Protar Lenses.

[Tony Lakin]

Can't find anything on the net:confused:, can someone please tell me if single Protar lens cells should be mounted in front of or behind the iris.

Many thanks

[Dan Fromm]

Tony, "the list" has a link to a 1901 Zeiss London catalog that has the answer.

You've been here long enough to be aware of the list. Use it.

I could be mistaken about what you're aware of, so there's a link to the list in the first post in this https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?138978-Where-to-look-for-information-on-LF-(mainly)-lenses discussion.

[Bernice Loui]

Paul Rudolph's Protar eventually evolved to become the Tessar.

Protar and Dagor are much related.
https://randcollins.wordpress.com/category/lenses/

"The Protar marked the beginning of camera lenses at ZEISS in 1890. Rudolph himself modified the Protar towards the famous Tessar lens in 1902. The Tessar, advertised as the “eagle-eye” of the camera, was an immediate commercial success due to its compact size and high performance at a high speed of about f/4, which was later improved to f/2.8."
https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/en/article/the-unique-history-of-the-otus-lens-family-zeiss



Bernice

[Vaidotas]

Are we talking about VII series Double Protar?
Google Commerce Ltd asking 7,25 eur for 1901 catalogue in english.
1910 catalogue in french is accesible without financial contribution and has an answer on using single Double Protar lens cell: put it in rear part of the barrel or using two lens cells put longer focal lenght cell in front.

[Mark Sawyer]

The original Zeiss Anastigmat was renamed the Protar VII, because everyone who corrected their lenses for astigmatism called them anastigmats, and Zeiss wanted a name they could protect. That was modified into the Unar, then the Tessar.

Rear mount the cells, otherwise you'll have a curved plane of focus, which actually might be preferable for certain styles of portraiture.

[Greg]

In the 1980s acquired a 12 3/4" f/7.7 Bausch & Lomb VII Protar. Front group is 18 7/8" and the rear is 27". Back then I was using it on an 8x10. If I was using either group alone, I would simply leave the rear in the rear or the front in the front. Years later read to always use either group behind the shutter. I really did not see any difference in using the front group alone on the front or the rear, but I make this statement based on looking at my final contact prints, and not looking at the negatives with a magnifying lens. I probably should have shot the same scene with the front group mounted on the front and then on the rear and compared the negatives. Has anyone ever done this?

Lens is also engraved on the front and rear groups with "Pat. Jan 8, 1896". Never figured out why that was there except to possibly discourage copies not made by Bausch &. Lomb. I long ago once read that Bausch & Lomb copied the Protar design from Zeiss, but I have no idea of the source of this or its validity.

[Kevin Crisp]

I've been on this forum for a long, long time and I don't know what "the list" is.

Anyway, the typical answer to your question is put the single cell of a doublt or triple protar on the back, even though it seems weird to have the shutter innards and aperture blades exposed on the front of the camera. That being said, Ron Wisner claimed in testing on his "optical bench" that a number of his tested better on the front. I've put them on the front sometimes when I don't quite have enough bellows since it takes less that way. They worked fine.

Always check (and adjust) your focus on the single cells after stopping down since they do show focus shift when used alone.

People have also commented many times that using a reasonably strong yellow filter helps with single cells, I've never needed to try that.

Finally, I'll add that of the genuine "Zeiss" sets I've had, the single cells were completely unacceptable no matter what I did. As in I could eyeball a 5x7 negative and see that everything outside the middle 50% was fuzzy. That was true as to the original design and the redesign. The B&L ones, on the other hand, I've found satisfactory.

[Dan Fromm]

I've been on this forum for a long, long time and I don't know what "the list" is.

I gave a link in post #2 above.

[Tony Lakin]

Hi guys
Thanks for all your answers, the answer is as I expected, I was just looking for conformation that the Protar works the same as my Cooke convertible lenses XV and XVa and my Busch Vademecum Salz II, I look forward to shooting with my new bargain $200 double Protar VII 35cm 29cm f12.5 combined they are 7in f7, don't know why the barrel is marked in centimeters for 29 and 35 and in inches for 7?

