Air Ministry 36inch f6.3 lens

[John keys]

Picked up this lens and impressed with the results, 10x8 paper neg and wet plate, though as its heavy had to build a box camera to use it,Anyone else use this underappreciated lens
150191150192150194

[Steven Tribe]

"Big Bertha" is quite a popular gal! Plenty of threads here, mostly about her size and weight - but some results. She has plenty of little sisters too.

[pjd]

I've seen a couple of these lenses for sale here and there but didn't bite, the size put me off. It is good to see some images from this lens, thanks for posting them. I'm sort of curious about the box camera you built too, not that I'm going to rush out and buy one of these lenses.

[goamules]

I know where one is, but never bought it and have never used one. Looks like you got good results with it, good job.

[Tin Can]

Very cool. Could you show your camera and more camera details?

Also what does it weigh?

Thanks!

[IanG]

I don't know about under appreciated. I saw one at a camera fair 5 or 6 years ago it wasn't expensive and came with a camera, it had been used to shoot cricket matches, the whole combination was quite large so unless you had space it wasn't a viable proposition.

There's one on Ebay currently with a BIN price £19950 (just under $3000) but I'd guess you paid a lot less. The one on Ebay has JHD in the REF number which indicates it was made by Dallmeyer, as yours looks identical I think it safe to assume so is yours. I have a slightly later 17" f5.5 coated Military telephoto and it's a very sharp lens.

Ian

[Tin Can]

Some will find the space. I am interested in these oddities, their history, historical usage and hobbiests conversions.

Try encouragement perhaps? :)


I don't know about under appreciated. I saw one at a camera fair 5 or 6 years ago it wasn't expensive and came with a camera, it had been used to shoot cricket matches, the whole combination was quite large so unless you had space it wasn't a viable proposition.

There's one on Ebay currently with a BIN price £19950 (just under $3000) but I'd guess you paid a lot less. The one on Ebay has JHD in the REF number which indicates it was made by Dallmeyer, as yours looks identical I think it safe to assume so is yours. I have a slightly later 17" f5.5 coated Military telephoto and it's a very sharp lens.

Ian

[Struan Gray]

For more information, Google the Williamson aerial cameras, which these lenses were designed for and used on. I think I am right in saying they were last used regularly in Canberra flights, but it's possible a few hung on in Buccanneer recce pods and the like. Lots has been declassified in recent years, so the clubs of retired pilots and camera operators are appearing online. A few more years and they'll be gone... :-(

I have a 36", which I bought mostly to try and make a binocular telescope from. Then we moved to a house with no real view. Heavy beast, but sharp.

[IanG]

Some will find the space. I am interested in these oddities, their history, historical usage and hobbiests conversions.

Try encouragement perhaps? :)

I'm all for encouraging the use of lenses like this :D I's great to see John's images made with it and like you I'd like to see his camera solution. The one on Ebay is £1995 I added and extra 0 in mt post above, the seller says it ways over 8 kg.

The one I saw was attached to a reflex camera possibly a 5x4 Marion/Kershaw Soho reflex, it had a sliding box type crude focus arrangement like very early wet plate cameras.

Here in the UK we used to have 4 or 5 shops in London selling ex Government (military) surplus photo equipment and materials and they had made cameras and lens rarely seen now.

Ian

[Tin Can]

Thank you

[goamules]

Which makes one wonder: why were giant lenses needed for recon then, but aren't now? Drones have very high resolution imagery, from very small and light modern lenses. Then it came to me: the digital sensors really ARE that good, that you no longer need to shoot onto a large piece of film. The technology has advanced, and there will probably never be a need for a giant Aero lens again.

[Dan Fromm]

Ian, I'm of two minds about encouraging the use of aerial camera lenses. They can be very inexpensive. That's great. And experimenting is good too.

Against that, few will fit in standard shutters and are quite expensive to put in shutter if the job can be done at all. Longer ones can be very heavy. And in truth many aren't all that good. That's not so great.

