PDA

View Full Version : Busch Nicola Perscheid ?



Steven Tribe
30-Oct-2009, 12:06
I found some information in a Swedish Catalogue from 1934 which surprised me. The Busch Nicola Perscheid was offered as a significantly cheaper alternative to Cooke's Series E and D (f3.5) and the Universal Heliar. First of all, the coverage given was rather different from what has been implied in previous threads here.

30cm covered 9x12 to 12x16.5
36cm covered 12x16.5 to 13x18
42cm covered 13x18 to 18x24 (all these are give in cms)

This is somewhat in conflict with the coverage given in various ebay listings and a single listing here (FS).

But the most interesting thing was the text at the bottom:

"These objectives are supplied together with the yellow filter which is necessary for the correct use of these objectives".

What yellow filter? I have never heard these mentioned in any listing. Is it a device for correct focussing or, as I suspect, like the Plasticca, whiere it is an integral part of the optics?

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
30-Oct-2009, 12:42
As I recall, Busch also made a cheaper poorly corrected "Perscheid" lens which, if remember correctly, was a triplet as opposed to the 4/2 design of the expensive "Nicola Perscheid" lens.

Steven Tribe
30-Oct-2009, 12:59
No this is the f4.5 Nicola Perscheid - there is both the full name given in the title and the text on the illustrated lens rim can be seen. The data match with the VM described 1935 model. Perhaps it was only the later faster version which had the standard yellow filter? It was an expensive objective but still only half the price of a Cooke.

Leonard Alecu
21-Dec-2009, 03:19
Hello,
I just bought the 600mm Nicola Perscheid.
Come with the original yellow filter. Please see the pictures.
The yellow filter (or yellow-green) is used in portrait photography with any kind of lens for skin tones. I don't verify yet, but I have the feeling that, using a monochrome light, it is easier to find the focus plain with a lens with chromatic aberrations.
Yours,
LA

Peter K
21-Dec-2009, 05:20
The yellow filter (or yellow-green) is used in portrait photography with any kind of lens for skin tones. I don't verify yet, but I have the feeling that, using a monochrome light, it is easier to find the focus plain with a lens with chromatic aberrations.
The yellow filter was necessary for orthochromatic plates mostly used in the time your lens was made. The focussing technique described here (http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/kodak_1.html) for the Kodak Portrait Lens can also used with the Nicola Perscheid lens.

Steven Tribe
21-Dec-2009, 08:55
Peter - interesting reading - my first attempts at focusing a soft lens (graf variable) were awful. I have a feeling that orthofilm was not the only type available in 1924?

Leonard - Didn't know they made a 600mm! The biggest one shown in my old catalogue from 1924 shows a 420mm which covers up to 8x10! OK, I see now that this is the later F5.6 version of bigger sizes (19" and 23.5") rather than the F4.5 and is advertised for 10x12".I think your comments about the use of the yellow filter ring true. Nice to know that at least one original yellow filter and one 600mm has survived the years.
I have the senior member of the Plasticca objectives - a 600mm too. How are you going to put this into use - camera/lens boardwise?

Peter K
21-Dec-2009, 10:16
Peter - interesting reading - my first attempts at focusing a soft lens (graf variable) were awful. I have a feeling that orthofilm was not the only type available in 1924?
Koenig invented isocyanin in 1884 as a panchromatic sensibilisation dye eleven years after Vogel invented the (orthochromatic) sensibilisation in 1873. But at least up to the fifties orthochromatic plates and films was the common material for portraits and also press-work. In the Kodak professional photographic catalog from 1992 Kodak Tri-X Ortho film was aviable from 4x5" up to 8x10". "Well suited for character-type portrait subjects."

Peter

Jim Galli
21-Dec-2009, 11:51
I have 2, a 30cm and a 42cm. The coverage data is conservative and aimed at old school portraitists who tended toward long lenses / perfect perspective I think. Those numbers would be consistent with a plate that would exhibit a flat field with equal diffusion corner to corner. When used on larger plates, and I've used the 30cm on 8X10 landscapes, the corners are significantly softer / weirder than the center.

