PDA

View Full Version : older lenses - eye candy :)



Joseph O'Neil
14-May-2011, 08:46
The talk about the apo-ronars got me thinking and looking. so, for no particualr reason other than it is Saturday, cloudy, I'm stuck inside, etc, etc, I figured I would show off my older process and aerial camera lenses. Attached photograph is below.

Starting at the upper right hand corner, and going clockwise..
- 178mm F2.5 Kodak Aero ektar, dated (by serial number) to 1943, it's one of the "hot" ones; Not mounted, and you see a red filter on front.
- Goerz Hycon 3 inch, F4 aerial camera lens, not sure of date, mounted in a fixed body, used briefly for some 4x5 astro-photography I was trying, untill I blew the motor drives and drive corrector on my old Losmand mount. :(
- kinda a wird one, German made C-claron, NOT G, but "C-Claron" lens, no iris, 190mm, F4.5. Not sure where it come form or how to even use it?
- JML 305mm, F9 lens. Haven't trid it yet.
- okay, not an old lens, just my 240mm G-Claron, F9 lens in shutter. I also have the 270, 210 and 150mm versions in G-clarons. yeah, I kinda like G-clarons :D
- Brown Mfg 14inch (355mm) F9.5 process lens. tried it couple of times on my 8x10, sharp as a razor;
- 305mm Apo-Nikkor, F9, covers my 8x10 head on. Haven't used it much yet.
and the best for last....

- 12 inch, F4 Perkin-Elmer aerial camera lens. Haven't actually used it yet - it is almost too big to fit on my 8x10. The only information I can find about this lens at all is some of them were used in a camera that was carried by the SR-71 Blackbird. The serial number on the lens is "53" so I am guessing not a lot of these puppies were ever made. If anybody has any information on this lens, woudl love to hear about it. No iris in it either.

enjoy, would love to see your old oddball lenses guys.

joe

PS - the yellow filter in the middle isa WW2 era aerial camera filter, more amber than yellow. They work GREAT on front of these old process lenses. they may not be coated, but wow, flat and sharp. Just don't shoot into the sun with one. :)

Dan Fromm
14-May-2011, 09:54
Um, Joe, about that 12"/4 Perkin-Elmer. My USAF data sheets list three 12"/4 Perkin-Elmer lenses. No guarantee that your beast is one of the them.

The first is described as an "aspheric Tessar," covers 2 1/4" x 2 1/4". AWAR not given, but amazingly sharp wide open.

The second is a six elements in four groups double Gauss type, covers 4.5" x 4.5". AWAR 75 lp/mm wide open on Plus X with a high contrast target (1000:1) and Wratten 12 filter. AWAR 102 lp/mm on Pan X, other conditions the same. Doesn't seem to be that well achromatised. This is the one that looks most like yours.

The third is a 6/4 plasmat type, covers 9" x 9". AWAR 26 lp/mm wide open on Super XX with a Wratten 12, target contrast not specified.

Count reflections and perhaps you'll know of the three you have. As I said, there's no guarantee that yours is mentioned in my set of data sheets.

Oh, yeah. AWAR means Area Weighted Average Resolution.

Joseph O'Neil
14-May-2011, 10:35
Hi Dan

[QUOTE=Dan Fromm;726173]U

The first is described as an "aspheric Tessar," covers 2 1/4" x 2 1/4". AWAR not given, but amazingly sharp wide open.

The second is a six elements in four groups double Gauss type, covers 4.5" x 4.5". AWAR 75 lp/mm wide open on Plus X with a high contrast target (1000:1) and Wratten 12 filter. AWAR 102 lp/mm on Pan X, other conditions the same. Doesn't seem to be that well achromatised. This is the one that looks most like yours.

The third is a 6/4 plasmat type, covers 9" x 9". AWAR 26 lp/mm wide open on Super XX with a Wratten 12, target contrast not specified.

QUOTE]

I think your middle choice is possibly the most correc too. Projecting the image circle agianst a wall, it clearly covers more than 2.25". the front element on this lens is almost 5" wide,a nd the rear element is almost 4.5" wide.

