270mm. general purpose lenses???

[ditkoofseppala]

A question for the encyclopaedic minds out there . . .

Other than the CP Goerz Dagor, has any major lens maker ever carried a 270mm lens with enough angular coverage to serve as a normal, general purpose taking lens for whole-plate (6.5"x8.5") format -- let alone 8x10? AFAIK, for instance, there was never a 270mm Symmar or Symmar-S, nor a 270mm Sironar.

I'm not talking about Tele-Artons and Rotelars; those are telephoto designs with low angular coverage. Nor am I speaking of process lenses -- RD Artars, Computars, Kowas, Apo Gerogon-S's.

And of course I'm quite aware that there are any number of acceptable 300mm lenses that will service nicely as a normal lens for WP. But if one wants a slightly wider angle of view and a 'true' normal for WP format, I'm not sure there's any alternative to the 10 5/8" Dagor, and even those seem to be quite scarce. In fact, I suspect the closest approach to a solution might be the 10" Wide Field Ektar. A Computar might be great, assuming one could manage to find the *right design* of Computar and get one in a leaf-shutter mount; sounds like a long-term project, though.

Am I overlooking something? Perhaps TTH made something of that sort, since WP is said to have survived into the 1960s in the UK as a commercial format? What say ye lens experts out there? :)

[wfwhitaker]

Sometimes the focal length is implied in the way the lens is marked. Lenses from the 19th and early 20th century were often marked simply in terms of the format for which they were intended. The marking of lenses by focal length is a later practice. A No. 4 Turner-Reich series II f/6.8 anastigmat is thus marked 6 1/2 x 8 1/2, but the catalog from that era shows it to have a focal length of 10 1/2". Since it was intended for that format, it has sufficient coverage. It's also a triple convertible, the front and rear cells being 24 and 18 inches respectively. These were available in Betax and other shutters and occasionally show up. It's a nice lens to have for the format, especially if you're interested in vintage equipment.

270mm or thereabouts was actually a fairly common focal length, at least at one time. I can find a Heliar, a Cooke series IIa portrait and a couple of rapid rectilinears on my own shelf that share that focal length. It's interesting to note that they're all fairly old lenses, making them reasonably contemporary with the 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 format in its heyday.

[John Kasaian]

Schneider G Claron 270m will cover 8x10. I have an old Gennert 270mm brassie in a compound that will cover.

[Dan Fromm]

If you look around, you'll find any number of 260 or 270 mm f/4.5 or f/6.3 tessar types with claimed coverage of at least 300 mm.

[Sal Santamaura]

...has any major lens maker ever carried a 270mm lens with enough angular coverage to serve as a normal, general purpose taking lens for whole-plate (6.5"x8.5") format...Nor am I speaking of process lenses...The actual image diagonal of my 6.5x8.5 holders is 260.1mm, so I too was interested in such a lens. I ended up with a new 270mm G-Claron; see here:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?p=256352#post256352

for the details. Not sure why you exclude "process" lenses; the G-Claron does this job nicely and, at f/45 or smaller apertures, will probably cover 11x14. Based on diagonals, 270mm on 6.5x8.5 equates to 159mm on 4x5. Weighs 13.25 ounces and accepts 58mm filters.

Should you want a brighter viewing image and prefer to be 10mm wider than a perfect "normal" rather than 10mm longer, a 250mm f/6.7 Fujinon W will also fill the bill. That works out to 147mm on 4x5. Weight is 20.5 ounces and takes a 67mm filter.

Finally, if you'd prefer to go a little wider yet, want an even brighter viewing image and can stand the weight, a 240mm f/5.6 Apo Sironar N (or its Caltar II N equivalent) would be appropriate. Like a 141mm on 4x5. Weighs 28 ounces and uses 77mm filters.

[Chauncey Walden]

I found out last week that a 180 Symmar-S will cover 6.5x8.5 nicely at f/45 and would be usable at f/32. My favorite lens for it, so far, is the 215 Acuton. The 240 Eurynar is fine and the 240 Xenar would be great if it weren't in my 8x10 kit. But you are correct, I have nothing handy between these and 300mm.

[Sal Santamaura]

Another "normal" possibility if a 320mm image circle is adequate for your purposes would be the 250mm f/6.3 Fujinon CM-W. EBC multicoated and available brand new:

http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=170

Weighs 18 ounces and has 67mm filter threads.

