-Jan-2016, 11:24
I'm with you there, I have a lot of cool old lenses with a history. One of my FED cameras, made in the NKVD (KGB) commune for orphan boys, was awarded to the civil engineer that rushed the completion of the Karkov railroad station, in front of the Nazis in WWII. It's engraved such on the bottom! I like that kind of history too.

On aero recon use, I doubt it.

Laskadog
28-Jan-2016, 11:46
Found my answer!

145701

145705

Dan Fromm
28-Jan-2016, 12:22
That's probably an FKD, the lens could also be an I-51.

goamules
28-Jan-2016, 12:26
Well, now we know! But that dog must have had a hard time pulling the darkslide, without opposable thumbs.

Dan Fromm
28-Jan-2016, 14:10
Well, now we know! But that dog must have had a hard time pulling the darkslide, without opposable thumbs.

LaIka was just along for the ride.

R.K
28-Jan-2016, 17:32
The Soviet Union really was a closed country for a long time. But it doesn’t mean that no goods at al was coming from outside. A lot of things was from other countries. But those goods not always was distributed equally o sold in the stores because of corruption and limited supply. It would be a long story and hard for me to explain here how the society was organized and lived in Soviet time. But just a little. All companies and factories used to belong to government. The managers was appointed and selected by the government to. So basically it was no owners. Everybody was working and used some equipment or machines at work, but not everybody really care about those equipment. If it broke the company will fix it or provide the new one. For example the photo shops was usually under local government jurisdiction. It was almost no officially working private photographers. Every photographers used to work in the publishing companies or in the local Photo Shops and equipment they use was given to them by the company. It is not like say in US, when you coming to work you very often must bring you own tools, at list hand tools. The main purpose of those Photo Shops was to provide photographic service to the public. So if I want to make a professional portrait I must go in the one of those photo shops. Government provide them with equipment and materials. Of course it was a lot of hobbyist like me, but I’m here talking about professionals and industry. If you are hobbyist you go in the photo store and buy staff you need. A lot of things was widely available for the hobbyist. I never had problems say with b&w film, paper o chemicals. Cameras was available to, but not all. For example It was hard to find a Zenith and Kiev. But FED, Zorykiy and some other rangefinders was often on the store shelves and not very expensive. Paper , chemicals enlargers was not expensive at all. Probably the most expensive enlarger for up to 6 x 9 mm. format cost about 40 ruble’s. My last enlarger was Crocus. This one never was in the store, but the official price wasn’t so big, only 100 ruble’s. I got it only with help from some people worked in the industry. In 70ties most of the cameras produced by Soviet industry was 35mm. For medium format 6x6 only two models was in production Kiev and Salut. Even this cameras I remember was in the stores. They used to be considered as a professional and not often used by hobbyists because of the high price. But in 70ties they was citing on the store shelves. Later in the 80ties things changed, still I don’t remember problems with b&w photo materials. To find materials for color work yes was more problematical but not for b&w. The large format cameras probably last time was in production in Soviet Union in 50ties and 60ties. Only one model was produced for the public Photocor. I never even see that camera. But I clear remember when I just started to play with photography in 70ties, I see in the store a glass plates for that camera. Nobody bye them usually because was no cameras available. What about Industar-37 and FKD. This is a kind of specific equipment which made in limited number for official Photo Shops. Every Photo Shop in the country was equipped with those kind of equipment and after that the production of this cameras and lenses stopped. That’s because they usually today very old and beaten. They was in hard use every day for many, many years and usually belongs to nobody except government. After collapse of the country, somebody probably saved them, and now when most of the things digital nobody need them and we can see them on line for sale from time to time. So if somebody find the new one it is probably just because it was stored and saved by some old Photo Shop worker for the future witch never come. And very possible that this old photographer already in the other world and new generation photographer find this lens and don’t have any use for it except to make some money.

Laskadog
28-Jan-2016, 18:50
WOW!! Thanks R.K. for the detailed explanation, or should I say Russian photo history lesson. Truly fascinating. I guess a new one is particularly rare. The seller says it comes with all the caps, case and passport (whatever that is). Looking even more forward to mounting it on my camera. Hopefully it won't rip the front off it ;)

P.S.: Here's an example of what I meant.

