Old ICA lens question

[grat]

While searching for lenses for my foray into large format, I ran across an old ICA "Maximar" f/5.4 in fairly good condition, with a working shutter. Being intrigued, and since I was still under budget, I bought it. In a perfect world, it would be useful for actual, you know, photographs. Worst case, if the lens isn't salvageable, the shutter appears to be in excellent condition.

Research tells me this type of lens was sold around 1920 in box cameras of 9x12 and 6x9 format. The bad news is that the f/5.4 version was apparently only sold with 6x9 models, suggesting it's probably not good for 9x12cm, let alone 4x5". Ah well. It may yet take some medium format images.

The lens arrived in good condition, needing light cleaning, and the front element was easy enough to remove and clean. The shutter works properly in all settings, although I have yet to check it for accuracy.

The rear element, however, has some spots I'd like to investigate closer, but applying moderate pressure to the rear element refused to unseat it, so here's the question: How do you normally remove the rear element on one of these lenses? Is it left-hand thread, is it riveted in place, did someone put loctite in the threads? How much force should I reasonably expect to apply, given that the lens is probably right at the century mark in age? Is there a magic incantation (not totally out of the question, since the ICA logo at the time was a pentagram)?

Generally speaking, if it's fungus, I want it dead. If it's haze, and can't be removed, I'll live with it. If it's removable, I want it gone, because otherwise, the lens looks fairly clean to me, and it should be taking photographs instead of collecting dust. :)

Any advice?

[robshepherd]

Why not just make some negatives with it and see what YOU think? It sounds like you're getting started. So do that. I don't think it will be a waste of your time!

[grat]

Oh, that will happen-- It came without a lens board or a retaining ring, so some more shopping is in order. I've already determined that the shutter is a standard #0 size, so neither will be particular difficult to acquire.

If nothing else, I can probably 3D print a lens board for testing purposes.

No, I'm more interested in the disassembly. I thought I had read somewhere that the front/rear elements should both unscrew without much difficulty, so when this one resisted all reasonable efforts, I figured asking for advice would be better than doing the wrong thing and possibly breaking it.

[Steven Tribe]

Fungus is very unlikely for a non coated lens of this era.

Is this mounted in a Compound shutter?

Focal length?

Have you considered that the "f.5.4" could be the German/Goerz f scale. I have seen lenses from this period marked with both scales. From memory, this 5.4 would come out to be F6.8, which is pretty standard for DAGOR clones.

Looking at catalogues from this period, the Maximar was the most expensive of the two anastigmatic lenses available for 9x12 (135mm). 165mm and 180mm were used on the 10x15 and 13x18 models.

[grat]

Sorry, should have mentioned. 120mm f/5.4 in a dial-set Compur shutter.

Here's a slightly rough picture:

203390

And the back (the smudges are near the outer edge in the lower right area, unfortunately near the light reflection):

203389

[Steven Tribe]

Yes, this is a F6.8 DAGOR or Zeiss protar clone ( ICA included Zeiss’ camera division!). Note the two mounting lugs on the shutter edge - it has been mounted in a quick release lens board fitting.

The usual solution for these difficult threads is to saw two opposing slots and use a steel flat plate which just clears the cuts.
The cloud-like marks look like light growths ABOVE the lens surface.

[Dan Fromm]

Steve, are you sure that the lens is a Dagor clone? I ask because f/5.4 is unusually fast for that type.

[grat]

I'm also curious, because the ICA catalog from 1919 lists both the f/5.4 and the f/6.8 "Maximar" as being available for the 6x9 Ideal (111) camera.

However, it only lists the f/6.8 for the 9x12 cameras like the 9x12 Ideal (205) model.

[Steven Tribe]

Steve, are you sure that the lens is a Dagor clone? I ask because f/5.4 is unusually fast for that type.

I am guessing that the F5.4 is a Goerz Scale rendering of F6.8! F.5.4 is pretty hard to achieve without air spaces in lens cells, which the OP hasn’t mentioned.
120mm is pretty long for a 6x9 format camera.

[grat]

I am guessing that the F5.4 is a Goerz Scale rendering of F6.8! F.5.4 is pretty hard to achieve without air spaces in lens cells, which the OP hasn’t mentioned.
120mm is pretty long for a 6x9 format camera.

