Giant Jamin 30" Cone Centralisateur Lens

[Craig Tuffin]

I recently acquired this 19" long (30/31" focal length) lens and would love to know a little more about it. Some of the information I've found about the transition of the business from Jamin to Darlot doesn't fit what I've found hidden within this lens.

On removing the front element I found it pencil marked (as is typical of Darlot lenses). It read 'W Morley' and what looks to be 'Islnyton' (this last one could be wrong). One of the rear elements is marked 'A. Svoboda' and 'Jamin a Darlot 1869'.

As the front of the barrel is marked:
JAMIN BTE SGDG
Rue Chapon 14 Paris
2318

The elements are 7.5" across and 2 of the 3 are in terrific condition. The outer rear element was back-to-front and as a result has some scratches in the centre (total area about 15 - 20mm across) from the element projecting past the rim. I would love to know whether anyone thinks the scratches would make a difference to the image and/or it should/could be repaired....and where...
Everything else on this lens works perfectly, the hood doesn't have a scratch and of course the flange is present.

I'd love to know if anyone knows about this Will Morley or A. Svoboda. It's date doesn't seem to match the factory handover dates but who knows...the brass could have been sitting for a couple of years before the elements were made for it or maybe Jamin stayed on the scene longer than some people thought.

I don't currently have a camera that has a lensboard that will fit this lens (10" flange) so I might even decide to sell it later for a reasonable offer.

A lot of people know a lot more about this factory than me so I'd love to hear from them.

.....oh, and I can't get the lens on my Shen Hao lensboard....any suggestions :D

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4117/4897570908_a6e9d1f401_m.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4122/4897570914_00244d2775_m.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4101/4897570916_a6e58ec7b6_m.jpg

[Craig Tuffin]

...and a couple more...

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4143/4897570920_19222b3e3d_m.jpg

...and one with the 'blad for the medium format fans :p

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4141/4897570924_390aea1ddd_m.jpg

[eddie]

WOW! are you compensating for something craig? LOL!

nice lens. will it cover 5x7? does it swirl? can i get it on my kodak 2d? he he he....

[eddie]

The outer rear element was back-to-front and as a result has some scratches in the centre

lets see the scratches. this will give a better indication of what the value may be......

[Craig Tuffin]

OK Eddie...that was an effort trying to get the scratches clear. Ended up taking the element out of the lens and throwing it on a tupperware lid to add some contrast.

Anyway, here they are...

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4101/4897726588_cf936303b8_m.jpg

[Steven Tribe]

W. Morley is W. Morley. Later Morley & Cooper. Of Upper Street ISLINGTON (the word you couldn't make out!) London N.1.

Don't worry, they didn't make lenses/objectives. Agents for the big guys, like Ross. And like everyone else in London the late 50's they imported Objective francais.

The marks probably stem from a "clean-up" in the 19th C - perhaps they removed the Jarmin marks there first!

I reckon the 1869 you read is really 1859 - which matches the start of the name change. By 1869, everything was Darlot, I think!

[Steven Tribe]

So recapping. Brasswork engraving before Jamin died and optics "cleared/assembled" by a Mr. Svoboda before Darlot was brave enough to drop the "Jamin" name. Almost certainly from 1860.

The scratch pattern looks like recent use as a "door stop".

[goamules]

I'm sure other lens scholars will speak up, but there is a lot of interest when someone finds a date on early Jamins and Darlots because there is confusion about when the operation became solely Darlot. And because often the lens makers put "Jamin" on the glass, even after the company was Darlot. Finally, because there is no good serial number to date reference.

If serial number 2316 has glass that reads 1869, that would be unusual, like Steven says. It's a very early number, and 1869 is very late for anything to be engraved just Jamin in the brass. Interesting that both Jamin and Darlot are on the lens edge. Are you sure it's not 1859?

[77seriesiii]

There is always the possibility that the date on the lens indicates that a repair had to be made at a later date. So the lens was made in the early 1860s but then something happened in the late 1860s that merited a repair/replacement. It could happen. ;-)


erick

[Steven Tribe]

I see now that VM actually talks about a Jamin and Darlot objective mounted on a W.Morley camera from the 1860's.

There seem to be quite a lot of variation of the "Cone Centralisateur" design through the years. A group of about 5 various types were sold on auction within the last year. I'll try and find an image.

[Steven Tribe]

No, these are not mine!