Thanks again

Best wishes

[Vaidotas]

Original Protar VII barrel (and Compound shutter intended to use with Protarlinse VII) is marked in millimeters marking iris opening size. You need to recalculate aperture values with different combinations. If you have any other markings then I suspect your Protar is Ross London made licensed by Zeiss.

[Tony Lakin]

216084216083216085216086

[Conrad . Marvin]

I used to have a set of series vii lenses from Zeiss Jena like the ones you have plus a 22 cm cell. I found that if I put the longest fl in back using combinations of cells I would get the best results. It is possible to mount the cells in a copal #1 shutter but might be difficult to find someone to do it, maybe SK Grimes? The cells are very usable but single cells need to be stopped down. The only reason that I sold my set is that I got tired of figuring out the aperture and changing cells around. They are fabulous lenses.

[Bernice Loui]

Shutter problem would be easily solved by using a Sinar shutter or similar.

Never warmed up to convertible lenses as the hassle factor proved more than resulting images on film. Keeping track of lens cells used, figuring out actual aperture to be used for a given lens cell or combo is not so easy and easy to get mixed up.

There was a time when convertible lens sets aka "Casket Sets" were popular due to the cost and more related to having a variety of view camera lens focal lengths. Much has changed since then. It became easier to acquire lens focal lengths as needed as a unit. This greatly simplified the possible mix up of lens cell -vs- aperture of the configuration and all that. Another reality to consider, a unit lens can be designed, produced, optimized as a unit-system resulting in superior optical performance to a mix-match lens cell group aka Casket Set.


Bernice

[Tony Lakin]

I have adapted my Protar to work with my Sinar Copal shutter, if anyone doubts the high quality that can be achieved with a convertible lens should try a Cooke triple convertible Xva, even the older XV version is no mean performer, see many of Ansel Adams images.

[Bernice Loui]

Sinar shutter is the easiest solution.

Been and done the B&L convertible protar and etc.. not for me..

IMO, what lens was used by any famed photographer to produce a famed photograph does not always apply to re-do of the same. As lens-camera and photographic materials involved can be identical, until the much longer list of variables completely alters that ideology.

AA did use a Cooke convertible for that famed image "moonrise over hernandez". Reading the AA accounts of struggling with combining lens cells to get the needed focal length (if AA has a single fixed focal length lens as needed, the odds of AA producing more than a single sheet of MOH film is very good), light meter and all... notes it was far from lens and camera alone as the light was changing allowing a single sheet of film to be exposed.

What makes that AA image significant is not the lens or film format used, it is the lighting and composition that resulted in the image it is. Seen this AA print in real life, they are different based on when this specific image was printed by AA and his emotional expression when this image was printed. Another factor of the print that points to lens alone being a lesser factor.

Lens or camera alone never makes the expressive image, that is mostly up to the image maker.


Bernice




I have adapted my Protar to work with my Sinar Copal shutter, if anyone doubts the high quality that can be achieved with a convertible lens should try a Cooke triple convertible Xva, even the older XV version is no mean performer, see many of Ansel Adams images.

[pjd]

216084216083216085216086

Are those cells coated? I took a 9x12 ICA Ideal with an uncoated 22/22 Protar VII on a trip to the Himalayas a few years back, I had fun with it. The camera got closely inspected at customs in China on the way back home, however. I had less luck with an uncoated Meyer Plasmat a different time but that was more about weather conditions on that trip than the lens.

[Tony Lakin]

Not coated, I sometimes use a multicoated skylight filter and a good lens hood with any uncoated lenses when I use them, however I often prefer the uncoated effect, I haven't used this Protar yet.

[pjd]

I see, looking at the photos I wondered if the cells had been single coated after production. I've seen mention of some coated Protar VII cells but haven't seen or used any.

