Does anyone actually use cult lenses? [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Dan Fromm

15-Sep-2008, 08:18

In the thread http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=40497&page=3 goamules remarked "Fads come and go. Look at the Dagors, several sold for under $200 the past few weeks. I mean, they made them for what, 50 years? How many people really use these thousands and thousands of Dagors out there?"

This is an interesting question that deserves its own thread. And while we're at it, let's generalize a little. Dagors and Eidoscopes (we know Galli uses his) aren't the only cult lenses around.

Since I started the thread, I'll confess:

100/2 Taylor Hobson Anastigmat (as fitted to Vinten F-95 and early Agiflite aerial cameras). I use it, it is my normal lens of choice for 2x3 when I'm willing to put up with its weight. These days they bring silly prices on eBay, especially from bidders in the far east.

160/5.6 Pro Raptar. I don't know if these are still cult lenses, but when dagor77 had a heap of them he puffed hard and sold them at prices well above those of equivalent used Sironars and Symmars. Not sure why, but I hardly use mine even though it is a fine lens.

210/6.8 Beryl and 210/7.7 Beryl-S. Not really cult lenses, but they are Dagor clones, with focus shift on stopping down removed. I use the -S, not the plain Beryl.

Cheers,

Dan

Jim Galli

15-Sep-2008, 08:31

Dan answered for me so I'm exempt. But first we should define a "cult" lens. Ordinary Dagors, the billions of them in brass barrels or old shutters are not cult lenses. They are fine user lenses and priced accordingly. Dagor's with a factory golden rim or a gold dot are "cult" lenses. Go figure that one out. Zeiss f9 wide field Dagor's, definitely cult. Rarity does not define cult status. There are 1,000 '65 Mustangs for 1 Edsel.

Usually but not always there is something to the cult status. We aren't all just dumb sheep. I DO see that extra sparkle in my 355 Gold Dot. It's in how the contrast gets controlled and rendered.

Any of the f9 Computar's are Cult lenses. And they should be. At this point any design driven legitimate soft focus lens has some following down to the lowly Velostigmat.

Tessar's are not cult lenses. 98% of Rapid Rectilinears are not cult lenses. A couple are.

Well that should get the discussion fired up. I've probably not mentioned your favorite cult lens wannabe and DID mention one you thought should be.

Tony Lakin

15-Sep-2008, 08:32

Hi
I use my Cooke XV sometimes even though I also have a XVa, I prefer the 'look' for some subjects, I also use my 165mm F8 WA Gold Dot Dagor when backpacking but prefer to use my 165mm F8 Super Angulon if I don't have to carry it any distance.

Ash

15-Sep-2008, 08:34

I use a hundred year old 180/6,8 serie III Dagor (proper German one from Goertz) that I have on my Korona.

Reason I use it, is it's one of my only LF lenses. My grandfather gave me it with the intention that I might be able to use it for something, maybe as an enlarger lens. Stuck it in a shutter and I take pictures with it.

I'm sure it's not a cult lens, but hey ;)

eddie

15-Sep-2008, 08:40

i got an 11.5 verito and a SF wolly 14.5.

i have been shooting wedding photos with them...actually i have used the verito much more....just too much pressure to try and do all.....i have gotten some excellent results wit hthem so far. i print VDB.

i am attempting to work in my own niche market. i would like to shoot LF portraits at weddings (and NOT be the main photographer at the same time....like having a videographer). i would let the digital guy shoot his memory cards full and i would just shoot "old fashion " style stuff and then print them with alt. process....someday adding wet plate to the mix. obviously shooting studio stuff as well. i will use my bigger petzvals as soon as i can get them mounted on a portable camera....or make my studio camera portable.

i have a wedding that i happen to be the "main" photog on oct 11. i will shoot 8x10 as well. they are very excited and love the stuff i have shown them. i have an assistant and about 2 hours to work on formal photos....should be perfect! stay tuned.

here are some photos from the last outing. two silver gelatin prints two VDB the first is toned in selenium

eddie

IanG

15-Sep-2008, 08:55

My late 30's coated Dagor is my main 10x8 lens, I've been using a 1920 & 1932 Tessar, a 12" approx Ross Symmetrical on a 5x4 (covers 8x5) plus a Eurynar.

Ian

Dave Brown

15-Sep-2008, 08:57

Yes and no.

I bought a 12" Dagor for 8x10 because it was cheap at the time, and I just couldn't justify the cost of a more modern lens. But I subsequently decided that 12" on 8x10 wasn't right for me, and I mounted it a different board to use for 4x5. Mostly, it collects dust. Likewise, my Turner Riech convertible languishes unused; wrong focal length and poor contrast.

But my 6-1/4" Velostigmat (a lens with a small but growing following) has become my workhorse for 8x10. My reasons are simple; I have found no other lens this wide for 8x10 that I can afford.

For me, on a personal level, photography is more about dramatic composition and picking the right subject than things like absolute sharpness and perfect bokeh. I don't even mind "consumer" zooms on 35mm and digital. If you're transfixed by the subject matter and the composition and use of light, you really aren't going to notice a little barrel distortion. I understand that others will totally disagree (and no doubt produce better photos) but it's my philosophy, and I'm sticking to it.

Diane Maher

15-Sep-2008, 09:40

Are G-Clarons "cult" lenses?

If so, I use quite a few of them.

seven

15-Sep-2008, 10:07

i confess, i use my cult lenses.
the Dagors deserve their fame, but i only have normal ones, i don't believe in the gold dot/rim myth.
some of my favorites - Protar, Petzvals (Wollensak Vitax, Voigtlaender, Darlot, Derogy, Dallmeyer in that order), P&S, Ernemann.

