Apertures for Zeiss Triple Convertible

[Edison]

Hi. I've searched the forum quite a bit and I haven't seen this exact question discussed. Please let me know if this has been discussed already.

I recently received a field camera that came with a Zeiss lens. It is a 285mm in the front and 224mm in the rear and both are protarlinse. From what I have researched, this is a triple convertible which I'm pretty excited about. I'd like to take some portraits using the 224mm lens in a few days. The aperture is marked in mm. The largest is 25mm and the smallest is 3mm. I understand it's marked this way because it's a convertible lens and relative aperture changes as you change focal length. Common sense tell me to take the focal length and divide it by the aperture diameter and that will give my f-stop. For examples 143mm (it's a 143mm when both lenses are in place) divided by 14mm would give an f-stop of f/10.2. I did read another thread where "apparent" aperture is discussed and how removing a front lens for example may change the apparent aperture, so I'm not sure how this plays into the situation exactly. If this is the case with this lens, and I want to use the 224mm in the rear only, is the aperture still 224mm/14mm= f/16? Or does the apparent aperture change this?

Furthermore, I've found this pdf (https://www.cameraeccentric.com/static/img/pdfs/zeiss_8.pdf)(i can't read German so I'm not 100% sure this even applies to my particular lens, but it seems like it should) and I'm trying to piece together the info. The bottom image is marked with notes to help. So for example the 224mm+285mm (7 o'clock) at 14mm yields 1:9. Is this f/9? I don't think so because the math is wrong (should be over 10). Another example is the 11 o'clock 224mm/18mm yields 1:6.3. If this is f stops, it should be f/12.4, no?

Then an additional question is the 12oclcok to 6 o'clock side. These have the "diaphragm in mm" sections for the single lenses as x:2. For example at 3 o'clock it says 285mm/11:2. There's a handwritten note that says 10:2=5mm. So if that's true 1. Write it this way? and 2. 285mm/5.5mm (which is 11:2 I assume) would equal f/52. But 285/11 does equal just over 25 as the 1:25 would suggest.

So I'm trying to figure out the pattern and sense here. It is a nice lens, I did take several shots with it and it works. I didn't have a lens longer than 150mm until now, so I'm excited to use this one.

I also read in another thread that it's probably the same as a Bausch and Lomb lens, but I haven't found any info on that.

Unimportant info probably: this came with a 4x5 Korona View (II) and has a Packard shutter. Amazingly everything works. I do need a new bellows but throwing the dark cloth over it worked temporarily and I tried out patching with liquid electrical tape too seems to have worked and I'll replace the bellows when I know I'm going to use the camera enough. Is Custom Bellows in the UK the best place to go? I live in Michigan. Also a small complaint about the rear standard is that it tends to slightly lean back when tightened down. Not sure if this is normal, but I can always compensate with tilt.

Thanks in advance,

Alan229529

[Kevin Crisp]

I have all this worked out in a notebook I carry. Send me a personal email address and I'll scan the table and send it to you.

You must (especially with the Zeiss singles) check and correct your focus on single cells when you've stopped down. Focus shifts.

[Dugan]

Custom Bellows does top-notch work.
Apparent aperture is the measured size as viewed from the front, whether there's a front element in place or not.

[Edison]

I have all this worked out in a notebook I carry. Send me a personal email address and I'll scan the table and send it to you.

You must (especially with the Zeiss singles) check and correct your focus on single cells when you've stopped down. Focus shifts.

Thanks! Doing now.

[Edison]

Thanks! I’ll go with them as long as the price is in my budget. What do you measure it with?

[Dugan]

I use a micrometer, and measure in mm's. Fractions of inches are a pain.

[Mark Sawyer]

Remember that the aperture size will change when you change front elements.

[Edison]

So are the markings on it currently the size in mm as the combined focal length. I see thanks.

[j.e.simmons]

Isn’t the aperture change the reason you use the single element behind the aperture.
OP, B&L licensed the Protar from Zeiss so for the Protar V and Vii, the lenses are the same. For the most part Series IV lenses were very different. I believe yours is a Series VII.
You can find lots of old manuals at
https://www.cameraeccentric.com/

He has some problems that might cause your browser to show a warning, but just ignore the warning.

