When did decent wide angles show up? [lens history question]

[Will Frostmill]

Hi all,

At what point did decent, affordable, wide angle lenses show up? My understanding is that common prewar lenses were mostly Tessars in the normal to long range, with a handful of dialyte and slow convertible designs for wide angle use. (Here I'm thinking of the usual Kodak Ektar suspects in 5.5", 6", 7", and 8".) I know that the 127mm Ektar, while common on 4x5 Speed Graphics, didn't have good quality coverage at the margins, presumably because that wasn't a strength of the Tessar design.*

I also know that there are a boatload of modern Plasmats from the big four that (apparently) were selling like reeeeely expensive hotcakes in the 1970's and 1980's. So, what changed, and was there ever a time for "good deals" in the 28mm to 35mm equivalent range?

Will

*I'm deliberately not talking about the wide angle Commercial Ektars designed for 8x10. I can't see that the adjective "affordable" ever applied to them!

[Two23]

I have a couple of 90mm & 100mm Dagors in very early shutters. I'm thinking 1910 and 1920 on them. They seem to cover 4x5.


Kent in SD

[Jac@stafford.net]

I'm deliberately not talking about the wide angle Commercial Ektars designed for 8x10. I can't see that the adjective "affordable" ever applied to them!

So much for learning.

[neil poulsen]

So much for learning.

I don't think that there's really a problem with an OP setting a boundary condition on new thread. It helps to avoid responders going into detail on topics in which the OP has no interest.

[John Kasaian]

In 1910, $40 would get you a B&L Extra Wide Angle Series V F/18, 4-7/16" in a Volute that covered 5x7

[neil poulsen]

I think that an operative word in this discussion is "decent." Not being any kind of an expert, I've been reading A History of the Photographic Lens [R.Kingslake].

There were some designs important to wide-angles that came about. These were lenses designed specifically for wide-angle applications. (Might that not make these lenses "decent?")

One is the Goerz Hypergon in about 1900. A second was the development of the Angulon in early 1930's. A little before that (late '20's) was the Ross Wide-Angle Express lens.

But for me, the transformative design came in the mid 1940's with the development of the Biogon design. For example, the Super Angulon is a derivative of this lens, and it was developed in the early 50's. Compared to what came earlier, these lenses are in a class by themselves.

As to what was affordable, that's anybody's guess. It's a very relative term. If it helps, I have this neat source catalog, The Photography Catalog [N.Snyder, 1976] which gives some representative prices of that time period for LF lenses. It's attached as a reference.

[Pere Casals]

But for me, the transformative design came in the mid 1940's with the development of the Biogon design.

First Biogon is from 1934...

(translating from Emmanuel Bigler french post) ...but in 1946, a very unexpected patent by Russian engineer Roussinov explains in detail the principle of pupillary distortion to correct the fall of brightness at the edge of the field in a new kind of quasi-symmetric wide-angle optics, with large lenses, input and output were divergent meniscus. Then Zeiss and the other opticians, of course...

(See post Date: 06/02/2013, 14:19)
http://www.galerie-photo.org/n3-f2,175144,page=2.html


Just pointing that a major conceptual contribution (tilting pupil design) was published in 1946 by Roussinov and this changed the original Biogon design to include that capability, which allowed wider coverages with "decent" performance. I guess that the 110º modern coverages would not be much feasible without Roussinov's contribution.


Every Bigler's post is an important lesson !

[Dan Fromm]

Oh, dear. Many makers made wide angle rectilinear lenses in the 19th century. And then there were wide angle anastigmats starting around 1892. Look in Fabre, there are links to his Traité encyclopédique de photographie. in the list. While you're at it, read my Berthiot LF anastigmats article. There's a link to it in the list.

I have no idea what the OP meant by decent or affordable. I have some Berthiot Perigraphe VIa lenses made between 1948 and 1951. Not particularly modern, the design was first used before 1910. They give up little to newer w/a lenses except maximum aperture.

Papi, Zeiss gave the trade name Biogon to two different Bertele designs. The post-WW II f/4.5 Biogons are simplified Wild Aviogons, apparently the first west bloc lenses to exploit Roosinov's ideas and also designed by Bertele.