I still have a pile of lenses extracted from aerial cameras. All were affordable, most just confirm the VM's advice that they're more trouble than they're worth. Exceptions include the 38/4.5 Biogon, 100/2 TTH Anastigmat and 12"/4 TTH, the latter two ex-Vinten F95 and AGI F134/F139 and all three for formats too small to mention here.

[John keys]

I've seen a couple of these lenses for sale here and there but didn't bite, the size put me off. It is good to see some images from this lens, thanks for posting them. I'm sort of curious about the box camera you built too, not that I'm going to rush out and buy one of these lenses.

Thanks The weight is something Though had to use a 35mm enlargers baseboard for the lensboard The camera itself is a box in a box 150230

[John keys]

I don't know about under appreciated. I saw one at a camera fair 5 or 6 years ago it wasn't expensive and came with a camera, it had been used to shoot cricket matches, the whole combination was quite large so unless you had space it wasn't a viable proposition.

There's one on Ebay currently with a BIN price £19950 (just under $3000) but I'd guess you paid a lot less. The one on Ebay has JHD in the REF number which indicates it was made by Dallmeyer, as yours looks identical I think it safe to assume so is yours. I have a slightly later 17" f5.5 coated Military telephoto and it's a very sharp lens.

Ian

Lot cheaper paid £150 which seems the going rate Noticed that one on ebay though seems the sellers a chancer Though if its the same one he might think the fungus is the rare bit..

[IanG]

Which makes one wonder: why were giant lenses needed for recon then, but aren't now? Drones have very high resolution imagery, from very small and light modern lenses. Then it came to me: the digital sensors really ARE that good, that you no longer need to shoot onto a large piece of film. The technology has advanced, and there will probably never be a need for a giant Aero lens again.

H.P. Arnold who wrote for the BJP used to write a few articles a year on aerial, space and astronomical photography, he was a scientist and an expert in his field and even 20 years ago he was describing and illustrating the imaging quality (NASA etc) had was streets ahead of the older aerial cameras shooting 8" roll film. By then it was 70mm and digital sensors.

In terms of films the quality and particularly resolution today since Tmax etc is way better than the films available inWWII when these lenses were made which were Plus-X through to Tri-X,but all thick emulsions (Tri-X disappeared during the War possibly because key sensitising components had come from Germany). n Ilford films were similar.



Ian, I'm of two minds about encouraging the use of aerial camera lenses. They can be very inexpensive. That's great. And experimenting is good too.

Against that, few will fit in standard shutters and are quite expensive to put in shutter if the job can be done at all. Longer ones can be very heavy. And in truth many aren't all that good. That's not so great.

I still have a pile of lenses extracted from aerial cameras. All were affordable, most just confirm the VM's advice that they're more trouble than they're worth. Exceptions include the 38/4.5 Biogon, 100/2 TTH Anastigmat and 12"/4 TTH, the latter two ex-Vinten F95 and AGI F134/F139 and all three for formats too small to mention here.

I had my knuckles wrapped by Randy for being in two minds and sitting on the fence :D

You do raise serious points though. I have the Dallmeyer 17" (420mm) f5.6 coated military lens mentioned above which has no shutter, it was quite cheap, and a 360mm f5.5 Tele Xenar in a Compur #3. I know which I prefer to use - the Tele Xenar, I have to use the Dallmeyer on a Speed Graphic and then it really needs very good light and a high shutter speed.

While they remain cheap it's good to se people experimenting with them though the can work as John has shown, for wet plate there's no shutter issue.

Ian

[Tin Can]

Thanks The weight is something Though had to use a 35mm enlargers baseboard for the lensboard The camera itself is a box in a box 150230


Thanks for the picture. Always worth a 1000 words. Does anybody know if these are 'true' telephoto? Meaning focal plane distance is shortened.