BTW, all of the Protar I’ve received have had the lower focal length on the front and the longer on the back. All of the Zeiss and B&L manuals above have the longer listed as the front lens. In use, I haven’t seen any difference.

[David Lindquist]

j.e. simmons has beat me to it to some extent. If you look at the early 20th century B&L catalogues on the camera eccentric website you'll see Bausch & Lomb's equivalents to your two lenses had focal lengths of 8 3/4 and 11 3/16 inches respectively. Combined they made a 5 5/8 inch focal length objective.

Circa 1910 Carl Zeiss Jena changed the labeling of their lens focal lengths from millimeters to centimeters. The 224 mm lens became a 22 cm lens and the 285 mm lens became a 29 cm lens; in combination they made up a 14.5 cm lens.

David

[Edison]

Isn’t the aperture change the reason you use the single element behind the aperture.
OP, B&L licensed the Protar from Zeiss so for the Protar V and Vii, the lenses are the same. For the most part Series IV lenses were very different. I believe yours is a Series VII.
You can find lots of old manuals at
https://www.cameraeccentric.com/

He has some problems that might cause your browser to show a warning, but just ignore the warning.

BTW, all of the Protar I’ve received have had the lower focal length on the front and the longer on the back. All of the Zeiss and B&L manuals above have the longer listed as the front lens. In use, I haven’t seen any difference.

Yes that’s where I found the pdf. I read on a thread here the reason to use the single lens behind is that the aperture somewhat corrects for some aberration that is normally corrected for when both lenses are used.

Thanks for the confirmation on b and l. Mine came to me with the longer at the front too.

[Edison]

j.e. simmons has beat me to it to some extent. If you look at the early 20th century B&L catalogues on the camera eccentric website you'll see Bausch & Lomb's equivalents to your two lenses had focal lengths of 8 3/4 and 11 3/16 inches respectively. Combined they made a 5 5/8 inch focal length objective.

Circa 1910 Carl Zeiss Jena changed the labeling of their lens focal lengths from millimeters to centimeters. The 224 mm lens became a 22 cm lens and the 285 mm lens became a 29 cm lens; in combination they made up a 14.5 cm lens.

David

Cool. So this is a pre 1910 lens. I read the first year the Korona ii was made was 1909 so maybe it’s an early one. Thanks!

[Edison]

You can find lots of old manuals at
https://www.cameraeccentric.com/

He has some problems that might cause your browser to show a warning, but just ignore the warning.

BTW, all of the Protar I’ve received have had the lower focal length on the front and the longer on the back. All of the Zeiss and B&L manuals above have the longer listed as the front lens. In use, I haven’t seen any difference.

Reading the b and l manual.

It says the aperture is f/7 in combination. So 143mm/7=20mm. My max aperture is 25mm so I’m not sure why the difference.

But it says f7 for the combo of #2 and #3, with f/12.5 being their independent max apertures. I was picturing the the 285 to have a higher f stop than the 224.

It also says when using just a rear lens, the front is replaced by a “screen ring”. I wonder if that is actually needed and if so how do I get one. It just occurred to me it means a clear filter.

Mine also has the spiral focusing mount, so I suppose that’s for fine focus.

Thanks again. I’ll keep digging.

Edit: I understand more now. Series vii is the thread size. I’m looking for an adapter like this maybe. https://www.ebay.com/itm/265793961125?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=ognqdBCGSHy&sssrc=2349624&ssuid=ScSZ58WURea&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

[Joseph Kashi]

Custom Bellows does top-notch work.
Apparent aperture is the measured size as viewed from the front, whether there's a front element in place or not.

I very much agree regarding the high quality work and good service by Custom Bellows, UK.

[Edison]

I see now. The housing does go to 25mm but it’s ineffective for a bit because the lens is limited to 20mm.

Edit: so I know the fl is 143mm and max aperture is f7. 143mm/7=20.4mm aperture.

I also know with the 224mm, the max aperture is 12.5. 224mm/12.5=18mm max aperture. So the apparent aperture is 2.5mm smaller. This is about 90% so hopefully it’s linear and I can use this conversion.