Tony Lakin

15-Sep-2008, 10:09

Hi again
Following on to my previous post which I was obviously typing at the same time as Jim Galli as when I submitted mine Jims was there, he reminds me about Computars, I had'nt really thought of them as cult lenses I use both the 210mm and 240mm versions regularly and they are great lenses and probably deserve the 'cult' tag.

Richard K.

15-Sep-2008, 10:14

Apo-Lanthars? Hypergons?

Kevin Crisp

15-Sep-2008, 10:14

More than 75% of the time I find myself using a convertible protar. If shooting into the sun I would use a coated lens, but I don't shoot into the sun much and have been completely satisfied with the lenses' performance for all other situations.

Ernest Purdum

15-Sep-2008, 10:20

Richard K,

I used a 300mm Apo Lanthar for a long time shooting product photos on 4" X 5". loved it. I have a Hypergon, but it is a Fuji, not a Goerz, and is in sleeve mount. I bought it as a curiosity and no, I have never used it. I've never figured out how to mount the intriguing gizmo.

Ken Lee

15-Sep-2008, 10:49

Is LF itself a cult ?

What's that guy doing under that strange cloth ?

It looks like some form of worship to me.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/items/446774.jpg

Allen in Montreal

15-Sep-2008, 10:57

Would the Zeiss Biogon, Plannar and Sonnar fit into this group?
Tons of Plannars were made, but they still have a loyal following if not a "cult" following.

I had an Apo Lanthar for a few years way back when, very nice.

Dave Wooten

15-Sep-2008, 11:07

I use the 240 computar, but did nt know it was a cult lens.

Patrik Roseen

15-Sep-2008, 11:17

Does the Xenotar qualify as a cult lens?

I use an 80mm/2.8 Xenotar on my Technika 4x5". Even though it does not cover 4x5 I have fallen in love with it and really start to understand why the 150mm/2.8 is so sought after. I have recently acquired a 100mm/2.8 Xenotar as well.

Daniel_Buck

15-Sep-2008, 11:18

what gives a lens the classification of 'cult'. Is it started when some famous photographer uses a lens, and others follow it just because of the photographer who started it? Or is it associated with inexpensive lenses that perform well, or have other characteristics? Just curious, I've not heard the term much.

Ole Tjugen

15-Sep-2008, 12:18

If I have any "cult lenses", I use them.

Gold-rim Dagors are "cult", Doppel-Amatars are not. That says more about cultists than about lenses. :)

Mark Sampson

15-Sep-2008, 12:21

Here's a shot at a definition...
It's a 'cult' lens if it's out of production, and provides a function or look not available from a new lens. Having a well-known photographer use one helps a lot. And, of course, enough other people have to want one to drive the price up...

BrianShaw

15-Sep-2008, 12:21

But first we should define a "cult" lens.

Now I can't answer the question. My definition of a "cult lens" is a really interesting lens that someone else has.

Jim Galli

15-Sep-2008, 12:26

"cult" lens is an awfully loose term and can mean different things to different people. I think the OP was thinking of the lenses like Pinkham & Smith as a perfect example that regularly fetch well over $2000 - $4000 on ebay. Do people use those things after securing them, or are they trophies carefully placed in a lighted dust free climate controlled cabinet and properly insured with Lehman Bros. or some other outfit that can never go broke. It's a good question. Those of us who would love to make pictures with a Pinkham & Smith 18" Series III will have to overcome the collector / investor value in order to own and use same.

Xenotar's are definitely cult lenses. Giant Protar series V wide angles that cover massive plates, cult, do you want me to go on? Protar VII's, happily, no. At least I can still afford something.

Dan Fromm

15-Sep-2008, 13:07

To follow Jim's lead, cults can be a sometime thing. Perhaps we should speak of "lens fads" instead of "lens cults."

Consider, for example, Wollensak Pro Raptars. When dagor77 was pushing them hard they went for silly money relative to equivalent 6/4 plasmats from other makers. None have been offered for a while so I have no clue how much one would bring now. I'm not sure that without many repetitions of Andrew's prose one would bring more than the competition.

I'm baffled by a fascination with fast lenses, e.g., Dallmeyer Super Sixes of nearly all focal lengths, that seems to be centered in the far east. Some other fast lenses that cover 4x5, e.g., 150 Xenotars, also go for lots. And so do some aerial camera lenses that cover at best 6x9, for example 4"/2.0 TTHs. Yet the 100/2.5 Uran-27 seems to be a drug on the market. Perhaps not enough people have read the GOI catalog or have and don't understand that they report resolution wide open.

Thinking of Xenotars, there seems to be more fascination with 150/2.8s and 135/3.5s than with the shorter ones. I mean, there are all those Rolleis from which 80/2.8s can be extracted if the demand warrants it. And I don't understand why people chase short Xenotars and Planars but not short Heligons. Taste is a mystery ...

That fiend Cameo Need Ham seems to have started a flurry of interest in Boyer enlarging lenses. I don't understand that at all. Perhaps CNH and Andrew know something that those of us who write relatively sober listings don't.

There are parallel cults in lenses for 35 mm. For a while the handful of people who wanted to try to shoot in the near-UV chased 63/3.5 El-Nikkors very hard because they have good transmission and correction down to 370 nanometers. Thing is, so does the 63/2.8. Go figure. Perhaps photographers are sheep.

domenico Foschi

15-Sep-2008, 13:14

Talking about cult lenses, and I hope I won't be slashed and thrown to the lions in the arena, I have been using an old 55mm f1.2 canon fl for my 35 mm shooting which has shocked me in sharpness from f 2.8 up.
Used at max aperture presents a beautiful soft creamy quality but it presents some kind of problem regarding critical focus.
Has anybody encountered these qualities in such lens?
How do you deal with what I believe is focus shift at max aperture?

