Kodak Anastigmat 135mm f/4.5

[quepsi83]

Hello all. Does anyone have any info on the above lens? It is mounted in a Kodak Compur shutter. Is this a pre-war (WWII) variant?

a) will it cover 4x5?
b) what is the image circle size?
c) what's the shutter size?
d) is unscrewing the front and rear cells and giving them a new home in Copal 0 or 1 shutter a possibility?
e) are there any current owners/users of a lens such as this... willing to share some insights?
f) what would good glass but maybe not so reliable a Compur shutter go for on that 'trading' site???

The owner advises that the lens is sharp at f/22. But, also, that its great for B&W. I'm thinking this is definitely an un-coated lens?

The S/N of this specimen is 1084710. Does that help shed some light on the history and/or specs on this lens?



Thanks in advance,

Keith

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Keith,

there were at least 2 versions, a 4 element dialyte type and the newer tessar type. the older pre-war type would just cover 4x5 at inf., was sharp but soft on contrast and was fairly nice for close-up work (tabletop to macro).

Price seems to be $0 - $75 but you should check the completed listings button to see the last month's prices.

Compur shutters usually CLA well and are very reliable.

have fun with it

[Dan Fromm]

Um, the s/n fits Schneider's numbering scheme, if it is a Schneider lens it was made in 1936 or 1937, '37 is more likely. For this, see http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/age_of_lenses/index.htm

That it is in a Compur makes German origin a bit more likely. If so, it may be from a pre-WWII German Kodak (Nagel) folder and a rebadged Xenar, i.e., Tessar type.

Paul, as far as I know the dialyte type Kodak Anastigmats were f/6.3 (I just bought a 170/6.3 today, have dismantled it for cleaning and can confirm that it is a dialyte) and f/7.7. But there were also f/6.3 triplets. See http://www.prairienet.org/b-wallen/BN_Photo/Kodak_index2.htm but note that he's weak on KAs.

[quepsi83]

Thanks Dan & Paul. You've given me some 'direction' for further research on this lens. Probably the last factiod I'm in search of is, would installing the front/rear cells in a Copal 0 shutter - if that's what the comparative Compur is - be an easy migration?

Kindest regards - Keith

[Ole Tjugen]

If it really is a Xenar 135mm f:4.5, it won't fit in a #0. The f:4.7 takes a #0, the f:4.5 takes a #1 shutter.

By 1937 Schneider's lenses came in standard shutter sizes (although there were more standards than currently), so that should be no problem.

[Jim Jones]

A 1943 edition of a Kodak lens booklet lists a Tessar formula Kodak Anastigmat f/4.5 5.5 inch intended for use for 3.25 x 4.25 negatives. They were probably also used on 4x5 press cameras. Other f/4.5 Kodak Anastigmats up to 130mm were listed for folding Kodak cameras. By the 1948 edition, the Kodak Anastigmat name had been dropped.

[Glenn Thoreson]

I have one in a 105 focal length. KodaK Compur shutter. It's actually a pretty surprising lens. The 135 should cover 4X5, but it won't allow for movements and may be a little soft in the outer reaches. I'd use it and see what develops. So to speak. If you don't like it, just throw it in my trash can. :D

For Jim Jones - I've found a lot of the 130mm Anastigmats on Kodak folders are triplets. I have a few of those lenses but have yet to try them.

[Jim Jones]

Glen -- I was going by the 1943 Kodak Lenses. The only Kodak Anastigmat f/4.5 triplet it lists is a 50mm as used on the Kodak 35. C. B. Neblette's Photography: Its Principles and Practice, 4th ed., 1943, calls the f/4.5 Kodak Anastigmat a triplet with a cemented rear element. In diagrams this looked like a Tessar to my uneducated eye.

[BrianShaw]

A 1943 edition of a Kodak lens booklet lists a Tessar formula Kodak Anastigmat f/4.5 5.5 inch intended for use for 3.25 x 4.25 negatives. They were probably also used on 4x5 press cameras.