OP, there are no Wide Angle Commercial Ektars. You might have been thinking of Wide Field Ektars. These are four elements in four groups double Gauss type lenses. Other makers claim up to 100 degree coverage for their 4/4 double Gauss w/a lenses, EKCo's WF Ektars are limited to 80 degrees.

[Will Frostmill]

Thank you Dan, this is exactly the kind of thing I had hoped to learn about!



I have no idea what the OP meant by decent or affordable. I have some Berthiot Perigraphe VIa lenses made between 1948 and 1951. Not particularly modern, the design was first used before 1910. They give up little to newer w/a lenses except maximum aperture.

Ah! Excellent! That was in fact what I meant by "decent", giving up little to newer lenses except for maximum aperture. Affordable...I guess affordable for the postwar time period.


OP, there are no Wide Angle Commercial Ektars. You might have been thinking of Wide Field Ektars. These are four elements in four groups double Gauss type lenses. Other makers claim up to 100 degree coverage for their 4/4 double Gauss w/a lenses, EKCo's WF Ektars are limited to 80 degrees.

Right! I meant the Wide Field Ektars.

[neil poulsen]

So, when did the wide-angle Dagor come about? That was considered a "decent" lens then, and I think now. I could find no mention of it in Kingslake.

[Dan Fromm]

So, when did the wide-angle Dagor come about? That was considered a "decent" lens then, and I think now. I could find no mention of it in Kingslake.

1920s, I b'lieve. Could be mistaken. CZJ produced them for a while after taking over Goerz. Goerz American made them until nearly, if not exactly to, the end. I have a 45/9 CZJ Goerz Dagor, not cataloged, one of 26 made by CZJ. Covers 2x3 but I prefer my 47/5.6 SA. Easier to focus and there's a center filter for it.

Will, if you don't know what the list is, ask. Read Fabre. He wrote in French but you don't need to understand French to figure out the lenses.

[Will Frostmill]

Thanks for the upload, Neil, that's exactly the kind of resource I was having trouble finding.

For whoever interested, I read someone else's take on "affordable":
A cup of coffee is cheap,
a bag of groceries is reasonable,
a car payment is affordable,
a mortgage payment is expensive,
and anything else is off the table.

[Will Frostmill]

Dan, I found a very nice pdf of Traité encyclopédique de photographie via archive.org https://archive.org/details/traiteencycloped04fabr_0/page/n6
Your article is this one, I believe? http://www.galerie-photo.com/berthiot-anastigmats-en.html

[Dan Fromm]

Dan, I found a very nice pdf of Traité encyclopédique de photographie via archive.org https://archive.org/details/traiteencycloped04fabr_0/page/n6
Your article is this one, I believe? http://www.galerie-photo.com/berthiot-anastigmats-en.html

yes

Approach Fabre through the list. You want to read all of the supplements that report on lenses. Some say nothing about lenses, the list gives a map to the ones that do.

[Pere Casals]

So, when did the wide-angle Dagor come about?


"Zeiss made a wide angle f/9 Dagor (most Dagors are f/6.8) that covers 100 degrees at f/32 and there is an American Goerz Wideangle Dagor that covers 90 degrees at f/45"

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses-wide.html

The Zeiss 100º Dagor f/9 is in the 1933 catalog, page 28

http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/zeiss_3.html
https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00607/00607.pdf



That was considered a "decent" lens then, and I think now. I could find no mention of it in Kingslake.


Neil, now we are rating "levels of decency" of glasses :)

Let me say it in other words, Roussinov's theoric contribution in 1946 it was what paved the way to improve Biogon designs to allow larger coverages with acceptable fall-off, this set new standards, and following derivative designs ruled in that market segment since then.

[Dan Fromm]

Papi, check before you post.

First Biogon: https://books.google.com/books?id=OJrJrEJ-r9QC&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=bertele+biogon&source=bl&ots=Y-5n7Mz3by&sig=ACfU3U0pz6ZfQKRHdGNuMW3ya5ZHoKfwRQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjs8My1nI_kAhXihOAKHTOJAisQ6AEwC3oECGMQAQ#v=onepage&q=bertele%20biogon&f=false

Second Biogon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeiss_Biogon

The second is not an improved version of the first, it is entirely different.