Also I forgot to add, it say "HYCON" on it. I cannotprove it directly, but I've been told that the "Hycon lens" (wasn't there an actualy company by that name?) was either a copy of, or more likely, inspried by the Zeiss biogon. Cannot prove either, but my Goerz 3 inch hycon sure looks like a copy of a 75mm Zeiss biogon I used to own, so maybe that's how that rumour started.

There is a fair bit of information about Perkin-Elemer Hycon lenses being used in both the U-2 and the SR-71, but I cannot find my exact same lens.

The focus behind the rear element is very close. I estimate that mounted in my 8x10 - if i can ever figure out how to do that - the rear element and the gorund glass would only be about 6-8 inches apart at infinity. Very close focus for such a large lens.


Finally the one last reason I think your second choice is the bang on one is the optician who gave it to me said the blue focus on it was not very good, and he knew I liked to shoot a lot of B&W film, so with a yellow or red filter, who cares? I cannot prove it by documentation, but my optician friend (who works for commerical & industrial interests) tested some various aerial camera lenses and found on almost all he tested to have very poor blue focus.

We talked about this once, and what we think - cannot prove - is that these lenses ARE apochromatic - but the three colouors they are balanced for are the green, red and INFRA-RED.


Most aerial camera films are, or used to be, red extended in their sensitivity, not unlike the old Tech-pan or even similar to the characteristics of Ilford's SFX film (about 720 nm I think?).

Also there were definately infra-red aerial camera films, which I think is where or how the old HSI from Kodak got it's origin, going back to the Second World war. I say that because my 1943 Aero-Ektar has terrible blue focus, and these lenses always came with either red or yellow (more amber than yellow, IMO) filters.

So I think these various lens designers wanted a lens as sharp as possible in the 650nm to maybe 750nm or even 800nm range, and they did so by sacrificing the blue focus. I mean, can you imagine the effort and the very high costs it would take to have a "true" apocromatic lens that focused not three, but FOUR light paths from blue to near infra-red? And if you are using film at the time that is mostly B&W, and you wanted near IR and IR for intelligence gathering, why bother with a blue focus to begin with?

Again this all conjecture on my part to begin with, I cannot prove any of it hard and fast, but I thnk most of these lenses, at least up until some time in the 1970s, maybe even later, were made to be optimized around the visible red to near infra-red ranges.


I do have a reducing back down to 4x5 on my 8x10 camera, so some day, just to say I did it, I have to try the thing, but I am not sure how yet as the rear of the lens just barely clears the front opening on my 8x10. As for mounting it on my Tachihara....naw.
:)

Steven Tribe
14-May-2011, 12:12
VM reports a C claron - also without an iris but this was F5.6. They assume "some kind of industrial Use". Related to the early post-war repro clarons? Best at 1:1?

Ed Kelsey
14-May-2011, 12:17
Damn what a pile of junk

Dan Fromm
14-May-2011, 12:31
Joe, thanks for the reply.

The spec sheet shows spectral response for choice 2. Sorry, it absolutely positively isn't an apochromat. Corrected for 5461 - 6563 Angstrom. It seems that very often designers of lenses for aerial cameras gave up achromatism to get better image quality for a very narrow range of wavelengths.

That said, some are much better across the visible than others. I don't think it is safe to generalize about them.

I think that minus blue filters were used to cut through haze, not necessarily take advantage of the lens' optimization.

I still have a few lenses made for aerial cameras, mainly for cameras that shot nominal 6x6 on 70 mm film. 4"/2.0 (covers 2x3) and 12"/4 (made for 6x6, just covers 4x5) TTH are very good, 38/4.5 Zeiss (BRD) Biogon (covers 84 mm) is superb, 1.75"/2.8 Elcan (6x6) id middling, 100/2.5 Uran-27 (covers 113 mm) is ok, 100/5.6 S.F.O.M. (covers 4x5) is ok. All produced Ektachromes with no color fringing visible at 12x.

