Lens to keep an eye on! [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Tri Tran

23-Jun-2011, 07:13

Jim Fitzgerald

23-Jun-2011, 08:46

Yes, I'd like that one also. My pockets are not that deep right now!

mdm

23-Jun-2011, 09:15

The seller is very reliable and a member of this forum. He is probably following the lens pricing thread. I expect he is tired of local bargain hunters hawking his treasures for many times the price they paid.

Asher Kelman

23-Jun-2011, 09:30

Hi folks,
First I'm a buyer not a potential seller nor associated what so ever with the seller, but brass lens price is going and going up as gold price. Found this nice lens here that I can use it but not use to the asking price . Anyone has one similar to this at more affordable price to offer at no fee and no return policy?

# 120739632790

Thanks and have a pleasant day!

Tri,

What price would seem fair? I'm scouring all sources for such lenses. I've been following that offering too. I thought to myself, why is it going so cheap compared to other soft focus lenses? Could it be as good? I was wondering if it would be fine for full length portraits at 1:1 on Fujichrome paper. I'm drilling a whole in a wall for this project! (Cheaper than a new giant camera). What lensboard could hold it?

No, I'm not joking.

Asher

Dan Fromm

23-Jun-2011, 09:41

I thought to myself, why is it going so cheap compared to other soft focus lenses? Could it be as good?

RRs aren't soft focus lenses, are they?

I was wondering if it would be fine for full length portraits at 1:1 on Fujichrome paper.

Hmm. Of a small person, perhaps. 40 x 48 won't capture all of most people.

No, I'm not joking.

Right. You're not joking, you're having us on.

Mark Sawyer

23-Jun-2011, 09:56

Tri,

What price would seem fair? I'm scouring all sources for such lenses. I've been following that offering too. I thought to myself, why is it going so cheap compared to other soft focus lenses? Could it be as good? I was wondering if it would be fine for full length portraits at 1:1 on Fujichrome paper. I'm drilling a whole in a wall for this project! (Cheaper than a new giant camera). What lensboard could hold it?

No, I'm not joking.

Asher

This isn't a soft lens; Rapid Rectilinears were quite sharp, and considered a big improvement over Petzvals. They tend to be a bit dimmer, this one has a 4-inch main barrel, so if you presume a 3.75-inch aperture (just a guess...) it would be an f/8.8. Given that and the thinner lenses, it's probably reasonably light, and the seller added that it has a 6-inch flange, so I'd say any board 7-inches square or larger.

$1200 seems a fair starting price, and I imagine it will go for a bit more. Not many 20x24 brass lenses by respected manufacturers are being offered.

Pete Roody

23-Jun-2011, 11:49

Asher,

This would be a lens better suited to ultra large formats. It covers 20x24 with movements.

For formats such as 8x10, you should look at something like a Dallmeyer Stigmatic. These lenses are convertible and you could use a single element for the 24" focal length. The single element will have enough spherical aberration to produce a softer image. Especially shot wide open. The No. 7 size has focal lengths of 12-1/2, 19 and 24-1/2 inches. All cover 8x10. The big advantage is size; the lens flange diameter is less than 3-inches.

Tri,

What price would seem fair? I'm scouring all sources for such lenses. I've been following that offering too. I thought to myself, why is it going so cheap compared to other soft focus lenses? Could it be as good? I was wondering if it would be fine for full length portraits at 1:1 on Fujichrome paper. I'm drilling a whole in a wall for this project! (Cheaper than a new giant camera). What lensboard could hold it?

No, I'm not joking.

Asher

Asher Kelman

23-Jun-2011, 12:04

Asher,

This would be a lens better suited to ultra large formats. It covers 20x24 with movements.

For formats such as 8x10, you should look at something like a Dallmeyer Stigmatic. These lenses are convertible and you could use a single element for the 24" focal length. The single element will have enough spherical aberration to produce a softer image. Especially shot wide open. The No. 7 size has focal lengths of 12-1/2, 19 and 24-1/2 inches. All cover 8x10. The big advantage is size; the lens flange diameter is less than 3-inches.

Thanks Pete,

Thanks for remembering that I am doing mostly 8x10. This is new and great information for me. I like the idea of convertibles and I have nothing at the 24" length, (except a very sharp Jena Apo-Germinar), so that's useful to know

I am now actually looking for lenses to cover 40"x72" or so for direct to paper life size (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=77580) prints.