John Kasaian

15-Sep-2008, 13:29

I guess some of my lenses could be considered cult lenses, but I didn't/couldn't pay cult prices for any of them. Karsh used a 14" Commercial Ektar. Adams used a 10" WF Ektar. Baer used a 19" Artar. Ralph Barker uses a 240mm G Claron. And just about everyone used a 12" Dagor. Weegee used a 127mm Ektar. I don't value them because someone famous took great photographs with any of these lenses however. They just happen to be very useful focal lengths, great performers and available for a lot less moo-lah than new lenses.
If I were in the market for a 12" lens and all that was available was the 12" Dagor hawked as the same type lens Ansel Adams used for $1,000 and a 12" Velostigmat for $250, I'd take the Velostigmat and never look back.
Also I think I'd be a wee bit insulted if I thought that a photgraph of mine was a success solely because I used "X" lens (or "Y" film or "Z" camera)

But getting back to the OP's question---yes I use my "cult" lenses, I don't have much of a choice, do I? ;)

goamules

15-Sep-2008, 13:29

Now that we're defining and differentiating lens cults and fads, the next thing is to figure out how to make a lens fit into one of these catagories. After buying a few dozen. Oh wait, that was the speculator in me speaking.

But it was a great line Dan said in the original post; http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=40497&page=4 That we are trying to be lens pirates. Yep, you're correct matey.

It is interesting to see how the lens fads change over the decades too. What was hot in 1905 may have been old news in 1925, etc.

Scott Davis

15-Sep-2008, 13:35

I guess the closest I've got to a cult lens is either my 110mm WA Dagor or the 240mm Heliar. The 110 Dagor has gotten tremendous use, as it covers well beyond its expected image circle. The Heliar? 'nuff said. I've got another lens I'm glad isn't a cult lens, because I would have had to pay too much for it - a Seneca 6.5x8.5 Portrait f5 (probably around a 14", most likely a rebadged Wollensak Vesta). It lives on my studio camera and produces beautiful portrait work.

As I was writing this, John mentioned the 14" Commercial Ektar. I don't know if those qualify as "cult" lenses, because the prices aren't completely insane, and I would think that the vast majority of them still out there are being used and not collected. But they certainly do have a legend to them, and the legend is justified.

Tony Lakin

15-Sep-2008, 14:15

Dan Fromm

15-Sep-2008, 14:20

Tony, Jim and I both get into trouble here for not turning the sarcasm indicator on.

Tony Lakin

15-Sep-2008, 14:23

Tony, Jim and I both get into trouble here for not turning the sarcasm indicator on.

Ok Dan
I missed that one I guess somewhere mid Atlantic:o :o :o

Drew Bedo

15-Sep-2008, 17:08

Would any of the f/2.8 Xenoars qualify for "cult" status?

What about the Zeis Hypergon with spinning center filter:is that a 'cult" lens?

Turner-Reich Triple-convertable?

Artars, Gold-Dot /Red-dot?

Lanthars?
Commercial Ektars?

Ar any of these lenses sharper, or even as sharp , as the latest by Schneider or Fuji (or any one else)? Were any of these lenses better than the lens designs that replaced them whjen they were current?

Is Aspheric technology , low dispersion glass and multi-coating all a clever hoax?

Jim Galli

15-Sep-2008, 17:17

Name any cult defined by clear logic. Define cult. Someone who doesn't wish to be confused by the facts, right. There it is fwiw.

Xenotars, Lanthar's Hypergon's Gold Dot's, all cult lenses.

Artar's, Red Dot's, Commercial Ektar's, not cult. TR's aren't even good lenses let alone cult :D

Ask yourself do people on Ebay pay stupid $$ for it? IF yes it's probably a cult lens. Will a Sironar-S smoke a Lanthar in pure lppm? Yes. Is there more to imaging than lppm? YES

Would any of the f/2.8 Xenoars qualify for "cult" status?

What about the Zeis Hypergon with spinning center filter:is that a 'cult" lens?

Turner-Reich Triple-convertable?

Artars, Gold-Dot /Red-dot?

Lanthars?
Commercial Ektars?

Ar any of these lenses sharper, or even as sharp , as the latest by Schneider or Fuji (or any one else)? Were any of these lenses better than the lens designs that replaced them whjen they were current?

Is Aspheric technology , low dispersion glass and multi-coating all a clever hoax?

Ole Tjugen

15-Sep-2008, 17:30

I'm not entirely certain whether the Sironar-S has higher resolution in pure lppm than an Apo-Lanthar - I don't have a Sironar-S to compare with. But I believe a well made Aplanat will smoke both, at least in the center. ;)

"Superglass", multicoating and aspheric surfaces have made it possible to construct lenses with more surfaces giving more even sharpness over a larger field of view. If what you need is ultimate sharpness over a 10 degree field of view, nothing beats a Petzval. The sharpest "classic" LF anastigmats were the dialytes, which however remained unpopular until the invention of coating since the eight surfaces gave very low contrast compared to e.g. a Dagor with only four.

In 1910, one author stated that the best dialytes were "almost as sharp as a good Aplanat, but is far superior in terms of flatness of field and corner resolution".

goamules

16-Sep-2008, 08:24

TR's aren't even good lenses let alone cult.

