What do you know about the Bausch & Lomb Metrogon 6 inch F6.3 Lens for 8x10?

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Folks,

I now have a Bausch & Lomb Metrogon 6 inch F6.3 Lens that's said to cover 8x10. I discovered that SGrimes mounted one in an Ilex #4 Shutter. However, I can't find anyone who has used this lens.

What is know beyond it was made for airial mapping? To get some idea, what lenses are in this class? How much would it be worthwhile spending to get it mounted given other options for a 6" fast lens?

I'd like to use this for Architecture and for Landscapes.

Asher

[Tracy Storer]

Asher, they were made for the 9"x9" Aerial cameras like the Fairchild etc. are not that rare, but the mount-job for the Ilex shutter requires a lot of machine work. (expensive job) Further, I think the fall off is substantial without the center filters, which as far as I know were always either deep yellow or red. (forget shooting color, unless you want to forego the CF and live with the illumination fall off.)
You can probably find other lenses like the Wollensak extreme wide angle already in a shutter for the price of the Ilex and machining.

[Asher Kelman]

Asher, they were made for the 9"x9" Aerial cameras like the Fairchild etc. are not that rare, but the mount-job for the Ilex shutter requires a lot of machine work. (expensive job) Further, I think the fall off is substantial without the center filters, which as far as I know were always either deep yellow or red. (forget shooting color, unless you want to forego the CF and live with the illumination fall off.)
You can probably find other lenses like the Wollensak extreme wide angle already in a shutter for the price of the Ilex and machining.
Thanks Tracy,

I appreciate your input.

Well, I bid for and "won" the lens. Just have to send the cash. So I guess I'll have to play with it anyway! It was advertized for 8x10 so I have a valid reason for canceling but not sure if I would be right doing so?

In any case, so which Wollensak would you suggest and are those the ones with issues in the cement? Also what are the approximate "going prices"?

Asher

[Hollis]

I have a lens that is supposed to be a metrogon that I got for about ten dollars from a surplus house. It has the tell-tale hemispherical front and rear protruding elements but this thing is quite small, maybe 2.5" at the most top to bottom. How big is yours, Asher?

[Tracy Storer]

I have a 6" Metrogon (unmarked) as well. glass is about 2 3/8" diameter. I've never really used it, but have always wanted to do a "Hobo-style" 8x10 camera with it. I even had a 12" Metrogon once(cells only, bought on Ebay), but sold it to another forum member, not sure whether he ever mounted it and used it.

[Asher Kelman]

I have a lens that is supposed to be a metrogon that I got for about ten dollars from a surplus house. It has the tell-tale hemispherical front and rear protruding elements but this thing is quite small, maybe 2.5" at the most top to bottom. How big is yours, Asher?
My monster is shown here (http://www.skgrimes.com/lensmount/metrogon/).

Asher

[Dan Fromm]

My monster is shown here (http://www.skgrimes.com/lensmount/metrogon/).

AsherCute. How's it shoot?

I ask because the sketchy USAF data sheets I have indicate that it isn't all that sharp wide open.

[Mark Sawyer]

I have one also, bought for cheap just because it was cheap, and hey, you can never have too many lenses, right?

It's very, very heavy, but if you remount it as Grimes did, you could get it down to being just very heavy. I'd planned on using mine witk a Packard shutter, but as I have a nice, light, sharp Wolly 159mm f/12.5 (that opens to about f/6.3 for focusing), I never bothered.

The Metrogon came with yellow and red center filters for fall-off, and those are also rather heavy, being a gel filter sandwiched between two pieces of glass. My suggestion is to use those or nd filters, or both, and a Packard shutter to see what results you get. You'll also have to split the lensboard to mount it, and if it comes with the original shutter, just take that off. I't even heavier than the lens...

I also have a Goerz Planagon that seems to be very closely related to the Metrogon, but I don't know much about it...

[Dan Fromm]

Mark, the USAF data sheets indicate that the Planigon is a bit better than the Metrogon wide open; both are roughly half as sharp in the corners as in the center, the Planigon is somewhat sharper in the center. The sheets show a number of Metrogons made by different manufacturers, all of which have about the same performance. This isn't the case for Biogons; there the Zeiss tested is best, the Goerz tested is worst, and the difference is large enough that it may matter. IIRC, this is true for 1.5" and 3" lenses.

Cheers,

Dan

[Asher Kelman]

Mark and Dan,

This is all helpful. I have two cameras to work with. One is an old but beautiful Underwood of about 1900 with Thornton Pickerd Shutter. I have asquired 3 more, one is huge, to replace the curtains and strings and use with barrel lenses. The other camera is my new Chamonix 8x10. Having read SKGrimes page of the B&LO 6" f 6.3 lens, I thought it must be worth going after, I'll grab this bargain before it's gone.

