PDA

View Full Version : Hermagis Eidoscope



Marko Trebusak
13-Jan-2010, 08:28
Hi folks!

Based on images posted on this forum, I ordered Eidoscope No. 3. It shout be of 274 mm focal length. I searched internet for information about this lens, but all I was able to find was, that this lens is based on Aplanat design. Anybody out there with more information about Eidoscope and Hermagis?

Cheers,
Marko

Hugo Zhang
13-Jan-2010, 08:45
Here is an article about Hermagis lenses from 1907 I found and posted earlier.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=36960&highlight=hermagis

Cheers,
Hugo

Steven Tribe
13-Jan-2010, 08:47
There will be plenty of (exciting) information later when the experienced get in touch with you. Use the search facility while you are waiting. The 285mm was for 13x18cm originally.

8x10 user
13-Jan-2010, 10:40
Did you guys know that the Eidoscope is a triple convertible?

Marko Trebusak
13-Jan-2010, 10:51
Hugo, I saw the article you posted, but forgot about it. So thank you for reminding me. Steven, are you sure it was 285 mm? I found references for 275mm. OK it was for later Berthiot version.

Cheers,
Marko

Hugo Zhang
13-Jan-2010, 11:01
Did you guys know that the Eidoscope is a triple convertible?

Yes. You can use either the front or rear cell individualy. I exposed a few sheets using the front cell of my Eidoscope a few weeks ago and have not developed the negatives yet.

Tri Tran
13-Jan-2010, 11:04
Yes. You can use either the front or rear cell individualy. I exposed a few sheets using the front cell of my Eidoscope a few weeks ago and have not developed the negatives yet.

Please develop your Neg ASAP . I want to see how soft it is. Thanks Hugo.
BTW any plan for 2010 Stimulus package for 20x24 film holders?

Hugo Zhang
13-Jan-2010, 11:27
Please develop your Neg ASAP . I want to see how soft it is. Thanks Hugo.
BTW any plan for 2010 Stimulus package for 20x24 film holders?

Tri,

I have to use Mt. SAC darkroom facilities and they don't have programs for the winter. Have to wait another 50 days. :(

Call or PM me about your 20x24 holders.

Steven Tribe
13-Jan-2010, 13:15
Sorry - yes 275mm. VM is a bit confused and doesn't seem to know the 150mm too well. It looks like the list should be No.1 150mm, No.2 190mm, No.3 275mm, No.4 375mm, No.5 480mm and No.6 635mm! But elsewhere they talk about at No.3 26cm but it a place where it looks more like heresay rather than catalogue reading.

Marko Trebusak
13-Jan-2010, 13:59
Steven, that's odd! I saw two no.2 with focal leigh of 420mm, and Jim Galli is claiming he have no. 2 of 14,5" and no. 1 of 19". It looks like VM's numbers are upside down.

What about historic data: the constructor; years of production; what happened to Hermagis and what's SOM Berthiot's part in this story?

Cheers,
Marko

Steven Tribe
13-Jan-2010, 14:22
The 150mm was definitely labeled no.1. And the no. 3 matched the logical progression (the third one matching yours). The number sequence would match the usual European progression of lens numbering.
But the lengths/numbers you quote does seem to suggest the reverse was the case (or became the case at some stage) in which case yours would become No.3 again! But did the 635mm become no. 0 - or perhaps abandoned because of insurance claims! Very very strange! I dare not quote more from VM!

Steven Tribe
13-Jan-2010, 14:46
I have checked other European auction sites and the french soft lens website (is found here). The black Berthiot seemed to have only been made in 275/375/480mm. And the black 375mm was called no.2. I take it yours is the objective from our Australian friend? These Berthiot versions are claimed to have been made up to the 40's so there were a lot of opportunities for changing the model range (the "odd" 420mm?)

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
13-Jan-2010, 19:10
They are triple convertible, however the front and rear (at least on the two samples I have owned) are the same FL.

I have never compared results (print to print), but the Eidoscope is the same design as the Busch Nicola Perscheid, two symmetrical achromats. I do not currently believe that they are Aplanat/Rapid Rectilinear design lenses, although I would be open to arguments proving otherwise.