The OP knows what an air space is, but is ignorant on evaluating a lens for one. :)

Most of my optics knowledge is based around telescopes.

[Dan Fromm]

OP, dagor types have symmetrical, often identical, front and rear cells that are cemented triplets. If you shine a single light on a cell (in shutter with the shutter closed or out of the shutter), if the cell is a cemented triplet you should see two bright reflections from the two air-glass interfaces and two faint reflections from the two glass-cement-glass interfaces. The faint reflections can be very hard to see.

The air spaces Steven referred to are gaps between elements. For example, the cells of plasmat type lenses (sometimes called air-spaced dagors) have an outer element that's a cemented doublet and an inner element that's a singlet. There is a gap, called air space, between the outer doublet and the inner singlet. Plasmat types will show four bright reflections from the four air-glass interfaces and one faint reflection from the one glass-cement-glass interface.

Steven, I looked in P-H Pont's handy table of diaphragm scales. If I read the table correctly, Stolze 5.4 corresponds to f/7.7. I think f/5.4 is correct. If so, the likely double anastigmat is a dialyte. OP, a dialyte cell contains two singlets, will show four bright reflections and no faint ones.

Further on the ease of confusing unlabeled Dagors and dialytes, Goerz made f/6.8 Dagors and f/6.8 dialyte type double anastigmats. The more expensive dialyte types had names, the cheapies were engraved doppel anastigmat. Year ago a very sincere but not very competent person rooked me, sold me an f/6.8 Goerz doppelanastigmat as a Dagor.

[grat]

OP, dagor types have symmetrical, often identical, front and rear cells that are cemented triplets. If you shine a single light on a cell (in shutter with the shutter closed or out of the shutter), if the cell is a cemented triplet you should see two bright reflections from the two air-glass interfaces and two faint reflections from the two glass-cement-glass interfaces. The faint reflections can be very hard to see.

I removed the front element, shone a fairly bright LED into it at an angle, and see 2 bright reflections, each with a small ghost reflection "above" it.

Rear element (Finally used some closed-cell foam and a pair of vice-grips to gently, but firmly, remove the rear element) shows the same pattern.

Also, measuring the focal length by measuring the distance from lens to film plane while focused 40 feet away comes out very close to 120mm. Side note: It appears to cover 4x5 pretty well. There may be some slight vignetting, but the lens board I was using has... "issues".

Measuring the diameter of the exposed lens gives me around 21.5mm (the calipers are accurate, it's my measuring which is questionable). That gives me f/5.6, or something very close to it. There's enough room for error it could be 5.6, or 5.4. I don't see how it could be f/6.8.

Looking at the threads, I see the threads for the front cell are much, much finer than the threads for the retaining ring-- Should a dial-set compur have .5mm thread pitch?


The air spaces Steven referred to are gaps between elements. For example, the cells of plasmat type lenses (sometimes called air-spaced dagors) have an outer element that's a cemented doublet and an inner element that's a singlet. There is a gap, called air space, between the outer doublet and the inner singlet. Plasmat types will show four bright reflections from the four air-glass interfaces and one faint reflection from the one glass-cement-glass interface.

Right.

[David Lindquist]

For the lens cells, dial-set Compurs were threaded 40 threads per inch rather than a metric pitch. The reason why Deckel did not use a metric pitch is, as far as I know, lost to antiquity. If you do the arithmetic 40 threads per inch would be a pitch of 0.635mm. The pitch of the flange/retaining ring thread is 29 1/13 threads per inch on most/all dial set Compurs. I'd really like to know who came up with that. Again if you do the arithmetic here you get a metric equivalent of 0.874mm. SK Grimes shows the flange thread on these shutters have a pitch of 0.9mm. Clearly that's close enough; their flanges fit my dial set Compurs.

David

[grat]

I looked at those, but the listings for the dial-set Compurs are all way too big for this one.

This is a tiny little shutter, with a 32-ish mm flange diameter. skgrimes has a 32.34 with a .7mm thread that we're going to try-- the thread pitch seems very close to 0.7, but I'm not an expert on measuring such small amounts, even with a pair of calipers.

