PDA

View Full Version : Help With Lens Strategy



Two23
16-Sep-2011, 20:15
When I started out 15 years ago with 4x5, I immediately bought three lenses: 90mm f5.6 SA, 180mm Fuji MC, Rodenstock Geronar 300mm f9 MC. These served me well as I mainly shot E6 film. Now that I've come back to LF after going astray for 6 years, I've only been shooting b&w. I've discovered vintage lenses and love them! I've come to class lenses in four general categories: 1st generation (1840-1895), 2nd generation (1892-1950), 3rd generation (i.e. coated with sync, 1950-2000), and finally 4th generation expensive extreme state of art lenses. I'm thinking I want a competent set of three from generations one through three! Each has their own look, and I absolutely love the history behind them.

For generation 1 I have 6" Derogy Petzval, 5" Darlot Petzval, and 4 inch E&HT Anthony rapid rectilinear. I'm thinking of selling one of the Petzvals and replacing with an early Darlot pillbox lens. Then, I'd have one of each of the main lenses from the period: a Petzval, an RR, and a meniscus.

For gen. 2 I now have a 165mm Zeiss Tessar in Compound c.1914 that I just love! Here's where I'm undecided. I want a wide angle and a tele. I just love the look from Heliars so I'm strongly leaning towards a 300mm Heliar. I also like the look from the Dagor, and am thinking of a ~4 inch wide. But, I also like Protars and Velostigmats! What were the most desirable lenses to have between 1900 and 1920-ish? Wasn't the Dagor considered about the best for wide angle then? (on 4x5.)

For gen 3 I will just keep what I have. It's been working and I already have them.

What I shoot. I use a Chamonix 4x5 and like to shoot at night a lot, especially in winter. I am trying to use my 4x5 to shoot some moving trains at night, so will use the gen 3 lenses for that since I need sync. (I have nearly 10,000ws of flash power now.) I also shoot abandoned farm houses, old "industrial" looking stuff, abandoned farm machinery, landscapes, and tons of railroad images. I rarely shoot portraits, or indoors. Mostly I'm after a very soft, low contrast vintage look. Films I've been using are mostly HP5 and Efke 25. I also own a 250mm Imagon in Copal 3. It's a great lens, but I think it works best for portraits rather than what tend to shoot, so I plan on selling it to fund the Heliar. I just had an adapter made so I can use the 4 inch E&HT A. rapid rectilinear in Copal 1. So, any thoughts? I've narrowed down to a Heliar, Dagor, Protar (for convertible tele,) or possibly Velostigmat, and prefer lenses in shutter made ~1900 to ~1925. I'm trying to stay below $1,000 per lens, so no exotic Veritos etc. :eek:


Kent in SD

Shot with 165mm Carl Zeiss Tessar:

E. von Hoegh
17-Sep-2011, 07:47
For your gen 2 WA, keep in mind that Dagors and Protars have only four surfaces. This makes a big difference in uncoated lenses.
Then there's the Wolly Extreme wide angles; I think Gundlach made a WA, but I don't know much about it. The Meyer Aristostigmat was fron that era too, I think.

Interesting wear pattern on those spur gears....

Dan Fromm
17-Sep-2011, 09:01
E., the Aristostigmat was made into the 1960s. I have a 100/6.3 Aristostigmat WW made around 1957.

Kent, re wide angles and y'r somewhat arbitrary classification into generations. I have a 60/14 Perigraphe. Pre-WWI design but mine was made around 1950. By you, second generation all the way. Dagor type, by the way. I also have some much more modern (design, classifying wide angles by the shutter and presence of coatings seems odd) 60 mm or so wide angles with nearly as much coverage: 58/5.6 Grandagon, 60/5.6 Konica Hexanon, 65/8 Ilex. The Perigraphe is the hardest of the four to use, but shoots best of all on 2x3 from f/16 down. Your night photography may require a larger maximum aperture.

If you want a coated 90 mm Perigraphe, here's one: http://annonces.ebay.fr/viewad/Objectifs-BERTHIOT-Perigraphe-1-14-f-90mm-/5039871799 I am slightly acquainted with the seller -- bought my 60 from him early this year -- but have no financial interest in his 90. The seller's English is very good.