[Arne Croell]

Papi, check before you post.

First Biogon: https://books.google.com/books?id=OJrJrEJ-r9QC&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=bertele+biogon&source=bl&ots=Y-5n7Mz3by&sig=ACfU3U0pz6ZfQKRHdGNuMW3ya5ZHoKfwRQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjs8My1nI_kAhXihOAKHTOJAisQ6AEwC3oECGMQAQ#v=onepage&q=bertele%20biogon&f=false

Second Biogon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeiss_Biogon

The second is not an improved version of the first, it is entirely different.

What Dan said. Also note, the first Biogon type was only made in the 35mm focal length for Zeiss’ Contax rangefinder cameras. This design was never used for anything LF or even MF related.

[Bernice Loui]

Biogon, Lamegon appeared about the same time in the world of lens design and yes, there was a patent-invention dispute over it.

Papi, take the time to read this article written by Arne:
https://www.arnecroell.com/czj.pdf

Biogon designed by LUDWIG J. BERTELE, had a family relative, Wild 120° Super Avignon.
https://books.google.com/books?id=7bKIDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=Wild+avignon+lens&source=bl&ots=cd_-RUwrsP&sig=ACfU3U3S-iqFSSpdnRGOGH81mz4KD0d0Nw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjfz72io4_kAhVBM6wKHaOIAwEQ6AEwAnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Wild%20avignon%20lens&f=false

Discussion about some of the work done by Russinov and Chakhverdov (Carl Zeiss Jena Lamegon) can be found here:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.872.2526&rep=rep1&type=pdf

LF lenses like Super Angulon, Grandagon, SW and SWD Fujinon, SW Nikkor and... came later.

While there were "wide angle" lenses dating back to 1900 like the Goerz Hypergon, their optical performance is not comparable to these later wide angle designs. Goerz Wide angle Dagor and Schneider Angulon can be considered wide angle.. if about or just over 90 degrees angle of view is considered wide angle. Again, these do not have the optical performance of later wide angle designs.



Bernice

[Dan Fromm]

While there were "wide angle" lenses dating back to 1900 like the Goerz Hypergon, their optical performance is not comparable to these later wide angle designs. Goerz Wide angle Dagor and Schneider Angulon can be considered wide angle.. if about or just over 90 degrees angle of view is considered wide angle. Again, these do not have the optical performance of later wide angle designs.



Bernice

Bernice, its time for you to buy and try a Perigraphe VIa. I suggest a number II, 90/14, they're relatively inexpensive and easy to find. And you should learn more about 4/4 double Gauss type wide angle lenses.

If you read this discussion from the beginning you'll find several posts in which I directed the OP to sources of information about ancient w/a lenses. W/a lenses have been made since the 1860s. The big advances have been in maximum aperture and performance near wide open, not in coverage.

[Bernice Loui]

Previous discussion on LFF from 2008:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?34804-Information-about-the-Russian-optics-designer-Michael-Roosinov-(Mikha%EFl-Rusinov)


Bernice

[Dan Fromm]

Previous discussion on LFF from 2008:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?34804-Information-about-the-Russian-optics-designer-Michael-Roosinov-(Mikha%EFl-Rusinov)


Bernice

Post-WW II lenses, irrelevant to this discussion. And yes, I enjoy thread drift as much as the next person.

[Bernice Loui]

4/4 double Gauss would be Wide Field Ektar and related?
Never heard of Perigraphe VIa, if curious enough, might give it a try. Then agin, there is not that much motivation to do so.

Performance at large apertures would be exampled by the 75mm f4.5 Biogon and related. Trade off being size-weight of the lens. Speaking of better performance at age apertures, it is claimed by Rodenstock the 35mm, 45mm, 55mm APO grandagon has good performance at f8 or so ?


Bernice


Bernice, its time for you to buy and try a Perigraphe VIa. I suggest a number II, 90/14, they're relatively inexpensive and easy to find. And you should learn more about 4/4 double Gauss type wide angle lenses.