For example (224mm/6mm)(.9)=f/33.6.

[David Lindquist]

Edit: I understand more now. Series vii is the thread size. I’m looking for an adapter like this maybe. https://www.ebay.com/itm/265793961125?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=ognqdBCGSHy&sssrc=2349624&ssuid=ScSZ58WURea&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

You are referring to the "VII" on each lens bezel, right?

This has nothing to do with series VII filters. What you have is a pair of Series VII Protars. The Series VII was Dr. Paul Rudolph's final version of of the Protar (typically labeled on the bezel "Protarlinse"). It consisted of four glass elements cemented together, you can see the configuration in the appropriate Zeiss catalogs on the camera eccentric website. When two Series VII Protars are paired up in a shutter or barrel, probably the more common way they were used, Zeiss referred to the combination as a Series VIIa objective, also their literature would refer to this combination as a "Double Protar." The single component, the Series VII had a maximum aperture of f/12.5.
The "Series VIIa" or "Double Protar" was "faster" than either of its components. A symmetrical combination (both cells the same focal length) is the "fastest". My circa 1933 Zeiss catalog shows two 29 cm Protars combined to give a 17 cm f/6.3 objective; a 29 + 22 cm combination gave a 14.5 cm f/7 objective and 29 + 18 cm yielded a 13 cm f/7.7 objective.

Each Series VII Protar had its own serial number. Based on four samples in my records, when the combination was symmetrical the serial numbers were consecutive; e.g. two 59 cm cells, serial numbers 918934 and 918935. When the two cells are of different focal lengths the serial numbers of course will not be consecutive.

Based on several samples and dating them according to Hartmut Thiele's Fabrikationsbuch Photooptik II Carl Zeiss Jena it looks like Zeiss stopped including the "VII" on the bezels of these Protars about 1929-1930. I think the wide angle f/18 Protar continued to be marked with a "V". Don't know offhand what Bausch & Lomb's practice was.

This is probably more than anyone wanted to know...

David

[David Lindquist]

And furthermore Alan...
I successfully scanned a print-out of a table from a Zeiss publication (which I've not subsequently been able to find anywhere on the internet) which I got from an eBay listing in 2008. It shows the diameters of stops in millimeters for both the single Protar components and the "Double-Protars" (plus the f/18 Protars). It's in English and a lot easier to use, I think, then that "round-about" thing. The resulting pdf is reasonably legible. It is from the later era when the focal lengths were in centimeters. If you want to PM me your email address I'll be happy to send this. Anyone else is welcome and if someone could post it here, that might be useful too.

Interestingly it looks like the diameter of the stops for the single components can be simply calculated from the focal length in millimeters. For the Double-Protar a factor is given which I think is to account for that entrance pupil thingy.

David

[Keith Fleming]

When using the single elements of my Zeiss Series VII set, I use a filter on the front of the shutter to ensure no dust gets inside the shutter. S.K. Grimes made the adapter for me. For black & white film I usually use a yellow filter, but I want to experiment with using an orange filter to see how well that increases the negative's contrast. Not recommending doing that--I just want to experiment.

A point of clarification: I actually had Grimes make filter adapters for both the front and rear of the shutter. This has allowed me to experiment with a wide range of combinations of close-up filters for soft-focus effects. Still experimenting.

Keith

[Edison]

You are referring to the "VII" on each lens bezel, right?

This is probably more than anyone wanted to know...

David

No, I want it all.

[ridax]

It also says when using just a rear lens, the front is replaced by a “screen ring”. I wonder if that is actually needed and if so how do I get one. It just occurred to me it means a clear filter.

Yes a 'screen' means a filter. But in this case, the filter is not a clear but a yellow one; it improves single cell sharpness a lot, reducing the influence of the lens chromatic aberration.

The original Zeiss filter of the era was not plane yellow but somewhat on the amber side so it wasn't a sharp-cut filter and thus introduced less flare as part of the stray light reflecting inside the filter glass was absorbed - the same way it is absorbed in film antihalation layers. Also, the glass that filter was made of was not fluorescing under blue and UV radiation like all the modern yellow to red filter glass types do. Probably that glass was more expensive; it is not manufactured anymore. Modern non-fluorescing filters include Wrattens and Tiffens (which are actually Wrattens cemented between two pieces of clear glass) and all the yellow-green glass ones. The yellow-greens are also not of the sharp-cut type so they introduce minimal flare.