145717

goamules
28-Jan-2016, 19:18
Good to hear a first hand perspective. Instead of us just guessing!

Roberto Nania
1-May-2020, 07:45
I resume this old tread.

Question for who own this lens: will the fornt standard of the Chamonix 45N handle this lens in your opinion?
I'm planning of buying one and use it without shutter for some indoor portrait shot at few seconds with the lens cap.

Thank you

paulbarden
1-May-2020, 11:23
I resume this old tread.

Question for who own this lens: will the fornt standard of the Chamonix 45N handle this lens in your opinion?
I'm planning of buying one and use it without shutter for some indoor portrait shot at few seconds with the lens cap.

Thank you

Roberto.

I have an Industar-37 which I use on my Intrepid 8X10, which isn't meant to handle large, heavy lenses. The Industar-37 is quite heavy: 2.75 pounds, I believe. The flange would barely fit on a Linhof style 4x5 board if you could get a large enough hole in it, but it would look absurdly large on a 4x5 camera. Could it be done? Probably. Are you brave enough to try it??! Let's see!

Paul

Pechoretc
13-May-2020, 00:16
As a photographer who has lived his whole life in the USSR and Russia, I confirm everything said by my respected RK about the history of Industar-37 lenses. They were really created for everyday use when shooting in numerous photo shops and were little used in amateur photography, since in the Soviet Union a very small number of photographers were fond of shooting large format cameras. It is necessary to add that Industar-37 is an improved version of the older Industar-13 lens. But in addition to the different Industar models that copied the Tessar optical scheme, lenses called LOMO RF with focal lengths of 150, 240, 300,360, 450, 600 and 720mm, which were intended for reproduction works on large format cameras (from 13x18cm to 30x40cm). All these lenses were produced without shutters, many of them had, along with the usual ones, additional insertion diaphragms for lowering light scattering, a “double Gauss” optical scheme, low aperture ratio (usually from 8 to 10) and chemical enlightenment. On their rims there is no APO designation, but in fact they are designed specifically as APO lenses. With a 1: 1 image scale, they give a very sharp image even when the aperture is fully open, and when shooting landscapes, they are quite suitable, especially with apertures from 22 onwards. It is noteworthy that the “double Gauss” scheme allows shooting using only one half (front or rear) of the lens, while the focal length is almost doubled while the aperture is reduced by four times. And for aerial photography, other lenses and cameras are used ...

scheinfluger_77
13-May-2020, 06:08
Thanks for the knowledge on these lenses. I see them on eBay all the time, though rarely at 450 and never longer but heck, this is good to know.

Pechoretc
13-May-2020, 09:27
I am always happy to help my colleague ... In fact, LOMO RF lenses are often sold at the Russian AVITO online auction. 600 and 720mm lenses are also called O-2

Pechoretc
13-May-2020, 09:33
https://www.avito.ru/rossiya/fototehnika?q=%D0%9B%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE+%D0%A0%D0%A4

https://www.avito.ru/fryazino/fototehnika/lomo_o-2_industar-13_1176750093?slocation=621540

Dan Fromm
13-May-2020, 10:00
Thanks for the knowledge on these lenses. I see them on eBay all the time, though rarely at 450 and never longer but heck, this is good to know.

You can find information about these and other east bloc LF lenses at https://www.arnecroell.com/eastern-block-new.pdf

scheinfluger_77
14-May-2020, 12:14
You can find information about these and other east bloc LF lenses at https://www.arnecroell.com/eastern-block-new.pdf

Thanks.

Vaidotas
16-May-2020, 16:04
All Industar-37 were in use on soviet large format cameras FKD. They are tailboard style. There is no need to remove lens in folded position, so thats explains abbrasions and beaten look of lens barrel. And all mounting rings remains on cameras, because lensboards are non removable on some modifications of FKD.

To goamules - soviet society was closed in wicked way. To my knowledge Kodak E3 transparencies and chemistry was available in soviet black market from around 1975.
Price per one 9x12 sheet was 1 rubel, when average monthly income per person was around 120 rubels.

