Question on Steinheil Quinon-S

[Arne Croell]

A little while ago I acquired a used Steinheil Quinon-S 210mm f/5.6 lens on ebay, being curious about it (says the LF lensoholic ;-) ).Since then, I have seen a few more of those being offered. I found out a few things, but would like to learn more. The lens is labeled Steinheil Quinon-S 1:5.6/210 1:12/310 Germany. The longer focal length is in green script and is for using the back cell alone, similar to the Schneider convertible Symmar. There is no serial no. The inscription is actually on a threaded adapter ring connecting the shutter thread and the smaller thread of the lens cell proper. It comes in a late Ilex no.4 -see attached picture. Here is what I know for sure:

- The lens is a 6/4 Planar type (not a Plasmat). That makes it very unique - I am not aware of other 6/4 Planars for LF after WWII: the Planar, Xenotar and Biometar available for LF were all 5/4 constructions. The Quinon name has often been used for (smaller) Planars by Steinheil, but also for other double Gauss versions, and even a Sonnar type, but this is surely a 6/4 Planar-I took it apart. The fact that it is convertible is even more strange, since that feature is usually not associated with Planars.
- The circle of illumination is about 64° at f/22.
- It is coated.
- In 1962 the Steinheil company in Munich was bought by Elgeet in Rochester, and in 1964 sold to Lear Siegler in Santa Monica (Steinheil was finally closed in 1995).The shutter would indicate a time frame in the 1960's-1970's I assume.

I have a a book on the history of Steinheil written by the grandson of Rudolf Steinheil (over 450 pages, in German). It lists all or the majority of the prewar and postwar lenses made, but this is not listed. Also, other postwar Steinheil LF lenses I have seen, like a Culminar or a Unofocal all have serial numbers, and the serial nos. list in the book goes up to 1980. It is shortly listed in the Vademecum, erroneously as a Plasmat, but no other information. Maybe just the cells were ordered by a US company and they put them into the shutters together with the adapter ring?

So here are my questions:
Does anybody know when these were originally offered and by whom (Elgeet or Lear Siegler or somebody else) ?
Does anybody have any original literature - ads, leaflets?
Other tidbits of information, personal experiences?

I have not really put it through its paces yet, but it looks like a nice lens, pretty sharp already wide open, at least on 4x5. On the other hand, its pretty hefty for a 210mm lens (2lbs).

[Dan Fromm]

Arne, I can't help you on your S-Quinon, but I can add to your distress by naming several 6/4 Planars that cover 4x5 and were made after WWII.

Dallmeyer Super Six: 6" (150 mm)/1.9, 8"/2.0

Boyer: Saphir 200/1.9. One of these recently sold for not that much on eBay.fr. I understand its original application was military/scientific, on a camera used for satellite tracking.

I had no idea that 6/4 double Gauss types were separable. What a thought! FWIW, I just took out my 95/2.8 Saphir and sure enough its rear cell forms an image.

Cheers,

Dan

[Arne Croell]

Thanks, Dan, I stand corrected. I didn't know that the Super Six was still available after WWII in longer focal lengths, but you're right. The Saphir you mention I would not really count, I am sure there will be more examples if all the military and aerial lenses are considered. I was thinking regular production LF lenses.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Arne,

Ilex Paragon 4.8 series are 6/4 and convertible (150/250) (180/300) (215/350)
Wollensak Pro Raptars are 6/4 and convertible also.

I only have 1 Steinheil lens, a V-Quinon 210mm f/5.6, really nice lens.

Have fun with it.

[Arne Croell]

Arne,

Ilex Paragon 4.8 series are 6/4 and convertible (150/250) (180/300) (215/350)
Wollensak Pro Raptars are 6/4 and convertible also.

I only have 1 Steinheil lens, a V-Quinon 210mm f/5.6, really nice lens.

Have fun with it.

Hi Paul, aren't the Wollensak and Ilex you mention Plasmat instead of Planar types? I have the Pro-Raptar in shutter, and I thought it was a Plasmat: it certainly has the angle to go with it (up to 80° stopped down). I'll check again tonight. Btw, both the Pro-Raptar and Paragon names are not indicative of a certain type, similar to the Quinon.