For black & white film I usually use a yellow filter, but I want to experiment with using an orange filter to see how well that increases the negative's contrast.

The contrast with both yellow and orange filters will be exactly the same (and MUCH lower than without any filter). Those filters improve sharpness, not the contrast. And as the main influence on the chromatic aberration is in the blue, violet and especially in the UV regions (and Protars are quite transparent in the near UV), the sharpness difference with a yellow and an orange filter will be too tiny to be seen in actual photos. A yellow-green filter will also give very similar sharpness but about twice less flare (= more contrast) than the yellow, orange and red ones.

.... But I wonder why anybody needs filter adapters for these lenses. My Protar cells have the common 40.5x0.5mm threads, and any 40.5mm filter fits in the barrel in the place of the front cell. Are shutter-mounted Protar cells mechanically different?

[ridax]

....an orange filter to see how well that increases the negative's contrast

I just realized that you probably were referring to the contrast between the different-colored subjects in the negative, not the lens contrast itself (i.e. the contrast in monochromatic subjects that depends on the lens flare). Yes the color-dependent contrast will differ of course, regardless of the lens type.

[Edison]

ridax,

Thanks for the info. I’ll read it a few times. About the filter size. I was wrong and confused series vii lenses with series vii filters. After seeing photos on eBay of series vii to 52mm the size made no sense and now it does- because they’re two different things. I tried a 40.5mm filter just now and my barrel is much smaller. Around 36mm, I’ll have to measure it. But maybe then I can get an adapter so I can use my larger filters I already own. Again, thanks.

Edit: I measured the outer diameter of the lens's threads and it is 36mm. I'm don't know how to determine what filter size this is, I suppose it could be a smaller size. 35.5mm seems the be common enough at B and H. there is no 36mm available. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1138653-REG/heliopan_735505_35_5mm_orange_22_filter.html

[ridax]

~36mm? You may try a standard 35.5mm filter. Charnces are it fits.

[Edison]

~36mm? You may try a standard 35.5mm filter. Charnces are it fits.

Thanks for confirmation. I think I'll try out a 35.5mm to 49mm step up adapter and use my Yellow 8.

[David Lindquist]

I have a Zeiss Protar C Set. Based on Harmut Thiele's reference above, the 22 and 29 cm lenses were made circa 1929 and the 35 cm lens circa 1931. The thread mount diameter on these is 40.5 mm, the thread pitch is 40 threads per inch (t.p.i), fitting the set's dial-set Compur. It is my understanding that Deckel used 40 t.p.i. on the dial-set Compurs, the Compound shutters and the later rim-set No. 2 Compur. Reasons for this rather than a metric pitch has, as far as I can tell, been lost in antiquity. When I got this set a few years ago it also included two yellow filters, probably of the same vintage as the lens set; they are like the filters described in my 1933 Zeiss catalogue. One is marked "Carl Zeiss Jena Gelbglas D x 42", the other "Carl Zeiss Jena Gelbglas L x 42". The "D" and "L" refer to "Dark" and "Light", the "42" is the size to slip on the lens. Also included in the lens set is a ring that screws in to the front of the shutter when only a rear lens is mounted, it's of the proper size that the filter will slip on to it.

The Zeiss catalog states of their glass filters: "This material is entirely different from the common yellow glass screens which are still widely sold and which transmit more short-waved light and less long-waved light than is done by our glass, and are hence inferior in both respects." Both my filters look to be in very good condition especially given that they could be 90 years old. I cannot, however, see a difference between the "Dark" and the "Light" one.

I haven't used these filters, rather I use a Linhof filter holder system that takes either 4 x 4 in./ 10 x 10 cm filters or 95 mm screw-in filters. I did make up a fitting that screws in to the shutter's front thread and which holds a 43 mm uv filter to protect the shutter's innards when only a rear lens cell is in place (something that, in fact, I've hardly ever done.)