That must be true, I tried to auction a TR convertible in a nice Regno shutter a while back, that no one bid on! I guess it's like dual purpose anything; sorta good at a lot of things, really good at nothing. But it's such a cool idea....

eddie

16-Sep-2008, 10:24

TR's aren't even good lenses let alone cult :D

i got lucky! i got a super sharp TR with great contrast....even converted! i think i will go buy a lottery ticket....my luck is getting better.

Gordon Moat

16-Sep-2008, 14:35

I think nearly any Petzval type design qualifies, basically because it is easy for the non-enthusiast to see that the end result is quite different. So in this case, unique creates cult status. Most of the time, it is possible to tell when a Petzval type lens was used, and slightly less obvious (to more obvious) for other lens designs.

Other types of lenses qualify more on a collector basis, rather than reality. Any situation with few existing examples, or few remaining good examples, and a little knowledge amongst enthusiasts, then you get cult status. This would be regardless of performance, or a truly unique image result.

Hype can also attempt to create cult status, though it would require some spin, or a great story. This is why some individuals do better at selling old gear than others, they have a good story to go along with the lens. Manufactured legend is just as viable as actually legendary performance, hence the cult status.

Until I got a Petzval type lens design, I wondered about all the fuss and attention. After using it, the results are truly unique enough that I don't think the cult status would be disputed by many. The status of other lens designs is still much more of a questionable level for me.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Armin Seeholzer

16-Sep-2008, 16:25

My Universal Heliar is also a cult lens, they are very seldom and have this nice glow!
And yes they stated them as Masterlenses!;--))))

jnantz

16-Sep-2008, 16:57

i have a lens named laverne one named morrison and others that begin with V
not sure if they are cult lenses, but i use them anyways ...

John Kasaian

16-Sep-2008, 17:17

I've got a lens named Gennert. It's not a cult lens but if I can con you guys into believing that it is the greatest thing since dry plates I'm sure I can sell it for fortune to CNH on ebay for a princely sum, pay off all my credit cards and retire to Ibiza! :D

David A. Goldfarb

16-Sep-2008, 17:26

I've been lucky to have bought most of my cultish lenses before they got too nutty--three Dagors, two with gold dots, 135/3.5 Planar that came in a package with my Tech V, 11.5 and 14.5" Veritos (Veritii? Veritoes?), and the 36cm Heliar in my avatar. The Petzval I traded for a box of film with a friend who got two of them for cheap from a camera shop that went out of business. I have an 105/2.8 Xenotar on my 2x3" Technika that I use quite often. They all get used more or less, depending on what I'm working on.

I have a Busch Vademecum set that I'm undecided about. It's neat to have all those focal lengths and the massive coverage, but I just don't feel like I'm grooving with it yet. I'll wait for Ole to hype up the casket sets some more with his new web page, and once it's sufficiently cultish, I'll decide whether to keep it or sell it.

Pete Roody

16-Sep-2008, 20:22

I don't think of the following as cult lenses ("not too common" is a better definition) but I use them, like them and would not sell them:

300mm goerz trigor
360mm goerz trigor
180mm and 210mm F9 zeiss dagors
290/500mm zeiss double protar iv (1907)
250mm dallmeyer f2.9 pentac
307/450/660mm zeiss triple protar vi (1894)
135mm rodenstock perigon

Shen45

16-Sep-2008, 22:24

Just a thought, could it be as simple as this site has done more to raise or revive the cult status of some lenses because of the concentration of actual lens users. Ansel Adams was certainly a lens-aholic but Edward Weston less so. And that is not a bad thing either way. Many -perhaps most photographer of the past used the tools they had at hand and work out the limitations and possibilities they offered.

And another thought, if all the cult lenses were used to shoot a wide variety of subjects and real enlarged or contact silver gelatin prints made by different people, would their legendary cult status be so evident if displayed at a single venue? The only real difference I see with lenses when viewed as I suggest is that modern 6 element plastics look just that whereas the older designs, whatever they are have a certain character. This character may be discernible on a lens by lens basis by some people. My 300 Velostigmat shot at f32 is not all that dissimilar to a 300 Nikon on a well lit "ordinary" subject.

In my small collection I have 12" Ektar, Protar VII, Cooke Aviar, RD Artar and a couple of others. I can tell looking back on what I have shot as to the lens I used but the majority of time the variation of subjects is greater than the "legendary cult status of the lens"

I also have a 162mm Wollensak Raptar -- not a cult lens -- but I certainly wouldn't swap it for a modern glass.

Would I like another "legendary cult status lens"?

Of course I would. And it is all Jim's fault :)

Steve

Daniel_Buck

16-Sep-2008, 23:37

I don't know if it's considered cult or not, but I'm absolutely loving the petzval projector lens I purchased from Jim a few months back, it's honestly the most fun I've had shooting in a long time! I love the results, and I'm still using the original cardboard & packing tape 'lens board' that I made to mount it to my speed, the evening the lens arrived. haha! Maybe years later I'll think them over the top, but for now I enjoy them :)

Lightbender

17-Sep-2008, 09:34

Here is a couple of definitions:

Rare: a lens that you dont see very often, or at least less often than most other lenses.

Exotic: A lens that is extremely different than other lenses.

Fad: A lens that has gotten recent press and thus many users are looking to experiment with.

Cult: A lens that has a following of people who are willing to buy the lens at allmost any price. These people will continue to sing the praises of such lenses through years even as fads change.

LH1H17

21-Sep-2008, 07:40

My favorite rare/cult lens... the Carl Zeiss Planar 135mm f/3.5 T*
while not antiques (they date from the late 70s-80s i believe), they are:

- the only Carl Zeiss T* lens ever made for large format
- covers 4x5 with decent movements (unlike the xenotar)
- sharp wide open, unlike any plasmat design
- creamy bokeh throughout the range reminiscent of fine 35mm portrait lenses such as the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 AF-D (also a planar design?)