The face on the shutter is only 2.25" across-- The Compurs that skgrimes list for the 0.9mm pitch thread are all 3" faces.

Otherwise, I fire up my 3D printer and see if I can make a nylon retaining ring for it. :)

[David Lindquist]

Maybe you can determine if it fits one of the dial-set Compur sizes here: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?128311-Carl-Zeiss-Jena-15cm-3-5&highlight=Carl+Zeiss+Jena+15cm+3.5

See post number 7. Unfortunately this doesn't give the face diameter but only the inside diameter of the thread for the cell mounting. I have several dial-set Compurs, they are all about 3" in diameter.

David

[grat]

Mine doesn't match any of those.

The serial number (275516) places it somewhere between 1914 (250,000) and 1920 (450,000).

In the 1919 ICA catalog, it's listed as a "Kompur" Nr. 0.

[grat]

As a follow-up, skgrimes suggested a 32.5/0.7 retaining ring usually used on compound (very small) shutters.

Turns out to be a perfect fit.

I did notice when stopping down, the iris opening takes on a teardrop shape-- is this an indicator of a problem? It seems to operate smoothly, and the shutter works well in all other ways, so I'm a little reluctant to open it.

[J. Patric Dahlen]

I did notice when stopping down, the iris opening takes on a teardrop shape-- is this an indicator of a problem?

Yes, it's a problem. The pivot pin of one of the aperture blades had become dislodged from its hole. The aperture blades in this shutter are made of treated paper and are easily damaged.

[grat]

Yes, it's a problem. The pivot pin of one of the aperture blades had become dislodged from its hole. The aperture blades in this shutter are made of treated paper and are easily damaged.

*sigh*. I was so hoping someone would say "no, it's fine!". :)

I'm also guessing this isn't something an amateur should try to fix-- Anyone still repairing these things, or should I look for a new shutter?

[J. Patric Dahlen]

It should be an easy fix for a repariman. It's a good idea to tell that person that this version of Compur has the delicate paper aperture blades so he doesn't try to dip the whole shutter in a liquid to clean it. Of course, some of them work with these shutters all the time, but some maybe haven't seen one in ten years and maybe the last one he worked on had metal aperture blades. :)


Maybe you should try the lens before spending money on it? The Maximar was ICA's top of the line in-house six element lens, so you might like it, but perhaps not.

[grat]

I haven't actually taken a shot with the 4x5 (stay-at-home sucks), but I did use it as a lens for my DSLR (heresy!) by putting it in the front standard, removing the back, and holding the DSLR in place (with no lens). Considering all the issues (low contrast, camera shake, shooting through a glass door), the pictures came out pretty decent. Decent enough I really want to shoot some film now. :)

Looking at it, though, there's a metallic glint under strong light on the edges of the blades-- It really looks like they're metal. The ICA 1919 catalog says, badly translated:


Fur Zeitaufnabmen und momentgefchwindigkeit von 1 1/8 1/5 1/10 1/25 1/50 1/100 1/250 S. Mit Fingerdruckoder Metallauslofung (Irisblende).

Which translates to, apparently:


For recording time and speed of 1 1/8 1/5 1/10 1/25 1/50 1/100 1/250 S. With finger pressure or metal opening (iris diaphragm).

Granted, that's 1919, and as far as I can tell, the shutter is from late 1914.

Here's a shot with the front element removed:

203665

[Dan Fromm]

Do I see rust?

[grat]

Could be traces of oxidation, yes... especially on the blade coming up from the 7 o'clock position. Or it could just be grungy. Also some scrapes. It's definitely overdue for a cleaning. ;)

Got an estimate that seems reasonable (to me, although its obvious my judgement is iffy), so I'm probably going to leave it wide-open for now, shoot a couple frames and if they don't have horrible blotches, send it in to find out how close the estimate is to reality.

I appreciate all the feedback people have given.