If you read this discussion from the beginning you'll find several posts in which I directed the OP to sources of information about ancient w/a lenses. W/a lenses have been made since the 1860s. The big advances have been in maximum aperture and performance near wide open, not in coverage.

[goamules]

Um...the Protar V, from about 1891 I believe.

https://live.staticflickr.com/4036/4579540808_409f21b089_o.jpg

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...] Speaking of better performance at age apertures, it is claimed by Rodenstock the 35mm, 45mm, 55mm APO grandagon has good performance at f8 or so?

In my experience the 35mm Grandagon settles in at ƒ16 which is a good compromise with their center filter.

[Pere Casals]

The second is not an improved version of the first, it is entirely different.

Well, it depends on if you look at the front or at the rear section.

Of course I'm an amateur and Kingslake wasn't it at all, but if the 1951 kept the same name it had to be because the rear sections had the same concept.

Both designs have a lot in common in the rear section, the 1951 design adds a cemented element, but the concept it's very close:

194496



Possibly (guessing) the added cemented element was to balance the pupil tilting introduced in the front section. So beyond comparisson with Sonnar/Aviotar to me both designs (34-51) have the rear section concept in common.

[Dan Fromm]

Well, it depends on if you look at the front or at the rear section.

Of course I'm an amateur and Kingslake wasn't it at all, but if the 1951 kept the same name it had to be because the rear sections had the same concept.

Both designs have a lot in common in the rear section, the 1951 design adds a cemented element, but the concept it's very close:

194496



Possibly (guessing) the added cemented element was to balance the pupil tilting introduced in the front section. So beyond comparisson with Sonnar/Aviotar to me both designs (34-51) have the rear section concept in common.
Weasel words, Papi, weasel words. They don't make you any less mistaken.

We're not comparing single cells, we're comparing complete lenses.

[Pere Casals]

Weasel words, Papi, weasel words. They don't make you any less mistaken.

We're not comparing single cells, we're comparing complete lenses.

:)

If you compare complete lenses then later Biogons are also completely different to the 1951 one:



194502


194503


Then add all derivatives around...

See the Super Angulons...


The question is: what makes a design be a biogon derivative ?

[MAubrey]

In 1910, $40 would get you a B&L Extra Wide Angle Series V F/18, 4-7/16" in a Volute that covered 5x7

That'd be ~$1100 if we adjust for inflation.

[MAubrey]

If you can tolerate Google Translate from Italian (or you know Italian), Marco Cavina's article on the history of Zeiss symmetrical wide angle design is a good read:

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Hypergon_Topogon_Biogon_Hologon/00_pag.htm
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marcocavina.com%2Farticoli_fotografici%2FHypergon_Topogon_Biogon_Hologon%2F00_pag.htm

[Mark Sawyer]

The Petzval Orthoscop was designed as a wider-angle "View Lens" along side Petzval's "Portrait Lens" in 1839, but wasn't manufactured until 1856-'58. (Early photographers were mostly interested in portraiture.) It was manufactured by Dietzler (under Petzval himself), Voigtlander, Ross, CC Harrison, and probably a few others.

The Harrison & Schnitzer Globe Lens was even wider angle, and came out in 1862-'63.

Busch's Pantoscope followed that in 1865, then came Dallmeyer's Wide Angle Rectilinears in 1866. The WAR's were copied and improved by many manufacturers, and were quite popular through the rest of the century. They're still fairly common, fairly cheap, and perform rather well.

I'd say the last noteworthy "vintage" wide angles were the Zeiss Protar Series V and the Goerz Dopple Anastigmat (Dagor), which occupy the space between vintage and modern wide angles.

And then there are the exotics like the Hypergon...

[Mark Sampson]

If the OP is looking for a "decent", "affordable", wide lens for 4x5, the chrome-finished Schneider Super-Angulon f/8 lenses are very good- and not expensive these days. If for 8x10, good luck- and see the long recent thread about "210s for 8x10" or something like that.

I've learned quite a bit about the history of view-camera wide lenses in this thread, for which I thank all the contributors.

