PDA

View Full Version : Rodenstock Weitwinkel Perigon Official Specs



Kerry L. Thalmann
20-Mar-2006, 10:55
I've searched the web high and low in effort to find any official specs from Rodenstock on their Weitwinkel Perigon series. I've found a few anecdotal user reports stating the usable image circle of the 130mm f12 Weitwinkel Perigon is in the 380mm - 400mm range - very impressive for a lens of this focal length and nearly impossibly tiny size. But, I have yet to find any official specs on this lens from the manufacturer. Most anecdotal accounts seem to indicate that the angle of coverage is the same 110 degrees, at small stops, as the Series V Protars. A 130mm focal length with 110 degrees of coverage would yield an image circle of 371mm - plenty of 8x10 or 5x12 (I plan to use mine on 4x10), but a little less than the 380mm - 400mm reported by users of this lens. There are also reports that this lens is slightly radioactive.

I recently acquired a nice little 130mm Weitwinkel Perigon that has been installed in a Copal No. 0 shutter (direct fit). Based on the serial number, it was made around 1958. Sadly, my own literature collection for Rodenstock is sadly lacking. I have some VERY old Rodenstock literature and a fair number of brochures and catalogs from the 1960s and 1970s, but nothing from the 1940s or 1950s when these lenses were made. If anyone has any Rodenstock literature from this time period, I'd appreciate it if you would check to see if you have any documentation on the Weitwinkel Perigon series.

I do have a very nice Rodenstock catalog from 1914 (in German), and while it doesn't specifically mention the Perigon, it does include an f12 Serie III Weitwinkel-Aplanat that was available in four focal lengths (9cm, 12cm, 16cm and 22cm). Stated coverage is 100 degrees. I assume this coverage is wide open, as the spec table lists even greater coverage (~106 - 108 degrees) at smaller stops (Kleiner Blende). This equates to an image circle of 32cm for the 12cm focal length and 44cm for the 16cm lens. There are no cut-away diagrams or mention of the type of lens construction. So, I can't be sure, but I'm wondering if this Weitwinkel-Aplanat is an early version of the post-WWII Weitnwinkel Perigon. Can anyone confirm of deny this hypothesis?

Ultimately, I will test the lens myself (and further add to the anecdotal record), but I'd really like to see some documentation from the manufacturer on this lens. I'm also curious to see what other focal lengths were made and exactly when the Weitwinkel-Perigon series was discontinued. Most of the samples I have seen, both in person and on eBay, are 130mm in focal length and made ~1958 (all with serial numbers in the 3,998,0xx range - probably from the same manufacturing lot). I have seen a 90mm and a 150mm sell on eBay within the last year, and there are reports of a 110mm focal length. Supposedly, it was made in much longer focal lengths, but I have never seen anything longer than the 150mm.

So, history detectives, anything you can add would be appreciated.

Kerry

tim atherton
20-Mar-2006, 11:13
You just beat to that one on apug you bugger...

I'd love to know how it pans out for quality and coverage on 8x10 - and keep my eye out for another....

Pete Roody
20-Mar-2006, 11:37
I have a catalog that shows 5 sizes were available:

9 cm, 11 cm, 13 cm, 15 cm, 20 cm

Respective coverages at small stops are listed as:

13x18, 16x21, 18x24, 21x27, 24x30 (in cm's)

The lens is advertised as having 110 degree coverage. It has 4 elements in 2 cemented pairs. I believe Rodenstock used Lanthanum glass for these lenses. They are single coated.

As for coverage, I find the 13cm tight on 8x10. I don't have a 14cm protar V to compare it to. The 15cm may be a better fit for 8x10 if you want some movement.

Keep us posted on your testing of this lens.

Pete Roody
20-Mar-2006, 11:40
I should add that all the lenses fit a Copal 0 shutter except for the 20cm that fits directly to a Copal 1.

Ernest Purdum
20-Mar-2006, 11:53
If the "Weitwinkel-Aplanat"is an earlier version of the Perigon, it was a peculiar name for Rodenstock to have given it.

Kerry L. Thalmann
20-Mar-2006, 11:53
Peter,

Thanks for the response. Any idea what year your catalog was published? For that matter, anybody know approximately what year Rodenstock switched from using cm to mm for their lens focal lengths? My Perigon from 1958 is engraved in mm.