[J. Patric Dahlen]

Yes, those are metal blades. Excellent. Most of my Compurs of that style have the paper blades. The risk with a dislodged aperture blade is that it can move about and cause more blades to dislodge. If you know which blade it is you could try to move it a little to get the pin into place. It's risky, so it would be better to let someone with experience open the shutter and get to the iris and fix it. Or maybe you'll find one on this or another forum who has dealt with these shutters before and get some tips how to do it yourself. :)

You could try it on the 4x5 indoors, or through an open window. Digital sensors are so small compared to 4x5 that you'll see more of the optical defects than you would on the large format. If it really is a Dagor-type (like the 6,8 Maximar) it might cover 4x5 (or at least illuminate that size) if stopped down to 22 or smaller.

[chris73]

Oh i just found this thread.
I have somewhere an ICA "Toska 215" 9X12 with quick release Compound shutter and a “Maximar” 1:5.4 / 13.5cm lens.
If i recall well it must by dated just before WWI.

The strange thing (at least for me) is that the rear and front symmetrical (i think) lens parts, can not be separated (they are glued in groups) though inside there is fungus!
(the spider web type)

I could "find" it and upload some photographs if someone is interested.

[grat]

That's the 3rd example of the f/5.4 Maximar I've heard of now. I have one, I found one in a camera for auction, and now yours.

Pity about the fungus. Mine has a small blemish on the outside element of the rear set. Doesn't seem to affect the images too much, although I have yet to develop one and look at it closely.

I've decided to have mine repaired, just need to send it off.

[J. Patric Dahlen]

Oh i just found this thread.
I have somewhere an ICA "Toska 215" 9X12 with quick release Compound shutter and a “Maximar” 1:5.4 / 13.5cm lens.
If i recall well it must by dated just before WWI.

The strange thing (at least for me) is that the rear and front symmetrical (i think) lens parts, can not be separated (they are glued in groups) though inside there is fungus!
(the spider web type)

I could "find" it and upload some photographs if someone is interested.

It should have three cemented lens elements in both groups. Is the fungus inside one of those groups, in the balsam between two cemented elements? Yes, upload photos. This is interesting.

5,4 is not that common for "Dagor" type of lenses. The Rietzschel Linear has eight elements in two groups, like an "improved Dagor", and they are common in f:4,8. The max aperture is only for focusing, so you would stop down to f:12,5 or more for normal photography.

[chris73]

I will check tomorrow for more pictures. Since then i found in my hard drive one pic of the fungus that i can not recal if is in front or rear group (probably front), and a test pic with this lens on a ...m43 camera :)

204332

204331

[chris73]

So, closer inspection of the lens made me think that this is a kind of balsam deterioration in both front and rear groups. Circular spots are air bubbles in glass.
204363

The camera is in nice condition and capable of tilt movements too.
204364 204365

[chris73]

It is strange that the rear group S/N does not match the front for just 4 digits(?)...
204369 204370

On camera there is a second infinity mark to be used with only one group of the lens stoped down as telephoto.
204371

I measure in front of the lens a diameter of about 23mm wide open. That gives something like f5.9 on 5.4 mark.
The lens wide open on a ...m43 camera.
204372

[chris73]

100% crop of previous pic with lens wide open
204374

And at f9.
204375

At f12.5 appears the same. (Closing down more, the image deteriorates and the glass air bubbles begin to appear on the image.)
Also a quick check on a 13X18 camera saw that there is heavy vigneting with lens closed down even at f12.5.

Serial number of the camera begin with D letter and shutter serial number is 213399. From what i can tell this must be a camera from around 1913/14.
Also this vertical type of Toska camera can not be found in catalogs after WWI as far as i know.

Is there any chart with Compound shutter serial numbers somewhere?

[Dan Fromm]

Is there any chart with Compound shutter serial numbers somewhere?

Sort of. P-H Pont's little book Les Chiffres Cles has it. Unfortunately it is out of print.

I have a copy, post the s/n.

[chris73]

Thanks. Shutter serial number is 213399

[Dan Fromm]

Pont's Deckel list starts at ~ 250,000 in 1914

[grat]

Interesting... Yours is a 135mm, mine is a 120mm.

Serial numbers on mine appear to match-- 504439 on the front, and 4439 on the rear set.