David

[ridax]

<....> made circa 1929 <....> described in my 1933 Zeiss catalogue. <....> The Zeiss catalog states of their glass filters: "This material is entirely different from the common yellow glass screens which are still widely sold and which transmit more short-waved light and less long-waved light than is done by our glass, and are hence inferior in both respects."

Funny enough, those are most probably the early (and new and exotic those days) specimens of MODERN yellow glass filters. The filter I described above was much older, coming from the pre-Protar "Zeiss Anastigmat" era. As your 1931 catalog states, the modern sharp-cut filters are superior in their smaller filter factors for the same degree of spectral correction. The difference in the filter factors / exposure compensation needed is still negligible for panchromatic films but is pretty noticeable for orthochromatic emulsions widely used a century ago.

But the modern red, orange, yellow and the majority of UV-absorbing glasses introduce additional flare into the optical system, while the old amberish Zeiss filter, as well as the modern Wrattens, Tiffens and the yellow-green glass filters do not.

[David Lindquist]

Funny enough, those are most probably the early (and new and exotic those days) specimens of MODERN yellow glass filters. The filter I described above was much older, coming from the pre-Protar "Zeiss Anastigmat" era. As your 1931 catalog states, the modern sharp-cut filters are superior in their smaller filter factors for the same degree of spectral correction. The difference in the filter factors / exposure compensation needed is still negligible for panchromatic films but is pretty noticeable for orthochromatic emulsions widely used a century ago.

But the modern red, orange, yellow and the majority of UV-absorbing glasses introduce additional flare into the optical system, while the old amberish Zeiss filter, as well as the modern Wrattens, Tiffens and the yellow-green glass filters do not.

Thank you for this. The 1933 Zeiss catalog I cited can be seen here: https://www.cameraeccentric.com/static/img/pdfs/zeiss_3.pdf The filters are described on page 38 and 39. On my 1934 Zeiss price list the 42 mm filers were $6.00 each.

David

[Edison]

Thanks for everyone’s help, especially to David who had the cheat sheet needed. Here’s a couple shots from yesterday’s party. It is pretty amazing the reaction you get with an older camera. Camera is Korona View 4x5, lens is Zeiss Protar 224mm, Packard shutter, 4s exposure at f/16, no filter. Film is arista.edu 100 (foma) developed in d76 1:1.
229654229656

[Louis Pacilla]

Terrific Job! Great use of a Protar VIIa/VII in portraiture.

[Edison]

Terrific Job! Great use of a Protar VIIa/VII in portraiture.

Thanks! I really appreciate it.

[Edison]

You are referring to the "VII" on each lens bezel, right?

This has nothing to do with series VII filters. What you have is a pair of Series VII Protars. The Series VII was Dr. Paul Rudolph's final version of of the Protar (typically labeled on the bezel "Protarlinse"). It consisted of four glass elements cemented together, you can see the configuration in the appropriate Zeiss catalogs on the camera eccentric website. When two Series VII Protars are paired up in a shutter or barrel, probably the more common way they were used, Zeiss referred to the combination as a Series VIIa objective, also their literature would refer to this combination as a "Double Protar." The single component, the Series VII had a maximum aperture of f/12.5.
The "Series VIIa" or "Double Protar" was "faster" than either of its components. A symmetrical combination (both cells the same focal length) is the "fastest". My circa 1933 Zeiss catalog shows two 29 cm Protars combined to give a 17 cm f/6.3 objective; a 29 + 22 cm combination gave a 14.5 cm f/7 objective and 29 + 18 cm yielded a 13 cm f/7.7 objective.

Each Series VII Protar had its own serial number. Based on four samples in my records, when the combination was symmetrical the serial numbers were consecutive; e.g. two 59 cm cells, serial numbers 918934 and 918935. When the two cells are of different focal lengths the serial numbers of course will not be consecutive.

Based on several samples and dating them according to Hartmut Thiele's Fabrikationsbuch Photooptik II Carl Zeiss Jena it looks like Zeiss stopped including the "VII" on the bezels of these Protars about 1929-1930. I think the wide angle f/18 Protar continued to be marked with a "V". Don't know offhand what Bausch & Lomb's practice was.