[Rob_5419]

Other than the CP Goerz Dagor, has any major lens maker ever carried a 270mm lens with enough angular coverage to serve as a normal, general purpose taking lens for whole-plate (6.5"x8.5") format -- let alone 8x10? AFAIK, for instance, there was never a 270mm Symmar or Symmar-S, nor a 270mm Sironar.

Taylor Hobson (TTH) regularly output Series III and Series V lenses in whole-plate designation from the 1890's - 1920's. Similarly, Ross of London created similar formula for rectilinear and homocentric lenses for every conceivable focal length!

I find I tend to prefer 180mm (over 150mm) in 5x4" format. With whole-plate format, I'm using a 14" focal length which is also slightly telephoto. Check out a slightly telephoto 12" - 14" focal length on your whole plate ground glass and gawp at the breadth of the whole plate format - it might change your mind about needing a wider angle focal length which would invariably come with restricted movement (if your WP can push this) or a hefty price tag.

Watch out for that 270mm G-Claron too ;there were two types, and one weighed a tank and didn't offer significantly better performance than the updated version.

[Jim Galli]

Protar Viia #16 Heptoic is f6.3 275mm and would cover 10X8 with movements. A fine lens. Other than antiques though, the answer to your question is no. The closest thing to what you've described is a G-Claron 270mm f9. Stay away from any of the G-Claron WA f11's. A 10 3/4" Golden Dagor will affect my heart rate and breathing, but they are scarce and expensive and did not make your list in any case.

[Jiri Vasina]

Some time ago (almost exactly a year ago) I bought a Hugo Meyer Doppel Anastigmat 270mm lens from Ole Tjugen. It's lens with a lot of attributes, among others it's a barrel lens, a vintage one, largest aperture f6,8, a bit on the heavy side too. But on the other hand, it's wonderful wide open, and also very good stopped down. What's more, before he sent it to me, he tried it on a 24x30cm and it covered well even wide open - and with some movements too...

[clay harmon]

A very good inexpensive lens is the 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 Zeiss or B&L Tessar Ic. It has a focal length of 9-7/8" and a speed of f/4.5. While it does not have the image circle of the dagor, it is very sharp even at wide f-stops, and they can usually be picked up cheap on the bay. I got one a while back for less than $100. I like it a lot, and in fact, it is a favorite lens if movements are not needed.

Another choice in the older lenses is one of the Protar VII's. The 18-7/8" and 16 3/16" cells can be combined for a 10 inch f/7 lens. There are a number of possible protar VIIa cell combinations that will yield focal lengths in the 9 to 11 inch range. This page from cameraeccentric gives you an idea of the number of possibilities:

http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/bauschcatb/p26.html

I have the double protar version with the two 18 7/8 inch cells, and it is quite a nice performer.

If you are doing portrait work on whole plate, consider using the 8x10 lenses to get a slightly longer focal length. One of my big favorites in this category is the Kodak 305 portrait lens, which is still relatively easy to find and is on of the better soft focus lenses around in my opinion because it has nice coatings on the single achromat element.

[Merg Ross]

Another vote for the 270mm G-Claron f:9. Mine gets a lot of use.

[ditkoofseppala]

Protar Viia #16 Heptoic is f6.3 275mm and would cover 10X8 with movements. A fine lens. Other than antiques though, the answer to your question is no. The closest thing to what you've described is a G-Claron 270mm f9. Stay away from any of the G-Claron WA f11's. A 10 3/4" Golden Dagor will affect my heart rate and breathing, but they are scarce and expensive and did not make your list in any case.

'Tisn't that it didn't make my list, Jim. I sure wouldn't turn down the Golden Dagor. Just like you say, scarce and expensive. I keep my eyes peeled, but without much hope. The 270mm G-Claron is of course a logical answer, particularly if one can get one in a shutter. And, as several of you have pointed out, there were plenty of lenses contemporaneous with WP's heyday. But few of them to be found in decent modern shutters. I found a cheap Voigtlaender Collinear II 1:6,3 in 10-inch f.l., barrel mounted of course; it should cover decently with a modicum of wiggle room (Cox indicates it should have an image circle on the order of 318mm.) if it turns out to be optically decent.

