Manhattan Optical New Anastigmat

[Fotoguy20d]

I just acquired the subject lens. Its a #6 18" FL, big brass barrel with waterhouse stops. Is it really an anastigmat? Looks like an RR to me. How do you tell the difference?

Thanks,
Dan

[CCHarrison]

From http://throughavintagelens.com/2009/09/the-anastigmat-lens/

"The early anastigmat lenses built on the basic concept used in the Rapid Rectilinear lens, i.e., having two symmetrical or nearly symmetrical lenses on either side of an iris diaphragm, each composed of two or more elements cemented together. As in the case of the Rapid Rectilinear, many of the aberrations of the two lenses canceled each other out. In the case of the anastigmat lens, one of the pairs contained elements of barium crown glass of high refractive index; pairing this with a similar lens of conventional crown and flint glass elements allows correction of astigmatism as well."

The lens in question came to market in 1894. I bet you will find it IS an Anastigmat lens. Article on left 1894; Ad on right 1895

I am guessing this is it ? http://www.ebay.com/itm/EARLY-MANHATTAN-OPTICAL-CO-NEW-ANASTIGMAT-EQF18-NO-6-BRASS-PORTRAIT-LENS-W-CAP-/370546652495

I bet the lens is fairly scarce lens given its limited number of ads and references. I bet 1-2 years of production..

Dan

[CCHarrison]

I think this 1894 ad is your lens in a smaller size...

Dan

[Fotoguy20d]

Dan,

Thanks for all the historical references. That is indeed the lens - don't know if it was a good price I paid (given how rarely Manhattan lenses turn up) but I'm a sucker for early Manhattan lenses - interestingly, today's mail brought an 8x10 Emil courtesy of Richard Rankin (from the second ad you attached). I believe you're right about the third ad. When I looked last night, I found a reflection in the front with difficulty and just figured I didn't find it in back for lack of trying hard enough. But, from this ad, it appears its a single piece of glass. I just tried focusing a light source onto a wall (its a poor test for accurately gauging FL due to proximity of the two but convenient) - the rear focused, the front did not (perhaps I wasn't far enough away). It's worth noting on mine how close the waterhouse slot is to the rear element - nowhere close to the center.

Dan

[CCHarrison]

Dan,

I do think its a good buy especially for its size. However, I tend to pass on lenses that don't have a flange. As a collector, its not "complete" without that "wedding ring."

Most people won't appreciate the fact that production of this lens was probably under 200 pieces.....

AFTER MORE RESEARCH I HAVE UNCOVERED THE STORY OF THIS LENS :)

http://www.google.com/patents?id=rLtNAAAAEBAJ&printsec=drawing#v=onepage&q&f=false

I do believe thats the lens in question. Heinrich Schroeder comes from Ross & Co. in 1894 to head up the optical dept. at Manhattan Optical Co. He comes to the US and assigns his patented lens design to his new employer which is made into MOC's New Anastigmat Lens..... Basically, MOC bought Schroeder's employment and his design; A 3 element Anastigmat. The partnership lasted one year - perhaps the same time this lens was on the market. Perhaps it could only be made/sold as long as Schroeder worked there? Schroeder's obit below too.

Dan

PS - I think I just increased the value of your lens ;)