Murgo
16-Jun-2021, 06:47
Hi. I just ordered one of these, I intend to use it on my Graflex Speed Graphic. I found at least one description of this lens being used on a Speed Graphic so I assume it's possible, though I know the lens is a big and heavy monster. I measured the lens board and the 80mm mounting hole should fit, though there's not much room to spare.

The person who had mounted one on his Graflex wrote that the minimum focus distance he was able to get was about 15 feet or 5 metres. I would of course like to be able to focus closer so I'm planning to make an extended lens board with a tubular extension. I have a lathe, a milling machine and a 3D-printer so the plan is first to make a 3D-printed prototype to test the consept and if that works machine the final board, maybe the board itself from aluminium and the extension tube from delrin for easier machining and to save a little weigh.

Could anybody give me an approximate distance from film plane to the mounting flange for, say, 1 meter focusing distance so I know how much I need to extend the lens from the regular lens board mounting location (the absolute maximum bellows extension is about 300 mm from film plane to lens board)? Is there a formula to calculate the required distance from the lens to the film plane for a known focal length and focusing distance? Also, where is the 300mm focal length of the lens measured from, the front lens, the rear lens, mounting flange or somewhere else?

Dan Fromm
16-Jun-2021, 08:01
Could anybody give me an approximate distance from film plane to the mounting flange for, say, 1 meter focusing distance so I know how much I need to extend the lens from the regular lens board mounting location (the absolute maximum bellows extension is about 300 mm from film plane to lens board)? Is there a formula to calculate the required distance from the lens to the film plane for a known focal length and focusing distance? Also, where is the 300mm focal length of the lens measured from, the front lens, the rear lens, mounting flange or somewhere else?

The minimum film plane-to-subject distance is 4 focal lengths, 1.2 m for a 300 mm lens. If you mean distance from the front node (approximately at the diaphragm) to the subject, you'll need 2.33 focal lengths (700 mm) extension. Difficult, probably impossible, with a 4x5 Speed Graphic.


Also, where is the 300mm focal length of the lens measured from, the front lens, the rear lens, mounting flange or somewhere else?

The distance is measured from the rear nodal point. Invisible, but close to the diaphragm.

paulbarden
16-Jun-2021, 10:27
Hi. I just ordered one of these, I intend to use it on my Graflex Speed Graphic. I found at least one description of this lens being used on a Speed Graphic so I assume it's possible, though I know the lens is a big and heavy monster. I measured the lens board and the 80mm mounting hole should fit, though there's not much room to spare.

I have the Industar-37 and its an excellent lens for 8x10, but I cannot imagine fitting that thing onto a Speed Graphic! Yikes. Its huge, and its heavy, and serious overkill for 4x5.
I gotta ask - why choose the Industar-37 for 4x5 over any of the 200-300mm lenses (in shutters) made for the format?

Murgo
16-Jun-2021, 18:41
Thanks for the answers. So I'll probably just see how close a focus distance I can get with a moderate extension when the lens arrives, obviously there's no sense making an extension tube much longer than maybe 100mm as that would bring the weight of the lens too far forward for the front standard to comfortably support and probably also cause vignetting.

The reason I want to try this lens is they are available cheap and I like to experiment and tinker with weird old things (which is, after all, why I started film photography again after 20 years of shooting just digital and why I got into large format). If I can't get it to focus closer than a few meters then so be it, I'll use it at longer distances. Or maybe I'll build an 8x10 or maybe a big paper negative camera if I can't use the lens for the Speed Graphic.

I know the longest "sensible" focal length for a Speed Graphic is around 250 mm but I think that would not make a huge difference from the 180 mm I already have. A smaller, shuttered 300mm would on the other hand have the same problems with maximum bellows extension. Also shuttered 250mm lenses tend to be quite expensive (the cheapest I could find on Ebay is about 260€+40€ shipping from Japan+25% tax and maybe 20€ declaration fee if the seller chooses to use DHL as the Japanese sellers these days quite often do as postal services have become kind of erratic lately). The Industar I got for about 100€ from Ukraina. And as the camera has a focal plane shutter I'd like to experiment with a barrel lens.