I actually plan to use my little 130mm Perigon for backpacking with 4x10. So, the coverage should be more than enough. Combined with a 210mm Graphic-Kowa and a 300mm Nikkor M (both in Copal No. 1 Press shutters), it will give me a three lens set that covers 4x10 with room to spare (or 8x10 with modest movements) and have a total weight equivalent to the typical modern 210mm f5.6 plasmat.

I'm also assembling a kit for 7x17 and the thought of a 200mm lens capable of covering 110 degrees in a Copal No. 1 shutter makes my head spin. It would cover 7x17, or even 8x20 with room to spare.

Kerry

clay harmon
20-Mar-2006, 12:40
Kerry,
I can send you the 14x17 sheet of film that I exposed with that lens and you can measure the image circle directly. The amazing thing is how sharp it is until the last 3/4 inch of coverage. It is one sharp little bugger. And yes, this lens supposedly had the lanthanum glass in it , which would make it slightly radioactive. I never carried it around in the front pocket of my jeans.

Ole Tjugen
20-Mar-2006, 13:34
The Weitwinkel-Aplanat was what would have been called a "Wide-angle Rectilinear" if it had been made in England instead of Germany. Assuredly a totally different lens.

Aplanat (German) = Rapid Rectilinear (English).

Arne Croell
20-Mar-2006, 14:01
Kerry,

I have the 110mm, it certainly exists. With a serial no. of 3 137 7XX it is a little older than your 130mm, about 1954-55. It is coated, has Rodenstocks red "A" marking for coating, and the focal length is in mm. At least the circle of illumination goes easily to the 110░ mark.

Kerry L. Thalmann
20-Mar-2006, 15:04
Clay - Kerry, I can send you the 14x17 sheet of film that I exposed with that lens and you can measure the image circle directly.

Clay,

Thanks, I'd like to take you up on your offer. I had planned to test the coverage myself by shooting this lens on 8x10 with 3 or 4" of front rise. Then, I remembered I don't have a bag bellows for the 8x10. With a 130mm lens, the regular bellows will be so compressed I won't come close to reaching the coverage limits of the little 130mm Perigon. And, until I get my 7x17 camera finished, I won't have anything bigger than the 8x10 to use for testing.

If you need my address, drop me an email on a PM over on APUG.

Thanks,
Kerry

Kerry L. Thalmann
20-Mar-2006, 15:13
Ole - The Weitwinkel-Aplanat was what would have been called a "Wide-angle Rectilinear" if it had been made in England instead of Germany. Assuredly a totally different lens.

Aplanat (German) = Rapid Rectilinear (English).

I was a bit surprised to see Rodenstock still using the term "Apalant" in literture from 1914. By then, the patents had expired on the Zeiss Anastigmats (Protars). As the Perigon was supposedly a derivative of the Series V Protar, they could have sold it without violating the Zeiss patent at that time.

Perhaps they just couldn't get the combination of speed and performance they desired until the post-WWII "rare-earth" glass types became readily available. Without more info, it's impossible to say for sure. Anyobody out there have an uncoated, pre-WWII Perigon? If you need help determining the age of your lens, I have a table of serial numbers vs. date of manufacture (http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/agevs.htm) for Rodenstock lenses on my web site.

Kerry

Pete Roody
20-Mar-2006, 16:07
Kerry,

I just have a one sheet catalog cut for the Perigon. I do not have a date for it. It is in German but can be understood. I will email you a copy.

Kerry L. Thalmann
20-Mar-2006, 16:22
Peter - I just have a one sheet catalog cut for the Perigon. I do not have a date for it. It is in German but can be understood. I will email you a copy.

Peter,

Thanks, I appreciate it.

Also, I just realized that perhaps the reason Rodenstock literature, in particular English-language literature, from the period when these lenses were made (shortly after WWII) is so hard to get is that Rodenstock didn't have a US distributor at that time. Eventually, Kling Photo became the US distributor for Rodenstock lenses. I'm not sure of the exact date that Kling Photo started distributing Rodenstock lenses, but it was sometime between 1951 (when Kling Photo became an importer/distributor of German-made photo products) and 1961 when Kling Photo became part of Berkey Marketing. This quote:

"In later years, Paul added Rodenstock lenses, Gossen exposure meters, Minox "spy" cameras and many other prestigious product lines."

suggests that Kling didn't start distributing Rodenstock lenses until the late 1950s.