My 30cm has the original yellow filter. I always surmised that this was to correct chemical and visual focus to a single plane. So with the yellow, it would be a little sharper than without, giving the user some options.

These are in the same family formula wise as the Hermagis Eidoscop, Pinkham Visual Quality, and Gundlach Hyperion. Having used all 4, the Perscheid is my least favorite. That's totally subjective seat of the pants type reckoning and the next user might discover just the opposite.

Physically, these would have been much cheaper to make than a quality triplet. No spacing issues, and 2 simple cemented doublets, so yes, they would have perhaps been marketed as a cheaper alternative to the high priced spread. Now though, they trump just about everything.

community1313
11-Feb-2010, 15:14
Hello, If any of you cares I have the nicola perscheid triplet model, 480 mm F 4.5 it's a beast and it doesn't look cheap, the build is just amazing but I never had a chance to try it yet !
Maybe I should start a thread about "alternative german triplets" since I also have three trioplan hugo meyer, one 100 and a 250 mm and a 300 mm, coated!
Das gute stuck!
Anyway will not say more before shooting them but any information welcomed and if you want to shere your experience..

Stephane
11-Feb-2010, 15:25
I also have the 480mm, and yes the looks fit the bill... Nice and heavy! Should try it tomorrow on a friend who's coming for some beers.

community1313
16-Feb-2010, 11:00
Yes I am curious about that lens but I was smart enough to put the 8X10 camera apart for a rebuild and it's still in a box (shame on me).

Stephane
21-Feb-2010, 14:08
I got this info with my 480mm. Could be useful if you speak German (not my case).
Any German friend out there who could sum-up this?

Steven Tribe
21-Feb-2010, 15:10
This is interesting! I can't supply a total translation but it contains more info and tips than the usual catalogue description. It gives separate prices for the objective and the appropriate yellow filter - so it was possible to purchase without the yellow filter. The prices are Reich Marks which can help put an approximate date on it - strange things happened with the German currency in the interwar years!

Steven Tribe
23-Feb-2010, 15:23
As nobody has attempted a translation, I struggled through the yellow filter description. It seems that the yellow filter was used for focussing with orthochromatic plates and the filter removed for exposure. That is, the usual system for objectives which are not fully corrected.

Dr Klaus Schmitt
23-Feb-2010, 16:43
Steven, it mentions that only when using a blue sensitive emulsion, a yellow filter is needed, but not if using a very orthochromatic emulsion. It does not mention what you said, so I would assume one focusses and exposes with or without filter depending on emulsion (= film type) used. It also mentions that if a too string yellow filter is being used, the (wanted) softness of the image might get partially lost. They also give advice to use a lighting setup which is contrasty, but hot harsh.

Steven Tribe
24-Feb-2010, 02:09
Thanks for providing the correct translation/summary - there are some complex sentences in the key area.

Stephane
24-Feb-2010, 04:38
Putting things together slowly, here is a translation/summary by a German colleague.

The perscheid effect
The objective makes pictorial pictures especially for portraits with balanced depth of focus. It is not a simple soft focus lens. Yes it is the best objective of the world and a lot of tests were necessary for its construction.

Now the interesting things

Light (Beleuchtung)
It it recommended to use high contrast but not hard light

Yellow filter (Gelbfilter)
For the usage of blue sensitive Fotoplates (it is an old description before the film) the usage of the yellowfilter is recommended.

Adjustments (einstellung)
Best pictures if things with intermediate brightness are sharp.

Aperture (blende)
To get a good effect of the diffuser not use aperture smaller than F:8

Light exposure (Belichtung)
For portrait a bit longer than usual, for other things normal time.

The last point (entwickeln) is about how to develop the negatives. (?)

Stephane
24-Feb-2010, 04:46
The last point about developing the negative (just called the translater to fill in the gaps):
the developer must be diluted twice than usual (i.e. rodinal 1:50 to 1:100), temperature should be colder (18degC) so that development is slow.