For what ever it is worth, I love mine.

Marko Trebusak
13-Jan-2010, 21:03
I have checked other European auction sites and the french soft lens website (is found here). The black Berthiot seemed to have only been made in 275/375/480mm. And the black 375mm was called no.2. I take it yours is the objective from our Australian friend? These Berthiot versions are claimed to have been made up to the 40's so there were a lot of opportunities for changing the model range (the "odd" 420mm?)

Steven,

Mine is engraved No.3, and is said to be "less than 300 mm". OK, I don't have it in my hand's yet, so it's probably not officially mine and therefore I can't check for focal length, but here is photo of engraving from dealer's web (and is not from Australian frend). They also have Berthiot of 275mm in stock which is engraved no. 3 as well. And contrary to Hermagis, Berthiot is engraved with both number and focal length.


They are triple convertible, however the front and rear (at least on the two samples I have owned) are the same FL.

I have never compared results (print to print), but the Eidoscope is the same design as the Busch Nicola Perscheid, two symmetrical achromats. I do not currently believe that they are Aplanat/Rapid Rectilinear design lenses, although I would be open to arguments proving otherwise.

For what ever it is worth, I love mine.

Jason, quite few "I love mine" sentances from this site were the reason, I pulled the trigger on this one. So it'll be great if we manage to get as much data as possible together for future reference. When I get it I'll probably start image thread as well.

Cheers,
Marko

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
13-Jan-2010, 22:40
A few years back, I asked a French friend, Jimmy Péguet, if he could track down any information about the Eidoscope. He asked Patrice-Hervé Pont, a well known french collector and author, about the lens, and I received this response from M. Pont.

"... En ce qui concerne l'objectif de votre ami américain, il s'agit d'un Hermagis Eidoscope à portrait ouvrant à f/5 et fabriqué aux alentours de 1935. Sa formule est différente de celle d'un Petzval : c'est un rectiligne modifié de manière à conserver un résidu d'aberration sphérique et par là à donner du flou - flou réduisible en diaphragmant - sans pour cela souffrir d'un "foyer chimique" comme c'est le cas avec les objectifs à portrait classiques qui ont un résidu d'aberration chromatique et nécessitent par conséquent une correction de mise au point.

Hermagis est un très grand fabricant français qui a commencé son activité en 1845 ou 1855 (selon les sources). Sa production a été variée et considérable. Il a fini par être absorbé en 1934 par SOM Berthiot, qui a conservé son usine de Dijon (he wrote here "Dijou", maybe a typo, I must check), dans laquelle bien plus tard ont été fabriqué les Pan Cinor. Le nom d'Hermagis a survécu longtemps après la guerre dans les catalogues Berthiot..."

I won't belabor my awful French by translating. Anyhow, google can translate as well as I...

Marko Trebusak
13-Jan-2010, 23:31
Jason that was very informative, thank you. I remember a thread, where Eddy asked about Hermagis serial number list, but it didn't reveal anything regarding Hermagis. Do you happen to have Hermagis serial number/production year list somewhere? Or are you able to tell the period when lens with serial number 46XXX could be produced? Also in your French friend's friend's reply there is mention of "modified Rapid Rectilinear construction". You wrote: "I do not currently believe that they are Aplanat/Rapid Rectilinear design lenses, although I would be open to arguments proving otherwise", so what do you think this construction is based on?

Cheers,
Marko

Steven Tribe
14-Jan-2010, 01:58
J-G-M - it was Dijon. Hermagis for a period was "à Paris et Dijon". Logic says "Give up the high value plant/high labour cost when times became difficult in the Depression".

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
14-Jan-2010, 07:29
...there is mention of "modified Rapid Rectilinear construction". You wrote: "I do not currently believe that they are Aplanat/Rapid Rectilinear design lenses, although I would be open to arguments proving otherwise", so what do you think this construction is based on?...