That may also explain why, until the advent of the internet, eBay and the global marketplace, Rodenstock lenses from the 1940s and early 1950s were seldom seen on the US market. I've always seen a fair number of older (1910 - 1930's) Rodenstock lenses at the local camera swap meets, and plenty of lenses from the 1960s and newer, but not a lot from the 10-year period immediately following WWII.

Kerry

Arne Croell
20-Mar-2006, 17:02
Kerry,

you're probably right in that the importer (or lack thereof) played a role. However, I would say - without having quantitative data to back it up - that the number of Rodenstock LF lenses from that period is not higher on the German ebay. I think I saw at least as many Perigons offered on the US ebay within the last 2 years as on the German one. From the serial numbers, it is obvious that Rodenstock was producing a lot of lenses, but were these necessarily LF? I doubt that. Nowadays, we think of Rodenstock as a supplier for mainly LF, process, and enlarging lenses, but they actually made a lot of lenses for 35 mm cameras and folders in the 1950's and 1960's (e.g. Retina, Welta and others). LF and process lenses were part of their line, but a much smaller part than in later years. Schneider and Zeiss were the bigger names back then. The Perigon has appeal for us now, but back in the 1950's it looked probably quite outdated to a studio photographer ( and who else used LF cameras then!) in view of the Biogon and Super-Angulon competition - even a regular Angulon was twice as fast.

Kerry L. Thalmann
20-Mar-2006, 17:23
Arne,

Good points. Back in the 1950s, Rodenstock also made a line of lenses for the Exacta 35mm SLRs. In fact, when googling for Rodenstock literature from that time period, most of the hits are from Exacta enthusiast sites.

Although the number of Perigons on the US eBay site may be similar to those on the German eBay, I think most of the 130mm Perigons sold on eBay over the last few years came from a single source in Germany. The one's I've seen being sold on the US eBay are re-sales. The 90mm and 150mm Perigons I mentioned above were both on the German eBay site.

It's funny how times change. Lenses that were considered "obsolete" and undesirable when they were being made are now selling for many times their original prices as more photographers are shooting in bigger and bigger formats and exploring alternative processes that were developed a century or more ago. In addition to the Perigons, the Computars/Graphic-Kowas and Goerz Dagors are selling for more now than ever. Back when I first started large format photography, the 14" multicoated Schneider Gold Dot Dagor was, by far, the cheapeast new lens available in that focal length range. One dealer had them on closeout, in Compur No. 3 shutter, for $700 each for several years - nobody seemed to want them back them. Ditto for the 150mm and 210mm Graphic-Kowas. Same deal - one dealer had them, listed in their ad, in Copal shutters, for a price barely more than a bare shutter.

During the decades after WWII, there was this race to always have the latest and greatest of everything (at least in the US). It was highly desirable to have a new car every two to three years and to be the first one on your block with a television, and ten years later to be the first with a COLOR TV. Same with cameras and lenses. Innovations in coatings, computer generated lens designs, auto-exposure, auto-focus, etc. drove photographers to always be seeking the latest and greatest. Ironically, I think it's a backlash against technology in our daily lives that has lead many people back to the simpler ways. Simple little lenses with big coverage seem to be more popular now than ever. Makes me wish I had at least one more piece of technology at my disposal - a time machine.

Kerry

Michael S. Briggs
21-Mar-2006, 22:45
If these lenses are radioactive at a level that can be easily measured, it won't be from lanthanum. 99.9098% of naturally occuring lanthanum is La-139, which is stable. The remaining 0.0902% is La-138, which has a half-life of 105 billion years. That is a very small fraction and an incomprehensiblely long time. If these lenses are radiaoactive at a easily measurable level, the element will be thorium. Many manufacturers preferred to call glass containing lanthanum and thorium simply lanthanum glass.

At the level of radioactivity of lanthanum, many objects are radioactive. For example, 0.0117% of potassium is K-40, which has a half-life of 1.277 billion years. Potassium is used in many optical glasses. It also is a constituent of bananas and even people.

Ole Tjugen
22-Mar-2006, 05:31
Somewhat tangential to this discussion, but..

I've just tried out a little Emil Busch Wide Angle Aplanat Ser. C No.2, which is a 150mm f:16 "Rectilinear" type lens. It's stated coverage is 100 degrees, which should cover 24x30cm with ease. So that's what I used, and lo and behold - it did.