Jim Galli
24-Feb-2010, 07:42
I've been tracking this thread from a distance for a while. Somebody please show me a Nicola Perscheid that is a triplet??!! :eek: :cool: That's just wrong I think.

community1313
26-Feb-2010, 13:00
Jim it is a Triplet and next time I am in my country blues house I will perform some home made surgery and show you an inside view!
Three large glass air spaced!

CCHarrison
26-Feb-2010, 13:49
Hmmmm... Kingslake diagram attached....

Dan

Jim Galli
26-Feb-2010, 13:55
Jim it is a Triplet and next time I am in my country blues house I will perform some home made surgery and show you an inside view!
Three large glass air spaced!


Hmmmm... Kingslake diagram attached....

Dan

Anxious to see that. Always willing to learn there's something weird I haven't seen yet. Please do some pictures of it when you can. Thanks! Jim

Stephane
26-Feb-2010, 14:01
I have a 480mm too and it is like on the diagram above.

CCHarrison
27-Feb-2010, 05:57
This Japanese page mentions (via google translate) a few Perscheid lens types... it also mentions the 4 element symmetrical design as shown above, but also that many versions were a "triplet pattern type."


http://blog.goo.ne.jp/finephotograph_com/e/5a328171a6870d815e931a50db2d91ae

So, it appears everyone is right !! Now, someone needs to compare the 4 element against the 3 element :)

Below are images of the Perscheid "Portrat Objektiv" and the regular, Perscheid "Objektiv"

I assume/guess the Portrat Objektiv may have 3 elements and the regular Objektiv 4...

Dan

community1313
13-May-2010, 12:07
Anxious to see that. Always willing to learn there's something weird I haven't seen yet. Please do some pictures of it when you can. Thanks! Jim

i did send the photos to Jim and yes it is a triplet, :p

community1313
13-May-2010, 12:18
Voilą, the two front and back lens are shown and the middle one is hidden between the aperture blades..It's a beast, to big to be mounted on a sinar, it needs a studio wood camera..

community1313
13-May-2010, 12:20
The inside lens..

Nathan Potter
13-May-2010, 12:51
i did send the photos to Jim and yes it is a triplet, :p

Interesting triplet. Is it possible that the center element is negative and simply used to increase the focal length of the basic doublet without appreciably changing the dimensions of the housing? Something like the early Dallmeyer Triple Achromat. Such a negative element might still preserve the soft aspect of the lens and not appreciably improve the degree of spherical correction.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

carverlux
13-May-2010, 17:48
Some facts:

1. My 42cm Nicola Perscheid is a doublet/RR. It has very little residual CA and uses SA for diffusion. It is quite sharp wide open - a little sharper than a Heliar but not as sharp as an Eidoscope.

2. My 48cm Nicola Perscheid is a triplet. It has noticeable residual CA and more SA than the 42cm. The combined effect is like a Gundlach Equal Diffusion, and that's a pretty foggy lens. Its sharpness wide open is less than that of a Heliar. So this lens has a pretty steep learning curve - at least for me.

3. Both lenses have the same German patent number engraved on the front rim, DRP 372059 which basically described how residual aberration can be used as diffusion but did not specify any particular optical layout.

4. The 42cm has a lower serial number than the 48cm. Both lenses are made to the same quality and finish and has the same barrel diameter and flange threads (both size and pitch).

These lenses are about 6 lbs each so it is very challenging to put them on a field camera. They were built to be used inside a studio on a huge camera. My Deardorff P8 can handle it without any issues but I am too nervous to bring them outside in case the Black Beast decides to call it quits at some point. Absolutely no chance on a V8.

Carver

carverlux
13-May-2010, 17:50
Interesting triplet. Is it possible that the center element is negative and simply used to increase the focal length of the basic doublet without appreciably changing the dimensions of the housing? Something like the early Dallmeyer Triple Achromat. Such a negative element might still preserve the soft aspect of the lens and not appreciably improve the degree of spherical correction.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Nate,

The diameters of both outer elements between my 42cm and 48cm are not the same. The 42cm is slightly smaller. The 42cm also appears to me as a cemented doublet but the 48cm triplet is truly an uncemented triplet, not a cemented triplet as in a Heliar.