[goamules]

My unresearched hypothesis is the "...AR" in Protar started a whole industry of naming lens designs to end in "...AR".

[pjd]

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/174594/origin-and-meaning-of-the-tar-suffix-in-photography

(not my work and not definitive but I saw it some while ago and the last post reminded me of it).

[ridax]

....if single Protar lens cells should be mounted in front of or behind the iris.

I've compared the performance of the Zeiss Protar VII cells, the B&L Protar VII cells, the Wollensak Ia cells, the Turner-Reich (another Protar VII derivative) cells, as well as many other double-anastigmat cells mounted at the back a well as at the front of their barrels. Nearly all of them loose a lot in sharpness if put in front of the iris - except the convertible Sironar front that was intended for that very usage and the Dagor halves that turned out to be nearly indifferent to their position. While a Protar VII mounted behind the aperture can be stopped down at least a full stop less than a Half-Dagor to show a similar level of sharpness, the same Protar VII becomes no better than the Half-Dagor when mounted at the front. As front mounted double-anastigmat cells need far less bellows draw (working as slightly telephoto lenses actually), I enjoy the 840mm front half of my 480mm Dagor on my Calumet C-1 and the 290mm half of my 165mm Dagor on my old compact and lightweight 9x12cm folder. Normal lenses of the same focal lengths would be practically impossible to focus on those cameras except at the very infinity.

And yes all those single cells suffer from the chromatic aberration badly, and a yellow filter improves their sharpness a lot. Though myself I like the blue-sensitive film look way better....

As for the spherical aberration which is negative and thus very good for the out of focus background rendition in all those lenses well stopped down, it is of the same character but different in its amount. The complete Double-Protar VIIa (as well as the Wollensak Ia and the Tuner-Reich) has less SA and correspondingly makes less smooth background defocusing than the complete Dagor; the single Protar VII (and the Wollensak Ia and the Tuner-Reich) cells have more SA and more pleasant OOF background rendering than the complete Dagor, and the Dagor halves have still more SA and the smoothest OOF background rendering of all them. Though the difference between the 'really good' and 'still better' is probably not worth loosing sharpness - which is unavoidable with single cells instead of complete double anastigmats. For me, the complete Dagor is still the best of both worlds - if only I don't need a lens longer than my 480mm (I don't own a 600mm.... and nobody owns anything like a 840mm).

I also often prefer to put a simple negative supplementary lens on a complete Dagor to using any lens halves. Those combinations give much sharper results than any single lens cells, and are especially better in their chromatic aberration so the yellow filter is not needed.

[Jim Noel]

An interesting comparison, ridax. I assume all conclusions are based on either the negative, or final print.
Also, I expect these are made based on a single example of each lens. I currently have 2 TR's, and have owned many more through the years. Each of them has rendered a different image, some excellent, some not quite so good.
Still, a good comparison and thanks for sharing.

[ridax]

....I assume all conclusions are based on either the negative, or final print.
Also, I expect these are made based on a single example of each lens. I currently have 2 TR's, and have owned many more through the years. Each of them has rendered a different image, some excellent, some not quite so good.

There was one B&L Protar, one Wollensak Ia, one Turner-Reich (two single cells in each of them), and 4 individual Zeiss Protar VII cells (an original Satzobjektiv + one more cell). And there were well enough Dagors of the focal lengths close to those of the above Protar-type lenses.

The production quality control used to be very high at Zeiss, Goerz, Wollensak and B&L (that's widely known and also verified by myself with other type lenses by these manufacturers, produced in the same era). Besides, my observations on the sherical and chromatic aberrations (and coma and astigmatism, too) perfectly correlate with the published aberrational curves for these lenses so I don't see much of a reason to undertake any more tests with other specimens of the same glass.

Turner-Reich is most probably an exception as the Gundlach quality control is usually criticized a lot, and besides there are no published aberrational curves for the T-R that I know of. Perhaps it would be quite practical to test at least half a dozen of Turner-Reichs before making any conclusions but sorry I don't want to buy so many of them.