Marko, you caught me looking the fool, or at least contradicting myself. Several years ago, when I purchased my first Eidoscope I compared the reflections of an Dallmeyer Rapid Rectilinear and the Eidoscope. They both had the same number of reflections, showing that both are 4/2 designs, but the Eidoscope's reflections moved in opposite directions than the RR's, suggesting that the curves are different. Since I know of only two significant 4/2 designs--the RR and the periscopic--I thought that the Eidoscope must be the latter. The Nicola Persheid is a good example of a 4/2 periscopic (a Verito is a 3/2 periscopic), while the Pinkham and Smith Series IV is a 4/2 RR. In retrospect and in face of my conflicting reports I should go back and try the reflection test again.

Jim Galli
14-Jan-2010, 07:33
Numbers work backwards on Eidoscop. 0=24" 1=19" 2=14 3/4" 3=11" 4= etc.

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
14-Jan-2010, 07:33
Sorry, I don't have a serial number correspondence, although I would love to see one.

Marko Trebusak
14-Jan-2010, 22:30
Marko, you caught me looking the fool, or at least contradicting myself. Several years ago, when I purchased my first Eidoscope I compared the reflections of an Dallmeyer Rapid Rectilinear and the Eidoscope. They both had the same number of reflections, showing that both are 4/2 designs, but the Eidoscope's reflections moved in opposite directions than the RR's, suggesting that the curves are different. Since I know of only two significant 4/2 designs--the RR and the periscopic--I thought that the Eidoscope must be the latter. The Nicola Persheid is a good example of a 4/2 periscopic (a Verito is a 3/2 periscopic), while the Pinkham and Smith Series IV is a 4/2 RR. In retrospect and in face of my conflicting reports I should go back and try the reflection test again.

Jason, I wasn't sure what are you talking about since I thought that Nicola Persheid was RR modification too. So I went to consult Kingslake and now I know the difference - Aplanat have meniscus positive elements in both front and rear groups, while Nicola Persheid have biconvex positive elements. Now that is in line with your observation of one reflection (weak) moving in different direction. Live and learn (while waiting for packet to arrive).

Cheers,
Marko

Marko Trebusak
14-Jan-2010, 22:33
Sorry, I don't have a serial number correspondence, although I would love to see one.

Do you know if French collectors have some sort of association or something? There should be someone able (and hopefully willing) to help.

Cheers,
Marko

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
15-Jan-2010, 07:32
No, I never found one. I asked if M. Pont had one, but he did not.

Emil Schildt
15-Jan-2010, 07:44
excuse me for being ignorant, but what do you pay for these lenses. I have being wanting one for some time now, and I have seen prices, that I certainly can't afford.

But I have been offered a couple lately - one for the eqivalent to 1000$...(an Hermagis Paris Eidoscope 5 No.2).

?

Robert Hughes
15-Jan-2010, 08:03
$1000 for a hundred year old lens? Why don't people go into producing new/old lenses - at this price, someone could run a business making these things in their basement.

Hugo Zhang
15-Jan-2010, 08:15
excuse me for being ignorant, but what do you pay for these lenses. I have being wanting one for some time now, and I have seen prices, that I certainly can't afford.

But I have been offered a couple lately - one for the eqivalent to 1000$...(an Hermagis Paris Eidoscope 5 No.2).

?

Back six or seven years ago, I tried to haggle down the price for an Hermagis Paris Eidoscope 5 No.2 without a flange from $350 to $300 with a seller on eBay in vain. When I finally got one in nice condition three years ago, I paid about $900. I blame this higher price new comers have to cough up to Jim Galli. Anyway, $1,000 is not bad if the lens is in a good condition. A friend of mine paid $1,200 for a No.2 Eidoscope a few months ago. I won't sell my Eidoscope at $1,200, or even $1,500. I just love this lens.

Steven Tribe
15-Jan-2010, 09:17
Robert, there is only money in recreating old objectives if the item is extremely simple and there are more than just a 100 people who would buy it. Most prospective users would have already saved up and bought the original. Other than the simple kinds of single achromatic, I can't think of an objective which would make the criteria of high demand and ease of production. Cookes made a winner for these reasons but I don't think they will be repeating the experiment with more complex constructions. They probably didn't earn anything on the project (or minimised their losses) but have increased their goodwill, reputation and visability in their more commercial activities.