Carver

renes
6-Sep-2010, 13:52
Do someone know the coverage of Nicola Perscheid 210mm f/4.5 lens?
Does it cover 4x5?

I will put for sale one soon it seems to be a triplet (Nicola Perscheid-Objektiv f:4,5 F=21cm D.R.P.372059, Emil Busch A-G Rathenow).

Steven Tribe
6-Sep-2010, 15:04
VM says 4x5 for the early version (F4.9) and 1/4 plate for a later version (F4.5). These may correspond to the discussed change to a triplet. In a 1935 catalogue (F4.5)only 30cm, 36 and 42cm are mentioned. Coverage for the 30cm was given as 9x12cm to 12x16.5cm.

renes
6-Sep-2010, 15:22
Thanks. That is 6x9 wide open... 210mm looks great for portraiture.

Mine is triplet for sure, exactly as showned by community1313 on above pics.

renes
7-Sep-2010, 06:21
If it's correctly marked than it is 9x10cm to 10x15cm


http://a.imageshack.us/img825/217/perscheid.jpg

Steven Tribe
7-Sep-2010, 09:31
I am sure the addition is correct. All the other data (code names, price) looks authentic.

Ernest Purdum
7-Sep-2010, 09:44
I am wondering if the Swedish catalogue is listing recommended plate sizes rather than coverage? Jim Galli's comments certainly suggest this possibility. (I wouldn't be able to tell. Despite having lived for awhile in a Swedish beach resort in Italy, about all the Swedish I know is Tak, and I'm not sure of that. I know a Danish word, too. Tuborg.)

renes
7-Sep-2010, 09:49
I am sure the addition is correct. All the other data (code names, price) looks authenitic.

If 1/4 plate equals 9x12cm and Nicola Perscheild 210mm lens covers barely 9x10cm (as marked above), what format this lens was intended for?

There was not 9x10cm plate size (or 8x10cm - can't read off exactly the figure)

Steven Tribe
7-Sep-2010, 10:40
Ernest, definitely recommended plate sizes - allowing the kind of movements expected from that size of camera.

renes
8-Sep-2010, 03:14
From VM:

"A 1935 list has f4.5, 8.25, 12, 14.5, 16.5, 19in. f5.5, 23.5in; for 12x10in. A Houghton list of 1920 claims that it covers a rather wider angle than Busch says - so a rather smaller and cheaper lens might be sold. They suggest f4.5, 8.25in for 1/4plate; 12in for 1/2plate; 14.5in for 7x5; 16.5in or 19in for 9x7; 23.5in for 12x10. So it is possible that there was an improved product".

renes
9-Sep-2010, 09:42
Today I took my triplet Nicola Perscheid 210/4.5 lens and went to Anton a friend of mine who has 4x5" - and 8x10" too - to check its coverage (I sold mine 4x5 recently). What was my suprise: at infinity the lens wide opened covered 4x5" with MUCH room for movements! The image on the GG was illuminated with equal diffusion even with maximum rise and fall! 5x7"? Anton who has much more experience with LF than me answered "of course"! We put the lens on 8x10" and set infinity. You will not believe but it "almost" covered the GG - the edges and corners were softer with very pleasant darkening - you would not say it's vignetting. I was so suprised with what we have seen that asked him to check the coverage once again on 4x5" and 8x10". We did it. And nothing changed. This lens covers at infinity 5x7" for sure! There is NO DOUBT! With some belows draw it covers 8x10.

I do not understand how it was recommended for 1/4 plate??? It's strange.

CCHarrison
9-Sep-2010, 11:03
In my research, I found that many SF makers suggested that the lens should be about 2X the normal focal length for any given format. If thats the case here, it would make sense that the suggested focal length and coverage for a given format are very different... Just a thought

Dan