Also I think the camera would look even more cool and crazy with a huge hunk of a lens sticking out at the front. :)

maltfalc
16-Jun-2021, 19:56
Thanks for the answers. So I'll probably just see how close a focus distance I can get with a moderate extension when the lens arrives, obviously there's no sense making an extension tube much longer than maybe 100mm as that would bring the weight of the lens too far forward for the front standard to comfortably support and probably also cause vignetting.

The reason I want to try this lens is they are available cheap and I like to experiment and tinker with weird old things (which is, after all, why I started film photography again after 20 years of shooting just digital and why I got into large format). If I can't get it to focus closer than a few meters then so be it, I'll use it at longer distances. Or maybe I'll build an 8x10 or maybe a big paper negative camera if I can't use the lens for the Speed Graphic.

I know the longest "sensible" focal length for a Speed Graphic is around 250 mm but I think that would not make a huge difference from the 180 mm I already have. A smaller, shuttered 300mm would on the other hand have the same problems with maximum bellows extension. Also shuttered 250mm lenses tend to be quite expensive (the cheapest I could find on Ebay is about 260€+40€ shipping from Japan+25% tax and maybe 20€ declaration fee if the seller chooses to use DHL as the Japanese sellers these days quite often do as postal services have become kind of erratic lately). The Industar I got for about 100€ from Ukraina. And as the camera has a focal plane shutter I'd like to experiment with a barrel lens.

Also I think the camera would look even more cool and crazy with a huge hunk of a lens sticking out at the front. :)

A 2" top hat lens board will get you close enough for head and shoulders portraits.
216787

ridax
17-Jun-2021, 10:59
I needed a 300mm fast lens for my 5x7 for Wet plate head shots in studio. I don't need a shutter but need it to be 4.5 or faster since I am using ALL my available flash power just to get an image (tested and proven with a borrowed lens. f5.6 doesn't do it).

I feel I must warn those who want to use the I-37 as a fast lens for wetplate (or blue-sensitive film). Tessars are not the best choice for the task; the most of them, especially in longer focal lengths like 300mm and fast speeds like f/4.5 or more, are considerably yellowish due to the sorts of glass used in them and the thickness of that glass. That is most probably indifferent for modern films like HP5+ and just a little bit noticeable for older type panchromatic emulsions like Fomapan but it may well make the exposures about 2x to 4x times longer for blue-sensitive materials. So an f/4.5 on a tessar may turn out to be less fast then an f/5.6 on a non-APO plasmat like a Convertible Symmar or a Componon or a Rodagon, etc. Those plasmats are made of glass way more transparent in the violet and UV zones of the spectrum to which the blue-sensitive materials like wetplate are actually much more sensitive than to the visible blue light. The 19th century Aplanats / RR's are still more transparent in the UV (as the feature was highly valued the days before orthochrome emerged).

And for the Industar-37, there is more to it. A lot of Industar-37's have 2-layer coating that drives the situation from bad to worse, giving the lens still more yellowish color. That type of coating is most often purple in reflected light and always much brighter than the classic single coating. Better choose the ones with the pale bluish coating similar to the CZJ one.

The 210mm f/4.5 Industar-51 that comes from the 13x18cm FKD model is not as yellowish and is way more usable. It is better stopped to f/5 for a really nice background blur (which is quite fast as the vast majority of f/4.5 tessars need stopping to f/7 or at least f/6.3 to get rid of the very unpleasant mess in the out of focus background).

And by the way I've almost never seen beaten Industar-37's offered for sale here in Russia. I owned several, and all of them were like new. I guess that's because a faulty one would just never sell for a penny locally, where they are so plenty. Go give it to kids as a toy - or ship it abroad....

P.S.: $20 is the realistic price of a mint I-37 here in Russia. It's still cheaper in the Ukrain.

Mark Sawyer
17-Jun-2021, 12:50
I feel I must warn those who want to use the I-37 as a fast lens for wetplate (or blue-sensitive film). Tessars are not the best choice for the task; the most of them, especially in longer focal lengths like 300mm and fast speeds like f/4.5 or more, are considerably yellowish due to the sorts of glass used in them and the thickness of that glass. That is most probably indifferent for modern films like HP5+ and just a little bit noticeable for older type panchromatic emulsions like Fomapan but it may well make the exposures about 2x to 4x times longer for blue-sensitive materials...