My portrait lenses for 8x10 are already wonderful. PS945, a Visual Quality No 2 Series IV and 600 mm No 6 "Ed Leisengang Dussledorf from Jim Galli and a 17" RR.

We'd better get back to the O.P. topic of the likes of the 808 mm Dalmeyer!

Asher

Louis Pacilla

23-Jun-2011, 12:28

Tri Tran

23-Jun-2011, 13:42

Hi Asher,
I always had a soft spot for RR especially for this lens maker. The only thing that interests me in it is the focal length which works well with my 20x24 format without modification for the lensboard. Buy it while you can while i am so spoiled with the old price that i used to pay for all my lenses. Have fun bidding !

Tri,

What price would seem fair? I'm scouring all sources for such lenses. I've been following that offering too. I thought to myself, why is it going so cheap compared to other soft focus lenses? Could it be as good? I was wondering if it would be fine for full length portraits at 1:1 on Fujichrome paper. I'm drilling a whole in a wall for this project! (Cheaper than a new giant camera). What lensboard could hold it?

No, I'm not joking.

Asher

Jim Galli

23-Jun-2011, 14:11

Thanks Pete,
I have nothing at the 24" length...

....and 600 mm No 6 "Ed Leisengang Dussledorf from Jim Galli and a 17" RR.

Asher

Asher, that 600mm is a pretty good facsimile for a 24" lens ;)

And, don't forget that the Wollensak Verito is a convertible. On your giant camera you're envisioning, that 18" Wolly Verito becomes a 36" soft focus lens with the front removed. Or is it 30? I'll have to check the old catalogs. I did a fine portrait on 14X17 with the rear group of a diminutive 11 1/2" Verito and it covered in spades.

Tri, I have an old 17X20 Gundlach that is also a convertible........at half that guys price.

William Whitaker

23-Jun-2011, 14:48

...that 18" Wolly Verito becomes a 36" soft focus lens with the front removed. Or is it 30?

30.

Tri Tran

23-Jun-2011, 20:14

Asher, that 600mm is a pretty good facsimile for a 24" lens ;)

And, don't forget that the Wollensak Verito is a convertible. On your giant camera you're envisioning, that 18" Wolly Verito becomes a 36" soft focus lens with the front removed. Or is it 30? I'll have to check the old catalogs. I did a fine portrait on 14X17 with the rear group of a diminutive 11 1/2" Verito and it covered in spades.

Tri, I have an old 17X20 Gundlach that is also a convertible........at half that guys price.

Thanks Jim. I am in no rush but I will keep that in mind.

Hugo Zhang

23-Jun-2011, 20:26

Tri,

Why do you even look at that lens when you have the 35" Artar I gave you? Dallmeyer is a fine name, but practically I don't see any advantage it has over your Artar lens for your 20x24" camera. $1,200 is a lot of money for a RR lens.

Just my 2 cents.
Hugo

Tri Tran

23-Jun-2011, 20:39

You are right Hugo.I forgot about that lens , let me go find it now. Thanks for saving me some money.

tuant

24-Jun-2011, 02:02

You are right Hugo.I forgot about that lens , let me go find it now. Thanks for saving me some money.

Tri,

You are one who should be selling instead buying! I have the same lens. It is great for group portrait. I have compared this with my giant cone on 2024, while the cone has only 2" of DOF, this one has about 7 or more DOF wide open so nothing on your subject is out of focus. It is great for wedding or group of two or more, but really not intended for single person with nice bokeh unless you close in on the head and should with about 60" of bellows. I thought 1200-1400 seems to be a fair current price for an RR but someone might bid it up to 2000 or over just for the 2024 word. Two years ago, this would have been around 600 at the most. The wet plate guys have really messed up the price on large brass and I am sorry if I had anything to do with that:D :D I have hoarded enough large brass now. I am just going to sit back and watch :D

Asher Kelman

24-Jun-2011, 03:06

Asher, that 600mm is a pretty good facsimile for a 24" lens ;)

And, don't forget that the Wollensak Verito is a convertible. On your giant camera you're envisioning, that 18" Wolly Verito becomes a 36" soft focus lens with the front removed. Or is it 30? I'll have to check the old catalogs. I did a fine portrait on 14X17 with the rear group of a diminutive 11 1/2" Verito and it covered in spades.

Thanks, Jim,

So in fact I have 600 and 750 mm focal lengths to play with and look at the image circles focused at about 9-10 feet and see what the image circle looks like.