[IanG]

Thanks for the picture. Always worth a 1000 words. Does anybody know if these are 'true' telephoto? Meaning focal plane distance is shortened.

They are, I have the specs for the regular versions in various BJP Almanacs. My 17" Dallmeyer is about the same flange to film distance at Infinity as my 360mm Tele Xenar.

Ian

[John keys]

The shutter issue is problematic I have just used this lens with wet plate and paper negs My improvised shutter is a top hat but a lens cap would suffice. I follow a rule of two second exposures So with paper negs in the sun Im having to step it down to achieve the 2 second expo.

[Tin Can]

They are, I have the specs for the regular versions in various BJP Almanacs. My 17" Dallmeyer is about the same flange to film distance at Infinity as my 360mm Tele Xenar.

Ian

And I was thinking of my 360mm Tele Xenar, which I shoot on 2x3 Kardan.

I hope your knuckles are OK. :)

[John keys]

Thanks for the picture. Always worth a 1000 words. Does anybody know if these are 'true' telephoto? Meaning focal plane distance is shortened.

Its infinity point is about 550mm I find with an extra 500mm I get a close focus of head and shoulders on 10x8 at about 8 foot, subject distance..

[IanG]

The shutter issue is problematic I have just used this lens with wet plate and paper negs My improvised shutter is a top hat but a lens cap would suffice. I follow a rule of two second exposures So with paper negs in the sun Im having to step it down to achieve the 2 second expo.

Maybe in front of a 7x5 Graflex, or find a 10x8 focal plane shutter :D they were made by Thornton Pickard. I have 2 half plate FP shutters one goes to 1/1000, but the slit width is fixed and narrow so it's going to be hard to use :D

Essentially what you've made was what I saw at the camera fair but with a 5x4 reflex camera on the end, and of course it's effectively longer on 5x4 rather than 10x8.

Ian

[John keys]

Maybe in front of a 7x5 Graflex, or find a 10x8 focal plane shutter :D they were made by Thornton Pickard. I have 2 half plate FP shutters one goes to 1/1000, but the slit width is fixed and narrow so it's going to be hard to use :D

Essentially what you've made was what I saw at the camera fair but with a 5x4 reflex camera on the end, and of course it's effectively longer on 5x4 rather than 10x8.

Ian

Bet on the 5x4 format its a horror for those hand held shots :)

[IanG]

Bet on the 5x4 format its a horror for those hand held shots :)

Come photograph Tornado and Scotsman with it (September) :D

Ian

[John keys]

Come photograph Tornado and Scotsman with it (September) :D

Ian

Renews gym membership in time for September :)

[IanG]

Renews gym membership in time for September :)

My assistant will help drag it :D he's very strong :)

It's interesting shooting subjects like this with LF and telephotos, I have the advantage of living 5 mins walk . . . . and knowing the best vantage points as well further up the line. A 36" lens looking down on Arley Bridge (used for the Robert Powell version of 39 Steps were he hangs under the bridge) would be easy and amazing.

Ian

[John keys]

Sounds a most delightful spot you have in mind Though the assistant will need the strength for no three legged tripod will support it :) 150247

[IanG]

Sounds a most delightful spot you have in mind Though the assistant will need the strength for no three legged tripod will support it :) 150247

No problem he has four legs :D

More seriously the size (but not the length) could be more manageable and smaller if shooting just g 5x4, the big Bertha cricket camera I saw was smaller. People buy old Speed Graphics and just use part of the case and the FP shutter, sometimes using the shutter behind or in front of a lens so they can shoot a much larger formats. THat may give you food for thought.

Ian

[John keys]

No problem he has four legs :D

More seriously the size (but not the length) could be more manageable and smaller if shooting just g 5x4, the big Bertha cricket camera I saw was smaller. People buy old Speed Graphics and just use part of the case and the FP shutter, sometimes using the shutter behind or in front of a lens so they can shoot a much larger formats. THat may give you food for thought.