Aplanat lenses were prodused until well into the 1920's in parallell with the Anastigmats. The glass types used were cheaper and easier to work with, so the price was lower. My Busch lens would have cost 32 Mark in 1910, while the cheapest Anastigmat with similar focal length and coverage was the Zeiss Protar Serie V 140mm at 80 Mark.

So yet again: The Perigon is NOT the same as the Weitwinkel-Aplanat.

Arne Croell
14-May-2006, 05:37
Kerry, wrt radioactivity: I just measured my 110mm Perigon mentioned 2 posts up, with the meter next to each of the 4 lens surfaces and its not a blip above background radiation, which is 0.10-0.25 ÁS/h here. It may or may not use Lanthanum glass (which is not radioactive), but certainly not any Thorium glass. So the Perigon being slightly radioactive seems to be a myth. While at it, I also checked a 150mm f/4.5 Ysarex from Rodenstock, serial no. 5177XXX, a Tessar type which allegedly also used "new glass". Its not radioactive either.

Allen Quinn
14-May-2006, 07:22
Makes me wish I had at least one more piece of technology at my disposal - a time machine.

Kerry

So true. I remember seeing many of these old, out-of-date lenses gathering dust in local camera stores while my "heart" yearned for the latest and greatest Super Dollar-be-gone f5.6 offering...

Uli Mayer
15-May-2006, 01:14
The Perigon is certainly no aplanat. H.-M. Brandt in "Das Photo-Objektiv", 1957, has an illustration of its design: The front group consists of a negative and a positive meniscus whereas the rear group consists of a biconcave and a bi-convex lens ( - + - + ). According to Brandt the small "construction height" of this lens made it possible to keep illumination fall-off at the minimum; and its whole field of coverage ( 85° ) was distortion-free and corrected for astigmatism. He listed three focal lengths: 90mm ( for 9x12cm), 110mm ( for 10x15cm) and 130mm ( for 13x18cm).

An earlier, rather unknown wide angle LF lens by Rodenstock was the "Weitwinkel-Eikonar" of 6 lenses in 2 groups, and an angle of coverage of 105° ( probably similar to the WF Dagor design). I have a 11cm and a 15cm of those, the latter one is covering 8x10 nicely.

Cheers
Uli

Arne Croell
15-May-2006, 23:05
While looking for something else, I happened upon a photocopy of a prewar Linhof catalogue that I completely forgot about. That catalog lists all the lenses availbale for Linhof before WWII, Zeiss Jena, Steinheil, Meyer etc. It uses a "Linhof München" logo that was in use betwen 1930 and 1950 according to Linhof's company history. Since the lenses are clearly pre-WWII, that limits the time frame to about 1930-1940. In the Rodenstock section the Perigon is listed, so it clearly existed before the war. They call it Perigon Weitwinkel-Anastigmat, list an ultimate angle of 110°, and that it is completely free of distortion and useable for photogrammetry. The focal lengths listed are identical to Pete's list: 9,11,13,15, and 20cm, all in a size 0 shutter except for the last one in size 1. The coverage for large apertures is given as 9x12, 10x15,13x18,16x21, and18x24cm for the focal lengths given above. Stopped down they are 13x18,16x21,18x24, 21x27, and 24x30cm, respectively. So the 85° quoted by Uli, which I had also seen in one of H. Thieles lens lists, is apparently wide open, and the values quoted by Pete stopped down.

Hugo Zhang
30-May-2006, 10:22
I had the chance to use this lens on my 8x10 Deardorff this past weekend. I had to tilted the back standard forward to get things in focus. It did seem to cover the ground glass very nicely. I will report more when the negative come out.

Hugo Zhang
3-Jun-2006, 10:46
The negative finally came out last night. One thing I have learned so far is not to raise the front standard too much when using this lens. For all my shots with this lens, I raised the front standard for about 2" and now I have dark corners on the bottoms of the negatives. Other part of the negatives look very sharp to my naked eyes. I love this little lens so far.

Sven Schroder
20-Jun-2006, 17:02
Kerry

Just some data on the example I picked up recently 1.12 f=9cm Rodenstock Weitwinkel-Perigon serial number 202**14 in a prontor II (no cable release thread
just an arm like on a 6x9 folder) was this Factory mount? uncoated or very faint coatings. Came with a technika III outfit early 50's. Dispite being uncoated/Faint coating it appears to have excellent contrast certainly crisp on the screen + polaroid.
It weighs 120g on a Gowland Pocket Panel and will go together with the 150 germinar W and a 210 Repro Claron (which is in a Linhof inscribed syncro compur and came on a 6x9 technika Panel) a nice lightweight outfit.

