Taylor Hobson Portrait Anastigmat 4.5/10.5in

[cyberjunkie]

I have found a brass lens, from the very bad pictures i have seen it's a Taylor-Hobson Cooke Portrait Anastigmat. Focal lenght is 270mm (10.5"), and i am almost sure that the speed is f/4.5. It should be a Series II, but i'm not absolutely sure.
It does have the "spectacle" to set the softness.

From what i have read (the catalogs at cameraeccentric.com are invaluable!) it's a lens from the twenties. I am not a collector, what about its usefulness for taking actual pictures?
What about the variable softness, how does it compare against well known "soft portrait" lenses?
IF the glass is still in decent shape, what's the average price for a lens like this?

Before asking these questions, i have searched the forum, but the only references were for Portrait Series IIA, non-Portrait anastigmats, or Aviars. To say the truth, the only picture close enough to the lens i found, was of a Series IIA. All the Series II, even those portrayed on the Taylor-Hobson catalogs, were without the "spectacle handle" that controls the degree of softness.

Here is the only good picture i got

have fun

CJ

[Steven Tribe]

Whilst you are waiting for replies from the experts, I can give you some information. 10.5" is a standard size for just about all soft versions of the series II (a,b,d and e) - but not for the similar series VI. This is the size designed for 5x7 and 5x8". This is one of best known soft lenses. The turning mechanism may require attention (read - lubrication!). Series 2 a (the "Portrellic") is the most common. However, the caps looks modern and the brass condition is excellent so it might be one of the later series.

Users must comment on its qualities as I am a Heliar Universal and more extreme lens person. Value is high, especialy if it is one of the late versions. Serial number?

[Emil Schildt]

"..how does it compare against well known "soft portrait" lenses?"..

well known? This is a very well known lens. Looks (from the picture) not to be a II but a IIb (?). ("portrellic")

I can be wrong of course - let the experts chime in.
In any case a very good and "valued" lens according to the Vademecum...

I have two (not this one) and I love them to bits!

[eddie]

What about the variable softness, how does it compare against well known "soft portrait" lenses?


CJ
i think you should say how do the OTHERS compare to this lens?

it is not rare. you do not see them because no one that owns them want to sell them! that should tell you something.

a few from me....:)

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/3/5/7/8/5/0/webimg/371545176_o.jpg

[Emil Schildt]

i think you should say how do the OTHERS compare to this lens?

it is not rare. you do not see them because no one that owns them want to sell them! that should tell you something.

a few from me....:)

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/3/5/7/8/5/0/webimg/371545176_o.jpg

aah - and now you're just showing off! :D

[CCHarrison]

Cyberjunkie - see my second article on Soft Focus lenses ( Cooke section ).

http://antiquecameras.net/softfocuslenses2.html

If its a f/4.5 lens, than its a IIb model, first made in 1926.

As far as value, here are a few prices realized on various Cooke SF lenses:

2nd Qtr 2010 Cooke Series VI 18" $1,036 ebay, no flange, with knuckles
2nd Qtr 2010 Cooke Series IIE 12 3/4" $837 ebay, with knuckles
1st Qtr 2010 Cooke Series II 10.5" $483 (Ebay)


Dan

[Louis Pacilla]

The photos of the Cooke lens you posted have the look of the later IIE

The hood is what appears to be more like the later style. Maybe the serial # is available. my IIE is 215xxx. If the serial # is in this range I would think it to be a later IIE.

I added a couple of snaps of my IIE see if you don't agree.

I took a second look at you posted photo & it dose appear to have a late serial # may be 415838

[carverlux]

I have found a brass lens, from the very bad pictures i have seen it's a Taylor-Hobson Cooke Portrait Anastigmat. Focal lenght is 270mm (10.5"), and i am almost sure that the speed is f/4.5. It should be a Series II, but i'm not absolutely sure.
It does have the "spectacle" to set the softness.

