Pacific Optical 18" F4

[Knackebrod]

Hi,

Is there anyone here that has given a Pacific Optical 18" F4 lens a try?
I struggle finding any information about the lens. It's from a Chicago Aerial KS-87B camera which uses 4.5x4.5" film.
Any info is welcome!

[Mark J]

There was an 18" F/4 lens for 4.5" square format in the Perkin Elmer catalogue from c.1970 . I wonder if there's any connection ?

[xkaes]

Does it look like this monster?

https://shopping.yahoo.com/product/skimlinks_49657-722616397/Vintage-Giant-18--457mm-F3-0-Aero-Lens-With-Mount-For-Large-Format-Camera-8x10?pid=skimlinks_49657-722616397

[Dan Fromm]

Does it look like this monster?

https://shopping.yahoo.com/product/skimlinks_49657-722616397/Vintage-Giant-18--457mm-F3-0-Aero-Lens-With-Mount-For-Large-Format-Camera-8x10?pid=skimlinks_49657-722616397

My USAF data sheets say that the monster is for 2.25 x 2.25. They don't mention an 18"/4 by Pacific Optical, do mention 18"/4 lenses by Fairchild (2 lenses), Perkin Elmer (2 lenses), Bell & Howell, and Oude Delft. There's a link to the datasheets in the list. If you don't know what the list is, please ask.

[Dan Fromm]

Hi,

Is there anyone here that has given a Pacific Optical 18" F4 lens a try?
I struggle finding any information about the lens. It's from a Chicago Aerial KS-87B camera which uses 4.5x4.5" film.
Any info is welcome!

Is this https://www.ebay.com/itm/203090428463 what you're thinking of? KevinCameras has several of them. http://www.kevincameras.com/photo/index.php?/category/28545 Big fat heavy lens, fixed aperture, no shutter. It has been done, but lenses like this one are very hard to repurpose. Maybe usable with the complete camera, power supply, control box and 5" roll film.

[Knackebrod]

There was an 18" F/4 lens for 4.5" square format in the Perkin Elmer catalogue from c.1970 . I wonder if there's any connection ?


That would match the era! Any chance you could get me a copy of that catalogue?

[Knackebrod]

Does it look like this monster?

https://shopping.yahoo.com/product/skimlinks_49657-722616397/Vintage-Giant-18--457mm-F3-0-Aero-Lens-With-Mount-For-Large-Format-Camera-8x10?pid=skimlinks_49657-722616397

That's a behemoth! No it's it's smaller brother:
248543

[Knackebrod]

Is this https://www.ebay.com/itm/203090428463 what you're thinking of? KevinCameras has several of them. http://www.kevincameras.com/photo/index.php?/category/28545 Big fat heavy lens, fixed aperture, no shutter. It has been done, but lenses like this one are very hard to repurpose. Maybe usable with the complete camera, power supply, control box and 5" roll film.

That's the one!
I should have clarified I intend to use it for wetplate photography so not having a shutter, matching camera isn't a dealbreaker for me :)
Thanks for the other manufacturers names! I couldn't find Pacific Optical in the list anywhere. I'll have to do some more research if the PO is identical to any of those.

[Dan Fromm]

That would match the era! Any chance you could get me a copy of that catalogue?

There is a link in "the list." See the first post in this https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?138978-Where-to-look-for-information-on-LF-(mainly)-lenses discussion.

[Knackebrod]

There is a link in "the list." See the first post in this https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?138978-Where-to-look-for-information-on-LF-(mainly)-lenses discussion.

Ok thanks, I was wondering if there was a more extensive catalogue from Perkin Elmer

[Dan Fromm]

Ok thanks, I was wondering if there was a more extensive catalogue from Perkin Elmer

None that I'm aware of.

[Mark J]

I have a copy, I think it's in my books at work.
I'm not sure how valid it would be to copy it, but I'll check. This came to us because our company was a joint venture between Pilkington and Perkin Elmer. in 1968.
I will at the least try & copy the 18" f/4 for you.

[Mark J]

None that I'm aware of.

I found the Perkin-Elmer book at home.
It is actually a report prepared for AFSC Wright Patterson Air Force base in 1975.
Entitled "Report no. 12071 - Lens Data Handbook"
As such, I might have to find a contact at Perkin Elmer to ask if it's safe for public consumption, now, after 49 years.

The 18" f/4 is a 6-element double gauss ( 6/4 ).
Its waveband is from green 546nm to red , 656nm, so implies a yellow filter for best performance.
Image circle 160mm.
It will resolve over 100lp/mm over the majority of the picture at f/4, with something fairly fine grain ( SO-130 given ). Over 200 lp/mm with 3404.

[Mark J]

I just carefully checked the lens that Dan and Knackebrod showed, this is the same 18" f/4 lens as I just posted, above.
The Perkin Elmer lens picture shows much of the same script on the narrow front rim, including the design number 7438-5010-1
So, I assume the design was taken over by Pacific Optical.

[Dan Fromm]

So, I assume the design was taken over by Pacific Optical.

Taken over? Perhaps not. For some, not all, of the lenses USAF bought it contracted with >1 manufacturer to make them, all to the same design. For example, 3"/4.5 Biogons from Pacific Optical, Goerz, Delft and Viewlex. Charlie Barringer believed that some of these were actually made by Zeiss and rebadged to comply with "buy domestic" requirements.