The Wollensak's I have seen so for at 159mm have ben in very poor condition. However, im keeping my eyes open. I don't want to have to go for a Schneider Apo Symmar 150 XL as that's expensive. However, i'd get good coverage and a modern coated lens!

I mainly want a very good lens for landscape that will caputre details and be great for substantial enlargement.

Thanks for sharing your ideas and being so helpful!

Asher

[John Berry]

I have one and it's a nice lens. covers 8x10. Plan on about 6 bones ( $600.00) before you get to shooting. I had tim fronmn lens to shutter mount mine in an aphax (sp) shutter. I bought mine for $135, but add shutter and mounting and that's about what it will cost.

[Asher Kelman]

I have one and it's a nice lens. covers 8x10. Plan on about 6 bones ( $600.00) before you get to shooting. I had tim fronmn lens to shutter mount mine in an aphax (sp) shutter. I bought mine for $135, but add shutter and mounting and that's about what it will cost.
Hi John,

So glad to hear a good report. This lens should be well made and coated. Did Tim do as handsome a job as SKGrimes here (http://www.skgrimes.com/lensmount/metrogon/). Could you possibly post a picture of what yours looks like especially how one sees the apertures. Adam made a window in the front!

I hope you don't mind me asking a list of questions as you are now the expert!

How long have you been using it? What does it do well?

Might you possibly share pictures taken with this lens?

How much coverage do you have at what apertures and room for movements?

Lastly, is the lens so heavy that it pulls the front standard forward or is it reasonably to mount without extra support?

A lot of questions.

But your help is really appreciated,

Asher :)

[Dan Fromm]

Asher, I gather that yours hasn't arrived yet. I once bought a 6"/6.3 Metrogon in shutter housing, gave it to a friend who had a pair of cells and no idea about spacing. It turned out that the cells I gave him were better than his. Anyway, don't worry about weight. Metrogons are quite hollow, 6 inchers don't weigh that much.

[Asher Kelman]

Asher, I gather that yours hasn't arrived yet. I once bought a 6"/6.3 Metrogon in shutter housing, gave it to a friend who had a pair of cells and no idea about spacing. It turned out that the cells I gave him were better than his. Anyway, don't worry about weight. Metrogons are quite hollow, 6 inchers don't weigh that much.
Does he have pictures, Dan? Is it worth the extra ~$500 to get these lenses mounted as opposed to going for some other choice?

Asher

[Murray]

Hi:

I'm the member/clown that bought Tracey's 12" Metro cell set. Not mounted yet - still scheming how and trying to finish the other innumerable started projects.

I have always wondered if the red USN anchor stamped on the box was a QC reject :O).
Black is usually 'accept', red is 'reject'. No big deal...I'm not making aerial maps, and would be doing terrestrial work anyway.

http://www.uptowngallery.org/Murray/Metrogon/

contains patents on the Metrogon, the Zeiss Topogon predecessor and an English close cousin. Interesting but doesn't answer your question. I think MIL-STD-150 might cover it also...I forget.

The 6" is for 9x9 but most people say barely covers 8x10 with no movements.

In my directory is a B&L data sheet for the 12" lens resolution...not too impressive at the edges.

I have two 6" lenses in their shutters one is an Eastman Kodak Topogon with the Zeiss patent#, odd, huh?). The shutters DO work (1/50-1/100?), but are so big they would only work on a homebrew box camera made out of something heavy like 1/2" plywood. Very hard to manipulate/set also without the linkages & motors.

The 12" lens (for 9x18" negs) makes the 6" look tiny.

I don't think the center spot filters are a sandwiched gel..at least all the ones I have are solid glass.

If you can live with a homebrew box camera, the Fairchild shutters can be modified for other creative options. After FULLY discharging the shutter spring (can be wound multiple turns), and I can't stress that enough, you can remove the spring and the mechanism easily turns with just fingertips. You could rig up a mechanism (shaft extender) to manually rotate it half way to open & focus, a bit less than a full turn to fully open & close. Same with the 24" Aero-Ektar Fairchild shutter, just bigger.

It might be possible to cut down one of those big shutters keeping the mounting/spacing to remount in another manner.

I haven't shot anything with any of them...still dealing with the acquisition side of them.

[John Schneider]

I have a couple of the center filters (yellow & red) from when Surplus Shed was selling them cheap. The center spots are vapor-deposited metal like modern center filters, but the gradation isn't nearly as smooth or uniform as modern ones.