Marko Trebusak
16-Jan-2010, 04:46
excuse me for being ignorant, but what do you pay for these lenses. I have being wanting one for some time now, and I have seen prices, that I certainly can't afford.

But I have been offered a couple lately - one for the eqivalent to 1000$...(an Hermagis Paris Eidoscope 5 No.2).

?


Emil, if you'll be nice, I'll point you towards no. 2 for less than 700€ in good condition. Just wait for mine to arrive, so that I'll be able to recomend the place.

Cheers,
Marko

Emil Schildt
16-Jan-2010, 04:50
Emil, if you'll be nice, I'll point you towards no. 2 for less than 700€ in good condition. Just wait for mine to arrive, so that I'll be able to recomend the place.

Cheers,
Marko

hi Marko. Maybe it is the same I have seen... "less than 700€" is about 1000$ (?)...

The one I have seen is 690€ = 990$...

Bu I am always interested in knowing what to get..

thanks
emil

eddie
16-Jan-2010, 04:58
yes, if anyone knows the dates that would be great. i sold my biggest one the other day. it's serial # was 96xx. i just bought another smaller one #95xx or so and i have a "parts lens" (page 30 post 293) (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=42963&page=30) that is #87xx.

i think $1000 for a #2 is a good deal in today's economy.

cheers

eddie

Hugo Zhang
16-Jan-2010, 07:55
hi Marko. Maybe it is the same I have seen... "less than 700€" is about 1000$ (?)...

The one I have seen is 690€ = 990$...

Bu I am always interested in knowing what to get..

thanks
emil

Emil,

That is a good looking No.2 in brass, but I don't see a flange in the picture. Just contact them and make sure it has one unless you don't really care.

I have got a few of my lenses from that shop and I actually won my Eidoscope from one their auctions.

Hugo

Emil Schildt
16-Jan-2010, 09:10
Emil,

That is a good looking No.2 in brass, but I don't see a flange in the picture. Just contact them and make sure it has one unless you don't really care.

I have got a few of my lenses from that shop and I actually won my Eidoscope from one their auctions.

Hugo

yes - I think we're looking at the same lens..
No flange in the pictures, but I have bought some stuff there in the past, and everytime, it comes; even better looking than in the pictures, and always with more stuff included, than described.

Very friendly people there!

(1000$ is STILL a LOT of money for my wallet! it would be the most expensive lens for me ever...)

Marko Trebusak
17-Jan-2010, 13:40
hi Marko. Maybe it is the same I have seen... "less than 700€" is about 1000$ (?)...

The one I have seen is 690€ = 990$...

Bu I am always interested in knowing what to get..

thanks
emil

It looks it is the same lens. I always calculate 1$=1€, because if I order from states and then add shipping and taxes, it usually end that way. Sorry, I should know you know more of this stuff than I do.

Cheers,
Marko

Emil Schildt
17-Jan-2010, 14:18
It looks it is the same lens. I always calculate 1$=1€, because if I order from states and then add shipping and taxes, it usually end that way. Sorry, I should know you know more of this stuff than I do.

Cheers,
Marko

I understand, but as the item is located in Germany, there will be no taxes/custom fees for me (schengen)

Sven Schroder
17-Jan-2010, 14:36
Hi

Paid 200 euro's for my example a No 2, I was lucky. One on Ebay at the moment with camera attatched item number 260539390976.
I have a hermagis catalogue with the eidoscope listed not much info but I'll scan and post it in a day or so.
Regards
Sven

Steven Tribe
17-Jan-2010, 15:22
Black No.3 with quite a lot of edge paint loss - supplies number though! Interesting shutter. Has obviously been a decorative item for decades.

Marko Trebusak
18-Jan-2010, 01:53
Hi

Paid 200 euro's for my example a No 2, I was lucky. One on Ebay at the moment with camera attatched item number 260539390976.
I have a hermagis catalogue with the eidoscope listed not much info but I'll scan and post it in a day or so.
Regards
Sven

Thanks Sven. That will be helpful.