From the 1919 ICA catalog, it looks like yours has the "Kompur Model XI" shutter. Also, the ICA logo is still the 5-pointed star, so it's an early model. I believe, based on what I've been able to discover, that the lens (and your camera) are by Hüttig.

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Sorry, should have mentioned. 120mm f/5.4 in a dial-set Compur shutter.

Here's a slightly rough picture:

203390

And the back (the smudges are near the outer edge in the lower right area, unfortunately near the light reflection):

203389

Nice configuration. I seem to have a comparable shutter albeit with a Hugo Meyer wide-angle Aristostigmat f 9 120mm - it sits on one of my ICA Tropica camera's.

https://kpmg0072.home.xs4all.nl/ICA/Compur%20shutter.jpg

The inner tube is in my case almost 27mm (i.e. 26,94mm)
The face of my shutter measures the same as yours, so it should be the smallest 0-model in the below list (of course your inner tube diameter could differ):

http://lostlabours.co.uk/photography/cameras/images/compur-dial-set.jpg


Maybe you can determine if it fits one of the dial-set Compur sizes here: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?128311-Carl-Zeiss-Jena-15cm-3-5&highlight=Carl+Zeiss+Jena+15cm+3.5

See post number 7. Unfortunately this doesn't give the face diameter but only the inside diameter of the thread for the cell mounting. I have several dial-set Compurs, they are all about 3" in diameter.

David

So I guess David was at the right spot....




...further a little response to #21
What looks like an 'f' in "Metallauslofung" is an old German 's' , so with the 'f' it was probably mistranslated in opening (öffnung), but with a 's' it reads as Metallauslösung, which translates - roughly - into "cable release"

[grat]

Nice configuration.

I seem to have a comparable shutter albeit with a Hugo Meyer wide-angle Aristostigmat f 9 120mm - it sits on one of my ICA Tropica camera's.

Thanks. Mine came without a camera-- I've considered getting one of the 9x12 cameras for it, but the film is kind of rare on this side of the Atlantic.

I wonder when they switched from "Z" (Zeit) to "T" (Time) on the dial-set? Or was mine made for the German market, and yours an export?



The inner tube is in my case almost 27mm (i.e. 26,94mm)
The face of my shutter measures the same as yours, so it should be the smallest 0-model in the below list (of course your inner tube diameter could differ):


Mine's been shipped off for repair, but since the diameter for the mounting threads is ~32.5mm, 27mm is probably about right.



...further a little response to #21

What looks like an 'f' in "Metallauslofung" is an old German 's' , so with the 'f' it was probably mistranslated in opening (öffnung), but with a 's' it reads as Metallauslösung, which translates - roughly - into "cable release"

I'm guilty there-- I did a quick OCR of the PDF of the catalog, and of course its printed in a period script, so sometimes the 'f' and the 's' are difficult to tell apart. Equally, my German is not just rusty, it's almost totally oxidized, so I relied on a translation engine. :)

I later went back and spent some time cleaning up the OCR, and doing a much better translation.

[Ron (Netherlands)]

I wonder when they switched from "Z" (Zeit) to "T" (Time) on the dial-set? Or was mine made for the German market, and yours an export?


Welcome, and very well spotted! I hadn't even noticed that difference yesterday evening....you must be right about the export and local market for which these shutters where made.
There is also another small difference between the shutters: yours has the letters I C A near and in the 5-point star - whereas mine only has that star on the dial without the letters.
For your info, the serial on my shutter reads: 308337
Further my shutter has some screw holes at the back for attaching the bayonet tabs which are still on yours (I believe I took the tabs off some time ago, to attach the shutter on another camera - so must be still around somewhere)

[grat]

As a followup-- I sent the lens off for repair to Mike Trost of Phototronic (aka "Fix Old Cameras"), and he discovered that at some point, the shutter had been repaired and a (presumably) damaged aperture leaf had been replaced with a leaf that fit, but wasn't the right shape. So the shutter was fine, it just looked peculiar.

After digging through his collection of spares, Mike was able to find a leaf of the right size/shape and replace the odd one. So now my lens once again has a round aperture, instead of a tear-drop shape and a hinky bokeh. While he had it apart, he gave it a CLA, and it's working like a champ-- hopefully it's good for another few decades.