Sold by Westlicht for 1.920€.
In their description they call these:

1. Jamin serial number 2521 (close!) 1860
2. Jamin/Darlot 6594 1861
3. Darlot 18130 1861
4 Darlot optcn. 28057 1861

The dates are possible for the first two - but doubtful for nos. 3 and 4.

There is an image for even larger CC online which is 20 1/2".

[eddie]

what i find interesting is everyone always says that the change happened in 1860-1863. why is this held as gospel after we all have seen many different names adn dates on the glass and brass. maybe the 1860 date is the WRONG one and the reast are correct.

this is my take on it. i had a Jamin lens. marked Jamin. with the glass marked 1863. according to the "wives tale date" this is not possible. so i stand by my idea that 1860-63 it the weak link in our observations.

oh! i got a 12 inch Jamin Cone Centralisateur lens serial #918. what year do you guess it is?

eddie

[Steven Tribe]

Agreed Eddie.

There were two types of Jamin/Darlot combinations (my translation!)

Jarmin and Darlot / Darlot "succesors to" Jamin

No-one seems to know whether these two forms existed at the same time or, if not, which came first.

It could be that the Jamin, Jamin/Darlot were retained for old established products for a longer period of time than VM and others say. Perhaps the "Darlot" labelling was used for newer products early in the 1860's giving support to the current "view".

Playing the guessing game with yours Eddie, - perhaps 1857/8?

[CCHarrison]

Kingslake wrote an article on the Cone lenses in 1962 for Image Magazine (Kodak)

Attached is the article.

Dan

[Ernest Purdum]

The classic way of dealing with scratches is to fill them with india ink. This cuts down the light coming through, usually a trivial amount, but prevents light being scattered where it doesn't belong. (No, I've never done this and am sure I'd make a mess if I tried.)

[Craig Tuffin]

Terrific article!

Problem is that I checked the front element again this morning and it DEFINITELY says 1869 not 1859 (I even tried to convince myself otherwise but it's too clear). I'll take a shot of it tonight when I get home.

[Steven Tribe]

One thing seems to clear from this serial number list and others. There was a new (higher) start in serial numbers when "Darlot" appeared on the lens.

[Steven Tribe]

If it is 1869, then there is a new possibility.

Jamin and Darlot both seem to negligent with serial numbers in their careers. Perhaps the Cone Centralisateur was the only early objective from these two that was "serialised". As we can in the Kingslake article, it was the only new type that he/they made. So it deserved a better identification. A total production of just under 3.000 CC's by 1869 doesn't seem unrealistic - or does it? Certainly they must have made far more combined other objectives by this date - which might explain the sudden jump in serial numbers on CC's when they gave up the separate serial nos.
This is pure speculation!

[Louis Pacilla]

Don't know if this fits in or helps but my 20"-22" cone is marked

Mon Jamin Darlot Sr BTE SDGD
14.r Chapon Paris
6845

Elements signed by both Jamin & Darlot with date of 1861 its a very special signature not nearly as quick & kind of sloppy as my other Darlots. Very thick & fancy script.

I added a couple of snaps of lens ( for size comparison - 305 G Claron)

[goamules]

I'm beginning to think Jamin followed a different serial number philosophy for their lenses. I think there are several reasons for a serial number to appear out of range. Like mentioned above, there could be work done later, like the signed glass was replaced because the previous was broken or flawed. More likely, for such a large lens as Craigs, it may have been signed when assembled, and these large ones didn't sell often. It could have sat in their parts room until 1869. And maybe each size had it's own serial number starting point. On the serial numbers jumping to high numbers at one point, perhaps to indicate the passing of Jamin, etc., that seems possible. But I believe Jamin, like most Petzval manufacturers, would have made from 800 to 1500 lenses a year. If they sequentially serialized everything made, Craigs lens should have a much higher number.

[Brian Bullen]

Is it a sin to covet thy (forum) neighbors lens? :)

[W K Longcor]

The classic way of dealing with scratches is to fill them with india ink. This cuts down the light coming through, usually a trivial amount, but prevents light being scattered where it doesn't belong. (No, I've never done this and am sure I'd make a mess if I tried.)

I HAVE used this technique on scatched lenses. It is quite easy to do -- can be "washed off" if you make a mess - and all in all it works well in preserving the use of an older and scatched optic.

[Robert Hughes]

Is it a sin to covet thy (forum) neighbors lens? :)
I suppose that depends on whether you put any stock in Exodus... they haven't had that commandment on the Judeo-Christian books for the last 2500 years for nothing, you know.