Thanks and Regards
Sven

Hugo Zhang
24-Jun-2006, 09:22
Here is a picture taken with this lens. I raised the front standard about 2" and had two dark corners at the bottom.

cdholden
2-Dec-2009, 11:19
Kerry,
Fast forward a few years from your post in this thread from 2006. I've come across one of these Serie III Weitwinkel Aplanats you mention here. Mine is labeled as "No. 4". I'm hoping it's the 22cm lens that will cover 7x17 or more. It's very small and light.
Do you still have the brochure? You say it has no cutaway views, but are there any photos of the lens? I'm just wondering if this lens of mine is one in your brochure, and what other info I can gather from it.
I'll try to get it mounted on a lensboard next weekend and test coverage.
Thanks.
Chris



I do have a very nice Rodenstock catalog from 1914 (in German), and while it doesn't specifically mention the Perigon, it does include an f12 Serie III Weitwinkel-Aplanat that was available in four focal lengths (9cm, 12cm, 16cm and 22cm). Stated coverage is 100 degrees. I assume this coverage is wide open, as the spec table lists even greater coverage (~106 - 108 degrees) at smaller stops (Kleiner Blende). This equates to an image circle of 32cm for the 12cm focal length and 44cm for the 16cm lens. There are no cut-away diagrams or mention of the type of lens construction. So, I can't be sure, but I'm wondering if this Weitwinkel-Aplanat is an early version of the post-WWII Weitnwinkel Perigon. Can anyone confirm of deny this hypothesis?
Kerry

Peter K
2-Dec-2009, 12:51
.. but are there any photos of the lens? I'm just wondering if this lens of mine is one in your brochure, and what other info I can gather from it.
Here is the Rodenstock Perigon f/12 11cm. From "Brandt, H-M., Das Photo-Objektiv. Braunschweig 1956"
http://picz.to/image/RJ

cdholden
2-Dec-2009, 13:34
Peter,
Thanks, but I was looking for the "non-Perigon" version to see if the one in Kerry's brochure looks like mine. Mine is a brass lens in iris/barrel, not mounted in a shutter. I've got high hopes of a large image circle until I can get it mounted to confirm.
Chris

Asher Kelman
5-Jun-2011, 22:48
Any updates on this lens would be appreciated. Anyone use the lens for color film too?

Hugo,

What f stop did you use in your test above and what would you advise on its coverage?

Asher

Asher Kelman
6-Jun-2011, 22:33
So, folks,

What was the measured image circle?

Asher

Asher Kelman
12-Jun-2011, 02:50
Bump!

Louis Pacilla
12-Jun-2011, 11:24
Bump!


Hey Asher, did you notice this thread is over 4 yrs old? You may not get an answer from the O.P. or original contributors to this thread but here's what I found.


The claim by Rodenstock in 1912 was that at the small stop the lens will cover a diagonal of 3 1/3 times the FL. so I guess that means that if you have a 8"FL it should have a diagonal measurement of 24.4" ish,.

Rodenstock advised to use the Enixantos Compensator ( Center filter) when using the extreme coverage of the lens .

Rodenstock gives a very conservative & kind of weird coverage chart :

3 1/2" (wide open 4"x4") (small stop8 1/4" x 8 1/4")

5" (wide open 6"x6") (small stop 12"x12")

6 1/2" (wide open 6 1/2" x 8 1/2") (small stop 12"x15")

8" (wide open 8"x10") (small stop 12"x15") Why the same?



Hope this helps .

Asher Kelman
12-Jun-2011, 11:52
Hey Asher, did you notice this thread is over 4 yrs old? You may not get an answer from the O.P. or original contributors to this thread but here's what I found.


The claim by Rodenstock in 1912 was that at the small stop the lens will cover a diagonal of 3 1/3 times the FL. so I guess that means that if you have a 8"FL it should have a diagonal measurement of 24.4" ish,.

Rodenstock advised to use the Enixantos Compensator ( Center filter) when using the extreme coverage of the lens .