Hycon was (is?) a camera manufacturer, AFAIK bought lenses in. Y'r Goerz Hycon ought to be a Biogon made under licence.

Re y'r doorstop's back focus, the spec sheet says 6.23". People don't appreciate that 6/4 double Gauss types can be somewhat telephoto, i.e., have back focus shorter than one would expect. That's why early f/1.4 lenses for 35 mm SLRs were typically 58 mm; the designers couldn't get good enough image quality and long enough back focus with a shorter focal length.

Re y'r doorstop's coverage. The spec sheet is unambiguous. Its for 4.5" x 4.5" on 5" roll film. At 15 degrees off-axis the point of best focus is around .1 mm in front of the film plane (best focus on axis) and the curves are turning sharply upwards.

Cheers,

Dan

p.s., doorstop is not an insult, in this context it is a term of endearment and exasperation.

I see doorstops like your 12"/4 Perkin Elmer and my 3"/4.5 Pacific Optical as somewhat of poisoned gifts.

Joseph O'Neil
15-May-2011, 06:32
p.s., doorstop is not an insult, in this context it is a term of endearment and exasperation.

I see doorstops like your 12"/4 Perkin Elmer and my 3"/4.5 Pacific Optical as somewhat of poisoned gifts.

Hi Dan;
No, not at all, I love the term "doorstop". :) As for "poisoned gifts", well, when you consider those two rear elements on my areo-ektar are radioactive, yep - that truely is poisoned, isn't it? :D

As for ed's comment about "a pile of junk" - EXACTLY - that's the beauty of it all, you would be amazed what you can find in "
junk".

My G-claron was once considered "junk" many years ago by some because it was only F9, not F5.6. That old Brown process lens may not have a big brand name on it, but it's one of the sharpest lenses I have used. My old Crown Graphic, in near mint shape (at least when I bought it years ago -it's been used a bit since then :) ), was considered "old junk" by the seller when I bought it.

So yes, junk, and darned proud of it. give me junk any day. :)

Dan Fromm
15-May-2011, 07:42
Junk? That's my equipment. Good junk, of course.

Read about my lens junk here: http://www.galerie-photo.com/1-lens-6x9-dan-fromm.html , http://www.galerie-photo.com/2-lens-6x9-dan-fromm.html , http://www.galerie-photo.com/3-lens-6x9-dan-fromm.html

Ole Tjugen
15-May-2011, 08:04
That's not junk.

Neither is this:

Ed Kelsey
15-May-2011, 08:21
Ok not junk...POS

Ole Tjugen
15-May-2011, 09:08
By the way, the C-Claron is most likely from a photocopier somewhere. Thousands of these have ended up in landfills all over the world.

trundrumbalind
27-Apr-2014, 20:24
Hello! I'm thinking about buying this lens but I'd like to know more about its coverage... do you happen to know the projection angle or the size of the image circle @ infinity????

Thanks :)


The talk about the apo-ronars got me thinking and looking. so, for no particualr reason other than it is Saturday, cloudy, I'm stuck inside, etc, etc, I figured I would show off my older process and aerial camera lenses. Attached photograph is below.

Starting at the upper right hand corner, and going clockwise..
- 178mm F2.5 Kodak Aero ektar, dated (by serial number) to 1943, it's one of the "hot" ones; Not mounted, and you see a red filter on front.
- Goerz Hycon 3 inch, F4 aerial camera lens, not sure of date, mounted in a fixed body, used briefly for some 4x5 astro-photography I was trying, untill I blew the motor drives and drive corrector on my old Losmand mount. :(
- kinda a wird one, German made C-claron, NOT G, but "C-Claron" lens, no iris, 190mm, F4.5. Not sure where it come form or how to even use it?
- JML 305mm, F9 lens. Haven't trid it yet.
- okay, not an old lens, just my 240mm G-Claron, F9 lens in shutter. I also have the 270, 210 and 150mm versions in G-clarons. yeah, I kinda like G-clarons :D
- Brown Mfg 14inch (355mm) F9.5 process lens. tried it couple of times on my 8x10, sharp as a razor;
- 305mm Apo-Nikkor, F9, covers my 8x10 head on. Haven't used it much yet.
and the best for last....