But I guess for an everyday shooter with a leaf shutter it's likely to turn out to be a 270 G-Claron or a 250 WF Ektar. Rob's perfectly right about the slightly longer focal length being a great choice much of the time, and I'm well covered there with a couple 300's to choose from. The snipers on the 'Bay somehow let a 300/6,8 CP Goerz Berlin Dagor in a very serviceable Compound shutter slip past them, and I won it at less than USD200 -- just CAN'T WAIT to try that baby out. (Speaking of which, that particular compound shutter has neither T, B, nor any obvious preview lever -- how is one meant to open the shutter for focussing and composition? The cocking lever can be interrupted in the middle of a slow speed, but there's no catch on the shutter to hold it open. I'm a bit puzzled by that one. Obviously I don't know a lot about Compounds.) :o

[Rob_5419]

and I'm well covered there with a couple 300's to choose from. The snipers on the 'Bay somehow let a 300/6,8 CP Goerz Berlin Dagor in a very serviceable Compound shutter slip past them, and I won it at less than USD200 -- just CAN'T WAIT to try that baby out.

DKS - that trust fund is going to run out!~

Why not:

http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/Pictures/cooke_xvaL.gif


(Sorry - the trust fund may be running thin :)

I guess you're not interested in Packard or Thornton Pickard type shutters for the larger lenses then? In a way, a Schneider G-Claron makes sense for you, since you plan to enlarge WP, the definition of the lens will be important.

Tell us how you get on with the Voigtlander Collinear. I've seen these float around - not known much about it. In a way, a vintage lens with a Packard shutter would be my first choice for the cost:quality ratio..

[Joseph O'Neil]

Again - another vote for the G-Claron. I have the 270mm version myself, wonderful lens. However, they are not always easy to find - you might have to hunt around a bit to find one
good luck
joe

[ditkoofseppala]

Rob, you do give me quite a giggle sometimes! :p If you can't pick up on the difference between a $192.50 300/6,8 Dagor and a $3000 Cooke exercise in nostalgia for the plutocracy, you must've been snoozing your way through simple arithmetic in school. ;) There was one of those Cooke Pinkham-Smith recreations on the 'Bay a week or so ago, and I was quite surprised that there WAS one bidder, and one only, so it went at the minimum bid, which was just short of three grand. And that was right after Dagor77 pulled off the sale of a genuine Pinkham Smith Bi-Quality at just over $3500, which I think surprised the hell out of him but was a welcome contribution to his impending trip to Scotland. I was among the early bidders on Andrew's P&S, not because I had a ghost of a chance to win it, but just to be able to say that I had been one of the bidders in that sale! :p Obviously there ARE 'trust fund' buyers out there but I'm not one of them. The difference is that I'm not crushed when I get an email saying "Item Not Won." If you don't bid, you can't win, but nobody says you have to win 'em all. eBay quite sensibly advises us to *enter our true maximum bid* once for all on an item, and it's very good advice, once one has learnt not to deceive oneself. I stopped bidding on the PS Bi-Quality at the $300 level; but I was serious up to that point and sure would have been thrilled to win it.

Sometimes if you really want something badly, you'll have to pay a dear price for it, as in the case of those Kodak WP film holders. I was pretty determined to have those. But then, I only paid $210 for my Century WP camera even including the extension that Jim so kindly rigged up for me. If you look at the prices of outfits that I was offered here on the forum, you'll see that I had some wiggle room left on the holders because I got such a sweet deal on the camera. It's a case of swings and roundabouts, really, or at least that's how I look at it. :rolleyes:

[Rob_5419]

DKS -

Maths isn't my strong point. Too busy doodling images in mind through lessons. Besides, I just bought a 35mm em, rangefinder which was senseless but anyway.

I just like the look of that Taylor Cooke XVa :)

When it comes to vintage lenses, I'm not sure there's much difference other than internet hype in what surrounds 'fabled' lenses. Sure, there is micro-detail available with some Petzval designs, Dagors, Wollensaks etc. Don't forget there were also regional differences; a lot of British superb lenses were also created in the same era with a longer pedigree and quality (guess where the Pinkham & Smith comes from).

I'm just not convinced that it's worth spending absolute loads on a lens which will inevitably not show up the differences, not necessarily just in contact printing, but for a whole range of photographic applications. Some people do get into the cult of a swirly bokeh lens, and that's fine too. But for the premium, adding 'bling' to an image doesn't always win over.

Yeah - those whole plate holders were a necessity (and film too!). You got a good deal altogether. $300 would get a slice-sharp 270mm G-Claron a few years ago! Whatever happened to all those lenses.....must be somewhere in the world collecting dust.

