Conley - Wollensak triple convertible, which one is it?

[cyberjunkie]

I recently found a Componon 5.6/60mm in Compur No. 0 (a strange beast because Componon from the sixties weren't made in standard sizes, but it looks like it was originally mounted in shutter, cause the apertures are correctly scaled), and as a part of the package i also got an old Conley/Wollesak lens.
This is what is marked on the lens/shutter:
CONLEY SAFETY WOLLENSAK OPTICAL CO. ROCHESTER N.Y.
The triple aperture scale tells that it was a triple convertible lens, the available focals are:
14 1/2" aperture from 1:16 to 1:256
10 1/2" " " 1:64 to 1:256
6 1/4" " " 1:16 to 1:128

The attached picture shows that the shutter is not one of those Wollensaks with the two pistons, but still has the attachment for a pneumatic shutter release.
As Conley was a trade name of Sears and Roebucks, used AFAIK for B&J and Wollensak lenses, i guess that the lens cells (and of course the shutter) were standard Wollensak products.
As there are some Wollensak catalogs available online, i would like to ask to the experts which was the original Wollesak name of the lens and the shutter, so i could satisfy my curiosity and read some literature about them.
From the focal lenght of the two combined cells (6.25") i get that probably it will cover only 4x5" or maybe half plate. Am i right? I have no way to test it myself because my 8x10", as well as my iris clamp, are still under restoration.
Any other infos, for example about the optical project, are warmly welcomed.
I have attached a picture of the cap that comes with the lens, is it original?

Maybe it's too much stuff for one post, but i have already mentioned the Wollesak shutters with the two pistons, so i make one more question.
Are both pistons needed to correclty operate the shutter?
I have a black one (with an 8x10 Versar on it) which has only one. On the right side (seen from the front of the lens) the piston was stripped out for some unknown reason, and only the left one is there.
I can't test the functionality of the pneumatic release because i still have to find a hose of the right size, what i can say is that the right lever cocks the shutter, and that the left lever releases it.
I don't have anything more to report, as i have got it yesterday!

have fun

CJ

[Louis Pacilla]

In the early days of Wollensak they made only shutters Then a few years later started making simple lens designs like RR, RR wide angles & Petzval lenses.

I would guess the cells are made by Bausch & Lomb. But certainly could have been Wollensak. No matter who made the cells I can tell that your lens is a unsymmetrical Rapid Rectilinear triple instead of double as all RR are convertible .

F8 is US 4 all marks on your lens are US

US-4-8-16-32-64-128

F-8-11-16-22-32-45

Hope that helps

Peace
Louis

[cyberjunkie]

In the early days of Wollensak they made only shutters Then a few years later started making simple lens designs like RR, RR wide angles & Petzval lenses.

I would guess the cells are made by Bausch & Lomb. But certainly could have been Wollensak. No matter who made the cells I can tell that your lens is a unsymmetrical Rapid Rectilinear triple instead of double as all RR are convertible .

F8 is US 4 all marks on your lens are US

US-4-8-16-32-64-128

F-8-11-16-22-32-45



Thanks for you answer.
Maybe you are right, the reference to Wollesak could be only for the shutter, but i tend to think that it's about the glasses, cause the shutter si marked "Conley Safety".
As you can see from the picture, the speeds are from 1/100 to 1sec., plus B and T.
I don't know why i didn't think myself that the apertures where in the old US standard, instead of the modern "f/" system. The single lens cells would have been unusable, if really the speed was specified that way!

As soon as possible i would like to compare this lens with another triple convertible, a Turner Reich for 8x10.
Recently i thought that maybe it was time to change my mind about convertibles, before i had a strange kind of dislike for them, starting with a few old Symmars i own.
My mindset came from comparing the performance of convertible Symmars with Symmar-S and Apo-Sironar i have used. Lately i have developed a taste for low contrast images, and less "clynical" and more "plastic" renditions.
So i found a Turner Reich for 8x10, to be used with my De Vere (still under the blades of a photographic surgeon, trying to fit a Sinar shutter peacemaker to its old tired heart :-))
After buying that one, and reading a lot of documentation on the Web about double and triple convertibles, i developed a strong interest for them. Trying to be as rational as possible, i think that they still are a nice tool for contemporary LF photography, expecially for the largest formats. They are not so big, and the single cells can be either used as long focals of acceptable quality (stopped down) or as low-contrast portrait lenses (wide open).
I am quite curious to see by myself how an old RR triple convertible, like the lens in subject, would perform against a supposedly higher-performance one (Protar-like Turner-Reich), or against my old Symmars (from an old 135mm to a late 240mm on Compur No. 3).
Reading the Vade Mecum, i found myself wondering how not-so-old caskets would perform now, compared with modern lenses. For example Meyer Plasmat and
Euryplan caskets, originally sold in shutter, with many cells (four or even five) that you could combine one with the other.

have fun

CJ