- 12 inch, F4 Perkin-Elmer aerial camera lens. Haven't actually used it yet - it is almost too big to fit on my 8x10. The only information I can find about this lens at all is some of them were used in a camera that was carried by the SR-71 Blackbird. The serial number on the lens is "53" so I am guessing not a lot of these puppies were ever made. If anybody has any information on this lens, woudl love to hear about it. No iris in it either.

enjoy, would love to see your old oddball lenses guys.

joe

PS - the yellow filter in the middle isa WW2 era aerial camera filter, more amber than yellow. They work GREAT on front of these old process lenses. they may not be coated, but wow, flat and sharp. Just don't shoot into the sun with one. :)

Amedeus
27-Apr-2014, 20:42
My USAF data sheets list three 12"/4 Perkin-Elmer lenses. .

Dan, do you have by any chance data on the 36"/f4 from Perkin-Elmer ?

trundrumbalind
28-Apr-2014, 00:06
The talk about the apo-ronars got me thinking and looking. so, for no particualr reason other than it is Saturday, cloudy, I'm stuck inside, etc, etc, I figured I would show off my older process and aerial camera lenses. Attached photograph is below.

Starting at the upper right hand corner, and going clockwise..
- 178mm F2.5 Kodak Aero ektar, dated (by serial number) to 1943, it's one of the "hot" ones; Not mounted, and you see a red filter on front.
- Goerz Hycon 3 inch, F4 aerial camera lens, not sure of date, mounted in a fixed body, used briefly for some 4x5 astro-photography I was trying, untill I blew the motor drives and drive corrector on my old Losmand mount. :(
- kinda a wird one, German made C-claron, NOT G, but "C-Claron" lens, no iris, 190mm, F4.5. Not sure where it come form or how to even use it?
- JML 305mm, F9 lens. Haven't trid it yet.
- okay, not an old lens, just my 240mm G-Claron, F9 lens in shutter. I also have the 270, 210 and 150mm versions in G-clarons. yeah, I kinda like G-clarons :D
- Brown Mfg 14inch (355mm) F9.5 process lens. tried it couple of times on my 8x10, sharp as a razor;
- 305mm Apo-Nikkor, F9, covers my 8x10 head on. Haven't used it much yet.
and the best for last....

- 12 inch, F4 Perkin-Elmer aerial camera lens. Haven't actually used it yet - it is almost too big to fit on my 8x10. The only information I can find about this lens at all is some of them were used in a camera that was carried by the SR-71 Blackbird. The serial number on the lens is "53" so I am guessing not a lot of these puppies were ever made. If anybody has any information on this lens, woudl love to hear about it. No iris in it either.

enjoy, would love to see your old oddball lenses guys.

joe

PS - the yellow filter in the middle isa WW2 era aerial camera filter, more amber than yellow. They work GREAT on front of these old process lenses. they may not be coated, but wow, flat and sharp. Just don't shoot into the sun with one. :)


Sorry, i meant the brown 14"

Dan Fromm
28-Apr-2014, 13:39
Dan, do you have by any chance data on the 36"/f4 from Perkin-Elmer ?

Hmm. Twice in one day. Look here http://sdrv.ms/1i4czGa for the USAF lenses section.

Amedeus
28-Apr-2014, 13:44
Got it, thanks Dan ... I have one of these ;) ...

Dan Fromm
28-Apr-2014, 13:59
Got it, thanks Dan ... I have one of these ;) ...Surplus Shack used to have one. They used it as a coffee table.

Amedeus
28-Apr-2014, 14:04
I'll try to out mine to good use I when I'm running out of projects ... Lol ... ;)

trundrumbalind
29-Apr-2014, 05:53
Hmm. Twice in one day. Look here http://sdrv.ms/1i4czGa for the USAF lenses section.

I've seen the links Dan, but I have many lenses which cover a lot more tan they're supposed to. It seems the nikkors and the mfg are those kind of lenses too. As you probably read, the 480 apo covers J's12x20 which has a 1" longer diagonal than 14x17.
I dont see why you should be all hmm twice in one day.