[Jim Galli]

Rob, you do give me quite a giggle sometimes! :p If you can't pick up on the difference between a $192.50 300/6,8 Dagor and a $3000 Cooke exercise in nostalgia for the plutocracy, you must've been snoozing your way through simple arithmetic in school. ;) There was one of those Cooke Pinkham-Smith recreations on the 'Bay a week or so ago, and I was quite surprised that there WAS one bidder, and one only, so it went at the minimum bid, which was just short of three grand. And that was right after Dagor77 pulled off the sale of a genuine Pinkham Smith Bi-Quality at just over $3500, which I think surprised the hell out of him but was a welcome contribution to his impending trip to Scotland. I was among the early bidders on Andrew's P&S, not because I had a ghost of a chance to win it, but just to be able to say that I had been one of the bidders in that sale! :p Obviously there ARE 'trust fund' buyers out there but I'm not one of them. The difference is that I'm not crushed when I get an email saying "Item Not Won." If you don't bid, you can't win, but nobody says you have to win 'em all. eBay quite sensibly advises us to *enter our true maximum bid* once for all on an item, and it's very good advice, once one has learnt not to deceive oneself. I stopped bidding on the PS Bi-Quality at the $300 level; but I was serious up to that point and sure would have been thrilled to win it.

Sometimes if you really want something badly, you'll have to pay a dear price for it, as in the case of those Kodak WP film holders. I was pretty determined to have those. But then, I only paid $210 for my Century WP camera even including the extension that Jim so kindly rigged up for me. If you look at the prices of outfits that I was offered here on the forum, you'll see that I had some wiggle room left on the holders because I got such a sweet deal on the camera. It's a case of swings and roundabouts, really, or at least that's how I look at it. :rolleyes:

Actually Rob has stumbled onto the perfect solution for you. You will need to purchase 2 count em, 2 Series XVa Cookes although only one needs to be in shutter. If you combine the 2 rear groups you will have a glorious 268mm lens, multi-coated.

[John Powers]

I did the same search for 6-8 months for a 270mm to cover 7x17 format. Tim Sharkey of Snohomish, Washington 98290, (I love the name of the town) web site
Lensn2shutter and on eBay, made up a "Wollensak 10 3/4" (273mm) f6.8 Graphic Wide Field Lens" (that is what is printed on the lens) in a Pi-Alphax shutter. speeds 1,2,5,10, 25, 50. F 6.8-64. It is SHARP and covers 7x17 with some movement. I have no idea if he has another one up his sleeve.


John

[John Kasaian]

FWIW, Take a look at Ansel Adams book "The Making if 40 Photographs" IIRC many of his 8x10s were shot using the equivalent 270mm components of his Cooke triple convertable.

[sanking]

I did the same search for 6-8 months for a 270mm to cover 7x17 format. Tim Sharkey of Snohomish, Washington 98290, (I love the name of the town) web site
Lensn2shutter and on eBay, made up a "Wollensak 10 3/4" (273mm) f6.8 Graphic Wide Field Lens" (that is what is printed on the lens) in a Pi-Alphax shutter. speeds 1,2,5,10, 25, 50. F 6.8-64. It is SHARP and covers 7x17 with some movement. I have no idea if he has another one up his sleeve.


John


For 7X17 the 270mm Computar is a great lens. This lens will actually just cover ( or almost just cover, depending on your mood) 12X20, so you can imagine how much it will allow in the way of movements on 7X17.

You could also combine various configurations of the 240mm, 270mm and 305mm Computars to cover almost any intermediate focus between 240mm-305mm. Combinations of the 305 and 240 gives very close to 270mm.

For those who don't know it, the Computar is a plasmat type lens similar to the G-Claron, but it covers a lot more, say about 95 degrees compared to 80 degrees or so for the G-Claron.

Sandy King

[John Powers]

"For 7X17 the 270mm Computar is a great lens. " I knew that Sandy, probably thanks to you, but by the time the Wollensak arrived I had looked for 270mm and 240mm Computars for more than a year. Like old Porsche parts Computars seemed to be made of that rare metal, unobtainium.

John

[ditkoofseppala]

Well, John, I have great faith that *if* you continue to search diligently and regularly, virtually anything you ever heard of in terms of photographic equipment will eventually turn up as an eBay offering. I used to make the P&S a private mental exception to that belief until Andrew blew that one out of the water by offering TWO P&S lenses at the same time, while at the same time the modern Cooke imitation was offered by someone else. So I keep looking for Computars, but I'm bothered by that long Computar discussion on another thread which made it clear that various design changes took place without any corresponding change of lens designation, making it somewhat chancy as to what one is getting in any given Computar on the 'Bay.