I have that lens on a Anniversary Graphic, mounted in a dial Compur shutter. It is a great lens except in direct sun situations where it tends to flare a bit. I haven't noticed any significant softeness on the periphery but I don't worry about using movements with that camera/lens.

[Glenn Thoreson]

Glen -- I was going by the 1943 Kodak Lenses. The only Kodak Anastigmat f/4.5 triplet it lists is a 50mm as used on the Kodak 35. C. B. Neblette's Photography: Its Principles and Practice, 4th ed., 1943, calls the f/4.5 Kodak Anastigmat a triplet with a cemented rear element. In diagrams this looked like a Tessar to my uneducated eye.

Strange stuff, these lenses. The 130s I have are off old folders. I never looked up the age on them. I'm sure they are pre war items. I am going by the number of reflections and what I've observed when I had them apart. They could be older than the reference material, I don't know. I do know that Kodak made Tessar formula lenses in two configurations - a regular Tessar configuration, and a reverse Tessar type. Kodak did some odd things that they didn't keep good rcords on. That makes it pretty hard to figure ut sometimes. I just tend to stick it on a camera and shoot a couple of sheets. If it's good, I put in in the "use me" stock. If not, it's back into the parts box. That's my "technical" approach. :D

[Ole Tjugen]

The "reverse Tessar" may be an optical trick to increase the maximum aperture without needing a larger shutter. At least my f:3.5 Xenar Typ D is a reverse Tessar, with the rear cell having slightly negative focal length. This puts maximum "loupe power" in front of the aperture, increasing the optical aperture with the same physical aperture that would give f:4.5 in a more symmetrical lens.

[Dan Fromm]

Ole, I fear you may have been tripped up by R. Kingslake's extremely idiosyncratic english.

The rear group of a regular tessar has a biconcave element facing the diaphragm cemented to a biconvex element facing the film. In Kingslake-speak, a reverse tessar has a biconvex element facing the diaphragm cemented to a biconcave element facing the film. In other words, per Kingslake a reverse tessar is a tessar with the rear group turned around.

When most of us say reversed tessar, we mean a normal tessar turned around, i.e., with the cemented doublet facing the subject and the pair of singlets facing the film.

Cheers,

Dan

[Ole Tjugen]

Dan, that's what I mean too. And that's what a Xenar Typ D f:3.5 is, too.

[Dan Fromm]

Ole, pardon my slowness. Are you using Kingslake-speak or normal English?

[Ole Tjugen]

Dan, in this case it's "normal English" - to the best of my ability.

The Xenar Typ D has a cemented pair in front of the aperture, with a shorter focal length than the entire lens assembly. Behind the aperture there is an airspaced pair, with a negative focal length. In other words the Xenar Typ D is slightly telephoto, and has the cells exchanged compared to a "normal Tessar-type Xenar".

I can't remember what the Vade Mecum says about the Typ D, but I do remember that my lens doesn't agree with that. :)

[Dan Fromm]

Thanks, Ole, for the explanation.

The Xenar Typ D isn't the only reversed tessar type around, there are a number of macro lenses with that design. I've had 48 and 75 mm B&L MicroTessars, 35/4.5, 50/4.5, and 75/4.5 Tominons, 90/6.3 Mikrotar and 100/6.3 Neupolars. All reversed tessars. What's interesting is that the Mikrotar and Neupolar are quite good down to at least 1:4. In fact, the Neupolar is great at infinity, but because of mechanical vignetting covers at most 6x6 at infinity.

Here's what the VM says about the Typ D: "Xenar f3.5 There may have been a f3.5 Q15 type lens in short foci for movie work, but the well known f3.5 was the next item. The small version for Handkameras was called Type D in 1926, and this was noted as engraved on a prewar F3.5 Xenar for about 150mm. But note Sc005 which is a reversed Q15 type layout. This would explain the 'new' f3.5 Xenar of conventional Q15 layout announced in 1935 below. But note the next item.

Xenar Type D f3.5 There seems to have been an uncemented 3-glass Xenar for Portrait work, of excellent quality and able to stand comparison with the 4-glass. This type was for small cameras only."

Typical VM muddle and lack of copy editing.

Cheers,

Dan