[Two23]

Um...the Protar V, from about 1891 I believe.

https://live.staticflickr.com/4036/4579540808_409f21b089_o.jpg

Volute shutter dates to ~1902-1920, roughly.


Kent in SD

[Arne Croell]

:)

If you compare complete lenses then later Biogons are also completely different to the 1951 one:



194502


194503


Then add all derivatives around...

See the Super Angulons...


The question is: what makes a design be a biogon derivative ?

Actually, those designs, as well as any other in that family, are very similar. The basic design principle is that you have a group with negative power at each end of the lens, surrounding one group with positive power on each side of the aperture. However you slice and dice or cement these groups is immaterial to the basic concept. So the group order for all of these lenses would be like
- + I + -
where I denotes the aperture position.
As Kingslake notes in his text on the first Biogon and one of its predecessors, the Miniature Plasmat, the order there is:
+ - I + -
That is the main difference.

[Pere Casals]

That is the main difference.

Thanks for the explanation !

[Dan Fromm]

With due respect to advocates of well-known, at least in the US, German lenses, photography was invented in France and French opticians were every bit as competent as their German counterparts.

Schneider's Angulon has only two advantages over Lacour-Berthiot's and S.O.M.-Berthiot's Ser. VIa Perigraphes. Angulons open wider and short ones are available in shutter. Ser. VIa Perigraphes open only to f/14 -- still faster than Protar Ser. Vs, which open to f/16 or f/18, depending on who made them -- and shorter ones can't be put in shutter.

But the 90/6.8 Angulon covers 81 degreees while the 90/14 Perigraphe covers at least 105 degrees. Barely 4x5, more than 5x7.

f/14 Perigraphes from 60 mm to 150 mm are all in the same barrel, which, by an odd coincidence, can be stuffed into the front of an Ilex #3 shutter and won't fall out. They're a slightly looser fit in Alphax #3. Shorter ones, like my 60/14, will be vignetted mechanically by an Ilex #3's rear tube. The solution was a radical tubectomy followed by drilling and tapping holes in the rear of the shutter body for screws to hold the shutter on a board. Skgrimes knows the trick.

In today's market, 90/14 Perigraphes are fairly common and asking prices, especially considering what what they can do, are quite low.. More are offered on ebay.fr and ebay.de than on ebay.com.

[neil poulsen]

. . . Neil, now we are rating "levels of decency" of glasses :) . . .


I liked Will's scale for affordable. Perhaps there's something like that in the scientific literature for levels of decency.

[Mark Sampson]

Mr. Fromm's comments about the S.O.M. Berthiot lenses are quite interesting. I must admit that despite 38? years of experience with LF photography, amateur and professional, I have never seen or used any of their lenses. Of course a lot of that experience was pre-internet, and I'd never claim to be a lens expert, but it's nice to have my ignorance dispelled.... and to know that there are more, and different, good lenses out there to shoot with.

[Mark Sawyer]

No one has ever lived up to the potential of the worst lens they've ever owned. Not even close...

[Pere Casals]

No one has ever lived up to the potential of the worst lens they've ever owned. Not even close...

True, but let me mention an exception is Ansel Adams !

He made "Monolith, the Face of Half Dome" with a crappy Adon, while he was illuminated with "holy divine inspiration" :) to invent the "sacred zone system".

[goamules]

Going back between the first generation wide angles of the 1860s, and the anastigmats of the 1890s, there were a few more good ones. The R. D. Gray Extreme Wide Angle and the Morrison wides are very good. At least to me.
http://piercevaubel.com/cam/acc/lensgrayperiscopeextreme.htm

Then there were Zentmayers....and .... lots of wide angles were available from the beginning of photography.

[Bob Salomon]

True, but let me mention an exception is Ansel Adams !

He made "Monolith, the Face of Half Dome" with a crappy Adon, while he was illuminated with "holy divine inspiration" :) to invent the "sacred zone system".

Co-invented!

[Pere Casals]

Co-invented!