Your f/5.6 210mm V-Quinon is a case in point. It is listed in my Steinheil book with a lens diagram and it is a 6/4 Plasmat for 13x18cm negs. It was introduced in 1961 and also came as 150mm and 300mm. However, shorter focal length V-Quinons (60, 80 ,and 105mm f/4, introduced in 1960)) are Planar types...

[Dan Fromm]

Hi Paul, aren't the Wollensak and Ilex you mention Plasmat instead of Planar types? I have the Pro-Raptar in shutter, and I thought it was a Plasmat: it certainly has the angle to go with it (up to 80° stopped down). I'll check again tonight. Btw, both the Pro-Raptar and Paragon names are not indicative of a certain type, similar to the Quinon.

Your f/5.6 210mm V-Quinon is a case in point. It is listed in my Steinheil book with a lens diagram and it is a 6/4 Plasmat for 13x18cm negs. It was introduced in 1961 and also came as 150mm and 300mm. However, shorter focal length V-Quinons (60, 80 ,and 105mm f/4, introduced in 1960)) are Planar types...I've always thought the V-Quinons were enlarging lenses. Was I mistaken?

Arne, I can't address the cine lenses badged Pro Raptar but the Enlarging Pro Raptars are 6/4 plasmats. The two Pro Raptar taking lenses (160/5.6, 210/5.6) are also plasmats. A while ago Kerry Thalmann borrowed some Pro Raptars with the intention of publishing a piece on them in View Camera. I don't subscribe to VC, so don't know if it ever came out or what he concluded about the lenses.

Cheers,

Dan

[Arne Croell]

I've always thought the V-Quinons were enlarging lenses. Was I mistaken?

No you are right, they are. Certainly different from the Quinon-S I have. The strange thing is that those are listed in my book which I thought was pretty exhaustive, but the Quinon-S is not. And the nonexistent serial number together with the fact that the labeling is different for the S compared to other Steinheil lenses is strange.


Arne, I can't address the cine lenses badged Pro Raptar but the Enlarging Pro Raptars are 6/4 plasmats. The two Pro Raptar taking lenses (160/5.6, 210/5.6) are also plasmats. A while ago Kerry Thalmann borrowed some Pro Raptars with the intention of publishing a piece on them in View Camera. I don't subscribe to VC, so don't know if it ever came out or what he concluded about the lenses.Cheers,

Dan


Thanks Dan. I have one of those taking lenses and thats what I remembered. The Vademecum lists shorter Pro-Raptars for smaller formats as double Gauss, but not the LF ones.

[Dan Fromm]

Thanks Dan. I have one of those taking lenses and thats what I remembered. The Vademecum lists shorter Pro-Raptars for smaller formats as double Gauss, but not the LF ones.Thanks. As we all know, the VM isn't always right.

Cheers,

Dan

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi Arne,

"Hi Paul, aren't the Wollensak and Ilex you mention Plasmat instead of Planar types?"

Yes, they should be (double-air space-single | iris). Sorry but I get confused.

Dan,

"I've always thought the V-Quinons were enlarging lenses. Was I mistaken?"

If it's an enlarger lens, it's well over the top, I thought it was a process lens with the center slip-in filter slot. Very well made and a fine performer, this one looks to be N.O.S.. Too bad Steinheil went out of business.

Happy holidays people.

[Arne Croell]

If it's an enlarger lens, it's well over the top, I thought it was a process lens with the center slip-in filter slot. Very well made and a fine performer, this one looks to be N.O.S.. Too bad Steinheil went out of business.

Happy holidays people.

Paul, it is listed as an enlarger lens in my Steinheil book. The "V" corroborates that as it stands most likely for "Vergrösserung", German for enlargement.

I have no idea what the -S of my Quinon-S means though.