[Mark J]

OK, well are Pacific Optical the makers of the camera system ?
In that case maybe Perkin Elmer kept making them.

[Dan Fromm]

OK, well are Pacific Optical the makers of the camera system ?
In that case maybe Perkin Elmer kept making them.

No, Pacific Optical made lenses. Perkin-Elmer made lenses. Chicago Aerial Industries made the KS-87B camera that used the lens the op is thinking about. Fairchild made both aerial cameras and lenses for them for USAF; Fairchild is the big exception here.

Think back to the UK's MoD practice in WWII. A number of lens makers, Dallmeyer among them, produced 8"/2.9 Pentac lenses as L. Booth designed for Dallmeyer.

[Mark Sampson]

An interesting mountain of glass. Perhaps you could mount it on a tailboard camera, like a B&J Rembrandt.
Should provide an unusual perspective for portraits..

[Knackebrod]

I found the Perkin-Elmer book at home.
It is actually a report prepared for AFSC Wright Patterson Air Force base in 1975.
Entitled "Report no. 12071 - Lens Data Handbook"
As such, I might have to find a contact at Perkin Elmer to ask if it's safe for public consumption, now, after 49 years.

The 18" f/4 is a 6-element double gauss ( 6/4 ).
Its waveband is from green 546nm to red , 656nm, so implies a yellow filter for best performance.
Image circle 160mm.
It will resolve over 100lp/mm over the majority of the picture at f/4, with something fairly fine grain ( SO-130 given ). Over 200 lp/mm with 3404.

Thanks a lot Mark! That's some really useful info!
Looks like it has a smaller image circle then I was hoping for. Would have hoped to use it on 8x10".

I don't really understand the values in the last sentence because I simply don't know much about the theory behind a lens design. Could you translate that to language I might understand? :)

[Knackebrod]

An interesting mountain of glass. Perhaps you could mount it on a tailboard camera, like a B&J Rembrandt.
Should provide an unusual perspective for portraits..

That's what I was thinking. Contemplating building a camera myself and starting off with looking for some glass! Unfortunately the classic Petzfal brass lenses are out of my price range...
Haven't bought this lens yet, came across it on my search and wanting to find out more about it.

[Mark Sampson]

That lens might cover 8x10 at portrait distances. It was meant for very high-resolution aerial work on 5" roll film, but who knows how big the image circle might actually be?
And of course, no one has ever worried about sharp corners in a portrait. Nor are darkened corners (if it doesn't cover completely) usually an issue.
And as an aside, my friends and colleagues who shoot tintype prefer 6"x8" plates.
Can you tell that I'm acting as an enabler here? Go for it!

[Dan Fromm]

OP, since you want to shoot 8x10 wet plate, why don't you just get a longish Tessar type? They're around, they have the coverage you need and they can cost much less than and are lighter than aerial camera lenses. If you want an aerial camera lens that will cover 8x10, go back and use the link I gave you. The list of USAF lenses isn't complete, but ...

For 300 mm aerial lenses that cover 8x10, think 12"/6.3 Metrogon and 12" or so Aero Ektars. If you need much longer, as I said, stick with lenses made for terrestrial cameras.

If you don't have a copy of A Lens Collector's Vade Mecum, get one and see what it says about "Military Optical Ordinance." On the whole discouraging.

On the other hand, if you have the funds, are willing to make a mistake and understand that lenses can be resold, get the lens you asked about and try it out. The worst that can happen is that you'll lose some time and money.

[Mark J]

Dan's advice is sound. This lens, without camera, weighs 18.6 lb , according to the catalogue.



I don't really understand the values in the last sentence because I simply don't know much about the theory behind a lens design. Could you translate that to language I might understand? :)

It's just the amount of detail in line pairs per millimeter ( on the film ) that the lens can resolve. The performance quoted there in the catalogue is as good as the best 35mm lenses nowadays, but over a much bigger negative.

[domaz]

A fast Tessar really is the way to go. For example, a Gundlach Radar Anastigmat 12 inch 4.5 is basically the same speed as this aero lens, is fairly common and inexpensive and usually comes in a shutter making it easy to use on 8x10.

[Mark J]

Anyone who wants to do their portraits from further away, could always try the Perkin-Elmer 144" f/8 pentac, which covers 18 x 36" format.

[Knackebrod]

That lens might cover 8x10 at portrait distances. It was meant for very high-resolution aerial work on 5" roll film, but who knows how big the image circle might actually be?
And of course, no one has ever worried about sharp corners in a portrait. Nor are darkened corners (if it doesn't cover completely) usually an issue.
And as an aside, my friends and colleagues who shoot tintype prefer 6"x8" plates.
Can you tell that I'm acting as an enabler here? Go for it!


Dan's advice is sound. This lens, without camera, weighs 18.6 lb , according to the catalogue.



It's just the amount of detail in line pairs per millimeter ( on the film ) that the lens can resolve. The performance quoted there in the catalogue is as good as the best 35mm lenses nowadays, but over a much bigger negative.

Thanks for the explanation!

[Knackebrod]

Thank you all for your thoughts and help with getting some details on this lens! Very much appreciated.

I've got all the information I need and will give everything some thought!