David A. Goldfarb

21-Sep-2008, 08:44

My favorite rare/cult lens... the Carl Zeiss Planar 135mm f/3.5 T*
while not antiques (they date from the late 70s-80s i believe), they are:
[...]
- covers 4x5 with decent movements (unlike the xenotar)

Does the T* version have a larger image circle than the previous version? I get a little room for movements on 4x5" with my intermediate version (the late one made for Linhof before the T* version, not the earlier one with the special shutter and recessed lensboard that closed with the camera), but not much.

Randy H

21-Sep-2008, 22:40

"CULT" lens? Hell, half of my old bag doesn't even have a name on them. If the lens is clear, and takes a decent picture, is correct FL and coverage for what you are shootin, what diff does it make who mfg it, what country it came from, or who else might be a better photographer than you that may or may not have actually used one? Send me you few hundred or thousand bucks, tell me what you are shooting, and if I don't have the "APPROPRIATELY MARKED" lens, I have a small magic marker and stylus. I'll make you one. Then YOU TOO can be a Weston. or Adams, or Galli.......

Matus Kalisky

22-Sep-2008, 06:33

Well, the lenses I am using are no cult lenses up to know, but this may change once I publish a few of my photos :D

Arne Croell

22-Sep-2008, 07:10

Does the T* version have a larger image circle than the previous version? I get a little room for movements on 4x5" with my intermediate version (the late one made for Linhof before the T* version, not the earlier one with the special shutter and recessed lensboard that closed with the camera), but not much.

It is the same design as the one immediately preceding it, just multicoated, so it will have the same image circle. The easiest way to distinguish them is the filter size: The older one with the smaller circle has a 58mm filter size, and the later one with the larger circle has a 67mm filter size (both single-coated and MC).

zoneVIII

22-Sep-2008, 10:43

i have one zeiss planar 135 f/3.5 58mm filtersize, that's my cult lens now, got little movement with 4x5 , tack sharp at wide open, dont have any scanner now to upload the results

David A. Goldfarb

22-Sep-2008, 10:49

It is the same design as the one immediately preceding it, just multicoated, so it will have the same image circle. The easiest way to distinguish them is the filter size: The older one with the smaller circle has a 58mm filter size, and the later one with the larger circle has a 67mm filter size (both single-coated and MC).

Yes, this was my impression. I have the single coated 67mm version. I was just wondering, because the person who posted about the T* version claimed "decent movements," and that hasn't been my experience.

Colin Graham

22-Sep-2008, 10:54

Not sure if it's reached cult status, but it's a favorite- yamasaki commercial congo 360 f 6.7. I believe it is an outright copy of a 14" commercial ektar, so that might hamstring it's induction somewhat. I got mine for the cost of the Copal 3 it was in.

Arne Croell

22-Sep-2008, 12:48

Yes, this was my impression. I have the single coated 67mm version. I was just wondering, because the person who posted about the T* version claimed "decent movements," and that hasn't been my experience.
Just off the top of my head, I think the claimed coverage was 180mm for the new version and 170mm for the old one, or close to these numbers.

Kirk Keyes

22-Sep-2008, 12:57

Are G-Clarons "cult" lenses?

If so, I use quite a few of them.

Me too. I've got a 240 and 355.

LH1H17

22-Sep-2008, 14:03

Just off the top of my head, I think the claimed coverage was 180mm for the new version and 170mm for the old one, or close to these numbers.

180mm sounds about right to me... I should measure it exactly one of these weekends...

Daniel_Buck

22-Sep-2008, 14:49

hm.... the g-claron's are considered "cult"? Why would that be? I do enjoy my 240 g-claron on both 4x5 and 8x10, but I don't know why it would be considered a cult lens? Based on what I've read in this thread anyway.

Dan Fromm

22-Sep-2008, 16:10

Daniel, plain ordinary plasmat type G-Clarons are cult lenses because one seller on eBay says so. Everyone knows that argument from authority is conclusive and that sellers on eBay are authorities. Especially Cameo Need Ham.

Older dagor type G-Clarons had a slight vogue some years ago. I came across a pair of G-Clarons in a flea market, bought 'em, counted reflections and was surprised to see that they were dagor types. Schneider's documentation in their archives says very clearly that older G-Clarons are dagor types, newer are plasmats. I put my finds up on eBay as "dagor type G-Clarons" to general consternation. Few people had any idea that such things existed. Not long after Mr. Galli started talking 'em up. I think that the vogue has died. There's at least one up on eBay.fr right now with no mention of dagor in the listing and at a price almost low enough to guarantee a useful profit for a savvy US buyer. Go for it! Or them! And if you don't make money, don't blame me. I said almost low enough. If the price were low enough to guarantee a good profit I'd have bought it (or them) already.

Cheers,

Dan

Nathan Potter

22-Sep-2008, 19:45

Well, I have no cult lenses that I'm aware of. But I still use the first 4X5 lens I got years ago at an industrial auction for $20.00. It is a dandy f/2.0, 120mm. Leitz Summar macro lens in barrel. Wide open it shows that wonderful creamy effect with slight but uniform flare around each object. BTW there is one for sale on ebay now attached to the original Leitz macro copy stand. First I've ever seen for sale.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

ljsegil

22-Sep-2008, 19:53

Where on eBay?? My favorite picture I have ever made was with the Summar 50/2, so i gots to know!
Thanks,
Larry

c.d.ewen

23-Sep-2008, 06:25

Jeez, Larry - one cult at a time! The Computar's in the mail :D

Charley

Jim Galli

23-Sep-2008, 07:32

ljsegil

23-Sep-2008, 08:58

Thanks Charley. Restraint and/or common sense have never been my long suit.
LJS

Mark Sawyer

23-Sep-2008, 09:08

"Cult" lenses? Maybe we need to kidnap Jim, and take him to a secluded motel for deprogramming!

