PDA

View Full Version : Eastman Kodak Portrait Petzval.



C_M
21-Mar-2019, 14:02
I just gave this lens a first cleaning. The lens arrived home a few days ago...
Looks like a B & L petzval. The lens is engraved... EASTMAN PORTRAIT F4 16In.
Seems a copy of the English Dallmeyer 3A, both are 16 inch focal length, F4 maximum aperture and have soft focus ability. The lens was originally designed for whole plate (6.5 x 8.5 inches) size images however I think that coverage is greater than this, I found it to be a nice focal length for portraits on 8x10.

I would appreciate any information about the lens...
Thanks in advance.

Mark Sampson
21-Mar-2019, 14:21
Kodak sourced lenses from both B&L and Zeiss, and probably many others, before they established their own optics department.

C_M
21-Mar-2019, 14:30
Kodak sourced lenses from both B&L and Zeiss, and probably many others, before they established their own optics department.

By the serial number, would it be possible to know the manufacturer ???
Thanks Mark.

Mark Sawyer
21-Mar-2019, 14:58
I just gave this lens a first cleaning. He arrived home a few days ago...

"HE"? Definitely a female...

C_M
21-Mar-2019, 15:06
"HE"? Definitely a female...
...Sorry for my bad english

Jim Galli
21-Mar-2019, 15:52
By the serial number, would it be possible to know the manufacturer ???
Thanks Mark.

I concur that this is a product of Bausch & Lomb. You find these identical petzval's with all kinds of names on them, including even Bausch & Lomb themselves. There were 2 grades of finish. The Kodak and the B&L and probably some others had a fine lacquered polished shine, while cheaper ones sold by other big name houses, including Pinkham & Smith and Deardorff, had a machined finish that wasn't as classy looking. You can find these in many of the 1905 - ish catalogs at piercevauble dot com. For instance here is a 1904 Burke & James catalog (http://www.piercevaubel.com/cam/catalogs/1904b&jlp655.htm). Check out page 39 and you'll see this identical lens but with Bun&Jun Ideal name on it. BTW, if you take the 1904 price and crunch it through the inflation calculator, your lens would cost $2400 today. Nice bargain eh? Plus I'm sure the one with Eastman's name on it was even more. Enjoy your $2800 lens. Make us some pictures.

karl french
21-Mar-2019, 16:18
I was tempted by the this beast as well. But I already have a Dallmeyer 3A. Yes, it's a 3A copy made by Bausch & Lomb complete with rear diffusion control. I have the smaller 11.5" f3.5 (though marketed as F4) B&L Universal Portrait 2A. It's just the same.

C_M
21-Mar-2019, 16:26
I concur that this is a product of Bausch & Lomb. You find these identical petzval's with all kinds of names on them, including even Bausch & Lomb themselves. There were 2 grades of finish. The Kodak and the B&L and probably some others had a fine lacquered polished shine, while cheaper ones sold by other big name houses, including Pinkham & Smith and Deardorff, had a machined finish that wasn't as classy looking. You can find these in many of the 1905 - ish catalogs at piercevauble dot com. For instance here is a 1904 Burke & James catalog (http://www.piercevaubel.com/cam/catalogs/1904b&jlp655.htm). Check out page 39 and you'll see this identical lens but with Bun&Jun Ideal name on it. BTW, if you take the 1904 price and crunch it through the inflation calculator, your lens would cost $2400 today. Nice bargain eh? Plus I'm sure the one with Eastman's name on it was even more. Enjoy your $2800 lens. Make us some pictures.

Thanks Master.
The lens is complete and original, measures 25cm tall, 16cm flange diameter and weighs +/- 4 Kg so a rather large lens. Is in fine condition, there is some tarnishing to the brass but most of the original lacquer is present. There is a slight flat spot on the edge of the hood but otherwise no dents or heavy wear. The glass is perfect, no marks, scratches or chips etc.
The lens has an iris / aperture labeled 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32.
This is the American aperture system ???

karl french
21-Mar-2019, 16:28
189078

C_M
21-Mar-2019, 16:33
189078

Many thanks, Karl.

Jim Galli
21-Mar-2019, 16:35
US = Universal system (which didn't end up being so universal) 16 is 16. You count stops from there. 8 is 11 4 is 8 2 is 5.6 1 is 4 etc.