Arne

[Arne Croell]

I know this thread is more than three years old, but since I think I just found the answer to my own old question I'll add it here for completion.
A little while ago I acquired one of the 210mm V-Quinon enlarging lenses mentioned above. In the Steinheil book that I own, the lens diagram for the f/5.6 V-Quinons is given as the version in the no. 47 drawing shown below, which can be seen as a derivation of a Plasmat or a dialyte with cemented outer elements. The shorter and faster f/4 V-Quinons were listed as double Gauss Planar types, no.46 (left) in the book diagram below. This made sense, as the Planar type is better suited for larger apertures. When I had acquired the Quinon-S of the original question, I was able to take the front cell apart, and the front lens was clearly single and the group closest to the diaphragm showed the telltale signs of being cemented (two bright reflections and a faint one). It was also convex towards the front lens, which makes it a Planar type, too. When I examined the V-Quinon directly next to the Quinon-S, the lens cells when unscrewed actually looked the same, and the reflections looked the same. I then used my spherometer to measure the three lens radii that I had easy access to on each lens, and they were EXACTLY the same for both lenses. First conclusion: The f/5.6 210mm Quinon-S and V-Quinon are actually the same lens! Second conclusion: the drawing in the book on Steinheil is wrong or got mixed up, since the Quinon-S is clearly a Planar type along the lines of drawing 46 and thus the V-Quinon 210mm is one, too. Third conclusion: The speculation in the Lens Vademecum that the 210mm Quinon-S is a Plasmat is understandable, but also wrong, its a Planar.
As opposed to the Quinon-S, the V-Quinon had a serial no. on its mount, dating it to 1962, one year after it was first manufactured. This was also the year Elgeet in Rochester acquired Steinheil. The second image below shows both lenses next to each other; if one looks closely the font and style of the inscriptions is not the same. The lens cells themselves including the front ring do not carry any inscriptions. My assumption is therefore that Elgeet got the V-Quinon lens cells from Steinheil, put them into the new shuttered mount (Ilex no.4) and sold them as taking lenses.

[Bernard Kaye]

Does any of you know from such as ILEX instructions or using it if with an f4.8 Convertible Paragon 215-350 whether at 350mm. (14") (A) one uses the rear element alone where it is in rear just removing front element or (B) one places the front element in rear removing the rear element?
I ask this because of a focusng problem that probably is of my making.
Thank You,
Bernie

[Arne Croell]

Normally*, if only 2 focal length are given, as in the case of Schneider's Symmar or the Steinheil Quinon-S, the single cell for the longer focal length is the one behind the shutter, and it stays in that position. For a triple convertible like a Protar VII or the original Plasmat, both the back and front cell are used singly for different focal lengths, but mounted behind the shutter each time.

*The exception is the old Rodenstock Sironar convertible, where only the front cell was used in front of the shutter!

[Paul Fitzgerald]

According to an Ilex manual you would use the rear element alone, just remove the front to convert.

[Bernard Kaye]

Thank You, Paul & Arne,

Bernie

[Lynn Jones]

I've owned a 210 Steinheil Quinon (for about 30 years), it is convertible and definitely a plasmat.

The Ilex/Calumet f4.8 215mm single convertible is also a Plasmat (I was one of the co-developers of this absolutely incredible lens). It covered over 72 degrees and was critically sharp from1:1 to infinity. From Calumet they were available only in 215mm, but from Ilex they were 150, 180, and 215. From B&J/BBOI they were 150, 180, 210 and were f5.6.

Lynn

[Lynn Jones]

Hi Bernard,

The inventor was Manual "Manny" Kiner, brilliant optical physicist and one of my closest friends. Manny instructed all of us to remove the front lens group and shoot with the rear group.

Oops, sorry guys, I just realized that somebody had already posted that information.