(Personally, I don't think a lens qualifies as a "cult" lens unless one wears robes and performs animal sacrifices with each exposure...)

Jim Galli

23-Sep-2008, 09:15

c.d.ewen

23-Sep-2008, 10:41

Maybe if we chatter on long enough about "cult" lenses we can have the same de-valuing effect that congress and wall street have had with our $$$. Gold Dots will return to costing a few hundred $$$. Or a few thousand as it were since a dollar will only be worth about 10 cents after congress prints a few trillion to fix everything.

The latter, more likely. In addition to the Computar, I sold a Brooks Veriwide this weekend. (The truck needs a new injector pump.) Top four bidders were all from Hong Kong or Japan.

Charley

seawolf66

23-Sep-2008, 20:18

Wait minute Folks , Now hear this what about the Emil Busch Lenses Some of his lenses you have to fight to get them , $$$$ I have a emil Busch Bis-telar 270mm that was not short money : Some odd ball's where as good and maybe better ?

Now I'll get into my fall 0ut shelter, you remember those BTW: [LOL]

Nathan Potter

24-Sep-2008, 08:33

LJ Segil, seems that 120mm Leitz Summar is gone from ebay - couldn't find it yesterday.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Jim Galli

1-Oct-2008, 09:28

Hey Dan.

Speaking of serious cult madness, the 2.5 Cooke (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160286541819&ssPageName=ADME:B:WNA:US:1123) with mold inside just sold for $1136.00

:D:D:D:D

OK, now I'm stunned. And here I thought the sky was falling.

Dan Fromm

1-Oct-2008, 13:43

Jim, the sky is falling and no one has much belief in the future. So its spend now, before everything goes away.

More seriously, that's insane. Absolutely insane. If the buyer is lucky the lens will cover 2x3 and have just enough back focus to make infinity on a 2x3 Speed Graphic. I've been told by people who say they know that buyers of lenses like this get them to use on digital SLRs. What a waste of money. Braggin' rights aren't worth that much.

Thinking of braggin' rights, last Weds. I trekked up to Woonsocket to discuss putting my 100/2.5 Uran-27 on a 2x3 Pacemaker board. If we're lucky it will just make infinity. Odds are that it isn't as good a lens as my 4"/2.0 TTH Anastigmat, but the only way to find out what it can do is to ante up and have it mounted.

Next up is the 100/5.6 S.F.O.M., s/n 59, if (big if) it will make infinity on a 2x3 Speed.

To put things in perspective, the price that fool in HK paid for his cruddy Speed Panchro covers most of what I paid for my 2x3 kit, including SKG adapters.

Cheers,

Dan

The Dread Pirate Robins

1-Oct-2008, 15:59

I'm dumping all my assets into buying up cult lenses. I am going to use them in the barter economy once the world's capital markets collapse entirely.

Dan Fromm

1-Oct-2008, 16:14

Friend, recent events of the coast of Somalia notwithstanding, the days of piracy are pretty well ended. Really interesting lenses for a couple or ten monetary units ($US, UKP, Euro) are quite scarce. there are entirely too many people looking for them entirely too hard and too intelligently.

"Buy high, hope to sell higher" is not the pirate way. The pirate way is to buy very low, sell extremely high. Simply doubling y'r money on a transaction will take you very close to bankruptcy. Ask Galli. And ask him about the lenses bought for speculation that don't, for one reason or another, work out. I have a couple earning their keep as paperweights and doorstops.

Good luck.

And don't forget that some cults, e.g., the Pro Raptar cult stoked by the dread dagor77, have been, um, transitory.

By the way, be careful with y'r choice of screen name. "The Dread Pirate Robbins" gives an, um, clownish impression. Is that what you intended?

Jim Galli

1-Oct-2008, 17:27

I'm dumping all my assets into buying up cult lenses. I am going to use them in the barter economy once the world's capital markets collapse entirely.

So, you figure in about 5 weeks?

John Kasaian

1-Oct-2008, 17:53

LOL Jim! I just read your post and sprayed the cheap red wine I was drinking all over my computer keyboard and monitor! :D

Jan Pedersen

1-Oct-2008, 18:22

Be carefull with that keyboard, key's tend to get a weird sticky noice when the wine dries out :o

The Dread Pirate Robins

1-Oct-2008, 19:18

...

By the way, be careful with y'r choice of screen name. "The Dread Pirate Robbins" gives an, um, clownish impression. Is that what you intended?

You gave me too much credit, or, at least, and extra 'b' in the name.

If you want to know my real name, it's Adam Robins. The REAL Dread Pirate Robins is retired and living like a king in Patagonia.

I have been using the same name on the different photographic boards, but I don't shy away from revealing my true identity.

Anyway, it sounds like you're telling me to not buy cult lenses but to take them the pirate way.

Time to go hijack a Ukrainian ship full of arms...

Yarrr!

Adam

Jim Galli

1-Oct-2008, 19:36

You gave me too much credit, or, at least, and extra 'b' in the name.

If you want to know my real name, it's Adam Robins. The REAL Dread Pirate Robins is retired and living like a king in Patagonia.

I have been using the same name on the different photographic boards, but I don't shy away from revealing my true identity.

