rapid portrait lens - 1900???

[Torsten]

Hi, I just won the bid on ebay concerning this "rapid portrait lens" (160195834528). I did not find anything in the vademecum about that lens. Does anybody has some more information about this lens, would be wonderful? Which kind exactly, age, soft focus??


thanks
Torsten

[Torsten]

here is a better view of image 2.

[Ole Tjugen]

Montgomery Ward seems to have been a catalog company, selling just about anything at all. And it also seens that just about anything was named "Thornward" like your lens here.

"Rapid portrait" lenses are often (but not always) Petzvals. If it is, then the focal length is about 80% of the length of the lens.

[Torsten]

another photo of the barril mount

[Ole Tjugen]

A little detective work indicates that it may be a Portrait Rectilinear, made by Clement et Gilmer, 140 Faubourg St. Martin, Paris, France. If so, it should have about 14" focal length.

[Torsten]

The know on the side - I presume it's just a focusing knob! I read somewhere that this knob allows changing from soft- harsh by moving a lens - does anyone know more about it - focusing knob or softener??

T

[Bjorn Nilsson]

The knob is a focusing knob (, at least it is on my similar lenses). You will see when you receive the lens.

//Björn

[Ole Tjugen]

I'm almost certain this one is "just" a focusing knob.

Rectlinears don't have moveable lenses - although changing the cell spacing might affect the sharpness. But since the knob is on a brass sleeve around the shiny lens barrel, I would say it's 99% certain it's a focusing knob.

[Gene McCluney]

Montgomery-Ward and Sears, Roebuck & Company were both huge catalog mail-order houses at the turn of the century. You could order anything from toothpicks to a do-it-yourself house kit. Both had extensive photography equipment and supplies departments, and offered quality items at reasonable prices under their own names. One name Sears used for cameras was SEROCO. A name Sears (to this day) uses for appliances is Kenmore. Another is Craftsman for its tools.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I won a lens a while back that is similar to this. It is a 11x14 RR. I made waterhouse stops for it and it is a great lens. You should be very happy with it. I'll post some pictures of the lens and what it can do.


Jim

[Torsten]

waouh, that's nice Jim!


How did you build your waterhouse stops, how did you calculate the diameter?

just f/8 or f/16...?


cheers
Torsten

[Peter K]

How did you build your waterhouse stops, how did you calculate the diameter?

just f/8 or f/16...?

E. g. 14" = 355,6mm divided by 8 = 44,5mm = 1.75". But you can take the special transmission of the lens into consideration by measuring with an exposure meter and enlarge the aperture to compensate it. With this way also the difference between engraved focal-lenght and real focal-lenght is taken into account.

Peter K

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Torsten, I used the empty box from some 4x5 film, its black, and I guessed at the F-stops. I have stops from F-8 to F-45 for this lens. I just kept making them smaller by half each time and they seem to work just fine. I'm no math guy at all and I just do things by feel. Seems to work for me. Post some results with your new lens, I'm sure you will be happy. By the way the shot I posted was shot wide open at F-8.


Jim

[Petzval Paul]

The chrome barrel and short lenshood are usually indicitive of magic lantern lenses. The inscription and waterhouse stops, of course, tell us that it is a taking lens. Perhaps they were saving money by using the same barrels for both and just adding the inscription and cutting it for stops. Since most magic lanterns were Petzval designs, I would guess that your lens is the same. It should make for great pics so have fun with it!

[Torsten]

...your Name is probably only a pseudo, am I right, or are you from the historic Petzval family? Thank's anyway for all these very interesting posts. I must find a way identifying if it was a Petzval or Rectilinear....

cheers
Torsten

[Petzval Paul]

Name is definately a pseudo..... I just like it =:-)

You can unscrew the rear element and see if it is composed of two distinct elements, then you will know it is a Petzval. RR's have two matching achromats.

- Paul

[Torsten]

Well, sometimes things are not as easy: I just received the item, and it has just the front lens (pair). It totally misses the back pair of lenses, ie it is not usable as a photographic lens. I just sent an email to the american ebay seller and he replies me the following:

"You are telling me that it missing things in order to get a 100 year item to work. I understand what you are saying. I would never had any idea what items are suppose to be there or how it was made originally over 100 years ago. However, this rare 100 year old item, i described as i saw it. Very accurately, as i viewed it. Not making any statements about if it would work or what it should come with. I did show the pictures at all sides. Even took one of the inside. I welcome any questions or more pictures. I am sorry that this item will not work for you, just like when someone buys a vintage radio. Sometimes they have to be restored. I thought this was just to be put as a collector item. If it will help with your situation I will be more than happy to refund you $50.00. Other than that I do not feel that I describe the item or made any statements that was misleading."