Lynn

[Arne Croell]

I've owned a 210 Steinheil Quinon (for about 30 years), it is convertible and definitely a plasmat.
Lynn
It has taken me a little while to get around to answering this. One has to keep in mind that both Planars and Plasmats have 3 lens elements in each cell, two of which are cemented. A Planar single cell is a positive single lens in front followed by a cemented negative group. A Plasmat is a (negative) cemented group in front, followed by a positive single meniscus lens next to the aperture. It is therefore quite difficult to distinguish them from the outside (the front lens surface is convex towards the viewer, and the back surface is concave in each case), or using reflections. Each cell will show 4 strong reflections from the open surfaces and one weak reflection from the cemented interface. The one way to be sure is to take them apart.
I cannot be sure, but I doubt that Steinheil made two different convertible 210mm f/5.6 Quinon-S's. However, one would normally assume that such a large format lens is a Plasmat, because that is what nearly all of the "standard" view camera lenses at that time and today were, and this is reinforced by the convertibility. I assume that Lynn's opinion is based on this line of thought.
As I mentioned before, I took mine partially apart and I repeated this now, shown in the pics below. The left image shows the whole lens with the inscription, and maybe Lynn can comment if that looks the same as his. The center image shows the removed front lens: it is a single positive meniscus lens. I used a 6-LED lighted loupe (visible in the upper right hand corner) to show the reflections: two. The right hand picture shows the remaining group of the front cell in its mount; it has negative power. Three reflections of the 6 LED's are clearly visible, one is a little weaker and not colored by the coating: a cemented doublet. From the movement of the reflections, it can be deduced that the first lens of this doublet is a biconvex lens, and thus the second one has to be biconcave. This makes the front cell clearly a classic Planar and not a Plasmat. The back cell (not shown, but I disassembled it, too) has slightly different radii, but the same basic setup, so the whole thing is a Planar!

[Asher Kelman]

Arne,

How about a picture taken with the lens? Any to share? That would be a treat!

Asher.

[Arne Croell]

Arne,

How about a picture taken with the lens? Any to share? That would be a treat!

Asher.
Sorry, I have nothing I can show. Despite my lensoholism, I have a regular set of lenses that I use for my photography and that is pretty much a fixed set. The lenses for "playing" are separate from it. My regular lens in that focal length is a Germinar W 210mm f/9. Much lighter than the Steinheil!

[Asher Kelman]

Thanks for spotting the thread so fast!

Arne, I wonder what's special about the Steinheil compared to other lenses. Is it that the rear element can be used alone?

compared to the 210 f 9.0 Germinar, what would you imagine difference might be?

Asher

[Arne Croell]

Asher, it is a Planar design, which usually reaches its optimum aperture wider open than a Plasmat, at the expense of coverage. A case in point are the Zeiss Oberkochen MTF curves for the 135mm f/3.5 five-element Planar for Linhof, where the MTF curves for the lens stopped down that Zeiss provided is at f/11, not f/22. The same is true for the Zeiss Jena Biometar (also a five element Planar design) prototypes for LF in 135 and 210mm, they only tested them down to f/11.

I would expect a similar performance with the Steinheil. That being said, the Germinar W 210mm is best already at f/16, despite the fact that at f/9 it still has some residual spherical aberration.

[cdholden]

If you had not taken the lens apart to confirm a 6 element design, I would think "Quinon" would be reference to 5 elements, from the quin/quint origins.

[Dan Fromm]

Another reason not to believe that trade names mean anything.

According to the VM, which isn't always right, the original Quinon was a triplet and later ones were 6 element double Gauss types. The VM also speculates (and says so) that the 210 Quinon-S might be a plasmat type because its convertible. Against this we have Arne's report on his Quinon-V and the fact that Boyer sold f/2.8 6/4 double Gauss type Saphirs as convertible.

[Asher Kelman]

So, what do you think the 210 mm Quinon-S will cover now we know it's a Plasmat? I guess we'd have to ask that question for different apertures. But is this a 4x5 lens or would it cover 8x10 too?

Asher

[Louis Pacilla]

So, what do you think the 210 mm Quinon-S will cover now we know it's a Plasmat? I guess we'd have to ask that question for different apertures. But is this a 4x5 lens or would it cover 8x10 too?

Asher

If it's an early plasmat I would guess around 70-75 degrees tops. So that would make it best on 4x5 and a nice moderate wide on 5x7 with a bit left over for movements.

My bet is 8x10 would be pushing it a bit.

[Dan Fromm]

Asher, Louis, Arne was quite clear. Planar, not plasmat. Not much more than 60 degrees, if that. 70 degrees would be quite a stretch for it.