This is probably more than anyone wanted to know...

David

Mine does not say series anything. They are in mm. They are in a barrel with a helicoid. And the thread size appears to be 35.5mm. It’s interesting how this one is a bit different then most. Is D.R.P. somehow for Dr Paul Rudolph? 229687

[Vaidotas]

To make things more complicated on series VII Protars.
Keep in mind, that Carl Zeiss Jena made Protarlinse (or Protar lens) cells and dedicated barrels in a variety of different so called "slip over" sizes.
This is important to anyone who plans to add additional cells to existing setup.
Let's say 22 cm cell was made in three different "slip over" sizes - 27, 32, 37 mm.
Best reference is CZJ 1933 catalogue on Camera Eccentric site.

[ridax]

D.R.P. is for Deutsches Reich Patent.

[j.e.simmons]

And to make it even more complicated, I have a Series VII 240mm lens with VIII on the barrel. It’s an indicator of the barrel size.

[Edison]

To make things more complicated on series VII Protars.
Keep in mind, that Carl Zeiss Jena made Protarlinse (or Protar lens) cells and dedicated barrels in a variety of different so called "slip over" sizes.
This is important to anyone who plans to add additional cells to existing setup.
Let's say 22 cm cell was made in three different "slip over" sizes - 27, 32, 37 mm.
Best reference is CZJ 1933 catalogue on Camera Eccentric site.

Good lord. The double protar 22/29 has slip over covers of 42 and 37. I just measured mine and the OD of the 285 is 37mm and the OD of the barrel (actually is the aperture ring) is 47mm.

Something else I noticed is vignetting like in this picture (it’s very slightly cropped and the original was a little heavier. I think it could be from using the helicoid to focus. I’ll have to pay more attention next time.

229689

[David Lindquist]

Mine does not say series anything. They are in mm. They are in a barrel with a helicoid. And the thread size appears to be 35.5mm. It’s interesting how this one is a bit different then most. Is D.R.P. somehow for Dr Paul Rudolph? 229687

Zeiss gave each subsequent design of the Protar a series number, rendered as a roman numeral. The Series VII was the last design. They only engraved the roman numeral, not the word "Series" (which probably would have gotten the German spelling "Serie") on the lens. From examples I've seen they stopped marking the Series VII Protars with "VII" circa 1929-1930. So if they got to Series VII, were there a Series VI, V, IV, III, II and I? Certainly there was the Series V, their f/18 (very) wide angle lens. Don't know about the others. I think I've seen reference to a Series IV. Also there was something called the Ortho-Protar.

ridax has explained D.R.P. After WWII in West Germany this became D.B.P. for Deutsches Bundespatent.

David

[Edison]

Zeiss gave each subsequent design of the Protar a series number, rendered as a roman numeral. The Series VII was the last design. They only engraved the roman numeral, not the word "Series" (which probably would have gotten the German spelling "Serie") on the lens. From examples I've seen they stopped marking the Series VII Protars with "VII" circa 1929-1930. So if they got to Series VII, were there a Series VI, V, IV, III, II and I? Certainly there was the Series V, their f/18 (very) wide angle lens. Don't know about the others. I think I've seen reference to a Series IV. Also there was something called the Ortho-Protar.

ridax has explained D.R.P. After WWII in West Germany this became D.B.P. for Deutsches Bundespatent.

David

So would the lack of VII mean it’s post 1929? I heard earlier that since it’s in mm rather than cm it’s pre-1910.

[Edison]

I designed a hood with a filter slot for this particular barrel. 229777229778

You can find it uploaded here. (https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:5448935)

[ridax]

I like the design. But I would not use a protector unless (1) I want to lower the single-cell's contrast to make it equal to the contrast of the complete double-anastigmat; or (2) the filter is multi-coated.

[Edison]

I like the design. But I would not use a protector unless (1) I want to lower the single-cell's contrast to make it equal to the contrast of the complete double-anastigmat; or (2) the filter is multi-coated.

Thanks. Do you mean the uv filter specifically? If so It’s just something to test the size with. I’m planning to use a yellow 8 filter (will get a 15 sometime) when using the single cell. I admit a bit of the filter details are over my head. I’m not sure that a yellow 8 will be a good idea to cut the chromatic aberration. Im equally concerned about protecting the naked aperture.