[Caivman]

Sweet whale of a lens! That'd make for a wicked "Box-Truck" Camera Obscura. Very cool indeed... now all i gotta find is a Uhaul truck for sale, and some HUGE photo paper.

[jb7]

That's a great looking lens- scratches and all-

How much does it weigh, do you know?

[Craig Tuffin]

Yep, it weighs 11.2 kilograms...you want a sturdy front standard for this baby ;)

[Emil Schildt]

..and now I got one....

and with very similar serial..

Craig's is 2318 - mine is:

JAMIN BTE SGDG
Rue Chapon 14 Paris
2335

mine looks like it is missing the hood (at least), but I can't see how or where to put that hood..

I don't know the FL yet - I'll get back on that.

Mine seems also to have been assembled by Mr Svoboda(?)...

Age? I don't know but it is one of my oldest lenses up to date...

[goamules]

Good one! These cones were made pretty early, and used to have a large following. Study the photos on how they are assembled, they're sort of a puzzel.

[Steven Tribe]

You have some work to do to fill in the scratches - from what from I could see in the e**y photos. Do not follow his advice about using car body filler on the cone!

[Emil Schildt]

You have some work to do to fill in the scratches - from what from I could see in the e**y photos. Do not follow his advice about using car body filler on the cone!

I know Steven.

I am not sure I'll even try.. I don't think thsy will affect performance in a bad way (looking through my "glasses"..)

But it is strange.
The lens in the pictures is "pulled" out so it is really big - but when I got it, the front part was "pushed" in - not looking so intimidating.. And an arrow marked on the front part, pointing left....

Also in the front glass the word Paysage is shown, bu tonly with half figures/letters - it almost looks like someone has altered the front lens part to make it fit (?).

see images.

BTW: I am unsure what the radial drive is for... Locking/unlocking the front lens/barrel part?

[Steven Tribe]

Need to see more photos Emil.
These Cone types cover a wide variety of variations.
When I read the "paysage" on the glass, I did think there might be an extra lens with "Portaits" on it.
The "radial drive" could separate the front part of the barrel so the "paysage" lens can be seperately mounted reversed, like a giant landscape lens.
But those that actually own one must answer your questions.
The front cell looks as though it really came out of Jamin's workshop - it is embossed rather than engraved?

[goamules]

The inner barrel is held by the lock knob on most models (but some this knob actually is another rack/pinon gear, which separates the distance between rear and front). Yours looks like the typical type, but I'm not sure what is missing on the front, besides the hood. Normally, you remove the hood and cone, then pull the inner barrel out, reverse it, and use it with the flange (the hood threads and flange threads are the same). All the inner barrels have a large broad arrow on them, I'm not sure what for. There is an often missing pill-box insert that uses washer stops. This threads into the inner barrel, making the whole assembly into a landscape miniscus, with stops.

[Emil Schildt]

thank you both.

tomorrow when it gets light again, I'll take some more images.

and try to figure out a FL on it...

[CCHarrison]

Gents,

Try here for some lessons on the Cone lenses.... from Milan Z.

http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/milanpub/CCTutor/cce1/FrameSet.htm

http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/milanpub/CCTutor/cce2/FrameSet.htm

http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/milanpub/CCTutor/ccl2/FrameSet.htm

Dan

And for more http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/milanpub/CC-ss/FrameSet.htm

[eddie]

thank you both.

tomorrow when it gets light again, I'll take some more images.

and try to figure out a FL on it...

what are the physical dimensions?

there are many many cone lens configurations as far as the knobs, their locations, and their function. some have two. some only have one etc etc

[Emil Schildt]

Gents,

Try here for some lessons on the Cone lenses.... from Milan Z.

http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/milanpub/CCTutor/cce1/FrameSet.htm

http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/milanpub/CCTutor/cce2/FrameSet.htm

http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/milanpub/CCTutor/ccl2/FrameSet.htm

Dan

And for more http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/milanpub/CC-ss/FrameSet.htm

Thanks dan - I was aware of these.

In the third link he says: "Later versions of the Cone have two knobs, one for focus, the other a lock knob for the mid-barrel, but the Cone portion is no longer present. The rear cell is now incorporated into the main barrel ahead of the flange."

Which is odd for a couple of reasons:

Mine has a big cone and two knobs....

and the last link with the Darlot lenses (among others) we also see two knobs and a cone...

My biggest puzzle is actually that I can't for the life of me, see any indication that a hood could have been on this lens... And as the front lens is protuding slightly, that might be the reason for the scratches present on the lens... Not a good protection as is.. And it would be difficult to use outdoors I think...