Archer joined later, he was not at Yosemite when the "divine ray" fell from sky, bounced in the half dome and ended in the Adon. (joking, of course)

[Bob Salomon]

Archer joined later, he was not at Yosemite when the "divine ray" fell from sky, bounced in the half dome and ended in the Adon. (joking, of course)

“...Archer collaborated with Ansel Adams to codify the Zone System, which is a photographic technique for determining optimal film exposure and development.[14] The technique is based on the late 19th century sensitometry studies of Hurter and Driffield, and provides photographers with a systematic method of precisely defining the relationship between the way they visualize the photographic subject and the final results. Although it originated with black-and-white sheet film, the Zone System is also applicable to roll film, both black-and-white and color, negative and reversal, and to digital photography. Archer and Adams formulated the system while teaching together at the Art Center School in Los Angeles.[15]

Ansel Adams went out of his way to give Archer equal credit for the Zone System: "I take this opportunity to restate that the Zone System is not an invention of mine; it is a codification of the principles of sensitometry, worked out by Fred Archer and myself at the Art Center School in Los Angeles, around 1939-40."[16]”

Wikipedia

[Pere Casals]

it is a codification of the principles of sensitometry, worked out by Fred Archer and myself at the Art Center School in Los Angeles, around 1939-40."[16]”

Bob I agree completely with wikipedia, but that "divine ray" descended from sky in 1927, it was April, AA was 14 years old, collaboration with Archer was 12 years later.

"He changed to the red filter, with this dramatic result. He described this episode as his first visualization"

http://anseladams.com/new-modern-replica-monolith-face-half-dome/


Well, let me recitify, with the Adon AA "invented" visualization, not the ZS. Visualization + Hurter_Driffield = ZS, I guess.

[Dan Fromm]

Mr. Fromm's comments about the S.O.M. Berthiot lenses are quite interesting. I must admit that despite 38? years of experience with LF photography, amateur and professional, I have never seen or used any of their lenses. Of course a lot of that experience was pre-internet, and I'd never claim to be a lens expert, but it's nice to have my ignorance dispelled.... and to know that there are more, and different, good lenses out there to shoot with.

Mark, marketing isn't everything but it counts for a lot. So does presence in the market. S.O.M. Berthiot has been part of the French military-industrial complex since 1912, stopped making civilian LF lenses (except process lenses) around 1951 and stopped making lenses for small format cameras in the early '60s. They never had much of a presence in the US. Although they were probably the most important French lens maker of their time their products were poorly documented, especially after WW II. Small wonder that few of us here are very aware of Berthiot's products.

When I was chasing lenses seriously I put a lot of effort into learning which little-known lenses were good, easily/inexpensively put to use and priced interestingly lower than well-known equivalents. There aren't many such. Process lenses, Boyer Beryls (Dagors), f/14 Perigraphes and some ILex lenses and that's nearly it. There are good practical reasons why we love our Super Angulons and equivalent lenses from, in alphabetical order, Fuji, Nikon and Rodenstock and don't look beyond them.

[Bernice Loui]

Not sure if the full aperture of f6.8 for the Angulon is a great advantage. Yes it does make focusing easier due to the image being brighter on the GG, still that Angulon needs to be stopped down to f16 or smaller for image circle and image quality. If the f14 Perigraphes deliver good optical performance at f16 and smaller, that full aperture of f 6.8 of the Angulon might only be a modest advantage. Similar would apply to the wide angle Dagor with a full aperture of f8 / f9.

During the early years for my view camera adventures, the wide angle lenses used were wide angle Dagors and wide field Ektars. At some point during the later years of 1980's, the Rodenstock Grandagons happened and never went back until more recently with the 165mm Angulon (while small, it has limitations and advantages like any other LF lens).

These vintage wide angle lenses appear to have similar optical layout:
194532

The f6.8 version of Perigraphes is a "Dagor" variant?

As for install into a shutter, that same old thing about using a Sinar shutter does a nice job of taking care of that.

Many years ago tried a Protar Ser. V, f16 on 8x10. Tiny lens in many ways yet it covers 8x10 stopped down to f32. Have that 8x10 color transparency some where. Optical performance, it's not a 155mm f6.8 Grandagon, but quite surprising given the physical size of the Protar Ser. V.