And for the Industar-37, there is more to it. A lot of Industar-37's have 2-layer coating that drives the situation from bad to worse, giving the lens still more yellowish color. That type of coating is most often purple in reflected light and always much brighter than the classic single coating. Better choose the ones with the pale bluish coating similar to the CZJ one.


I disagree. I've shot hundreds of wet plates using coated and non-coated Tessars (including a 300mm Industar), and none have ever shown reduced speed due to either AR coatings or the type of glass. As far as I know, the types of slightly-radioactive rare earth glass that yellow (used in lenses like the Aero Tessar and Super Takumar) was never used in Tessars, whose design far pre-dated the existence of such glass.

ridax
18-Jun-2021, 01:27
I don not mean the Thorium glass (which is actually less a problem as it can be brought back to full transparency by UV treatment); I mean the 'ordinary'/old glass types that are also quite different in their UV transmission. Tessars are usually made of glass types less transparent in the UV then non-APO plasmats and RR's, and most of the RR's have much thinner glass elements than the f/4.5 and faster tessars of the same focal lengths.

Another nuance is the glass quality. The same type of glass can be quite transparent when produced with a high quality control level but considerably more yellowish when there are impurities in it (less refined materials for the glass itself, less suitable materials the glass melting pot is made of, etc.). So a Zeiss Tessar copy may turn out to be not as transparent as the Zeiss original. In fact, 19th century advertising often pointed out the glass quality problem to convince the buyer to purchase from reliable manufacturers.

And as for the coating types, you probably have not experienced the bad luck of dealing with a lens like this:

http://www.photohistory.ru/Pictures/Lens-Uran-27-big.jpg
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?115272-233-OF-233-210mm-f-2-5&p=1157867&viewfull=1#post1157867

- as you are on the other side of the Globe.... Most of the Industar-37's have coating far better than the above but the I-37 coating types also changed during decades of the lens production, and not all the versions are the same.

Nevertheless, I am really glad your abundant experience is reassuring, and you were a success with long enough and fast enough tessar type lenses and wetplate. And by the way that reminds me of another factor - the light. When the light itself contains very little UV, the lens transparency in the UV part of the spectrum becomes irrelevant. So all that really depends....

Havoc
18-Jun-2021, 03:25
I have a feeling that there is some confusion about the perceived color of a coating when looked at in reflection and what this does in transmission. But my physics are to rusty (and it is too hot) for me to bother looking into it.

ridax
18-Jun-2021, 09:43
To be more precise - with less speculation and more scientific facts - here is the spectral sensitivity of a typical blue sensitive emulsion, the Kodak Aerographic RA Duplicating film type 2425/4425, from the Kodak publication ti2284:

http://web.archive.org/web/20021008022812if_/http://kodak.com:80/US/en/government/aerial/technicalPubs/tiDocs/ti2284/ti2284e.gif

As the scale is logarithmic, 1 unit of difference between the 450nm visible blue and the 365nm near ultraviolet actually means the film is 10 times more sensitive to the UV then to the visible light.

And here is the spectral transmission of some lenses, compiled from different official publications:


.................................................. Spectral transmission at ..........|. total
.................................................. 365nm 405nm 435nm 546nm ..|. glass thickness
Zeiss Sonnar 50mm f/1.5 .............. 0.05
Ross Express 250mm f/4 uncoated . 0.09 .... 0.36 .... 0.5 ... 0.66 .......|. 60 mm
GOMZ(LOMO) Ortagoz 135mm f/4.5 0.18 ..... 0.54 ... 0.6 ... 0.64 .......|. 14 mm
(celor type)

Industar-10 50mm f/3.5 uncoated .. 0.40 ..... 0.68 ... 0.73 . 0.74 ........|. 10 mm
Industar-7 105mm f/3.5 uncoated .. 0.25 ..... 0.63 ... 0.72 . 0.72 ........|. 19 mm
Xenar 105mm f/4.5 pre-1960 ......... 0.37
Industar-2 135mm f/4.5 uncoated ... 0.31 .... 0.67 .... 0.70 . 0.70 .......|. 11 mm
Industar-4 210mm f/4.5 uncoated ... 0.20 .... 0.56 .... 0.70 . 0.71 .......|. 25 mm
Zeiss Tessar 300mm f/4.5 uncoated . 0.20 .... 0.52 .... 0.66 . 0.71 .......|. 38 mm