[eddie]

T

My biggest puzzle is actually that I can't for the life of me, see any indication that a hood could have been on this lens...

as with most of the cones i have seen seem to vary from lens to lens. like it was a new idea each time.....this seems to follow this "logic".......

[Emil Schildt]

what are the physical dimensions?

there are many many cone lens configurations as far as the knobs, their locations, and their function. some have two. some only have one etc etc

hi Eddie:

from the seller:

It measures 29cm long (11.4") ( extended , I am not sure what is the longest safe extension )

It measures 24.5 long (9.6"), unextended

the small lens is 11cm (4,3") diameter ( not including outer flange )

the large lens is 14.5cm (5.7) diameter ( not including outer flange )

[Emil Schildt]

two images to show size...

First my two cones

second with my rolleiflex 2.8F for comparison (could have used the green canister...)

EDIT: I have now guestimated the FL to be around 600mm (23-24")

[Louis Pacilla]

My biggest puzzle is actually that I can't for the life of me, see any indication that a hood could have been on this lens... And as the front lens is protruding slightly, that might be the reason for the scratches present on the lens... Not a good protection as is.. And it would be difficult to use outdoors I think...

Hey Emil ,The reason you can see no way of attacking the hood is because it was cut from your lens. The threads that were cut from your front cell are the same size as the flange threads. The threads that where meant for the landscape conversion. It should have been present on the very outer rim of the cell. The part that has Paysage on it.
This can be seen in the 2nd link that Dan provided to Milans Z's cones. At least that's the way my cone's hood is set up.

My Cone is about the same size as yours but my lens was put together in 1861 & has a serial # of 6843 so who knows. That said, your lens seems to be constructed the same way as mine. Funny thing is we both seem to be missing the focus knob.

[tuant]

Hey Emil ,The reason you can see no way of attacking the hood is because it was cut from your lens. The threads that were cut from your front cell are the same size as the flange threads. The threads that where meant for the landscape conversion. ....

I agree with Louis. One of the owners in the past has cut the front part for some reason. I am thinking that he did more landscape than portraits. When the hood is cut, it can be reversed and pushed into the barrel without too much trouble. Otherwise, you would have to remove a few parts to finish that process. That said, I wouldn't cut my lens for that reason. There may be a better reason. The scratches don't matter. They won't show on the image. No worries.

Tuant

[Emil Schildt]

I agree with Louis. One of the owners in the past has cut the front part for some reason. I am thinking that he did more landscape than portraits. When the hood is cut, it can be reversed and pushed into the barrel without too much trouble. Otherwise, you would have to remove a few parts to finish that process. That said, I wouldn't cut my lens for that reason. There may be a better reason. The scratches don't matter. They won't show on the image. No worries.

Tuant

it makes sense - when I look closely at the front lens, and see the half cut wording Paysage, I also see fine traces of polishing the metal rim...

I understand the "reason" to do this, but as you mentioned, I wouldn't do that my self... not for any reasons. This action makes the front lens really easy to scratch...

When I had to remove the cone, I almost let the lens stand on the table (being heavy) before relizing that would scratch the lens....

I am not worried about the scratches, image wise. (it just lowers the value of the lens, money wise.... which is not a problem either, as I have no plans to sell it, and it might also be the reason I got it rather cheap.... I don't really understand why noone else (or only a few) made bids on it...)

[Steven Tribe]

I watched the progress of the auction, thought it went for a very reasonable amount, but didn't bid because of the size!
Louis is spot on - like many explainations of this sort, it is obvious once the penny has dropped!

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Emil, nice to hear that you got the lens for a decent price. I agree that the scratches on the front will not have any effect on the image. I don't understand why someone would do something like that in the first place? Isn't it funny how the previous owner maybe didn't realize what he had. I'm glad it fell into such capable hands.

[Tom Sobota]

Just for reference, this is a similar specimen of Jamin (not mine, alas) with the front in its original state. I notice that on the back, behind the cone which in this lens is not very conical, there's also an element marked "portrait". Did they come in pairs?

Tom

[tuant]

This is the later version which doesn't have the cone any more. I have one myself. I will refrain from commenting on this version but I am curious to see if others have any opinion about this version.

Tuant


Just for reference, this is a similar specimen of Jamin (not mine, alas) with the front in its original state. I notice that on the back, behind the cone which in this lens is not very conical, there's also an element marked "portrait". Did they come in pairs?