Ian

It is food for thought as taking this out is a mission and a halve Perhaps one day I make her abit smaller Though its tempting to also go larger as her image circle is most generous :)

[Dan Fromm]

Re coverage, the lens was made for cameras that shot 9" x 9" on 10" roll film. It has to cover ~ 325 mm.

[Tin Can]

That would be at infinity and perhaps double at head shot distance?

Just for the record.

[Dan Fromm]

Randy, I really don't know. I shoot flowers and such closeup and landscapes, not people, so I have no idea what magnification a pleasing head shot on 8x10 requires. I can sort of visualize it, but I'm just not sure what good practitioners do. Please help me out by telling me typical magnification.

Oh, and by the way, I believe the lens is a telephoto. If so, perhaps not the best possible for closeup. But with wet plate, who knows. Several years ago I gave a 914/8 B&H monstrosity in horrible condition to a wet plater. I told him how ugly the lens was, how horrible the glass, and he replied that it would be good enough for wet plate.

[Tin Can]

Dan,

8X10 Head shots can be face at 50 to 75%. Or much smaller with chest at 25%.

But some of us are doing 100% on 11x14.

I have shot a head with 900mm Jena at 100% aka 1 to 1, 75" extension Deardorff Studio SC11. Macro. Difficult in my space.

Deardorff SC11 offered an optional 47" Artar for perspective corrective, catalog production. I need to try that, next winter...Big movements need giant IC or so they tell me. I have not done it. That's for my upcoming wheelchair years. :)

[Struan Gray]

A user here (jb7 / joseph) has posted experience of using one of these beasts. Also on 8x10 I think. Samples and pictures of the setup on Flickr:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=joseph+jb7+large+format+36+inch+lens&gbv=2&oq=joseph+jb7+large+format+36+inch+lens&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3...1168.1168.0.1441.1.1.0.0.0.0.76.76.1.1.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..1.0.0.vPorm2zxnOY

Some of the reasons why lenses are long and big are given in the descriptions of known current systems, such as the RAPTOR pod flown by the RAF, and others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAPTOR

Several of the users here at LF.info used these systems for real. There are discussions in the archives. My father worked on recce and airborne early warning aircraft, but only remembers the cameras as a royal pain in the arse to work with :-) My wife's grandfather hung over the side of a Sopwith on the Western Front, trying to fly the plane with one hand, while taking pictures with the other. Things have changed a tad.

One technical point: many aerial systems scan to build up an image from a linear sensor. That means they can use shorter focal lengths for any nominal image size. There were scanning cameras before, but digital makes it easier and better. That said, my impression is that lenses have become even larger in the digital age, both those on aircraft and in satellites. The Tornado pod, for example, has a 110" focal length and an 11" aperture. Satellite optics are probably mirror based with wavefront compensation, like the big telescopes.

The 36" I have is a telephoto. I reckoned a pair of 18" rails would more than suffice for using it.

[Nodda Duma]

Which makes one wonder: why were giant lenses needed for recon then, but aren't now? Drones have very high resolution imagery, from very small and light modern lenses. Then it came to me: the digital sensors really ARE that good, that you no longer need to shoot onto a large piece of film. The technology has advanced, and there will probably never be a need for a giant Aero lens again.

Large optics are still in use and still being made in applications where large swaths of terrain must be imaged at once. The imagers are large high resolution linear digital arrays used in a sort of "push broom" scanning mode as Struan Gray says above, and not film of course. The optics still have to correct for the large image circle at a higher resolution than was needed for film. So expect interesting optics to continuously - eventually - trickle into the market.

[goamules]

Yeah, I know all about SAR and imagery. But it's not large optics that allow large swaths to be taken, it's the movement of the sensor. I used to be a systems engineer on such programs, and later worked to train Stealth Fighter pilots, and "other" air breather platforms. They don't have large optics anymore. Which was my point.