Anyway, it sounds like you're telling me to not buy cult lenses but to take them the pirate way.

Time to go hijack a Ukrainian ship full of arms...

Yarrr!

Adam

Adam, just don't mess with the little green men :cool:

CP Goerz

1-Oct-2008, 21:09

'And don't forget that some cults, e.g., the Pro Raptar cult stoked by the dread dagor77, have been, um, transitory.'

Quite simply.....I sold every single lens I had therefore couldn't 'stroke' the um transitory 'cult-iness' anymore. I have noted that as far as I can see none have come up for resale again so maybe they have a bit more permanence in some collections...your own included perhaps? If I had another hundred tucked away you bet I'd be selling them in the same way to this very hour.

In my own box of glass I did keep a 160 and a 210mm for my own selfish needs and have no plans to release these wonderful hounds.

panchro-press

1-Oct-2008, 21:45

The post asks the question about 'use'.

I have two Graf Variables, one for 4X5 and one for 8X10. I've been using them for better than twenty years and find them amazingly versatile.
If they fall into the 'cult' category; then, yes, I use them most of the time.

-30-

Steve Hamley

2-Oct-2008, 16:36

Andrew,

You sold all that stuff and didn't even tell me? I feel ... so abused! So ... un-GASeous.

Cheers,

Steve

CP Goerz

2-Oct-2008, 20:47

Don't worry Steve, I think I left all my lenses to you in my will :-)

Andrew

Paul Fitzgerald

13-Oct-2008, 22:31

Dan,

"Friend, recent events of the coast of Somalia notwithstanding, the days of piracy are pretty well ended. Really interesting lenses for a couple or ten monetary units ($US, UKP, Euro) are quite scarce. there are entirely too many people looking for them entirely too hard and too intelligently."

OOPS, I really do have to stop hitting the BIN button. Last week it was 2 absolutely stellar NOS lenses, a 19" f/11 APO Artar for $75 USD and a Kodak Ektar f/3.5 100mm, the nicely coated, lanthanum glass, heliar version for $20 USD. :D

If anyone thinks cult lenses are nuts, check out woodworking hand planes.

Dan Fromm

14-Oct-2008, 02:05

Paul, thank heavens for ignorant sellers.

About the 100/3.5 Ektar, it is harder to use than one would think because its shutter is cocked by the Medalist's film advance mechanism. Still and all, for $US 20, how can you possibly have gone wrong? Two good snags.

But are you going to use them or put them safely in your lens shrine?

Struan Gray

14-Oct-2008, 02:35

I'm not sure it's just ignorance - fashion and celebrity play a role too, especially with vintage optics. Goerz and Zeiss go for high prices, as do some Zeiss licensees like B+L or Ross. But other Zeiss licencees don't, and there are other quality manufacturers besides the big fish.

How much do 480 mm Dagors fetch these days? Not enough for me to sell mine (:-), but very similar 3-3 lenses go for nothing like the price:

http://cgi.ebay.de/BUSCH-DOPPEL-LEUKAR-ANASTIGMAT-F-6-8-ca-1900-RRR_W0QQitemZ350101726689QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item350101726689&_trkparms=72%3A1229%7C39%3A1%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C240%3A1318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

I guess this is where 'cult' takes over from 'quality'.

Dan Fromm

14-Oct-2008, 04:48

Interesting point. The name Dagor is trusted, other equivalent names aren't. Ignorant buyers can be sellers' best friends. Perhaps we really are sheep.

Struan, how did you find that Doppel-Leukar? I ask because I find the current foto, camcorder section of ebay.de almost impossible to browse.

Yours with a cheery baa baa,

Dan

Struan Gray

14-Oct-2008, 06:31

Struan, how did you find that Doppel-Leukar? I ask because I find the current foto, camcorder section of ebay.de almost impossible to browse.

With a baa baa here and a baa baa there.......

I periodically have a bimble through:

Foto & Camcorder > Photographica > Alte Kameras > Plattenkameras
Antiquitäten & Kunst > Technik & Photographica > Photographica > Objektive
Antiquitäten & Kunst > Technik & Photographica > Photographica > Plattenkameras

I *hate* the new eBay style of having to search broad catagories, especially on eBay.de where you could usually rely on teutonic discipline to put even oddballs into the correct sub-catagory. eBay.fr has become truly unusable unless you know the brandname of the thing you want.

Baa Humbug!

Paul Fitzgerald

14-Oct-2008, 06:32

Dan,

"Paul, thank heavens for ignorant sellers."

Yep, the Ektar was listed in enlarging lens with a BIN, so I did.

"About the 100/3.5 Ektar, it is harder to use than one would think because its shutter is cocked by the Medalist's film advance mechanism. Still and all, for $US 20, how can you possibly have gone wrong? Two good snags."

Yep, so I bought a Supermatic #2, will swap the face plates and call it good. Now I will see the difference from the uncoated version off a Medalist I.

"But are you going to use them or put them safely in your lens shrine?"

Yes, when I get the time. I have already mounted the Artar and do like the look, it also stands up well to a 20mm eyepiece, fine detail. The Ektar will go on the Graphic View, heliars are alway fine at close-ups, maybe flowers. Wasn't the Ektar 100/3.5 the very first Hasselblad lens?

Dan Fromm

14-Oct-2008, 07:58

Thanks, Struan.

Paul, you may be thinking of an 80/2.8 Ektar.

With respect to eBay and their shift to serving buyers who want to buy new and know what they want, Amazon does that much much better.