Asher

goamules

24-Jun-2011, 06:41

...The wet plate guys have really messed up the price on large brass ...

I like to think the current users (film folks too) have saved these old classics from being put in the trash, turned into flower pots, left on "display" on backroom shelves and antique shop cameras. And I do think discussing prices has affected the prices themselves.

I'm looking at two Studio cameras right now that the owners have "had for over 30 years..." one sitting in a back room, and one sitting in a shop display. Neither have ever been used by the current owners. They don't know how, and don't want to. It's just an old conversation piece. It's like the folks that hang an old oxen yoke on their wall. Interesting bit of nostalgia, but just there for looks. Neither studio camera owner wants to sell just the lens, but "want to keep the camera/lens together." But they will sell the whole camera with lens. If they do research the lens, and if one happens to be a big Dall RR like discussed in this post, guess what price they'll set after reading this? "Well I read that the typical price is $1200....blah..." The lens in the original post may not even sell for the starting bid (but after this discussion I'm sure it will), it has no bids at this point. But this discussion will live on forever.

But I also agree there are more people looking for ULF equipment now, which is good. I don't believe displaying old lenses in a home for decades is more useful than shooting photographs with one. And when one person has fun doing something, even something obscure and obsolete, others will follow. Archaic photography has hit a small resurgence, and supply and demand will always factor into price.

Tri Tran

24-Jun-2011, 10:51

Thanks for the info Tuant. I know who to blamed for brass lens prices now.There is no substitute for your Darlot cone portrait lens. You should name it Appolo 11 :)

Tri,

You are one who should be selling instead buying! I have the same lens. It is great for group portrait. I have compared this with my giant cone on 2024, while the cone has only 2" of DOF, this one has about 7 or more DOF wide open so nothing on your subject is out of focus. It is great for wedding or group of two or more, but really not intended for single person with nice bokeh unless you close in on the head and should with about 60" of bellows. I thought 1200-1400 seems to be a fair current price for an RR but someone might bid it up to 2000 or over just for the 2024 word. Two years ago, this would have been around 600 at the most. The wet plate guys have really messed up the price on large brass and I am sorry if I had anything to do with that:D :D I have hoarded enough large brass now. I am just going to sit back and watch :D

EdWorkman

24-Jun-2011, 11:56

Asher
I love you
Get help
Get an intervention

tuant

24-Jun-2011, 13:22

Asher
I love you
Get help
Get an intervention

Tri and I may already need to go to rehab together for brass addiction:D

Jim Fitzgerald

24-Jun-2011, 17:23

Tri and I may already need to go to rehab together for brass addiction:D

i need to come also!

cdholden

25-Jun-2011, 08:26

To pay for rehab, you'll need to stop buying old brass lenses.
Stick with the brass. It's probably cheaper and definitely more satisfying.
I think it was Jerry Garcia that said, "If it feels good, then it must be".

Mark Sawyer

25-Jun-2011, 08:46

Personally, I just buy old lenses for recreational use.

I could quit any time I want to...

eddie

25-Jun-2011, 09:31

Personally, I just buy old lenses for recreational use.

I could quit any time I want to...

Har Har har. Every addicts adage.

Btw. I bet that lens gets 2000+ as it should. It covers 2024and is perfect for wet plate.

This is not 3,5 , or 10 years ago. We all should have bought them then! I would say buy it now. I bet it is worth 2+ times more than the $2g I think it is worth now. Let's check back next year. Put it on the calendar.

tuant

25-Jun-2011, 14:52

Har Har har. Every addicts adage.

If there is ever a rehab for brass addiction, Mark should be in charge of it. He could hang those 99cents magnifying glasses all over the place like wind chimes so Tri and I can both stare at them all day all night and listen to them too ~~:D

Tri Tran

25-Jun-2011, 15:44

Tri and I may already need to go to rehab together for brass addiction:D

Too late for me Tuant. The rehab doesn't cut it because I was being haunted by these brass lenses. There is a spirit in every single one of them and if you are lucky you might get the good one like Mark, instead of these bad ones like yours and mine. :) so folks be careful !

Tri Tran

25-Jun-2011, 23:15

And it end $1277. Congrats to the buyer.