Cheers,
Marko

Sven Schroder
20-Jan-2010, 13:42
Hi
See the attatchment for the catalogue scan its in french.

Regards
Sven

alex from holland
20-Jan-2010, 16:45
the cover sizes which they mention in the catalogue.
I assume it are cm instead of inches ??
is a hermagis eidoscope 4.5 always a nr 2 or is the same max aparture also been used in no 3 ?

alex

CCHarrison
20-Jan-2010, 18:41
I believe older Eidoscopes are all f/5...the later models went to f/4.5 ( all models )

Dan

Marko Trebusak
21-Jan-2010, 22:23
Marko, you caught me looking the fool, or at least contradicting myself. Several years ago, when I purchased my first Eidoscope I compared the reflections of an Dallmeyer Rapid Rectilinear and the Eidoscope. They both had the same number of reflections, showing that both are 4/2 designs, but the Eidoscope's reflections moved in opposite directions than the RR's, suggesting that the curves are different. Since I know of only two significant 4/2 designs--the RR and the periscopic--I thought that the Eidoscope must be the latter. The Nicola Persheid is a good example of a 4/2 periscopic (a Verito is a 3/2 periscopic), while the Pinkham and Smith Series IV is a 4/2 RR. In retrospect and in face of my conflicting reports I should go back and try the reflection test again.

Jason, did you make lens reflection test? I got my lens and did the spotlight test. I can see bright reflections going faster in the same direction as dim one. So I think it is Aplanat/RR design after all. While swinging the lens, the dim reflection stays almost in the same place, so I guess that cemented surface of both achromats must be almost flat?


Hi
See the attatchment for the catalogue scan its in french.


Thanks Sven for posting this!

Cheers,
Marko

Steven Tribe
21-Mar-2010, 13:42
Just for information! A size no. 4 hergamis Eidoscope has just been listed in sunny Devon (UK) on you know where. At the moment it is spelt Eidescope. I have connection with the lister. He has another, more common, soft lens too.

Marko Trebusak
22-Mar-2010, 08:41
Well, thank you for information Steven. Unfortunatelly I'm not in a position to chase it :p . But BDW I finally got around to scan my first photo with no. 3.

Marko

Steven Tribe
22-Mar-2010, 10:57
Perhaps not the subject of my choice know that spring has only just melted our snow!
The other soft lens listed is a 3B Dallmeyer.

Jim Galli
22-Mar-2010, 22:59
Well, thank you for information Steven. Unfortunatelly I'm not in a position to chase it :p . But BDW I finally got around to scan my first photo with no. 3.

Marko

Beautiful Marko.

Marko Trebusak
23-Mar-2010, 02:58
Beautiful Marko.

Thanks Jim. I need to print it to see how character of this lens transform to print of actual size and process.

Cheers,
Marko

SAShruby
23-Mar-2010, 11:38
I got mine first Eidoscope today. It's Berthiot No.3, 275mm/4.5. with custom made extension and som lamel type fabric shutter!!! It's a quite a beautifull work, wood looks to be a mahogany. I just can't wait to make fisrt portrait with it.

I'm so excited!!!

Hugo Zhang
25-Mar-2010, 22:53
Two recent pictures of Hermagis Eidoscope #2 with Kodak 2d and 57 back.

Dan Dozer
27-Mar-2010, 15:35
Here are the first couple of images a couple of months back with my #2 Berthiot Eidoscope. Note that the Berthiot and the Hermagis are the same lens. Apparently, Berthiot took over the Hermagis lenses around 1940 or so and put the Berthiot name on them instead of Hermagis.

The head on shot was at about F8 and the side shot wide open at F4.5

firestargps
29-Mar-2010, 22:32
Wow, good resource, just found it.

I'm considering to get a Hermagis Eidoscope lens No.4 for my 4x5, based on your discussion, No. 4 will be 7 1/2", Anybody know if it can cover 4x5?

Also I found that the aperture of this type lens is scaled something like 5, 6, 7,14, 20..., does this mean the max aperture is f5, how can I change these numbers to modern stops commonly used today, such as f8, f11, f16 etc.