Cheers,

Dan

Pete_6109

14-Oct-2008, 10:48

Does anyone know anthing about this lens? I got it for free with a camera I purchased. It's marked "Taylor, Taylor and Hobson" and then it says "Cooke-Kodak Anastigmat". It's focal length isn't marked, but it appears to be 170mm when I compare it to other lenses I have. I wonder if this lens was a result of a collaboration between Cooke and Kodak, or perhaps Kodak copied a Cooke design under some license agreement? I just shot some film over the weekend with it so I don't know how well it performs yet.
http://www.ramaglia.com/rhsview3.jpg

Dan Fromm

14-Oct-2008, 11:40

The lens was made by Taylor, Taylor, and Hobson for Eastman Kodak Company. TTH licensed the Cooke triplet design from T. Cooke & Son, who last traded as Cooke, Troughton, & Simms. The Cooke triplet was first designed by D. Taylor (no relative of the TTH Taylors), an employee of Cooke's. Cooke's licensed the design to TTH because they were really microscope makers and weren't interested in making photographic objectives.

EKCo bought lenses from many makers before they started making their own. AFAIK, none of the lenses EKCo bought in, except perhaps the occasional Goerz Dagor, is a cult object.

I have, somewhere, but not where I can find it now, a link to a site in the UK that lists some of the lenses that were fitted to Folding Pocket Kodaks. Its just amazing.

Pete_6109

14-Oct-2008, 12:17

Chauncey Walden

14-Oct-2008, 21:42

Late one afternoon last week I went up in the mountains with a friend who wanted to photograph some aspens behind a beaver pond in that light. For fun, I took along my 8x10 and some lenses I wanted to compare. I made one setup and shot all the lenses focusing on the same tree beyond the pond. For reference, I started with an old 300mm Protar which I knew to be pretty decent - maybe even a little better than that. I suppose it might even be a cult lens of sorts. It was followed by an old Goerz 300mm Syntor which proved (using a microscope on the neg) almost as good if stopped down. A 420mm Goerz Dogmar was next and was a disappointment. I'm going to take it apart and make sure it is assembled correctly and do a better test on it. The pleasant surprise was a 480mm Rapid Rectilinear of unknown parentage that I purchased as front and rear elements and assembled in a cardboard tube with a slot for a Waterhouse stop. It was right up there with the Protar, too. Lastly was a 600mm Protar Series V (an old one with Waterhouse stops). Now, whether it was the lens or just my ability to focus f/18 after sunset, this one didn't grab me. It was even across the entire neg but a little on the soft side. Still a cult one, I guess, especially if you were looking at the huge contact print it could produce. It will get retested in better light and more careful focusing. There is no doubt that these old lenses have a nice "look".

Paul Fitzgerald

14-Oct-2008, 22:20

Chauncey<

" A 420mm Goerz Dogmar was next and was a disappointment. I'm going to take it apart and make sure it is assembled correctly and do a better test on it."

Out of curiosity is your Dogmar 'bloomed' on all the glass surfaces? All of mine are, I'm starting to think Goerz was the first to do this at the factory on production lenses but have only seen this on Dogmars.

Dan Fromm

15-Oct-2008, 02:54

Paul, the Zeiss nuts -- one of my neighbors is one -- insist that CZJ was the first firm to coat lenses and that they began coating lenses for military applications in the late '30s. AFAIK, lenses for civilian applications were first coated in the mid- to late-40s. I have a TTH Aviar whose serial number places it in 1944 that's coated.

In addition, H. Lynn Jones insists that B&J began coating lenses in the 1920s. I don't believe this, asked him for a patent number and examples of coated lenses. He never responded.

But there's no reason why Dogmars can't have, um, tarnished.

Chauncey, if you go here http://www.dioptrique.info/objectifs/00079/00079.HTM and click on courbes (curves, in English) you'll see that the Dogmar has to be stopped below f/11 to tame coma and that it has relatively bad astigmatism, i.e., off-axis performance.

Cheers,

Dan

Paul Fitzgerald

15-Oct-2008, 07:50

Hi Dan,

"Paul, the Zeiss nuts -- one of my neighbors is one -- insist that CZJ was the first firm to coat lenses and that they began coating lenses for military applications in the late '30s. AFAIK, lenses for civilian applications were first coated in the mid- to late-40s. I have a TTH Aviar whose serial number places it in 1944 that's coated."

One of the Dogmars I have looked like someone got after it with steel wool and sandpaper so I polished and polished and polished. It appears the factory 'blooming' is at least 3 layer thick. All surfaces on all the Dogmars I have, both Berlin and New York, are factory 'bloomed' save the newest, it's single coated and from the odd, third 'Goerz' company.

Dallmeyer may have been the first to notice that tarnished glass passes more light but I think C.P. Goerz was the first to act on this. I have only seen this on Dogmars since 1914, not on other Goerz lenses.

Chauncey, it's hard to reverse the outer elements but it's very easy to reverse the inner. Dogmars are triple convertible so each cell will form an image, if the inner element is reversed, it won't form an image. The rear cell, 1.5Xfl, is an almost pictorially soft look until stopped down, the front cell, 2Xfl, has enough 'swirlies' to get seasick until stopped down. The 420 is a lovely studio portrait lens and I love the look but it's not as sharp as a tessar until stopped down. The 480 isn't half bad either.

have fun with it.

Chauncey Walden

15-Oct-2008, 09:34

Dan, an interesting site. Thanks for posting it.
Paul, I dug it out and had a look. There is no sign of any bloom and it seems to be assembled correctly. From the Vade Mecum, it appears to be a late one from around 1925/26 (serial 660 thousand something). I think, as you both suggested, that it will have to be stopped down more, and if I get the chromatic curves thing correctly, a strong yellow filter would help. Now, to find a huge filter....