Mark Sawyer

26-Jun-2011, 00:37

My take on it: a lovely lens, but a bit slow for wet plate. Rapid Rectilinears fall into an odd spot; by modern standards, they were a great improvement over the Petzval and landscape lenses, but also, by modern standards, later designs were even better. Early lenses are prized for their aberrations, while modern lenses are prized for their lack of aberrations, and both are prized for their speed. Rapid Rectilinears seem to be the intermediate step, the worst of both, and not the best of either.

But they can still make such wonderful, wonderful images...

eddie

26-Jun-2011, 02:25

it is great for big wet plate. not that slow really. what are the other options? a 25 inch petzval will not cover 2024. a 37 inch f6 petzval is SUPER expensive and about twice the size of the above rr. a 30 inch f4 petzval i have never seen but it will be as big or bigger than the f6 mentioned above.

there are not many choices for 2024 wet plate.

good deal for teh buyer. i hope it was my frined ken....i will e mail him next....:)

Mark Sawyer

26-Jun-2011, 14:31

I agree it's a very desirable lens, Eddie, and the buyer should have no regrets, but in that f/9 range, (probably really f/16 at a closer distance), wet plate portrait sitters are going to have to be motionless for a while. At that f/stop, I'd say a long process lens will give a look similar th an RR, but sharper and for much less. But they don't have the history or the presence on the front of the camera that an old RR or Petzval has.

Ole Tjugen

26-Jun-2011, 14:36

In my experience, good RR's (or rather Aplanats, in my case) can actually be sharper than most modern lenses. At least in the central part, where astigmatism doesn't matter.

eddie

26-Jun-2011, 14:52

Probably more like f11 or f13. Notmuch different thannf6 lens at the same distance. F9 or f12. No real difference. You are splitting hairs. An f6 Petzval will run WAY more $$$$ than an f8 rr. Everything else is in material.

One lens is affordable and accessible the other is not. The images and the exposure times are basically the same. 2-3 seconds either way on WPC.

eddie

26-Jun-2011, 14:54

PS. modern Process lenses that cover 2024 are f11 or f16........

A totally different pooch.

Mark Sawyer

26-Jun-2011, 15:35

The arguments come down to intended use, I suppose. If it's for 20x24 portraits, it will be used at 1:1, and that brings an f/9 lens down to f/18. With collodion, that makes for a long-ish exposure or uncomfortably bright light. If it's being used for portraiture, a number of f/4.5 to f/5.6 lenses in the 15 to 18 inch range would cover, at a third to a quarter of the exposure time.

If it's for landscape, you'd need all the coverage at infinity, and a longer exposure is only an issue when the collodion starts drying. Since there's no appreciable bellows draw and the work is likely done in full daylight, you could even stop it down a bit. I agree with Ole that RR's are very sharp at the center, but I'd bet a process lens like an old brass 25-inch f/9 Cooke Series V would be noticeably sharper at the corners. That may or may not be a concern for the user.

But you're right, I'm just looking at other not-quite-equivalent options, and none of these are quite the equivalent of having a big Dallmeyer on the front of your camera. I bet some great images have passed through that glass, and many more hopefully will.

tuant

26-Jun-2011, 17:00

I thought it was going to be much higher and that's why I didn't bid. It is actually not that slow, in shade, 8 seconds can get you a very nice portrait. Any adult can manage that. Now, there was a Dallmeyer 5D that went almost for 3 thousand, and a Dagor 14 went over 2000. Compared to this one, it is such a good deal. I am sure the seller must have received many offers and most should be much higher than the auctioned price. The lesson? You never know what could happen on Ebay. With a couple of crazy must get people, the price can triple. This is certainly not the case. The seller's loss is the buyer's gain. My congratulation to the buyer! I would be happy to take this lens at this price at any time.

Tuant

eddie

26-Jun-2011, 22:55

Sorry mark. Your argument holds no water come on! A 15-17 inch lens for a 2024 portrait?!?!? Get real!

I am off the hook. You are jut being a troll.

Good day.

Mark Sawyer

26-Jun-2011, 23:18

Sorry mark. Your argument holds no water come on! A 15-17 inch lens for a 2024 portrait?!?!? Get real!

I am off the hook. You are jut being a troll.

Good day.

Just sayin', at 1:1, which is reasonable in a 20x24 portrait, a 15 to 18 inch lens would be at 30 to 36 inch bellows draw, with commensurate coverage. A lens only needs to cover 10x12 at infinity to cover 20x24 at 1:1. Simple math, take it for what it's worth...