[Struan Gray]

<innocent voice>
What do they have?
</innocent voice>

[goamules]

<research>
Google
</research>

[Dan Fromm]

For USAF data sheets on lenses bought no later than 1967, see: http://1drv.ms/1TJazop

For an interesting doctoral dissertation on aerial reconnaissance photography, see: theses.gla.ac.uk/1151/1/1978elhassanphd.pdf

Jason, USAF used a number of swing-lens panoramic cameras, for example the KB-18. These beasties shot 70 mm film, used 75 mm planar and similar lenses. According to the data sheets, Fairchild made a better 3" planar than Zeiss.

[Nodda Duma]

Yeah, I know all about SAR and imagery. But it's not large optics that allow large swaths to be taken, it's the movement of the sensor. I used to be a systems engineer on such programs, and later worked to train Stealth Fighter pilots, and "other" air breather platforms. They don't have large optics anymore. Which was my point.

I do lens design goamules. For the defense and aerospace industries. I'm in the thick of it and pretty well tapped in, and I'm telling you there are large optics being designed and fielded today. I wouldn't have mentioned it if it wasn't true. Not sure why you're trying to argue...what I said didn't negate anything you posted. I'm currently working on a 30" F/4.2, for example.

"They" is a bigger set of customers than just recon a/c. Scanning systems have their place, but having no moving parts while covering large fields of view is very desirable. Technology is available which makes that happen, as the cost of very large digital arrays (linear or 2D) come down. When the SWaP-C allows it, these large arrays are being implemented with larger optics used out in front. This is particularly true in the multi-billion dollar (and growing) mini- and micro-satellite industries. Optics that go up obviously don't come down, but spares are always made and eventually surplused. So -- as I was pointing out -- expect interesting optics to continue to trickle out into the market.

[goamules]

I'm sure your work is very important.

[Nodda Duma]

I'm sure your work was too.

[AgNO3]

Sounds a most delightful spot you have in mind Though the assistant will need the strength for no three legged tripod will support it :) 150247

Well, Ive managed to find "SAMSON" from Quick-Set inc., Northbrook, Ill., the tripod which supports the 36"f6.3 and the 20"f6.3 in my DIY 11x14 camera with Pakhard shutter, I'm using for wet plate. Luckily I've purchased them with the original screw mount, which accepts also a variety of adapter plates for other ULF glass.

Here you see this beast of a tripod with the 20"f6.3 in the field

https://up.picr.de/46945553jp.jpg

900mm monorail allows enough bellows to cover 8x10" with a portrait in 3m distance, but a similar sized macro bellows extension (from an old enlarger) already arrived and these all-profiles/rails come in up to 2500mm length.

But occasionally I fit the 36"f6.3 and her little sister 20"f6.3 into blue British Birmarbight again and shoot with my S2a 109" Land Rover camera instead. Preferably Land Rovers on glass with a Land Rover parts number.

https://up.picr.de/46971210te.jpg

https://up.picr.de/46971214ae.jpg

A 11x14" plate shot wet with the 20"f6.3 in the Land Rover S2a 109"
https://up.picr.de/46971231wx.jpg


A 11x14" plate shot wet with the 36"f6.3 in the Land Rover S2a 109"
https://up.picr.de/46971233qg.jpg

The 36"f6.3 in an earlier iteration of my camera:
https://up.picr.de/46971316fh.jpg

And finally a 5x7" tintype made with the 36"f6.3 stopped down to f16 during calibration of above cameras focal plane
https://up.picr.de/46971408mf.jpg

and wide open at f6.3
https://up.picr.de/46971430rw.jpg

on a 5x7 plate next to itself, shot with the 20".
https://up.picr.de/46971465bu.jpeg


Cheers

Edit: Are there any other aerial lenses with that mount, which were designed to cover 9x9" negatives and range from 12" to 20" focal length? Or one in-between the 20"f6.3 and the 36"f6.3?