C_M
21-Mar-2019, 16:49
US = Universal system (which didn't end up being so universal) 16 is 16. You count stops from there. 8 is 11 4 is 8 2 is 5.6 1 is 4 etc.


Thanks Jim.
Tomorrow I will post more pictures.
And really a bargain. People are focused on the petzval of cult and misleads these jewels.

goamules
21-Mar-2019, 16:52
Should be a great lens. B&L and Wollensak made a lot of good portrait Petzvals in America. Many other countries did too.

Just because one is an F4 petzval design, whichever way the rear glass is configured, doesn't mean "it's a Dallmeyer 3A copy". It's just one of the two basic Petzval designs that all the others were. Dallmeyer didn't invent them, though they invented reversing the rear glass and letting the owner adjust the air gap. It's a Petzval copy, if anything, Petzval invented the design. Not much really changed from the original 1840 Petzval design, Voiglander stealing it in 1841, Lerebours optimzing it for actinic light in the 1840s, Ross making it in the 1850s, then letting Dallmeyer start up their copies, then optimizing it with the "soft focus" adjustment in 1867, then Voigtlander optimizing it some more in the 1870s...and so on.

Levavasseur invented the V8 engine, but you wouldn't call a 1950s Chevy a Ford Flathead V8 copy.

Jim Galli
21-Mar-2019, 16:59
Thanks Jim.
Tomorrow I will post more pictures.
And really a bargain. People are focused on the petzval of cult and misleads these jewels.

I may have owned that one a few years ago. I had an identical one, but it's long gone. Garrett is right, a petzval is a petzval is a petzval. I don't pay much attention to who's name is on it. But those are big, substantial and pretty for sure.

C_M
21-Mar-2019, 17:03
Should be a great lens. B&L and Wollensak made a lot of good portrait Petzvals in America. Many other countries did too.

Just because one is an F4 petzval design, whichever way the rear glass is configured, doesn't mean "it's a Dallmeyer 3A copy". It's just one of the two basic Petzval designs that all the others were. Dallmeyer didn't invent them, though they invented reversing the rear glass and letting the owner adjust the air gap. It's a Petzval copy, if anything, Petzval invented the design. Not much really changed from the original 1840 Petzval design, Voiglander stealing it in 1841, Lerebours optimzing it for actinic light in the 1840s, Ross making it in the 1850s, then letting Dallmeyer start up their copies, then optimizing it with the "soft focus" adjustment in 1867, then Voigtlander optimizing it some more in the 1870s...and so on.

Levavasseur invented the V8 engine, but you wouldn't call a 1950s Chevy a Ford Flathead V8 copy.

Nothing to say. Totally agree...
It was just a way to identify the lens by the configuration of the rear elements.
Thanks.

C_M
21-Mar-2019, 17:18
I may have owned that one a few years ago. I had an identical one, but it's long gone. Garrett is right, a petzval is a petzval is a petzval. I don't pay much attention to who's name is on it. But those are big, substantial and pretty for sure.

I only meant that people are more focused on names like Voiglander, Dallmeyer etc.
I have followed your comments in this forum and I am sure that you do not take this into account, I do not consider it either

lucaas
21-Mar-2019, 17:36
Is the front achromatic lens missing? I can't see it on eBay listing photos.

C_M
21-Mar-2019, 23:16
Is the front achromatic lens missing? I can't see it on eBay listing photos.

... No, the front cemented crown/flint is badly placed between the iris and the last part of the lens body. The correct fit is between this last part and the hood. Very dirty in the photos but glass is in perfect condition.

karl french
22-Mar-2019, 07:38
In 1866 Dallmeyer introduced the Patent Portrait Petzval. Flipping the rear air spaced pair and slightly changing the curves of the elements. Also allowing the two rear elements to be separated to introduce diffusion. Many people copied Dallmeyer's changes. Those copies are rightly called "Dallmeyer copies" as an easy way to identify them in comparison to the "standard" or original Petzval design.

In fact this lens is a Dallmeyer copy. Not by the mere fact that it's an f4 lens, but because it has the flipped rear elements and diffusion control at the rear.

russyoung
22-Mar-2019, 09:05
For the benefit of readers who are not familiar with both lenses, here they are together. The enrgaving on my Eastman Kodak lens is oriented opposite from the original poster's lens, i.e., it reads properly for the sitter rather than the photographer, as do most (but not all) lenses.
Russ
189085

C_M
22-Mar-2019, 09:10
In 1866 Dallmeyer introduced the Patent Portrait Petzval. Flipping the rear air spaced pair and slightly changing the curves of the elements. Also allowing the two rear elements to be separated to introduce diffusion. Many people copied Dallmeyer's changes. Those copies are rightly called "Dallmeyer copies" as an easy way to identify them in comparison to the "standard" or original Petzval design.