Most of my formal tests (as opposed to practical usage) of the lens' batch were visual (a super-fine-grain chemically etched ground glass cannibalized from an MF camera + the top of the line 7x Peak loupe), with the most critical comparisons made with an old (and thus making almost no automatic editing of the image) Canon D60 DSLR. Using LF film and paper for multiple tests with different subjects and lighting would cost quite a bit and what is much more important, would probably take at least a year instead of a couple of weeks.

[ridax]

I forgot to mention I use my 840mm Half-Dagor on 8x10" and my 290mm Half-Dagor on 9x12cm without any movements to stay within the center of their fields. I consider my 590mm to 650mm Protar-type single cells (all the above mentioned, including the T-R) to be acceptable for just a little bit of movements on 8x10" (within about 40° total) when put behind the aperture and stopped down well. If I put them on the fronts of their barrels, they become no more moveable then the 630mm half of my 360mm Dagor.

I wouldn't try using any single cells at wider angles.

[ridax]

....the difference between the 'really good' and 'still better' is probably not worth loosing sharpness - which is unavoidable with single cells instead of complete double anastigmats

A correction: the above was said about distant views with lots of fine details. I've tried virtually all my lenses on different formats from 8x10" to cropped digital for close-ups recently, and the only ones that satisfied me with their out of focus rendition were Half-Dagors. My subject consisted of tree leaves in the central part of the frame (which naturally is sharper rendered by any lens) with the background located really far, quite close to infinity. The background was a real mess with a lot of reflections in bright sunlight - not an easy task for the lens. All my Half-Dagors did their job excellently. And no other lenses could compare to them.... So now I'm keeping my 360mm Dagor that I was going to sell. I don't have much usage for the 360mm focal length but its 630mm half is just great for close-ups on my 8x10" at f/32. Shorter focal length Half-Dagors are good enough at f/22 on smaller formats. And I guess they should be fine for portraits, too - when there is enough light for the small f-stops.

[ridax]

Turner-Reich is most probably an exception as the Gundlach quality control is usually criticized a lot <...> Perhaps it would be quite practical to test at least half a dozen of Turner-Reichs before making any conclusions but sorry I don't want to buy so many of them.

Well, I've done it. No not half a dozen of complete double anastigmats but still 7 single cells (3 complete lenses + 1 more cell) came to my place to get tested a couple of months ago. And I've not seen any quality differences in those. Certainly that's no proof all the Turner-Reichs are built excellently but for me, that's well enough not to feel too suspicious about them.

More details here:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?143021-Turner-Reich-modifications&p=1623042&viewfull=1#post1623042

[Jody_S]

Well, I've done it. No not half a dozen of complete double anastigmats but still 7 single cells (3 complete lenses + 1 more cell) came to my place to get tested a couple of months ago. And I've not seen any quality differences in those. Certainly that's no proof all the Turner-Reichs are built excellently but for me, that's well enough not to feel too suspicious about them.

More details here:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?143021-Turner-Reich-modifications&p=1623042&viewfull=1#post1623042

I wonder if the hit-and-miss quality on the TRs is because nearly all suffered from balsam failure and if the lens is clear, it's most likely because someone has re-cemented it. Usually without the benefit of an optical test bench or any sort of tools to align the glasses, which is a bit of a job given that there's 5 of them.

[ridax]

I wonder if the hit-and-miss quality on the TRs is because nearly all suffered from balsam failure and if the lens is clear, it's most likely because someone has re-cemented it. Usually without the benefit of an optical test bench or any sort of tools to align the glasses, which is a bit of a job given that there's 5 of them.

Yes that's exactly my own guess. As I said in that other thread, almost all my Turner-Reich cells have balsam degradation at the edges as I preferred to buy them cheap. They seem to be never recemented since their manufacture and have no centering problems at all.... Strangely enough, it looks like cheaper means more secure in the Turner-Reich case . :)