eastman projection anastigmat 10in f8

[Michael Roberts]

I just bought this lens on a whim. Can't find any hard info. While I am waiting for it to arrive, does anyone know what kind of image circle I can expect?
Thanks,
Michael

[Mark Sampson]

probably an early (1930s?) enlarging lens. That's a semi-educated guess based on EK's other nomenclature.

[Michael Roberts]

Thanks Mark. Yes, it's old; 3 digit serial no. But...what about image circle? Or design? Any ideas? If it's an enlarging lens, I'm probably okay to use it as a taking lens. But if it's a cine lens....??

[sun of sand]

simple achromat is pretty decent so


in these times probably a waste of money as you could get for equal money a lens better at whatever you wish to do with this one

[CCHarrison]

I believe the lens was sold as part (or an option) of the Eastman Projection Printer package, starting about 1920.

Follow this Google link http://books.google.com/books?id=B40YAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA38-IA10&dq=eastman+%22projection+anastigmat%22&hl=en&ei=5-yuTJrRJoT58AaNpaydCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=eastman%20%22projection%20anastigmat%22&f=false

to read a long ad-vertorial on this lens in 1920

Dan

[Michael Roberts]

simple achromat is pretty decent so


in these times probably a waste of money as you could get for equal money a lens better at whatever you wish to do with this one

Hi Sun, thanks for your reply. I paid $5.95, so if there are better 10in/f8 lenses available for this amount, I would appreciate knowing about them. Seriously.

[Michael Roberts]

I believe the lens was sold as part (or an option) of the Eastman Projection Printer package, starting about 1920.

Follow this Google link http://books.google.com/books?id=B40YAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA38-IA10&dq=eastman+%22projection+anastigmat%22&hl=en&ei=5-yuTJrRJoT58AaNpaydCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=eastman%20%22projection%20anastigmat%22&f=false

to read a long ad-vertorial on this lens in 1920

Dan

Dan, thanks! Wonderful article. I enjoyed reading the 1920's advertising "puffery." I'm glad we don't have to write (or speak) like this today!
Michael

[sun of sand]

is that with shipping? lol

well if you have to have a 10 inch lens and only a 10 inch lens
i dunno
im no available lens catalogue


a process lens 240mm
much better than this lens will be
some no name RR

either way $6 or $6 plus shipping could have went towards something else

it's your $6
I like to find cheap too but i dont buy projection anastigmats
i just bought a jml 305 in immaculate condition
no efl even written on it, no mouting holes drilled in flange, scratch one
$24 shipped, i think
and that guy sent along with it about 8 "junk" enlarging lenses but also an 80mm componon -nonS not that i need it
a 210 jml in better shape if possible maybe $30 shipped

all im wondering is
how cheap ARE you?

but then i feel bad about unloved barn cats, too

[Michael Roberts]

pretty darn cheap--enough to fork out $8.60 including shipping. But I also scored a 240mm Claron G in a barrel in another buy, and I've got a cheap tominon lens in a cheap copal shutter that I can use for the Claron G. So, I have to conclude I'm both cheap and compulsive. Now to start looking for a pair of 270mm cells....

seriously, though, the eastman lens is a process lens. Although it will be uncoated, I'm not sure why it wouldn't perform as well as any other process lens. I've read in the archives that the Blue Dot Dagor (Trigor) is an achromat and was marketed as a graphic arts lens, and it is pretty highly regarded for its sharpness, so the achromat designation by itself doesn't seem to indicate a lens is inferior. We'll see.

[Ernest Purdum]

When a camera lens is called an "achromat", it usually means two pieces of glass which will focus two colors of light onto the same plane. Achromats were found in cheap cameras or were used for special purposes such as soft focus use. While more complex lenses are also corrected for more than one color of light, that's just taken for granted.

As for how well any particular enlarging lens will work at taking distances, try it is the only way to find out unless you come across someone who has used it.

[sun of sand]

I belive some have used enlarging velostigmats for large format and found them to be quite good
but whether thats because they were sharp as the ordinary velostigmat or as soft as the ordinary velostigmat, i dunno
i belive the ordinary taking lens is sought after more as a makeshift soft focus by unscrewing the front element a bit
but i dont pay much attention so you can look it up

I have tried a 90mm wollensak enlarging raptar on 4x5 and it nearly covers. it's actually pretty sharp in the center,too
I got it for free though

I've also tried a a cheap el omegar 75mm enlarging lens on 35 format just for kicks and while it worked i wouldnt say it was all that great
that coming from someone pretty forgiving

[sun of sand]

oh and i bought for $10
see im cheap, too
i say adventurous
a lens for the coleman enlarger?
Ilex portronic paragon

Some have found it to be a good soft lens wide open or whatever ..never tried it myself
think there is a 10 inch version.

[Ernest Purdum]

Since you ask for guesses, I will guess that the lens is a Tessar design and the image circle at infinity would be fairly close to the focal length.

It is probably very sharp at distances of two or three focal lengths, but might be less so at or near infinity. The lack of coating can be somewhat offset by careful use of lens shades.

[Chase Chen]

This is a four element air spaced lens. Can be easily taken apart. I have one . It is a very sharp lens.