In fact this lens is a Dallmeyer copy. Not by the mere fact that it's an f4 lens, but because it has the flipped rear elements and diffusion control at the rear.

Quite so!.
But we are not going to enter into patent discussions that I think we already have clear, or in wars of European or American manufactures. The important thing is to rescue this lens to be able to enjoy its qualities.

As for the curvature of the elements, both the front and the two rear, look like the design of a RR. - less pronounced concave faces- Is there much difference between this design and an "original" petzval???
Talking about sharpness and swirly
Thanks Karl.

Jim Galli
22-Mar-2019, 09:11
Russ! You're #4 looks to be one of the ones that Burke and James re-finished and coated in the late 1950's - '60's. I have a black 18" Cooke VI, coated like this, also a Burke and James re-finish with their coating.

C_M
22-Mar-2019, 09:24
For the benefit of readers who are not familiar with both lenses, here they are together. The enrgaving on my Eastman Kodak lens is oriented opposite from the original poster's lens, i.e., it reads properly for the sitter rather than the photographer, as do most (but not all) lenses.
Russ
189085

Awesome! Both seem to be in mint condition.
The lacquered finish of mine has suffered a bit in the part of the barrel where it has the engraved.
I will immediately turn that part of the barrel around.

Have you used the lens?
What about soft focus control ???

karl french
22-Mar-2019, 10:17
This is a good article on Petzvals:

http://www.antiquecameras.net/petzvallens.html

I have examples of both standard and Dallmeyer Petzvals. They are both good. I'm not sure I can say one is better than the other, but the industry generally shifted towards the Dallmeyer arrangement with a few holds outs (Hermagis being an important example. I have a Hermagis 250mm f3 that is one of my favorites. It and the Dallmeyer 3B are the last two I would part with.) It doesn't take too much to go from the Dallmeyer mod to the Rapid Rectilinear (which he also introduced in 1866.)

In terms of soft focus (or diffusion control), there should be an index mark on the innermost of the two cells in the back. Some examples have numbered hash marks on the outer cell/barrel, some don't. Outer barrel screwed all the way home should be the sharpest, and unscrewing introduces diffusion.

On my B&L 2A the rear cells were in reverse order and the front glass was flipped around in the barrel. Just about every petzval I purchased has been messed with.

C_M
22-Mar-2019, 13:11
This is a good article on Petzvals:

http://www.antiquecameras.net/petzvallens.html

I have examples of both standard and Dallmeyer Petzvals. They are both good. I'm not sure I can say one is better than the other, but the industry generally shifted towards the Dallmeyer arrangement with a few holds outs (Hermagis being an important example. I have a Hermagis 250mm f3 that is one of my favorites. It and the Dallmeyer 3B are the last two I would part with.) It doesn't take too much to go from the Dallmeyer mod to the Rapid Rectilinear (which he also introduced in 1866.)

In terms of soft focus (or diffusion control), there should be an index mark on the innermost of the two cells in the back. Some examples have numbered hash marks on the outer cell/barrel, some don't. Outer barrel screwed all the way home should be the sharpest, and unscrewing introduces diffusion.

On my B&L 2A the rear cells were in reverse order and the front glass was flipped around in the barrel. Just about every petzval I purchased has been messed with.




... This example has the marks on the outside of the back cells. The inner cell a mark. The outer cell has four numbered marks (1 2 3 4)

.... This lens also arrived badly assembled. The front element was flipped and mounted next to the iris ring. The hood was sticky to the last section of the barrel. Penetrating oil and one night in the freezer did enough work to loosen and the thread would not be damaged

.... So, this redesign of the original Petzval lenses is more corrected and shows less the "original" character. Itīs right...

Thanks Karl

russyoung
22-Mar-2019, 19:11
Jim, thanks for that information. i had wondered for twenty years why that lens was (1) not lacquered brass and (2) in nearly perfect condition.
Much appreciated,
Russ

LienhopPhoto
21-Aug-2019, 18:28
I want one of these so bad. If you want to sell it, PM me.