................................................... 365nm 405nm 436nm 544nm 673nm
Xenotar 80mm f/2.8 1967 (5/4) ...... 0.17 .... 0.65 ... 0.80 ... 0.93 ... 0.89
Xenotar 150mm f/2.8 1967 (5/4) .... 0.53 ..... 0.72 ... 0.81 ... 0.93 ... 0.82
Xenar 180mm f/4.5 1967................ 0.59 ..... 0.79 ... 0.85 ... 0.91 ... 0.89
Xenar 300mm f/4.5 1967 ............... 0.58 ..... 0.80 ... 0.85 ... 0.91 ... 0.88
Tele-Arton 350mm f/5.5 1967 (5/4) . 0.33 .... 0.69 ... 0.76 ... 0.86 ... 0.82

D-Claron 40mm f/4 1968 ................ 0.55
D-Claron 60mm f/5.6 1968 ............. 0.70
D-Claron 105mm f/5.6 1968 ............ 0.58
D-Claron 210mm f/5.6 1968 ............ 0.54

G-Claron 150mm f/9 1968 (Dagor) ... 0.73
G-Claron 210mm f/9 1968 (Dagor) ... 0.64
G-Claron 240mm f/9 1968 (Dagor) ... 0.53
G-Claron 270mm f/9 1968 (Dagor) ... 0.59
G-Claron 305mm f/9 1968 (Dagor) ... 0.43


It's hardly believable that an Express transmitting just 9% of the near UV radiation would need the same exposure for the same f-stop as a 150mm Dagor-type G-Claron that transmits 73% of the near UV - if the picture is taken in sunlight not pre-filtered by the common greenish window glass....

At least my own experience confirms the above measured figures.

P.S.: In practice, any tint in a lens is pretty visible when one looks through the lens on a sheet of bright paper in an overcast day's light (or in a shade under the blue sky on a sunny day). Other light sources may be misleading; and as the human eye is excellent in comparing color shades but not too good in making any measurements, it's important to watch two or more lenses at once to judge which of them is really faster.

Bernice Loui
18-Jun-2021, 11:00
Data sheets from Schneider.
Note the light wave length transmission curve.

210mm APO symmar, Transmission of light wavelengths below 420nm drops off real fast.
216818

360mm Tele Xenar, Transmission of light wavelengths surprising good from 400nm to 700nm.
216819

480mm APO artar, Transmission of light wavelengths surprising good from 400nm to 700nm.
Another illustration of what these "Process Lenses" achieve for optical performance.
216820

Correlates with data from the chart previously posted.


Bernice

Sean Mac
18-Jun-2021, 12:26
https://i.imgur.com/eDAtxKj.jpg

:)

Mark Sawyer
18-Jun-2021, 15:37
The same type of glass can be quite transparent when produced with a high quality control level but considerably more yellowish when there are impurities in it (less refined materials for the glass itself, less suitable materials the glass melting pot is made of, etc.). So a Zeiss Tessar copy may turn out to be not as transparent as the Zeiss original...

I have yet to see a visibly yellowed Tessar, Zeiss or otherwise. Or one that suffers from light loss on wet plate compared to other lenses at the same aperture.

ridax
18-Jun-2021, 21:24
Well, the above table shows quite good UV transparency of the 1967 300mm f/4.5 Xenar that contradicts with my statement that fast tessar type lenses are usually a bit yellowish. But not all tessars are equal, and Schneider obviously paid a lot af attention to the topic those days.... And at least the Industar-37 is not like the Xenar. (But as I said, the 210mm f/4.5 Industar-51 is quite nice, and in 300mm, the slow f/9 Indusatar-11M is even more blue-transparent - when single coated with magnesium fluoride by evaporation (that's the coating that looks pale blue in reflected light). And the same Industar-11M is way more yellowish with the bright purplish-looking 2-layer coating deposited from easther solutions.)