[Louis Pacilla]

I've owned a 210 Steinheil Quinon (for about 30 years), it is convertible and definitely a plasmat.

The Ilex/Calumet f4.8 215mm single convertible is also a Plasmat (I was one of the co-developers of this absolutely incredible lens). It covered over 72 degrees and was critically sharp from1:1 to infinity. From Calumet they were available only in 215mm, but from Ilex they were 150, 180, and 215. From B&J/BBOI they were 150, 180, 210 and were f5.6.

Lynn

[Dan Fromm]

Lou, Lynn Jones has had a wonderful life and career. All respect to him.

But its been a while since he's always reported accurately. Arne dismantled one of the lenses and isn't relying on what seems, though I hope it isn't, a failing memory.

[Louis Pacilla]

Lou, Lynn Jones has had a wonderful life and career. All respect to him.

But its been a while since he's always reported accurately. Arne dismantled one of the lenses and isn't relying on what seems, though I hope it isn't, a failing memory.

I see what your referring to now Dan. It sure does look like Arne discovered the S to be a Plannar.


To Asher. Even less chance of it covering 8x10

[Asher Kelman]

Asher, Louis, Arne was quite clear. Planar, not plasmat. Not much more than 60 degrees, if that. 70 degrees would be quite a stretch for it.

Dan,

Thanks for correcting my error! I understood what Arne wrote, LOL, but typed plasmat instead!

Asher

[Arne Croell]

Another reason not to believe that trade names mean anything.
So true! It still is maddening, especially when the companies now even use common prefixes in (ahem) "non-traditional" ways: Schneider's Apo-Tele-Xenar 350 is not only not based on a traditional Tele-Xenar, it is not even a telephoto. It is a dialyte (a nice one though), so they should have named it "Whatever-Artar" or "-Claron". Zeiss' ZM Tele-Tessar 85mm f/4 is also not a telephoto, it is a "Voigtländer Oxyn" type from the lens diagram (the Oxyn is a mix of Voigtländers Heliar and Dynar types, essentially very close to a Heliar). Ok, rant mode over....

According to the VM, which isn't always right, the original Quinon was a triplet and later ones were 6 element double Gauss types. The VM also speculates (and says so) that the 210 Quinon-S might be a plasmat type because its convertible. Against this we have Arne's report on his Quinon-V and the fact that Boyer sold f/2.8 6/4 double Gauss type Saphirs as convertible.
My German Steinheil book, written by the son in law of Rudolf Steinheil, shows three different post-WWII Quinon constructions: One Sonnar type, eight Planar types/derivatives, and one dialyte derivative. Nine have six elements, one has seven (one of the Planar types), none have five or less. Most of these came in different focal lengths, so there were 35 different Quinons for different formats, including 16 projection lenses. According to these lists, there was no Quinon before WWII, only a Kino-Quinar, a 5/3 triplet derivative similar to a Dynar.

[E. von Hoegh]

Another reason not to believe that trade names mean anything.

According to the VM, which isn't always right, the original Quinon was a triplet and later ones were 6 element double Gauss types. The VM also speculates (and says so) that the 210 Quinon-S might be a plasmat type because its convertible. Against this we have Arne's report on his Quinon-V and the fact that Boyer sold f/2.8 6/4 double Gauss type Saphirs as convertible.

No, Dan. The Quinon was developed for use in the tropics, it has quinine in the glass.:D

[Dan Fromm]

E., somewhere the sun is over the yardarm. I think its time for you to have a gin and tonic to ward off malaria.

[E. von Hoegh]

E., somewhere the sun is over the yardarm. I think its time for you to have a gin and tonic to ward off malaria.

Sorry, no gin :( . And I'll be damned before I put tonic in my Talisker :eek: .

[Dan Fromm]

Well, then, take your quinine water straight ... I don't know whether it is as effective as Lariam but its a lot less dangerous.

[Math]

I recently received a V-Quinon 210mm f5.6, and figured it'd be a plasmat type going by the Vade Mecum. After opening it up I can confirm it's definitely not a plasmat but indeed a planar type. A late addition to the discussion, but good for future reference by others.