Putting one of these beasties in shutter. I wrapped mine's rear threads with darkroom tape and stuffed it in a mutilated Ilex #3. The shutter's rear tube is cut off flush with the board and the shutter is held to the board by screws that go through the back of the shutter. Oh, yeah, 60 and 90 Perigraphes have the same rear barrel.

Mark Sawyer
17-Sep-2011, 09:25
For gen. 2 I now have a 165mm Zeiss Tessar in Compound c.1914 that I just love! Here's where I'm undecided. I want a wide angle and a tele. I just love the look from Heliars so I'm strongly leaning towards a 300mm Heliar. I also like the look from the Dagor, and am thinking of a ~4 inch wide...

For the "second generation" wide angle, I'd also keep an eye out for a 3.25" Cooke VIIb.

Regarding the "tele", remember that a telephoto lens isn't a long focal length, but one that gives the angle of view of a longer focal length while focusing at a shorter bellows extension. Heliars aren't telephotos.

I think an Aviar would give a Heliar a run for its money. An "uncorked" 9.5" or 12" Velostigmat with the diffusion ring could replace either of those and the Imagon. And it seems you ought to have a triplet design in there somewhere... :rolleyes:

I think your biggest problem is that there are just too many wonderful lenses out there!

Two23
17-Sep-2011, 14:28
1. Kent, re wide angles and y'r somewhat arbitrary classification into generations. I have a 60/14 Perigraphe. Pre-WWI design but mine was made around 1950. By you, second generation all the way. Dagor type, by the way.

2. The Perigraphe is the hardest of the four to use, but shoots best of all on 2x3 from f/16 down. Your night photography may require a larger maximum aperture.



1. Yes, a bit arbitrary as lenses were constantly evolving. However, I do see the 1890s as a period of major breakthroughs coming together to make all new lenses. That's when shutters started becomming more useable and new kinds of glass allowed for radically new kinds of lenses such as Dagor, Tessar, Heliar etc. that replaced the previous generation of lenses (Petzvals, RR) to a large degree. Another short period of rapid change for lenses was the early 1950s when we got lens coating and flash sync became common. Starting somewhere around 2000 we began getting "super" coatings, computer design, and aspherical elements. It looks like we get revolutions in lenses about every 50 years. I'm finding the lenses of 1910-1925 most interesting as they still have a nice low contrast look to them and they have shifted to the modern design of an integral shutter & iris between the lens cells. While my "classifications" are a bit arbitrary, there is some broad logic to it.

2. Night shots. I was out shooting a train late last night. I used my Nikon D300 though, but kept thinking it could be shot with 4x5 pretty easily. My exposure last night was ISO 800 & f4, and I had two White Lightning X3200 monolights powered up (2700ws of power.) I think if I added just one more monolight (I have seven) I could easily shoot ISO 800 & f5.6. The plan is to push HP5 one stop. I already have one lens that is wide enough and fast enough--the 90mm f5.6 SA. My E&HT Anthony 4 inch rapid rectilinear is in Copal 1 and is certainly wide enough, however at f11 it would take a TON of flash! Focus is difficult even with an f5.6 lenses though. What I generally do is place a few flashlights on the railroad tracks with beam pointed at camera. I focus on the beam. O. Winston Link shot a lot of trains back around 1958, using flash bulbs. His bulbs have MANY orders of magnitude more power than my huge monolights do. I think he was shooting ISO 100 and f11 from what David Plowden* told me. I think he was using Ektar lenses which at the time were state of art.


Kent in SD

*Plowden worked as
Link's assistant one summer

Two23
17-Sep-2011, 14:39
And it seems you ought to have a triplet design in there somewhere... :rolleyes:

I think your biggest problem is that there are just too many wonderful lenses out there!


I'm certainly not against triplets. I have a TT&H Cooke triplet in my c.1914 Kodak 6x9 and it is wonderful! So is the Skopar in my c.1937 Bessa. What I'm after is a carefully thought out three lens selection of the great lenses of the period. You hit it exactly, there are too many great lenses out there! It's proving difficult to limit myself and in the end I probably won't. :D At ~$500 each I just need to think each one through carefully. I'm hoping that by sticking to the standard workhorses of the period rather than the exotics I'll end up with a selection that satisfies me but doesn't tie up too much $$.


Kent in SD