I'm blown away by the collective POWER of this forum to make difficult information accessible -- I had never even heard of that particular Wollensak 10 3/4 "Graphic Wide Field Lens" before! Obviously for some reason 270mm was a favoured focal length for wide field process lenses, given this Wollensak, the Computars, the Apo Gerogon-S, etc. There have been some interesting suggestions that have clarified the question considerably.

Tessars . . . I dunno, I tend mostly to avoid 'em unless they bear the Ektar label, which for my money were always the best of the triplet crop. Overall, like a lot of folks I guess, I like the additional coverage afforded by symmetrical designs. A 270mm Tessar design would typically give a person very little room for movements on WP format. The older lenses from the heyday of WP are a possibility but I would really be flying blind in that area; I got the Collinear for a reasonable price; my only other brassie is a gem-like little Rodenstock Eurynar 180mm that I got for peanuts from the eastern bloc. (It may not even cover WP.) I'll be content to play around with those two perfecting my Galli Shutter technique until I've had enough time to absorb the researches of Jim and others into yesteryear's brass-barrelled optics to really know what's what.

[sanking]

So I keep looking for Computars, but I'm bothered by that long Computar discussion on another thread which made it clear that various design changes took place without any corresponding change of lens designation, making it somewhat chancy as to what one is getting in any given Computar on the 'Bay.



You may have read something I never saw, but as far as I know all lenses called Computar share a common design and have similar performance, except for the one called Computar Symmetrigon.

The confusion may be in the fact that some lenses called Aop-kyvtars (spelling?) seem to also be same as Computars, except for the fact that most of them were available designated as convertible lenses. But Computars can be convertibles to, int the same way, though the shutters don't have the double aperture scale.

Also, and this is where it gets complicated. Some, but not all Kowa 240mm and 270mm lenses have the same wide coverage as Computars, so they seem to be the same lens. Most other Kowa lenses cover about 80 degrees, about same as G-Clarons.

Sandy King

[clay harmon]

i had the same dubious opinion about Tessars until I bought one for a 'can't lose' price. And then used it. For still life, portrait, or anything else that requires a normal to long focal length and minimal movement, I am impressed. Especially their wider aperture performance. I wouldn't dream of using a dagor at f/8, but the tessars are fine performers at big apertures. Like any lens being discussed, there are bound to be some variations between specimens, but I think for the pittance they go for typically, they represent a nice lens to have in your bag.


Tessars . . . I dunno, I tend mostly to avoid 'em unless they bear the Ektar label, which for my money were always the best of the triplet crop. Overall, like a lot of folks I guess, I like the additional coverage afforded by symmetrical designs. A 270mm Tessar design would typically give a person very little room for movements on WP format. The older lenses from the heyday of WP are a possibility but I would really be flying blind in that area; I got the Collinear for a reasonable price; my only other brassie is a gem-like little Rodenstock Eurynar 180mm that I got for peanuts from the eastern bloc. (It may not even cover WP.) I'll be content to play around with those two perfecting my Galli Shutter technique until I've had enough time to absorb the researches of Jim and others into yesteryear's brass-barrelled optics to really know what's what.

[John Powers]

Now if you want a cheap, sharp solution and don’t mind using a lens cap for a shutter, “260mm f 9 KONICA GR 2 supersharp 330157470907 Buy it now $169”. I have read that this will cover 11x14, but knock the corners off 7x17. For whole-plate (6.5"x8.5") what do you care?

John

[ditkoofseppala]

John, I saw the Konica Hexanon listing too and was considerably tempted, but for a day-in, day-out lens I really do like to have it in a shutter. Granted photos can be made successfully without it, but using your hat, a lenscap, or the Galli Shutter gets confining, it removes a lot of options.

I just a few minutes ago solved my problem, though. I think I mentioned that the 10" Wide Field Ektar would fill the bill pretty well. The last one I saw sold on eBay for $1007 on the 11th of July -- too rich for my blood. Another appeared recently, and I was holding my breath hoping not too many people would notice. Well, I just won it for $61 over the minimum bid, at $460. It looks to be in excellent shape and I'm sure it will be a *very* satisfactory solution for me. That baby is supposed to have an image circle on the order of 422 mm, along with a nice bright f:6,3 maximum aperture for focussing. :) I think my new WP outfit is complete now! :D

[John Kasaian]

Congratulations! The 10" WF is a very fine lens indeed. $500-ish is a fair price for one in good condition in a working #5. I'm very happy with mine & I'll bet you'll be just as hapy with yours!
Cheers!