From what i have read (the catalogs at cameraeccentric.com are invaluable!) it's a lens from the twenties. I am not a collector, what about its usefulness for taking actual pictures?
What about the variable softness, how does it compare against well known "soft portrait" lenses?
IF the glass is still in decent shape, what's the average price for a lens like this?

Before asking these questions, i have searched the forum, but the only references were for Portrait Series IIA, non-Portrait anastigmats, or Aviars. To say the truth, the only picture close enough to the lens i found, was of a Series IIA. All the Series II, even those portrayed on the Taylor-Hobson catalogs, were without the "spectacle handle" that controls the degree of softness.

Here is the only good picture i got

have fun

CJ

CJ,

What you show in your picture is a Series IIE Portrait Anastigmat, and judging from its serial number of 415838, it is Post-WWII. It would have been a coated lens done at the factory. In its very solid and substantive brass barrel, this is a superb lens that can render sharp and soft portraits through a very wide range using the knuckler. If it has not been tempered with, it is also very sharp when used wide open.

Other than what looks like glue around the knuckler, it appears to be a real find. It would be a real shame if that glue had been an unskilled attempt at making a loose knuckler stay in place. In any case, it is a classic and I'd pick it up in a heartbeat.

Attached is a picture of my beloved 12¾" IIE.

Carver

[cyberjunkie]

Yes.
I confirm, from the picture i see the same serial:
415838

If somebody knows about TTH serials, maybe there is a chance to understand which version it is.
There are no pictures of the glass, but everybody knows that it's very difficult to ascertain the state of a lens from a jpeg. A nice lens could look full of dust, and a badly scratched one could look perfectly nice!
I think i'll take the chance, cause a "soft portrait" lens should be marginally affected by small problems to its glasses. Even small fungal infections should be cleanable, if the glass surfaces aren't coated.

Just one more question:
i read that it should be taken some care with the "variable softness" ring, that gets stuck very easily; as it's very likely that the lens needs cleaning, any infos about the disassembly procedure?

Here is another picture:
what do you think about the bad discoloration?

Thanks

have fun

CJ

[carverlux]

Yes.
I confirm, from the picture i see the same serial:
415838

If somebody knows about TTH serials, maybe there is a chance to understand which version it is.
There are no pictures of the glass, but everybody knows that it's very difficult to ascertain the state of a lens from a jpeg. A nice lens could look full of dust, and a badly scratched one could look perfectly nice!
I think i'll take the chance, cause a "soft portrait" lens should be marginally affected by small problems to its glasses. Even small fungal infections should be cleanable, if the glass surfaces aren't coated.

Just one more question:
i read that it should be taken some care with the "variable softness" ring, that gets stuck very easily; as it's very likely that the lens needs cleaning, any infos about the disassembly procedure?
Thanks

have fun

CJ

CJ,

I am quite positive your lens had been factory coated, which makes an instance of fungus more difficult to deal with if it had burrowed itself into the glass, past the coating.

The barrels of these lenses had been VERY precisely machined and the whole lens was built with exceeding precision during the heydays of TTH. So for proper disassembly and restoration, it requires not only the knowledge of how to do it but the correct tools. This may be the reason why someone just glued the knuckler back on as neither the skill or the tools are easy to come by.

Good luck!

Carver

[cyberjunkie]

Hi Carver!
Thanks for yout input.
Please have a look at the picture i posted on my previous post
What do you think?

CJ

[carverlux]

Hi Carver!
Thanks for yout input.
Please have a look at the picture i posted on my previous post
What do you think?

CJ

Yikes! I feel for the lens, and for you. I am speechless.

Carver

[cyberjunkie]

Yikes! I feel for the lens, and for you. I am speechless.

Carver

I got the lens. To be able to get it, i had to buy an entire bundle, but everything was better than expected. Everything is in a so-and-so shape, but i hope to be able to fix everything: the Kodak view camera had only a missing knob (for vertical shift), a suitable radio/tv knob of similar shape should be quite easy to find; a lensboard comes with an attached iris, only rusted leaves here; a convertible Symmar 135mm has stuck shutter and (not very) dirty glasses, hopefully possible to fix everything.