What would you do? I still have time to send an ebay complaint/paypal issue.
What about the seller giving me thereafter a negative feedback?

Thank's for an answer.

cheers
Torsten

[Petzval Paul]

I'd send it back. You really do need to ask about both lenses being present when buying off of ebay from an uniformed buyer - or even an informed, less-than-honest one, for that matter!

Petzval lenses can be used as landscape lenses, too. Many lenses were designed to do this easily (relatively speaking), by having bayonetted mounts for the lenses, or threads on either end of the lens to mount it backwards on the flange. Jamin and Darlot (or sometimes one or the other) made lenses just for this purpose that are very collectible today.

Normally, you would unscrew the front element and mount it in the rear element's place, using it as a meniscus lens. The rear element would not be used at all. By placing a small stop in the front, it would even things out enough for a fairly sharp pic, just somewhat slow since you need to stop it down to f/16 or smaller. However, you can leave it in the front and use it wide open as a kind of funky, soft focus lens, too. The FL will be longer than when used as a Petzval configuration, though. If this lens was meant to be, say, a 12" fl, using just the front element will make it somehwere around a 19", at a guess. if you go that route, mount the lens on your biggest camera, rack out the lens as far as it will go, and focus at infinity. It will focus, trust me. The look sometimes is rather nice, too. Who knows, maybe you'll like it enough to keep it?

- Paul

[Torsten]

his reply:

"Hello,
Again, as per description I stated lens. Plural would be lenses.
Please reread my description. Never is it stated that I said
lenses. My offer to you was more than generous.
martin"

I really think this is bullocks - can y ou believe it?

T.

[Gene McCluney]

his reply:

"Hello,
Again, as per description I stated lens. Plural would be lenses.
Please reread my description. Never is it stated that I said
lenses. My offer to you was more than generous.
martin"

I really think this is bullocks - can y ou believe it?

T.

I don't think you can expect everyone to be educated on what 19th century lenses are supposed to be. Some lenses were only a single element or group anyway. How could he know, unless he researched?

[Jim Galli]

Torsten, this is a shame. I feel badly it looks so pretty in the pics. Not much of a remedy but if you put the cemented pair you have at the back you still get a nice soft working lens. It looks like the generic Darlot lenses used on many magic lanterns.

[Rob_5419]

his reply:

"Hello,
Again, as per description I stated lens. Plural would be lenses.
Please reread my description. Never is it stated that I said
lenses. My offer to you was more than generous.
martin"

I really think this is bullocks - can y ou believe it?

T.

Sorry Torsten -

I think the seller has a point (sounds like he's a bit dry too).

He seems to be genuinely....ignorant.
And his offer is fair.

Why do you think what he said is bullocks?

Guess I better suffix this by saying I don't know who the seller is, just as this seems to be the currently tendency...

[Torsten]

Well, bullocks for the simple reason that playing on the words "lenses" versus lens ("objective") is not fair play in my opinion. If I buy let's say a Grandagon-N 4.5/90 "LENS" than I don't expect an empty barrel with 1 out of 8 or 10 individual lenses which form the Grandagon. A Grandagon with 1 individual lens element out of 9 or 10 is not anymore a Grandagon, it's a barrel with one optical element in it. This lens is therefore not anymore a Thornward Rapid blabla, but it's a brass barrel with a piece of glass in it. I feel like if he takes me for totally stupid. And "more than generous" is not the right word when you reimburse 50$ out of 230$, for someting technically useless. Of course, I could also throw out the remaining doublet lens which is in the barrel, put a pinhole in it and use it as a "LENS". For me the minimum of good behaviour would be to accept a return of the item. I now made a paypal case out of it... we'll see.

[Ole Tjugen]

You got two lenses, not one lens, out of a total of four that are in a complete photographic lens. I agree with you, and think the seller is at fault.

Unfortunately I can't say the same about my case, as the picture clearly (well - "fuzzily" would be a better word) shows that the rear cell of the 210mm G-Claron is missing. Pity, since I really need only the rear cell - anyone got a spare one? Swap for a front cell?

[Rob_5419]

Oops - sorry Torsten.