Bernice




Schneider's Angulon has only two advantages over Lacour-Berthiot's and S.O.M.-Berthiot's Ser. VIa Perigraphes. Angulons open wider and short ones are available in shutter. Ser. VIa Perigraphes open only to f/14 -- still faster than Protar Ser. Vs, which open to f/16 or f/18, depending on who made them -- and shorter ones can't be put in shutter.

But the 90/6.8 Angulon covers 81 degreees while the 90/14 Perigraphe covers at least 105 degrees. Barely 4x5, more than 5x7.

In today's market, 90/14 Perigraphes are fairly common and asking prices, especially considering what what they can do, are quite low.. More are offered on ebay.fr and ebay.de than on ebay.com.

[Bernice Loui]

S.O.M. Berthiot got into the cinema zoom lens battle with Angénieux. Over the course of time and all, Angénieux ended up being the French cinema zoom lens brand. About that point in time, Angénieux then had to contend with Cooke (UK) which also made excellent cinema zoom lenses.

While Zeiss got a lot of notoriety for their lenses used in the Apollo space program, it was a Angénieux f0.95 lens that produced the video images of Neil Armstrong stepping on to the moon. The video quality is marginal due to the power allotted to that video camera of 2 watts. That was all they could afford for the video camera.
http://www.fdtimes.com/pdfs/articles/angenieux/FDTimes-Angenieux-History-A4.pdf

Space flight lenses operates in an extremely harsh environment. From being blasted by high energy particles to special lubricants that function in hard vacuum and a lot more.

The third lesser known optical company that took part in the NASA space flight program of that era was Canon.


Bernice



. S.O.M. Berthiot has been part of the French military-industrial complex since 1912, stopped making civilian LF lenses (except process lenses) around 1951 and stopped making lenses for small format cameras in the early '60s. They never had much of a presence in the US. Although they were probably the most important French lens maker of their time their products were poorly documented, especially after WW II. Small wonder that few of us here are very aware of Berthiot's products.

[Dan Fromm]

Bernice, I'm not sure how Lacour-Berthiot slipped past Goerz' Dagor patents, but most of their Eurygraphes and both Perigraphes are double anastigmats with cells that contain three cemented elements. Very much like Dagors. Read my Berthiot article.

Before WW I quite a few lens makers produced 6/2 double anastigmats. Fabre mentions many of them and there are discussions in the Bulletin de la Société Française de Photographie, of which many issues are available on-line. See the Berthiot articles references for links to it and to other French photographic journals.

About S.O.M. Berthiot vs. Angénieux. Berthiot devoted most of their development effort from the mid-1920s-on to cine lenses, was in that market long before Angénieux was founded. Berthiot claims to have been the first to market with a cine camera zoom lens. As I said, Berthiot abandoned the civilian market in the mid-60s.

[Mark Sawyer]

...There are good practical reasons why we love our Super Angulons and equivalent lenses from, in alphabetical order, Fuji, Nikon and Rodenstock and don't look beyond them.

Indeed there are; especially when making any significant enlargement.

But as an overly-obvious observation, those of us who contact print or use alternative processes can be very happy with much older lenses that, though not up to modern "Stepford Lenses" standards of perfection, still provide the image quality we want, along with quirks and histories we enjoy.

And of course, when you get into enjoying the various aberrations... it's all good! :)

[Maris Rusis]

When I wanted a good, cheap wide angle lens for the 8x10 format I went for a Wollensak Velostigmat Wide Angle Ser. III F9.5 61/4" Focus No. 284751 in a working Betax shutter. Cost exactly $100 on eBay. Lens is uncoated but more than plenty sharp for contact prints at f32 and f45. Imperfect memory hints that the optical design dates from 1909.

[Bernice Loui]

No discussion of the history of wide angle lenses is complete until the Retrofocus wide angle lens is mentioned-discussed.

This optical design happened due to the need for a wide angle lens with a back focal length greater than the lens focal length. This became a requirement for the cinema film folks needing to put a beam splitter between the lens and film for technicolor film production. It was Taylor-Hobson in the 1930's that introduced this design for Technicolor. Eventually Angénieux further developed this concept and introduced the first production Retrofocus wide angle as their R1 in the 1950's to meet the wide angle lens need of the Exakta SLR. Since then nearly every wide angle lens for SLR camera, cinema camera, video camera and... have typically used a Retrofocus wide angle lens.

