Rodenstock Eurynar-Anastigmat 1:5,4/18cm

[Gote]

Hi, i'm all new to this and have a Swiss Arca 4*5 with a 90mm lens. Now a friend of mine have this Rodenstock 180 mm that i can test. Is it a lens that i suitablae to my camera or should i choose something else instead? I don't want to spend to much money yet and i can get this lens cheap.

[jb7]

If its cheap,
and you don't want to spend too much money yet,
you should get it-
especially if it has a shutter-
but even if it doesn't-

Its a good complimentary length with a 90 in a two lens kit-

j

[Peter K]

The Eurynar 1:4.5 (!) is a Gauss-double-lens with an angle of view of 55°. So the 180mm lens has some space to shift 4x5". One can also use the front- or rear lens alone. The front lens is 1,95x 180mm = 351mm and the rear lens is 1,57 x 180mm = 282mm. Of course one has to stop down to get good defination.

Peter K

[Gote]

Thx for the answer. I can get it for $20 and it has a Compur shutter so i will test it then.
This means that i have $200 left in my budget. I was thinking about trying to get a 300mm lens. Is that a good idea and can i get a good one for $200?

[IanG]

The shutters worth more than that if it works OK :D

I have about a dozen Compur shutters and they all seem to be remarkably accurate despite their age. I also have a Eurynar 135 or 150, but I haven't tested it yet, I don't expect it to be as good as a Tessar.

As for a 300mm lens for $200 or less, you'd need a lot of luck, look for the imperial equivalent a 12 inch as well.

Ian

[Gote]

I can see on ebay that i have to spend atleast $500 on a bigger lens so i think i will have to rise my budget a bit, but i will start with these 2 lenses.
Thanks for the comments

[IanG]

It depends what you want from your 300mm lens. I have a very nice early Ross Symmetrical lens which is marked as 8"x5" it's approx 300mm/12" in focal length and easily covers 5x4, with a Packard shutter, or better still a Thornton Pickard roller blind shutter it would be excellent as a portrait lens. I tested it and stopped down it was sharp, and also reasonably contrasty. It cost about $60.

Look out for Jim Galli's portraits with old lenses.

But yes if you want a modern 300mm then $500 is more likely to be a starting point, but look out for something like the Mikon f9 300mm as it's small and light.

Ian

[Ole Tjugen]

Since the focal length is stated in cm instead of mm, it's a pre-WWII lens. That means it's (most likely) uncoated.

The Eurynar has eight glass/air surfaces, which means quite a loss of light and contrast. I have two 13,5cm Eurynars, one of which has been coated at some later date. The difference is quite pronounced!

But don't fall in the trap of equating contrast with sharpness: The Eurynars are among the sharpest lenses ever made, and certainly can outperform Tessars in that regard. Only a few very good Aplanats are actually sharper, and then only in the very center!

[Glenn Thoreson]

Like Ole, I have two 135 Eurynars. Neither is coated. If you decide not to buy that lens, put the seller in touch with me, please. :D

[Gote]

I bought the lens Glenn, but if i don't want to keep it i will contact you.

[J. Patric Dahlen]

The later Eurynars are dialyt lenses. Does anyone know how they compare to the earlier double gauss Eurynars?