Thx,
firestar

Marko Trebusak
30-Mar-2010, 00:00
Also I found that the aperture of this type lens is scaled something like 5, 6, 7,14, 20..., does this mean the max aperture is f5, how can I change these numbers to modern stops commonly used today, such as f8, f11, f16 etc.

Thx,
firestar

If you type "french f-stop" into this forum's search engine, you'll find this (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=26346&highlight=french+f-stop) thread.

Cheers,
Marko

Jim Galli
30-Mar-2010, 07:27
Wow, good resource, just found it.

I'm considering to get a Hermagis Eidoscope lens No.4 for my 4x5, based on your discussion, No. 4 will be 7 1/2", Anybody know if it can cover 4x5?

Also I found that the aperture of this type lens is scaled something like 5, 6, 7,14, 20..., does this mean the max aperture is f5, how can I change these numbers to modern stops commonly used today, such as f8, f11, f16 etc.

Thx,
firestar

You don't need to change anything, just get used to thinking in 1/3rd stops from they system you're used to. All the "action" with these lenses occurs before f8. After that they're just sharp. Very sharp. So f5, f6, f7 are all 3rd stops, f5 being close enough to 5.6 to be identical, f6 being 5.6 + 1/3, f7 being 5.6 + 2/3, f10 being f8 + 2/3, and f14 being f11 + 2/3. No big deal. If you paid the $$$ for one of these, you'll want to be down in the f5 f6 f7 world I would think.

firestargps
30-Mar-2010, 09:50
If you type "french f-stop" into this forum's search engine, you'll find this (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=26346&highlight=french+f-stop) thread.

Cheers,
Marko


Marko, I've noticed that thread, but they are different stop system. Thanks, anyway.

firestargps
30-Mar-2010, 10:01
You don't need to change anything, just get used to thinking in 1/3rd stops from they system you're used to. All the "action" with these lenses occurs before f8. After that they're just sharp. Very sharp. So f5, f6, f7 are all 3rd stops, f5 being close enough to 5.6 to be identical, f6 being 5.6 + 1/3, f7 being 5.6 + 2/3, f10 being f8 + 2/3, and f14 being f11 + 2/3. No big deal. If you paid the $$$ for one of these, you'll want to be down in the f5 f6 f7 world I would think.

Very clear and superb helpful, 5 6 7 10 14 is really modern stop system although not aligned to normal used system 4 5.6 8 11 16 ..., thanks so much Jim. Sure, I'll leverage f5, f6, f7 for its special effect.

Salute!
firestar

Scott Davis
14-Dec-2014, 20:52
Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but does anyone have an idea of when the Eidoscope switched from waterhouse stops to a mechanical aperture?

Steven Tribe
16-Dec-2014, 06:57
No apologies needed! Better a continuation than a new start.

I can't answer the question, but will just mention that a number of makers advertised their lens in many versions at different prices at the same time. With/without shutters and with iris/WHS. Not always a matter of price differences, stereo pairs are best with WHS.

renes
17-Apr-2015, 23:39
I have never seen Eidoscope was selling with yellow/orange filter. It seems this one was originally sold with such filter, so, is it uncommon for Eidoscope?:

261853915401



Numbers work backwards on Eidoscop. 0=24" 1=19" 2=14 3/4" 3=11" 4= etc.

What FL are no. 4", 5" (6" = 150mm) ? Was there also no.7?

renes
19-Apr-2015, 07:35
Noted No.4 is 7 1/2"

Anybody knows what fl is no.5 Eidoscope?

Jim Galli
19-Apr-2015, 08:33
Noted No.4 is 7 1/2"

Anybody knows what fl is no.5 Eidoscope?

Perhaps they dropped the numbers after 4? The 150's were sold in a case as groups that were designed for standard Compur #1 shutters. I've not noted smaller than the 150mm ones Although cine versions would have been logical.

renes
20-Apr-2015, 02:32
Thanks Jim.

Amedeus
23-Apr-2015, 02:17
Noted No.4 is 7 1/2"

Anybody knows what fl is no.5 Eidoscope?

My #4 is 190mm, my #5 is 150mm