[John Berry]

Asher,
I'll have to dig out a neg from my stack and scan a detail for you. I have found these lenses (focal length) to be best suited to shots that start at about 5' out to 20'.
Grand landscapes, have whatever is on the horizon get real small real fast. I haven't used it as much as I thought I would. With it's coverage you will be using back movements only. Weight is a non problem, even on my 4x5. I have not had to use the center filters with it for B&W. The fall off is not real obvious in the shots I have taken, about what I would do for a corner burn anyway. Not real obvious in the shots I have taken. Shots with a lot of sky might be a different story. If I get another chance to go to antelope canyon it will be with me for sure. We're talking a 20 on 35mm equivalent. He did mill a slot so you can see the aperture scale. One thing I did notice was that with my shutter I could go past wide open to the point of have fuzzy like flair in the highlights. Close it down to normal wide open stop and it's out of the picture. Tim's concern was that the ring behind the aperture blades has to be removed and he knows I thrash down logging roads at 40-60 mph. He also stated that there are three different locations for the aperture depending on what version you have. I had the whole unit and was able to mike the distance for him on mine. I have met Tim personally, as I was able to do business with him as a local. I have no problem recommending him. I have not had any work done by SK Grimes, but plenty here have and I have heard no bad, other than that of cost. Tim MIGHT be a little cheaper, I don't know. I look at it as supporting local businesses if they can provide the whatever it is that I need.

[eddie]

i have one! bought it by accident one day here locally! damn!

it is a monster. it has as funny gear drive aperture control. it is big.

i would say save your $500 and buy something better. i got my 159mm wolly for a song right here on LF a few months back.

eddie

[John Berry]

damn!

it is a monster.
Eddie,
Keep in mind your only holding the belly button. Looking at the filter really got me curious. Is the filter a prism, or are those heating elements? When you have the cells in your hand, they don't seem as heavy as you think.
OK, It has been bugging me long enough. I just pulled out the lens and weighed it. It comes in at 1lb 27oz, no lens caps, mounted on a 6" homemade Dorff board. Filters 14 oz. Without a filter their are no pins for the cap to lock on. I've put it on a board for my wisner, and ain't heard no bitchen yet. See it's not the monster some think, I bet the view was distorted by some finda lens or sumptn. I knew there was some reason I bought that S-5, here is what your camera will look like. Be sure to get at least the back lens cap. Scan soon.

[eddie]

thanks for the picture john. what shutter is that in?

i am not sure what the lines are for. there are two wires sticking out of the housing. maybe i will take it apart and see what makes her tick. lucky for me i do have a rear cap. i will check back when i have seen the insides....

eddie

[Dan Fromm]

We don't need tar babies, we have lenses from aerial cameras.

[Asher Kelman]

Eddie,
Keep in mind your only holding the belly button. Looking at the filter really got me curious. Is the filter a prism, or are those heating elements? When you have the cells in your hand, they don't seem as heavy as you think.
OK, It has been bugging me long enough. I just pulled out the lens and weighed it. It comes in at 1lb 27oz, no lens caps, mounted on a 6" homemade Dorff board. Filters 14 oz. Without a filter their are no pins for the cap to lock on. I've put it on a board for my wisner, and ain't heard no bitchen yet. See it's not the monster some think, I bet the view was distorted by some finda lens or sumptn. I knew there was some reason I bought that S-5, here is what your camera will look like. Be sure to get at least the back lens cap. Scan soon.

John,

What size is the camera? Do you have pictures?

Asher

[Murray]

Eddie has the filter with a built-in defroster (26.5-28VDC probably), so it doesn't freeze it's glass off hangin' out the belly of an airplane. I guess focussed at something 1000-10000 feet away, the lines don't show...maybe kind of like having a chain link fence in front of you and focussing so far away the fence doesn't appear visible.

I made a typo earlier. The impractical Fairchild shutter is not 1/50-1/100, but 1/50 -1/400.

[John Berry]

Eddie,
It was a shot of the lens on my 8x10 Deardorff. Sorry about the crappy shot, but it was on my first time out with it. The waterfall is about 10' in front of me, the bottom 4' down and the top of the waterfall is about 10' above me. Detail is 1" tall of neg in upper right. As you can see it does not have a lot of fall off, and good to the corners. I thought the trees would be blown out as they were in direct light and the falls were in shadow with trees to cover any indirect light to the front. Straight scans with no manipulation. Just tweeked to make um purdy. Shot was on Fp-4 souped semistand in pyrocat-p. I have another shot to dig out for you too. Keep in mind these are pretty dumbed down.

[Asher Kelman]

Eddie,
It was a shot of the lens on my 8x10 Deardorff. Sorry about the crappy shot, but it was on my first time out with it. The waterfall is about 10' in front of me, the bottom 4' down and the top of the waterfall is about 10' above me.
Thanks John for digging out this picture!

I like it. Yes there's good detail to the corner. did you print it?

The question now is this. Could you get that coverage at infinity?

Asher