BTW that also means a UV-blocking filter (a real one like the Wratten 2b, not a protector) is a must with color film in sunlight for the highly transparent single-coated lenses like the G-Claron.


210mm APO symmar, Transmission of light wavelengths below 420nm drops off real fast.

The APO-Symmar is optimised for color; it contains rare earth glasses that are far less transparent in the UV, and it is multycoated - the MC is made to transmit as much visible light as possible and almost no UV so that a UV-blocking filter is not needed.


https://i.imgur.com/eDAtxKj.jpg

I hate this shutter. It makes so much vibration that even the heavy studio 18x24cm FKP camera from which this shutter comes originally, shakes when the shutter is fired.


I have yet to see a visibly yellowed Tessar, Zeiss or otherwise. Or one that suffers from light loss on wet plate compared to other lenses at the same aperture.

As I said, that's reassuring. Would you please specify the other lenses you have compared your tessars to and the lighting conditions?

Mark Sawyer
19-Jun-2021, 11:05
As I said, that's reassuring. Would you please specify the other lenses you have compared your tessars to and the lighting conditions?

The Tessars I use are Velostigmat Series II, Zeiss, B&L Micro Tessars, Industar-37, Ektar, Commercial Ektar, and a B&J Rembrandt. I often switch between lenses while shooting with strobes, CFL hot lights, and daylight. Other lenses I switch to are mostly Cooke Portrait triplets, Petzvals and process/enlarging lenses (used closed down for still-lifes), though I also wander through a wide variety of others.

Portraits done by strobe are probably the most telling, as I'm always looking for the most light (as wet plate photographers generally are). Switching from an f/4.5 Tessar to an f/4.5 Cooke Portrait Lens never made a difference to the exposure, nor did coated vs. uncoated, though that did make a noticeable difference in contrast. And the strobes give very consistent light throughout a portrait session, (I have a bank of nine Travelite 750's).

ridax
21-Jun-2021, 02:03
Mark, thanks a lot for your explanation. That clarifies quite a bit; my guess is it's all in the light. Quality strobes are still optimized for color slide films so they employ special means to keep their UV radiation low or better nil (though with digital cameras, that's less important as digital matrices are far less sensitive to the UV - and to the visible violet, too). Hot lights and a lot of (though not all) fluorescent lamps are quite poor in the UV, too. Daylight looses a lot of UV passing through the window glass indoors. And daylight also varies too much. Sun tanning is actually available only several months of the year, and only when the clouds are gone away....

It looks like anybody using the lighting conditions similar to your Mark, is free to choose their lenses regardless of the glass tint.

P.S.: I’m a passionate fan of your Pixie series. ;)

ridax
21-Jun-2021, 02:11
Nevertheless, some more observations. On coating: -

The first example: I own six 7.5" f/4.5 Ilex Paragons bought in one batch. The glass is identical in all of them. But all are quite different in their color rendition / violet & UV transmission / grade of yellowishness. Their coating is of the same type but the production quality control was obviously not the best so the coating came out noticeably different on each individual lens.

Another example, this time not about the UV transmission. I tested a number of small format 50mm lenses a couple of decades ago. The f/1.7 Zeiss T* Planar, the f/1.7 and the f/2 Pentax SMC lenses, the 55mm f/2 SMC Takumar, f/1.8 CZJ GDR Pancolars and f/2.8 CZJ GDR Tessars of both the MC and the single-coated versions were all equally excellent in their contrast and flare control but not equal in their optical clarity / transmittance. Both the Zeiss T* and the Pentax SMC lenses required 1/3 of a stop less exposure (for color films; no UV employed) than the CZJ lenses at the same f-stops (and I verified the f-stops were marked pretty accurately in all the lenses tested). That meant the f/1.8 Pancolar was actually exactly equivalent to the f/2 Pentax-M, exposure-vise. My later tests showed the vast majority of the so-called third party lenses were also at least 1/3 of a stop (or more) darker than the industry leaders' pieces of glass.

Go guess how many photographers ever noticed the difference. Perhaps nobody except the ones that used slide films daily. But that difference is real. And if I need a lens as fast as possible should I ignore the fact?