This is a tribute to the French and British lens designers ability to solve a very real optical problem and need. This is also another example of how the German's are not the only ones who does optical designs and production excellence.

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Retrofocus.html


Bernice

[Dan Fromm]

Bernice, the link you posted doesn't work.

Thread drift is fun but I don't see what retrofocus lenses have to to with LF. I don't believe there are many. I can think of one or two Komura lenses, and that's it.

[Bernice Loui]

Worked here.. simple enough to google Taylor Hobson and Angénieux Retofocus lens.

As for thread drift Dan, ya likely know by now I'm one who will not be held into a box or border when stuff like this is discusses as they are ALL related and to place artificial limits on a topic can never give the bigger picture of any given topic.


:)
Bernice


Bernice, the link you posted doesn't work.

Thread drift is fun but I don't see what retrofocus lenses have to to with LF. I don't believe there are many. I can think of one or two Komura lenses, and that's it.

[paulbarden]

I have an 1870s Darlot Wide Angle Hemispherique #3 which I use for making wet plate negatives. It has a unique system of "waterhouse stops" that is very clever. The lens cost $20 in an 1885 catalogue. See: http://piercevaubel.com/cam/acc/lensdarlothemi631.htm

[Mark Sawyer]

I have an 1870s Darlot Wide Angle Hemispherique #3 which I use for making wet plate negatives. It has a unique system of "waterhouse stops" that is very clever. The lens cost $20 in an 1885 catalogue. See: http://piercevaubel.com/cam/acc/lensdarlothemi631.htm

Those fall under the "Wide Angle Rectilinear" category. I always likes the Darlots...

[goamules]

Somewhere I've got a better illustration, but this shows some of the subtle differences.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48593954117_a3eb1d5505_o.jpg

[tgtaylor]

Hmmm...One of the first, if not the first decent wide angle lens was the CC Harrison & Schnitzer Globe lens which appeared in the late 1850's IIRC. It represented a revolution in photographic lenses in its day.

Here's one currently for sale although the FL is not given: http://www.leicashop.com/vintage_en/harrison-schnitzer-new-york-globe-sku31312-23.html

Thomas

[Mark Tweed]

Interesting reading. Another lens to throw into the mix is the Rodenstock Perigon. Here's a link to an earlier discussion on the lens that covers its history. The design dates back to pre WWII (shown in a Linhof listing of lenses suitable for their cameras). At the bottom of the thread, Kerry Thalmann even suggests Rodenstock may have had a predecessor that dates back to the early 1900's, an f12 Weitwinkel Aplanat with 100 degree coverage.

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/archive/index.php/t-16817.html

[Dan Fromm]

Interesting reading. Another lens to throw into the mix is the Rodenstock Perigon. Here's a link to an earlier discussion on the lens that covers its history. The design dates back to pre WWII (shown in a Linhof listing of lenses suitable for their cameras). At the bottom of the thread, Kerry Thalmann even suggests Rodenstock may have had a predecessor that dates back to the early 1900's, an f12 Weitwinkel Aplanat with 100 degree coverage.

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/archive/index.php/t-16817.html

Pontogonal, pre-WW I. R'stock made a center filter for it.

[Arne Croell]

Pontogonal, pre-WW I. R'stock made a center filter for it.

Dan, Pantogonal. No bridges were involved in the naming of this lens 😏.

[Dan Fromm]

Arne, thanks for the correction. It was a mistake, not a typo.

[tgtaylor]

Hmmm...One of the first, if not the first decent wide angle lens was the CC Harrison & Schnitzer Globe lens which appeared in the late 1850's IIRC. It represented a revolution in photographic lenses in its day.

Here's one currently for sale although the FL is not given: http://www.leicashop.com/vintage_en/harrison-schnitzer-new-york-globe-sku31312-23.html

Thomas

Here is an 1865 advertisement with prices for Globe lenses:

194687

Carleton Watkins would have used the 16inch version for the mammoth plate which cost $275 in 1865 or about $4,330 in 2019 dollars.

Thomas