Rodenstock gives a very conservative & kind of weird coverage chart :

3 1/2" (wide open 4"x4") (small stop8 1/4" x 8 1/4")

5" (wide open 6"x6") (small stop 12"x12")

6 1/2" (wide open 6 1/2" x 8 1/2") (small stop 12"x15")

8" (wide open 8"x10") (small stop 12"x15") Why the same?



Hope this helps .


Louis,

The reason for my great interest is having a nice Copal shutter, being able to fire a strobe and going wider than my 150mm Super Symmar XL for 8x10. I don't mind stopping down.

I'll have to look into that filter although if scanned I can correct it in Photoshop or Capture One. I think I can shoot a grey card and invert it.

Thanks,

Asher

Dan Fromm
12-Jun-2011, 13:21
Asher, in general ancient coverage claims are somewhat fanciful. If you want a slow ancient (relatively) short lens that will cover 8x10 and will be an absolute b*tch to put in shutter, consider a 120/14 Perigraphe Ser. VIa or a roughly equivalent f/18 Protar.

Even though there are now two 130 Perigons on offer, one in shutter, they're somewhat hard to find. Perigraphes are somewhat easier to find.

cdholden
12-Jun-2011, 13:52
Perigraphes are somewhat easier to find.

And much more affordable!
This observation brought to you by the law of supply and demand.

Pete Roody
12-Jun-2011, 16:26
I use the 130mm Perigon lens on 8x10. It covers with small movements. I usually need a little rise (1"-2") for landscapes. No vignetting.

Asher Kelman
12-Jun-2011, 17:58
I use the 130mm Perigon lens on 8x10. It covers with small movements. I usually need a little rise (1"-2") for landscapes. No vignetting.


Pete,

That's so helpful to know! The lens appears to be coated and that is nice. :)



Dan,

Are the 20/14 Perigraphe Ser. and f/18 Protars coated too? I've seen references to the 90 mm Perigraphe also covering 8x10! Is that hyperbole? :)


Thanks for sharing your experience!

Asher

Dan Fromm
13-Jun-2011, 04:28
Asher, post-WW-II Perigraphes are coated. I have a coated 60/14, Chauncey Walden who posts on photo.net has a 75/14, and David Goldfarb, who posts here and on APUG, has a 120/14 that he uses on 8x10. All of us are happy with them. Not that coating is very important with these lenses, they're Dagor types with only four air-glass interfaces. I don't know whether Chauncey's or David's is coated. Serial numbers > 700,000 or prefixed with a letter (A, B, ... , and I don't know if there any f/14 Perigraphes in that range) should be coated.

Of interest to you, David's 120 was mounted somehow -- I think it is front-mounted -- on a large Ilex. Mine is stuffed into the front of a mutilated Ilex #3 (rear tube truncated) and covers no more than 120 mm because of mechanical vignetting (shutter too thick). David has commented that his also loses coverage to mechanical vignetting. Find him and ask him for details.

I'm not sure whether there are coated f/18 Protars. The one I've tried out was an ancient 62/18 and didn't seem to suffer from lack of coating. Again, just four air-glass interfaces.

I don't think the 90/14 Perigraphe will cover 8x10. Takes 118 degrees, the most Berthiot ever claimed was 115 and that was pre-WW-I. For a longer discussion of Berthiot coverage claims with links to catalogs, see http://www.galerie-photo.com/2-lens-6x9-dan-fromm.html

Dan Fromm
13-Jun-2011, 06:22
Um, Asher, if you want to try a 90/14 Perigraphe, here's a post-WW-II one: http://annonces.ebay.fr/viewad/Objectifs-BERTHIOT-Perigraphe-1-14-f-90mm/5032568356?ru=http%3A%2F%2Fdesc.shop.ebay.fr%2FPhoto-Camescopes-%2F32653%2Fi.html%3FLH_TitleDesc%3D1%26_nkw%3Dberthiot%26_trksid%3Dp3286.c0.m1308%26_pgn%3D1%235032568356

Not mine. I bought my 60 from the seller, Daniel Ramisse. His English is very good and he was very helpful. But I doubt it will cover 8x10. A bit more than 5x7, yes, 8x10, no.