I thought you paid $50 tops for the lens. $50 back from $230 isn't a lot :(

Seems like the seller is referring to the lens as a unit, and not to the lens elements as individual elements. The analogue with the megaultrarodagon lens doesn't work, partly because (I assume), you would ask if the lens is like new; fully functioning, or in perfect condition.

Once you start asking about 100+ year old lenses, it really means that a buyer needs to know what he's looking at, instead of jumping in the deep end with a bid, and hoping that it meets his (fantasisied) expectations. I don't think I've ever paid more than $50 for a lantern lens ("Petzval" is a descriptive seller-flagellating embellishment, which adds an extra $0 to the cost). It's just a plain straight forward commonly found and very abundant lantern lens which is not particularly rare; not particularly limited to any specific manufacturer; not formed by any specific special processes, and was not limited in production to any specific area nor time scale other than the era of its age.

Maybe if the seller guaranteed that it was complete; or that the lens was fully working, or if he sold it in anything other than a "sold as seen" option, there might be a case. In any case, if he realised that you overpaid for an incomplete lens, he really should be honest enough to offer a refund if he had any conscience.

Wait a minute....somehow I'm assuming that life is fair. That is what he would do, "if" life was fair.

Hope your paypal case sorts him out. You may need a Vade Mecum before shelling out on expensive 'retro' in lenses....

Good luck.

[Jim Galli]

The one time I really had to lean on PayPal to go after a vile seller I discovered the telephone worked the best. Otherwise you go round and round in their myriad of "helpful" pages and get no where. Also make sure that if a return is involved you use a service like USA United Parcel Service that has total electronic tracking from start to finish. PayPal is particularly picky about this. I used Postal Return receipt signature service and it caused me nothing but grief. I had a signed receipt from the evil seller that he had the return in hand and it was meaningless to PayPal because nothing could be proved electronically. I learned a good lesson from that. DSL or Fed Ex would be good choices too I think. Go after him, he's pulling a wrongful stunt. Anyone can play dumb, it doesn't cut it, especially at the price you paid.

[Frank R]

Torsten, it looks like you both were honestly ignorant of the real condition of the lens. He showed full pictures of the unit so he did not hide anything. You bid on what was shown. The seller is not at fault. You should accept his deal and cut your losses. Your excitement in buying a lens was not balanced by the knowledge needed. Please do not blame the seller.

[Petzval Paul]

$230.00 was too much to spend on such a lens to begin with... but that's another story.

I have seen many such lenses sold on ebay and so many of the uninformed, non-photographer sellers have mentioned "there is only one piece of glass present." It isn't tough to figure out; it's a phyisically long lens barrell threaded on both ends. Sort of makes sense that something should go in the back, too.

Anyway, maybe he was ignorant, but that doesn't mean that he shoulldn't give a refund if you weren't satisfied with the purchase. He didn't present all of the necessary information regarding his item for sale in order for a potential buyer to make an informed bid. Saying, "I didn't know" or "You never asked" isn't really an excuse.

- Paul

[Torsten]

Frank, sorry, but when I sell a lens I know what I'm selling, otherwise I mention something like "don't know if it's complete", or "just one piece of glass in the front, nothing in the rear" or so. I'm not totally ignorant of optics, I'm astronomer and built several optical systems for astronomy. The pics did not show the rear of the lens. I mean really, if I sell a lens I sell a lens and not a half-empty barrel. Moreover, if description was not precise enough, I show the honesty to take it back. And prices vary also a lot, sometimes you can get such a lens for 100$, sometimes much more.

Thank's & cheers
Torsten

[goamules]

"The customer is always right" versus "Let the buyer beware"

The seller sounds shady to me. Excuses and rude comments. I was reading this, and trying to figure out who he is to avoid him. THAT is what a seller needs to think about. What does it hurt to refund your total bid (not shipping)? Not much, and he keeps a good reputation. I bought an antique 35mm camera a while back. The seller hid several big problems by careful photos, words like "don't know anything", etc. And had a poor feedback. I took a chance and bid small money. I had to ping her after a few weeks to even send the thing. It came broken, with mirrors RATTLING inside. I didn't even persue it....didn't want the retalitory feedback. But I sold it on the bay, disclosing EVERYTHING wrong. Know what? It sold higher than what I paid.....

[Torsten]

Well, now he accepts to take it back - under the condition that I pay all shipping back and forth (80 USD in total). I'll do that, but I admit that I consider that very rude...


Torsten