9½:" f-6.3 Wray Wide Angle coverage etc.

[Sven Schroder]

Hi

I am looking for some further Info on the F6.3 Wray wide angle, so far it looks good if it does cover 100 degrees with this focal lenght 9½" it should cover 11x14 and larger. The design is double gauss like topogon metrogon according to the vandecum CD the example I have doesn't have the globe like elements but reflects like double gauss. So does anyone have experience of this lens Sk grimes has mounted one in a copal 3, so someone thought it worth the effort? I can't find a list of focal lenghts produced or clear serial numbers ( I have my example between 1955 &1965). The coatings are strong and the lens very clean so will Wray's contrast problems raise their ugly-head?
Any Info welcome?
regards Sven

ps on a side note I am awaiting a 21" cooke process lens series Vb, I have found some specs coverage at 65 degrees but no info/lens diagram, series V denic is a triplet but what is the Vb,
also experience on coverage of this lens is it greater than 65Degrees.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Hello Sven,

I have the longer 12" f6.3 version of the Wray Wide Angle. Its a fine lens with nice coverage, but I think that the Vade Mecum's estimate of 100 degrees is not correct. In my experience the lens covers a bit more than 90 degrees. I have not had a problem with flare, and find it to be a well designed and sharp lens. My only complaint is that it has a terrible Bokeh; the way it renders out of focus areas is truly ugly. I think this may be true of all Wide Field Double Gauss lenses; I had a 19cm Wide Field Ektar which produced a very similar look. Of course, if you keep it stopped down this won't be a problem.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

I would like to add that my lens also is lacking the very round elements which the Vade Mecum describes. Rather, its glass looks (and feels) like the double gauss of a WF Ektar.

Also, before I get trampled; Allow me to retract my statement above that having ugly bokeh is "true of all Wide Field Double Gauss lenses", and restate; true of the Wide Field Double Gauss lenses I have used.

Lastly: Worth the effort and cost mounting? Maybe, but I would point out that for the cost of buying a shutter and mounting you could easily get a 10" WF Ektar. On the other hand, the Ektar comes in a massive no. 5 shutter, so a no. 3 might seem to be light weight in comparison. I have considered putting my 12" Wray Wide Angle into a shutter, but the cost and effort hardly seems worth it, since I don't use the lens very often.

[Thomas Vaehrmann]

Once I had a 8.5'' Wray wide angle and it covered 8x10'' with movements. Fine lens but didn't fit any shutter. So i sold it and kept a Boyer Beryl in the same focal length with shutter. It looked like Ektar/Aristostigmat so I think it covers 100 deg stopped down. Both have more coverage than the 210mm G-Claron.

[Dan Fromm]

Thomas, the Beryl is an f/6.8 6/2 dagor type. I have a 210/7.7 Beryl S, same basic design.

The VM says it covers 85 degrees at an unspecified aperture and that seems to be what Boyer claims too. If you're interested, see this thread http://www.galerie-photo.info/forum/read.php?f=1&i=48095&t=48048 and the one Emmanuel Bigler references in it. Not 100 degress, but still more than Schneider claims for G-Clarons.

Jason, I seem to be too insensitive to the fine points of lens performance to be qualified to speak about them, but my dinky little 80/6.3 WF Ektar has never disappointed me.

Cheers,

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

... I seem to be too insensitive to the fine points of lens performance to be qualified to speak about them ...

Uh, yeah, um, right Dan. In any case, Bokeh is nebulous terrain of baseless assertions and irreproducible results, so all are welcomed and invited to ignore me.

[Oren Grad]

In any case, Bokeh is nebulous terrain of baseless assertions and irreproducible results

Jason, maybe we should write a paper for JIR (or AIR, depending which side of the Great Schism you come down on)...

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Now that is an excellent idea Oren! Shall we test our hypothesis (do we have one?) by showing images to Japanese school children and asking them which they prefer? Or should they be a control group? Goat herders in Burkina Faso? Yanomami shamans? Texans?

As for the great schism...