Tom

[Emil Schildt]

This is the later version which doesn't have the cone any more. I have one myself. I will refrain from commenting on this version but I am curious to see if others have any opinion about this version.

Tuant

how big is it?

I ask as I have a Darlot Jamin casket set that looks very similar to this - but with a lot of extra lenses....(but without the knob - they came with and without..)

In my case the portrait lenses had to be removed and then using one of the other lenses I can have the Paysage lens..

see images.

the image is of one with knob - not mine... but very similar.

I can't seem to find my pictures of mine, but they are present here:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=66638

[Tom Sobota]

I don't know the size of the lens, I got the pictures from a dealer in Paris, but he has since sold it. Not too large, in any case. It was also part of a casket, as you can see. What puzzles me is that the lens cannot be very late since it is marked only Jamin, not Jamin-Darlot or Darlot. However the cone is not present. Also, the casket box is marked simply Darlot. This could simply mean that a newer box was used for older casket sets, I don't know.

Tom

[Asher Kelman]

Gandolfi,

What about just a few pictures with the lens for portrait and landscape or maybe some links. Having versatility makes up for the cost.

Asher

[tuant]

Mine is about 22", different from this kind, though. This is strictly not cone any more. It is just Darlot portrait lens with different caskets. The late cone version should look like this:

http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/milanpub/CCTutor/ccl2/FrameSet.htm

I have this version as well. The thing that puzzles me is by getting rid of the cone, the coverage becomes much smaller. I don't know why Darlot wanted to do this. i have two 22" the cone can go with either. When the cone is attached, the coverage is much bigger. Maybe someone put a different back on the lens? A lot could happen in a 100 years. Each owners messes around with it and we have to figure that out:)

Tuant




how big is it?

I ask as I have a Darlot Jamin casket set that looks very similar to this - but with a lot of extra lenses....(but without the knob - they came with and without..)

In my case the portrait lenses had to be removed and then using one of the other lenses I can have the Paysage lens..

see images.

the image is of one with knob - not mine... but very similar.

I can't seem to find my pictures of mine, but they are present here:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=66638

[Emil Schildt]

I don't know the size of the lens, I got the pictures from a dealer in Paris, but he has since sold it. Not too large, in any case. It was also part of a casket, as you can see. What puzzles me is that the lens cannot be very late since it is marked only Jamin, not Jamin-Darlot or Darlot. However the cone is not present. Also, the casket box is marked simply Darlot. This could simply mean that a newer box was used for older casket sets, I don't know.

Tom

:o now I am confused....

Your first example clearly says "Anc ne mon jamin", and then Darlot under with larger letters (as mine)

The second in the casket; is that the same lens?
The picture is too small to read what's on the lens. But the case is almost identical to mine (which has no text).

these are not cone lenses... "just" another dual purpose lens. (Beautifully made!)

[Emil Schildt]

Gandolfi,

What about just a few pictures with the lens for portrait and landscape or maybe some links. Having versatility makes up for the cost.

Asher

Hi asher: do you mean examples of how it looks in the different settings? (portrait and landscape). That would be easy, but give it time for the light to come back here...:o

[eddie]

warning thread hijack!

just for fun here is a real rare and interesting Jamin lens. not only does it convert to landscape and portrait but it also includes the 3rd piece of glass (they are almost always lost) that fits in the middle....where the washer stops go/are. you do not use all three sets of glass together (this is why you most never see them complete) but rather any combination of two of the three.

http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1007883

you must remove the hood turn it around and screw it back into the flange....oooohhh-la-la!

Oh...BTW....i have TWO lenses like this..... with all the parts/glass....bwah ha ha ha.....:eek: can i still call them rare....;)

[Emil Schildt]

Eddie:

Very cool - like the one mentioned in one of the above links....

It could be interesting to have a thread only with Jamin - Jamin/Darlot and Darlot lenses.... So much interesting variation...

[Tom Sobota]

:o now I am confused....

Your first example clearly says "Anc ne mon jamin", and then Darlot under with larger letters (as mine)

The second in the casket; is that the same lens?
The picture is too small to read what's on the lens. But the case is almost identical to mine (which has no text).

these are not cone lenses... "just" another dual purpose lens. (Beautifully made!)

Ok, the confusion is mine, I missed the "Darlot" text completely, since it is in a shadow. Thanks for making me notice that. Anyway I must be the only one on this thread who doesn't actually own a Jamin/Darlot :-( Must put a remedy to that someday.

