Darlot No. 4 Hemispherique Rapide Mystery

[Gerald Figal]

I've just acquired what is marked along the edge of the hood-front element piece as a Darlot No. 4 Hemispherique Rapide, which according to original adverts should have a 14" back focus. However, what I have is more on the order of 7 or 8" focus on my Speed Graphic focused at infinity and FL measured from focal plane to the waterhouse slot on the lens barrel (i.e., the FL is closer to the No. 4 WA Hemi, which this is definitely not). The front element is the right diameter (1-3/4") for a No. 4 HR but the rear is the diameter for a No. 4 WA Hemi (1-5/8"). Any idea what could be going on here? Is it possibly a mix-up or fake? Doesn't seem possible, but I'm totally flummoxed. Does any one out there have a Darlot No. 4 Hemispherique Rapide for comparison? Any insight would be appreciated.
Please take a look at the attached photos. If other photos would help, just let me know. The third photo has all the removable components laid out. As you can see in the fourth photo, the trademark "A" & "D" at 90 degrees are engraved.

NOTE: I just processed a few test shots at infinity (= about 7-1/2 FL on the Speed Graphic) and stopped down to f-16 they are sharp edge to edge. Opened up to f-8, there is some noticeable blur at the corners, at wide open (approx. f-4.5?), a bit more so. So, it clearly seems to have a much shorter FL than advertised or else I'm missing something here....

[Louis Pacilla]

Your going to have to post some photos of lens. Nearly impossible to tell anything without a few.

[Gerald Figal]

Of course, Louis. Let me know if others would help.

[Richard Rankin]

Did you buy this on Ebay from ebey4sale by any chance?

[Gerald Figal]

Bingo. What's the word on it?

[Richard Rankin]

I probably bought that same lens weeks ago and it took me ages to get him to accept the return on it. When I got it, the rear element which should be symmetric to the front, was missing one of the 2 cemented pieces, so was an effective (defective) 21" focal length piece of junk. Eventually, I returned it and got my money back - less shipping, thanks to the idiotic Ebay buying guarantee bs. (Next time, I'd just reverse my credit card or file a paypal dispute instead.)

He told me at one point that he had 'found another element' that might work in the rear. The element IN the lens when I had it was correct, just missing half of its pair. My guess is that he popped that other element in there and sold it again.

A Darlot hemispherique rapide is a symmetrical lens. If the front and rear aren't the same, it's not a symmetrical by definition...

[Louis Pacilla]

Maybe the # 3 & 4 share the same barrel diameter & at some point the rear cell from a # 3 & front of a 4 got paired up to make another focal length?

I have a # 3 around here some where. I'll measure the #3 barrel diameter & if it matches. That may be the answer. I may not post the barrel diameter until tomorrow. Time for bed .

[Louis Pacilla]

O.K. mystery solved.


I probably bought that same lens weeks ago and it took me ages to get him to accept the return on it. When I got it, the rear element which should be symmetric to the front, was missing one of the 2 cemented pieces, so was an effective (defective) 21" focal length piece of junk. Eventually, I returned it and got my money back - less shipping, thanks to the idiotic Ebay buying guarantee bs. (Next time, I'd just reverse my credit card or file a paypal dispute instead.)

He told me at one point that he had 'found another element' that might work in the rear. The element IN the lens when I had it was correct, just missing half of its pair. My guess is that he popped that other element in there and sold it again.

A Darlot hemispherique rapide is a symmetrical lens. If the front and rear aren't the same, it's not a symmetrical by definition...

[Gerald Figal]

That's all very interesting, Richard. I knew there was something fishy when the FL came up way short. I actually suspected--as I told another LF friend--that I though it was a "hybrid bastard lens." Thanks for verifying that. Ironically, because it is a bastard lens, I can actually use it comfortably on my Speed Graphic so I might keep it despite a modest flaw on the bogus rear element. Of I might just get my money back....
Thanks again, Richard. This really really helps!

[Richard Rankin]

I'd complain and try to get a partial refund on it at least, even if you can use it. If he did just replace the rear with a different element, he would obviously know it and might feel like dickering...

You'd be better off with a proper 9" #2. I sold mine but if you ask Scott (Scott-- is his id here) about it, I think he'll tell you what a fine lens it can be.

[Two23]

Negative feedback is a fairly powerful tool to bludgeon the guy with. I'd do it just so he knows not to pull crap like that.


Kent in SD

[Scott Davis]

I'd complain and try to get a partial refund on it at least, even if you can use it. If he did just replace the rear with a different element, he would obviously know it and might feel like dickering...

You'd be better off with a proper 9" #2. I sold mine but if you ask Scott (Scott-- is his id here) about it, I think he'll tell you what a fine lens it can be.

I think you're referring to me - I have a complete correct #2 Hemispherique Extra Rapide - wonderful lens. Wide open it covers 6.5 x 8.5 with a tiny bit of darkening in the extreme corners. I figure mine is actually about an f8 maximum aperture.

I thought about buying that lens also, but I noticed it was missing the focusing/mounting sleeve. I'll look around on my other computer and see if I can find an image I made with this lens to post here.

[goamules]

Unless you paid very small money, I'd send it back. No use trying to use a hodge podge lens. It's missing the outer barrel of course, and they aren't expensive anyway. It's totally a "parts" lens. Not to say it might make an interesting picture, just as a thrift store magnifying glass might....

[jnantz]

if you paid very little ...

you can use it as a convertible.
sounds like you have 2 different groups,
so it can convert to 2 different focal lengths.

unfortunately you will need to buy a camera with a longer bellows,
but they sell cheap these days ..

good luck !
john

[Scott --]

I'd complain and try to get a partial refund on it at least, even if you can use it. If he did just replace the rear with a different element, he would obviously know it and might feel like dickering...

You'd be better off with a proper 9" #2. I sold mine but if you ask Scott (Scott-- is his id here) about it, I think he'll tell you what a fine lens it can be.

Yep, I got the #2 from Richard. It's fast becoming my favorite lens. I'd return the cobbled one you got in favor of a complete one, FWIW...

[Simon Benton]

I also bought a lens from ebey4sale that looked like it was a meniscus landscape lens - had an authentic barrel with revolving stops. It turned out that the lens was actually the rear element from a Petzval - an air spaced doublet. I think he must have a bunch of old lenses and barrels, puts them in the barrels at random and then sells them.

[Two23]

I think he must have a bunch of old lenses and barrels, puts them in the barrels at random and then sells them.


LOL. The guy should change his eBay screen name to "FrankenLens."


Kent in SD