Back to the violet & ultraviolet transmission problem - the coating issue aside....

My 300mm f/4.5 uncoated Ross Express had balsam separation on the edges that looked like a severe haze. Feeling too lazy to undertake the full recementing procedure, I decided to try just heating the rear element along with the cell's barrel in hope that after the balsam melts, the haze would go, and stay so after cooling. It worked - the haze was gone. But there was not enough balsam to cover all the bonded surfaces completely, and several balsamless spots appeared between the cemented surfaces. At least that was better than haze so I was satisfied enough with my lazy method.

The interesting thing was that when I looked through the lens onto a sheet of white paper under the overcast daylight (as I described previously), those balsamless spots looked bluish compared to the overall yellowishness of the Ross Express. That certainly meant the balsam itself was too yellow and added quite a bit to the lens's tint. (It's often thought that as the balsam layer is thin, the balsam color does not matter. But Wratten filters are also quite thin, and still they are filters. So if the balsam is not pale yellow but deep orange, a pretty thin layer is enough to make the lens UV-blind.)

I've also noticed my Turner-Reich to be definitely less transparent to the short-wave light than my Protars and Dagors of the same focal length. And Turner-Reich is infamous for being much more inclined to show balsam separation than Protars and Dagors. My own T-R already has a bit of separation at the edges - just of the same style my Ross Express had.... Could that be the balsam quality problem? It looks like Goerz and Zeiss and Baush&Lomb used a higher grade Canada balsam - less yellowish and less prone to haze and separation - than the grade used by Ross and Gundlach. Still no proof positive on the hypothesis but I am inclined to consider it seriously.

Murgo
27-Jun-2021, 07:00
Got the Industar today. Seems promising, it's not as heavy as I feared. I't still big and heavy but much lighter than for example my medium format Tair 33 300mm.

I experimented with the lens and the camera and at maximum bellows extension I can get infinity focus when holding the lens as it would sit with a regular lens board. When holding it 70mm in front of the lens board plane I get a focusing distance a little less than 2 meters from the film plane (or about 170 cm from the front lens) which I think will be adequate for this lens, if I need to get closer I can always use my 180mm which at full bellows extension will focus at about 70 cm from the film plane. So I'm thinking of making a lens board with a 70mm extension tube which probably would not make the camera too unstable. I may have to install another tripod socket on the bed of the camera to balance it though.

By the way I'm also considering trying the front part of the Tair 33 on the Graflex as it can be screwed off and it contains all the lens elements and the aperture forming a complete "barrel lens" while the rear part is just an extension tube and a focusing mechanism. The front part seems to give a reasonable minimum focusing distance (about 1,5 meters) if held like in a regular lens board and when projecting an image on a piece of white paper it seems the image circle is adequate for 4x5 at least if not using a lot of movements. There may of course be some softness or distortion at the edges of the circle though and as said, the lens is considerably heavier than the Industar 37 but it seems it would be usable with a regular non-extended lens board so I might make one for that one too.

Murgo
29-Jun-2021, 08:03
217092 217095

I got the 3D-printed lens board made, I found a ready made design in Thingiverse for a Speed Graphic lens board ( https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1763996 ) and modified it to include a 70mm extension tube. I posted my remix back in Thingiverse so if someone wants to give it a try here it it: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4896904 .

Seems to work just fine, maybe there's no need to make one in metal after all or maybe I'll print another one from a more rigid material, like for example carbon reinforced filament, though regular PLA seems to be plenty stiff for the purpose.

There's no thread for the lens, it's friction fit, but the layers of the 3D-print act as a kind of "thread" and grab the lens very firmly, it needs to be "screwed" off the extension tube, it can't be simply pulled out so no way it's falling off.

The lens-camera combination is surprisingly rigid and stable, no signs of unwanted wobble at all, and the (heavy) Ravelli video tripod I use for this camera carries the contraption just fine even attached to the standard tripod socket. As indicated by my experimenting with the lens the minimum focusing distance is a couple of meters and there's no signs of vignetting or any other problems visible on the ground glass. Of course I haven't taken any pictures yet.

So seems to work just fine, even though it looks kind of crazy.