The lens in the casket is supposed to be the same lens, yes.

My intention in posting pics of a lens that I don't own has been to illustrate an original front end of a lens similar to the one owned by the OP.

Tom

[goamules]

warning thread hijack!

just for fun here is a real rare and interesting Jamin lens. not only does it convert to landscape and portrait but it also includes the 3rd piece of glass (they are almost always lost) that fits in the middle....where the washer stops go/are. you do not use all three sets of glass together (this is why you most never see them complete) but rather any combination of two of the three.

http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1007883

you must remove the hood turn it around and screw it back into the flange....oooohhh-la-la! ...

Yet another strange Darlot invention. Reminds me of the Jamin/Darlot "Can Type" (versus Cone Type) post here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=78883). They seem to have made more variations that most companies, even to the puyo soft focus types.

[Emil Schildt]

Hi Asher.

Finally I made som epics of the Jamin in portrait and landscape configaration...

I also now have made a board for the lens so now I can check how big a negative I can use with this beast....

Now I "only" need to make some images....

first portrait as I think it was ment to be set.

Then with the fromt lens as far pulled out as I can (it seems that the FL changes this way: with the lens part as in the first image the FL is about 600mm, but in the second more like 400mm......)

Then as landscape figuration. (first with the cone out but present in the picture - then as I will use it (FL about 750mm)


Gandolfi,

What about just a few pictures with the lens for portrait and landscape or maybe some links. Having versatility makes up for the cost.

Asher

[Emil Schildt]

warning thread hijack!

just for fun here is a real rare and interesting Jamin lens. not only does it convert to landscape and portrait but it also includes the 3rd piece of glass (they are almost always lost) that fits in the middle....where the washer stops go/are. you do not use all three sets of glass together (this is why you most never see them complete) but rather any combination of two of the three.

http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1007883

you must remove the hood turn it around and screw it back into the flange....oooohhh-la-la!

Oh...BTW....i have TWO lenses like this..... with all the parts/glass....bwah ha ha ha.....:eek: can i still call them rare....;)

Hi Eddie.
I notice that my Jamin proberly also had that third part long time ago.. but as usual it is now missing..

When I turn the front lens as landscape lens I see an (unused) thread at the other side - for the third part?

Would be nice to have, but impossible to find....

[eddie]

you should have several pieces on the inside top of teh cone. there should be washer stops. then a retaining ring for the washer stops (screws on to the inner threads) and then on more "pillbox" that screws onto the outside threads.....and ofcourse maybe that elusive third lens may have been in the mix. (like the front piece in this photo: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=13380484 )

eddie

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Asher.

Finally I made som epics of the Jamin in portrait and landscape configaration...

I also now have made a board for the lens so now I can check how big a negative I can use with this beast....

400mm, 600mm and 750mm are great focal lengths from one lens! KLooking forward to some pictures. Doesn't seem like to much trouble to change the focal length! Where are you putting the shutter or is it all just lens cap?

Image circle size would be great to know too. This is such an interesting lens!

Asher

[Emil Schildt]

400mm, 600mm and 750mm are great focal lengths from one lens! KLooking forward to some pictures. Doesn't seem like to much trouble to change the focal length! Where are you putting the shutter or is it all just lens cap?

Image circle size would be great to know too. This is such an interesting lens!

Asher

I have now fitted the lens on my biggest camera - a beast with 40x50cm (16x20") back, and it looks like it is a perfect fit!....

Looking at that old GG can be problematic though, so I now have to take an image or two to see whether I was right on that one...

The image circle of the landscape lens is huge....

One problem though: the cone is so big, that I don't think I can close the camera with the lens fitted...

The change from portrait to landscape is easy and quick - no problem.

I don't have a shutter big enough for this - a top hat will do....

[tuant]

I have now fitted the lens on my biggest camera - a beast with 40x50cm (16x20") back, and it looks like it is a perfect fit!....

Looking at that old GG can be problematic though, so I now have to take an image or two to see whether I was right on that one...

The image circle of the landscape lens is huge....

One problem though: the cone is so big, that I don't think I can close the camera with the lens fitted...

The change from portrait to landscape is easy and quick - no problem.

I don't have a shutter big enough for this - a top hat will do....

The size of the cone is always a big problem. The largest one I have is almost 11". I had my Chamonix 2024 specially made just for this lens. In landscape mode, any 12" cone would cover 1620. It really has a huge coverage. For this kind of lenses, the word shutter shouldn't be mentioned. We use the word "hat" instead. :D :D