Now the TTH Cooke lens:
what was deemed as glue is in fact a very bad oxydation, some kind of liquid came inside from the "spectacle" attachment and went out from the bottom, leaving a trace, as some kind of acid attacked the brass. On both sides it's like the brass was just a coating, on the center there is a black oxide stain, and on the periphery it's like the brass came out, leaving a nickel-like surface on display.
The are good news too, with a metal polish i could remove the black stains almost entirely, but the cleaned surface looks more as nickel, than brass!!

Leavings aside the aestetics, the glass looked quite dirty, and with some strange spore-like stains. Therewas also an equally strange reticulation, albeit barely visible.
I was warned about the likely chance of a stuck "softness" ring, so it was, as was the retaining ring.

Once i had (mostly) cleaned the outside, i decided to go on. I gently lubricated the back of the reaining ring, and after a while i could remove it, with the help of a wooden hammer. After that i unscrewed the front and the back element, abd cleaned the central one in place, with the diaphragm wide open.
I used a few drops of ROR, and then a little of demineralized water, with a microfiber cloth. I was amazed to see that the ROR (Rapid Oil Remover) totally removed the stains, that were uncleanable with water.
With a few sprays of a dry contact cleaner, and a few knocks of the wooden hammer, i could slowly move the softness ring, and with a hint of lubrication it is almost usable now.

I am amazed. I didn't give me a single chance, but now i have an usable lens!
It's still stained on the outside, but much better than before. What is still a mistery is why the stained brass looks like a polished white metal, and not as brass; i thought that the barrel was made of solid brass, and not with just a brass coating. Any clue?

My best compliments to the forum user who identified the lens as a Series V E.
Right on the spot, my friend!

have fun

CJ

[carverlux]

Congratulations on your accomplishment! Taking chances has it rewards.

These lens barrels were machined brass that were lacquered. Freshly polished brass is much lighter in color, like a pale gold, so it should be much lighter than lacquered brass, which looks more like real gold with lacquer on it.

On the lens itself, when you said Series V E, you meant Series II E right? Cuz that's what you have....

Congrats and have fun with your new lens!

Carver

[cyberjunkie]

On the lens itself, when you said Series V E, you meant Series II E right? Cuz that's what you have....
Carver

Being italian, i should be at ease with roman numbers :confused:
Sometimes what you think is quite different from what you actually write... you're perfectly right, it's a Series II E

As a final step, it would be nice to restore the original laquer, but i am afraid that the remedy would be worse than the damage.
From how it looks, it reminds me of the laquer that's used on brass instruments, like old saxophones, that were made with non-plated brass.

Thanks for your input, carverlux, your posts are always very informative

have fun

CJ

[cyberjunkie]

After a quick restoration of the lens, to bring it back to an usable state, i still find that the spectacle (or "knuckles", if you prefer) is still difficult to turn.
To lubricate the "sharp-soft" ring i sprayed very little WD-40 on a cloth, and then i have rubbed the cloth on the internal threading. That way, i have transferred very, very little lubricant to the mechanism, cause i wanted to avoid a possible migration of the oil to the diaphragm leafs, or into the optics. Maybe i have been too conservative, cause the softness rings is still quite stiff.
I have been told that there is a spray that creates a film of lubricant that stays in place, without migrating or evaporating when exposed to high temperature (as in a car trunk during the hot season).
The person that gave me the advice said that he was using that kind of spray to lightly lubricate leafs shutters.
Unfortunately i don't rememeber which kind of spray it was.
I am not asking for a brand, just for the type of lubricant (i.e. silicon-based, lithium oil, graphite additioned, etc.).
Any advice?

have fun

CJ

[goamules]

It may not be the same thing, but I have used CLP Break-free (http://www.amazon.com/Break-Free-Cleaner-Lubricant-Preservative-Aerosol/dp/B002T1XZFU) to loosen and preserve. It is very good stuff. You used to be able to get it at walmart.