Dan Fromm
29-Apr-2014, 06:11
trund, I was "hmm twice in one day" because I posted the link twice in one day.

Cover has two meanings, "illuminate" and "put acceptable quality image in the corner." Since Schneider and Rodenstock started publishing MTF curves for their lenses its been clear that they usually -- a few Apo-Ronars are exceptions -- define the radius covered as the radius at which the MTF drops below around 5%. Dialyte type Apo Nikkors have about the same coverage as equivalent Apo Ronars so it seems reasonable to believe that Nikon used a similar coverage criterion for them. Also for tessar type apo Nikkors, which have less coverage than the equivalent dialyte type.

When a poster here makes a claim about a lens coverage it is usually impossible to know the coverage criterion used. I believe -- could be mistaken -- that most of us use illumination as the criterion. What's in the corners is often not very important.

I'm sorry, may be going blind, but I don't see a reference to a 480 Apo Nikkor covering 12x20 at infinity in this thread. Until proven otherwise I regard the claim as delusional. At 1:1, yeah, sure.

trundrumbalind
29-Apr-2014, 07:39
trund, I was "hmm twice in one day" because I posted the link twice in one day.

Cover has two meanings, "illuminate" and "put acceptable quality image in the corner." Since Schneider and Rodenstock started publishing MTF curves for their lenses its been clear that they usually -- a few Apo-Ronars are exceptions -- define the radius covered as the radius at which the MTF drops below around 5%. Dialyte type Apo Nikkors have about the same coverage as equivalent Apo Ronars so it seems reasonable to believe that Nikon used a similar coverage criterion for them. Also for tessar type apo Nikkors, which have less coverage than the equivalent dialyte type.

When a poster here makes a claim about a lens coverage it is usually impossible to know the coverage criterion used. I believe -- could be mistaken -- that most of us use illumination as the criterion. What's in the corners is often not very important.

I'm sorry, may be going blind, but I don't see a reference to a 480 Apo Nikkor covering 12x20 at infinity in this thread. Until proven otherwise I regard the claim as delusional. At 1:1, yeah, sure.

Misunderstood, sorry.
I was the one you answered to at the apo nikkors thread. Thats what I was refering to.
I dont care about corner to corner razor sharp quality. When I asked about covergae i meant image circle with usable quality. Usable as in " i can distinguish what that is" quality.
Maybe ill have coverage then???

Dan Fromm
29-Apr-2014, 07:58
5% MTF means "its hard to discern what's in the image of a high contrast subject."

But since "usable quality" is pretty subjective, you'd best ask the lens if it can do what you want.

trundrumbalind
29-Apr-2014, 09:35
I did Dan. And if the 480 APO MTF drops to 5% at the corners in 14x17 format, I highly doubt J Conrad would have said it covered 12x20, specially if you consider that 12x20 is more of an infinity focus format than protrait or macro work.
Anyway, as you suggested, I did asked if it can do what I want, it's you who answered out of a specs sheet when I was asking about first hand field experience. In this thread, again, I'm asking if the owner of the MFG has some experience with larger formats or if he knows the projection angle of his lens.
If you have ever used one of these lenses with 14x17 or larger and found that coverage is insufficient, speak up. Otherwise, this is a really pointless argument.

Dan Fromm
29-Apr-2014, 12:03
Sorry, i meant the brown 14"

Interesting. How did we get from here to the 480/9 Apo Nikkor? J Conrad isn't in this thread. You seem to have confused two threads. Not fair.

FWIW, I use my 480 on 2x3 and 6x12. No coverage issues there. If you've used yours and it covers 14 x 17 with enough movements to convince you that it will cover 12x20 at infinity to your satisfaction that's wonderful.

trundrumbalind
29-Apr-2014, 22:09
Oh, this is a pointless argument.

Jody_S
30-Apr-2014, 06:27
Oh, this is a pointless argument.

In 13 posts! This has to be a record. Congrats to everyone involved.