[ridax]

Yes the #8 is well enough to cut the chromatic aberration (CA) off as CA is most prominent in the blue, violet and especially in the UV parts of the spectrum. In theory, an orange or a red filter should be even better but in practice the difference is too small to be noticed.

As for the contrast loss / flare added due to the filter usage, there are two factors at work: the light reflections inside the filter, and the filter material fluorescing under the short-wave radiation that the filter absorbs.

The reflections are removed / diminished in any filter that has a gently sloping absorption curve so that it is not totally transparent in any part of the spectrum but absorbs a bit of the light it is made to transmit (the same way film antihalation layers do). In a sharp-cut filter, nearly 100% of transmitted light is really transmitted - including all the stray light bouncing inside the filter. Glass coating is a remedy for the situation. All modern UV-blocking, yellow, orange and red filters are sharp-cut ones; gray, yellow-green, blue and amber ones are not.

As for the fluorescence - that problem exists in all modern red, orange, yellow and in many UV-blocking GLASS filters (by any manufacturer). It is not present in yellow, orange and red Wrattens and Tiffens that are not made of colored glass (unfortunately, the Tiffen UV filters are not Wrattens in glass; they are just ordinary glass filters, the same as any other manufacturers' UV's). Fluorescence is also not present in yellow-green GLASS filters (again, by any manufacturer).

And so-called 'UV protectors' do not absorb the UV good enough; the longer UV just gets through. A lot of them fluoresce, too. A good example of a quality UV-blocking filter is a multicoated (HMC or HMC Super) Hoya Skylight 1B. It absorbs all the UV; it does not fluoresce; it has an excellent coating. It does not add any flare to the optical system. And its subtle color tint is irrelevant in BW.

[David Lindquist]

So would the lack of VII mean it’s post 1929? I heard earlier that since it’s in mm rather than cm it’s pre-1910.

Looking back at my notes, it looks like the "VII" was dropped from the lens marking in 1928. The highest serial number I recorded having the VII was a 41 cm lens, serial number 874710. Based on Thiele this was made roughly April-May 1928. For the lowest serial number without the "VII" I have 918759, plus a 48 cm lens, serial number 918866 (and three 59 cm examples, serial numbers 918923, 918934 and 918935). Again based on Thiele, these would have been made roughly July-September 1928.

As far as the change from millimeters to centimeters, 1909-1910 is probably a good approximation. Thiele shows some Zeiss lenses made in 1909 as having their focal lengths in centimeters while other lenses with adjacent serial numbers are described in millimeters.

BTW nice work on the filter holder.

David

[Edison]

I'd like to use this lens on my Sinar. Right now it's in a barrel with a thread that I measure to be about 49.5mm. I tried attaching a 49mm filter to the lens board it lives in, but the filter was too small. I looked up copal shutters and 49.5 isn't close to what is available.
#0 #1 #3 #3s
front thread M29.5-0.5 M40-0.75 M58-0.75 M56-0.75

I suppose I could use a step down adapter from 58 to 49.5, but does anyone have a reference to precisely what size thread is on the barrel? I can only find the reverse of what I might need https://www.ebay.com/itm/254192892407

edit: I just measured with a caliper the 49mm filter and it measures 48.6mm so if I'm measuring 49.5 on the barrel, maybe it's a 50mm thread.

[David Lindquist]

Looking at the pictures you posted earlier it looks like this lens screws in to a flange that is attached to the lens board of your Korona. Your simplest solution would probably be to take the flange off that board and mount it to a Sinar board. Rather than mounting the flange on the front it might be possible to use it as a retaining ring on the back of the Sinar board.

The thing is the thread specifications for the mounting threads for shutters, both old and not so old, are out there, e.g. on the skgrimes website. For barrel mounted lenses, especially one this old, this information is not so readily available. There is not only the thread diameter but also the pitch that has to fit. It's possible the pitch isn't metric.

If you want to be able to conveniently switch this lens between the Korona board and the Sinar board I expect skgrimes could make you a new flange. You can decide whether or not it would be worth the price.