Asher Kelman
13-Jun-2011, 11:12
Um, Asher, if you want to try a 90/14 Perigraphe, here's a post-WW-II one: http://annonces.ebay.fr/viewad/Objectifs-BERTHIOT-Perigraphe-1-14-f-90mm/5032568356?ru=http%3A%2F%2Fdesc.shop.ebay.fr%2FPhoto-Camescopes-%2F32653%2Fi.html%3FLH_TitleDesc%3D1%26_nkw%3Dberthiot%26_trksid%3Dp3286.c0.m1308%26_pgn%3D1%235032568356

Not mine. I bought my 60 from the seller, Daniel Ramisse. His English is very good and he was very helpful. But I doubt it will cover 8x10. A bit more than 5x7, yes, 8x10, no.

Dan,

Thanks about the serial number! I already knew about David Goldfarb's stuffing into a shutter! That he likes it is the best recommendation as he's a wonderful and careful photographer who's work I admire.

The French eBay 90mm Perigraph I found that too! Can't understand how to respond to the French eBay. My French is pretty good yet I couldn't "watch this item" or see how to bid! What does "sevy" mean?

I discovered that search "worldwide" does not necessarily get other countries as I find stuff on the French or UK sights that the "Advanced Search" with "worldwide" and "all currencies" checked!

Asher

Dan Fromm
13-Jun-2011, 12:36
That's not ebay.fr's auction site, that's their equivalent of Craigslist. Fixed price offerings, not auctions.

To contact the seller, click on Envoyer un e-mail Send an e-mail. Tell him you want to buy, try to start negotiating for a lower price, ... If you contact him, please give him my greetings.

sevy is the seller's screen name.

Jan Pedersen
14-Jun-2011, 12:25
Been away for a couple of weeks and noticed this thread being awakend again.
My experience with the 130 Perigon is that it barely covers stopped down all the way.
I need to have it accurately centered and still there are dark corners.
I first had an uncoated lens from 1945 and now have a lated coated, coverage is the same and it does not even come close to the 150SSXL
I feel that the 120 f8 Nikon have better coverage than the Perigon.

Pete Roody
14-Jun-2011, 14:04
Jan,

You are comparing apples to oranges.

The 130 perigon is a tiny lens that can easily be carried in an 8x10 field kit for occasional use when a wide lens is needed. I carry this lens with a 180mm F9 dagor and a 210mm F9 dagor for wide angle landscapes. These 3 lenses combined weigh less than a 150 SSXL.

My 130 covers 8x10 with a little movement (say 1" rise). Maybe my lens covers a little more than yours since I had SK Grimes add a f45 stop to the shutter :). I also don't mind if the corners are a little soft since it draws your eye to the center of the image.

I wouldn't recommend the 130 perigon to someone who shoots architecture on 8x10. The 150 SSXL would be a better choice. However, I wouldn't be caught dead with the 150 because it weighs too damn much.

Pete



Been away for a couple of weeks and noticed this thread being awakend again.
My experience with the 130 Perigon is that it barely covers stopped down all the way.
I need to have it accurately centered and still there are dark corners.
I first had an uncoated lens from 1945 and now have a lated coated, coverage is the same and it does not even come close to the 150SSXL
I feel that the 120 f8 Nikon have better coverage than the Perigon.

Jan Pedersen
14-Jun-2011, 14:17
Pete,
Agree but Asher did in one of his post bring up the 150SSXL why i mentioned the two in comparison.
I don't mind the dark corners from the Perigon either and like the lens for it's otherwise excelent performance and size.
Just can't get the coverage others seems to get.

Asher Kelman
14-Jun-2011, 16:10
[QUOTE=Jan Pedersen;739620]Pete,
Agree but Asher did in one of his post bring up the 150SSXL why i mentioned the two in comparison.
I don't mind the dark corners from the Perigon either and like the lens for it's otherwise excelent performance and size.
Just can't get the coverage others seems to get.[/QUOTE

Jan and Pete,

The weight of the 150 SSXL does not worry me. It's my own weight that scares me, LOL!

I was interested in the lens after Hugo Zhang got good results with it in the Tonopah workshop with Jm and Per. I must say that I look at scenes from a super wide angle perspective since I became so used to stitching scenes with my digital camera. What I don't like is the work stitching and dealing with moving branches and grasses.

I'm also keen to know about in any other lenses that can cover about 110 to 130 mm and have some ability to rise, tilt and swing a little. A lot to ask I know. A bit of darkening of the corners is what I can accept as it can be enjoyed or f need be corrected after scanning. Oh and coating would be a delight as I often shoot into the light.

Asher