David

[Edison]

David, thanks for the response. I might be missing something but The thing is, the Korona has a packard shutter but the Sinar does not have a shutter, so I’m hoping to buy a shutter so I can use it with this lens. If I could get my hands on a Sinar shutter that would be great but they’re not too common and usually out of my price range.

I think getting a copal 3 and asking sk grimes to make an adapter would be the solution. I’m guessing I’d send in the lens and they’d do the rest.

Thanks

[j.e.simmons]

Kumar had a Sinar shutter for sale here a few days ago at a quite reasonable price.

[Edison]

Kumar had a Sinar shutter for sale here a few days ago at a quite reasonable price.

...found it. While it's a competitive price, it's still out of my budget. Thanks for the suggestion!

[Bernice Loui]

If the Packard shutter is working ok with this lens on the Korona camera, there is little reasons to change. Continue to use that set up as is.. Going to a Copal shutter for this lens will likely equal the cost of a Sinar shutter. Once the cost of a GOOD copal# 3 shutter and work done by SK Grimes is added up, the overall cost can equal or exceed the cost of a good Sinar shutter and all that is done with the Copal shutter with this lens is not transferable to another lens.

Taking the Sinar with Sinar shutter route allows using virtually any lens in barrel from microscope objectives to truly large lenses like a 480mm f4.5 Xenar.
230405

Not just the shutter, Sinar being modular view camera system has few if any limits on camera and bellows extension further removing camera limitations to support lenses required for a given image goal.

Sinar filter holder works with any lens up to about 90mm outside diameter with 105mm threaded and smaller to 4x4/100x100mm square or series 9 filters.
230406

For larger diameter lenses, Sinar has a 125mm square filter system.

It all depends on your specific needs. If the current outfit of Packard shutter, lens, filter holder works for your needs, why change this?
If not, investing in the Sinar system could be the far better choice to meet current and most any image making needs in the future.


Bernice





...found it. While it's a competitive price, it's still out of my budget. Thanks for the suggestion!

[Edison]

Bernice- all true. The thing is i want to take portraits with the 224 (longest I have for the Sinar is 150) and my daily camera is the Sinar so I’d like more speed options than 1/25 for portraits and if I’m out hiking I’d like to have the longer lens. But yes it’s better just to get a 210 for less money. I initially was hoping to find an older copal 3 for say $75 and adapt the lens to it. But what will really be needed is far more like you say.

I’d love a Sinar shutter and I keep my eye out for one but I just can’t justify $500+ for this right now.

Thanks for a voice a reason.

[Bernice Loui]

75 U$D Copal# 3 shutter would likely need work adding to the cost of the Copal# 3 shutter. Typical known good ones are 200 U$D unless the Copal# 3 is canalized from a lens. Then add the cost of custom work to get lens and more fitted to the target camera.

Seems not too long ago when Sinar mechanical shutters were not desirable or priced what they are today. It does appear more than a few view camera folks have figured out and decided Sinar shutters work good with barrel lenses of many varieties.. IMO, they are a worthy spendy if you're into the Sinar system. They still appear for less than what appears to be the current market value of 500 U$D. Anyone paying that much for one needs to have a black version of the Sinar cable release. These are the preferred version of cable release, the chrome/bare metal version has more stretch during shutter cycling and less desirable. Replacement cable is offered by Silvestri (code CR4870), not tried this cable release yet.. but appears good enough.
http://www.silvestricamera.com/cablerelease.html

Best to wait and then pounce on a good Sinar shutter as they become available. As with all mechanical shutters, the to be owned Sinar shutter could need service before it is known good. They are remarkably robust and designed/built to be cycled thousands of times as it was common to expose piles of film per day when these were in production.


Bernice



I initially was hoping to find an older copal 3 for say $75 and adapt the lens to it. But what will really be needed is far more like you say.

I’d love a Sinar shutter and I keep my eye out for one but I just can’t justify $500+ for this right now.

[j.e.simmons]

I have one of the Silverstis as a backup. The attachment piece does not turn separately so you have to turn the entire cable to screw it in to the shutter. Not the best arrangement, but it works.