Lens Recommendation for circa 1905 Korona 8 x 10

[PghArtist]

I was given a circa 1905 Korona 8 x 10 view camera. The bellows had been replaced in the 1980's and everything else works great. I want to replace the original Wollensak lens with a modern lens as it is expensive to purchase and develop these 8 x 10 color transparencies (but they are gorgeous!). The lens board has a 2-1/2 inch mounting ring attached to it, and the Wollensak lens\shutter just screws into it. I am guessing that the threads on the mounting ring are fine or extra fine because there are about 4 threads per 1/4 inch (about 16 threads per inch).

Can anyone recommend a relatively modern lens for less than $500 (probably used) that will fit the 2-1/2 inch mounting ring?

Thank you,

Tim

[BarryS]

Tim-- Congratulations on the new Korona. The normal practice is to have each lens mounted on its own lens board. A lens should come with a flange or retaining ring and you'll need to find a new lens board, have it drilled out, and get the lens mounted. There are a lot of possibilities for modern 8x10 lenses under $500. The Kodak 14" Commercial Ektar is a favorite around here--and should cost around $400 for one in good condition. The 300mm Schneider Symmar-S or 300mm Rodenstock Sironar-N lenses are also great lenses and probably run around $300. Once you get a lens, I recommend a guy on eBay, zbima1, for fabricating and drilling a lens board. There are also some forum members that also provide this service. Good luck.

[Jim Galli]

First of all, the flange and lens need to stay "together". American flanges from that era are US thread, and modern lenses are all metric.

You'll probably want a modern 300 or 360mm lens in a Copal 3 shutter, and may have to make up some kind of adapter to make the hole smaller, or even just build a new lens board for the smaller shutter.

If the Wollensak is anything interesting, folks here might even want to trade, or partial trade.

[Jim Noel]

If you list the old Wolly on here it may bring at least enough to buy the more modern lens you desire. However, i suggest you keep the Wolly as in time you may find out how good it really is. If you ever make portraits, you will likely find it is superior.
As for a new lens, be sure the new one has a retaining ring. Making and drilling a lens board is simple since they are wood. Anyone with woodworking tools should be able to cobble lone up for you in 15-20 minutes.

[goamules]

... However, i suggest you keep the Wolly as in time you may find out how good it really is. If you ever make portraits, you will likely find it is superior....

It depends what the Wollensak is. It could be a wide angle, or a cheap Vinco.
To the original poster, what does the lens say around the front glass?

[PghArtist]

Hi, thanks to all for the very helpful responses.

It is interesting that BarryS suggested a "300mm Schneider Symmar-S," because I have a 210 mm Schneider Symmar-S MC for my Toyo 45C. I thought about trying to use the 210 mm on my Korona, but I though it would be too wide because I generally shoot architecture and some landscapes.

Any other advice suggestions would be welcomed.

My Wollensak is actually a triple lens, in that it has multiple glass configurations.

The following is what I read on the lens:
Focus 12-1/2 In
Triple Convertible
Velostigmat
Series I
F 6.3
No 178292

The f-stop has a triple scale:
FT - 64 45 32 22 13
BK - 64 45 32 22 16 11
EQ - 45 32 22 16 11 8 6.3

There is shutter info too:
OTB
1/100 1/50 1/25 1/5 1/2 1
AUTEX

Also stamped:
PAT.FEB.6.1900.

Thanks again. Any other advice suggestions would be welcomed.

[E. von Hoegh]

Your Wollensak is a very nice lens. It's uncoated, so I'd recommend a compendium shade for best results, which should be superb.

Your 210 Symmar won't cover 8x10.

[PghArtist]

Thank you E. von Hoegh. I wasn't sure if my 210 mm would cover an 8x10 sheet of film. Now I know it won't. But if I got a 300 mm for the Korona, I think a 300 mm could also be used on my Toyo 45C?

I really don't plan on using my Wollensak lens because a sheet of 8x10 color transparency is $15 and another $15 to process. I only photograph these 8x10 color transparencies for exhibitions. I display the transparency with an even-lit Logan LED light pad, so I want to use a modern lens for the Korona.

I would rather the Wollensak go to someone that will use it. I don't think this would be a good item to try to sell on eBay.

I don't know the rules of this forum, but if anyone would like to discuss some sort of trade I would be interested in being contacted off list.

Thanks again for all of the information.

[E. von Hoegh]

Thank you E. von Hoegh. I wasn't sure if my 210 mm would cover an 8x10 sheet of film. Now I know it won't. But if I got a 300 mm for the Korona, I think a 300 mm could also be used on my Toyo 45C?

I really don't plan on using my Wollensak lens because a sheet of 8x10 color transparency is $15 and another $15 to process. I only photograph these 8x10 color transparencies for exhibitions. I display the transparency with an even-lit Logan LED light pad, so I want to use a modern lens for the Korona.

I would rather the Wollensak go to someone that will use it. I don't think this would be a good item to try to sell on eBay.

I don't know the rules of this forum, but if anyone would like to discuss some sort of trade I would be interested in being contacted off list.

Thanks again for all of the information.

You Wollensak, although it is uncoated, has only four air-glass surfaces. Used with care, it can give excellent results on transparency film. I have used an uncoated Dagor with transparency, and was very happy with the results. Obviously, an uncoated lens in no substitute for a modern coated lens, but you might want to try it once or twice under low flare lighting and with a good lensshade.

Of course your new 300 would be useable on the 4x5. The 210 might just cover adequately for closeup and tabletop subjects.

[lenser]

Greetings from another Tim.

Velostigmats are nice lenses and the one you have, being a triple convertible, gives you three focal length choices. You might want to visit Cameraeccentric.com and go to their info link. Seth has put together a site with a good many different vintage catalogs including several on Wollensak lenses and there is a good deal of detail on the varieties of the Velostigmats.

Tim

[Jim Galli]

Yes, it's a fine old lens, but I think what the OP is saying is, you don't rely on an Autex shutter with $30 ea. exposures. Nor would I. And the Ilex shutters with commercial Ektars are only slightly better. A Copal is a good solution. Studio flash even better. Or a working Compur Electronic also a rock solid choice. The glass is just secondary.

[E. von Hoegh]

Yes, it's a fine old lens, but I think what the OP is saying is, you don't rely on an Autex shutter with $30 ea. exposures. Nor would I. And the Ilex shutters with commercial Ektars are only slightly better. A Copal is a good solution. Studio flash even better. Or a working Compur Electronic also a rock solid choice. The glass is just secondary.


Yeah, I'd forgotten about the Autex.... Those old Compounds have spoiled me.

[John Kasaian]

Your Wolly is a prize lens!
I agree with Mr. Galli about the shutter & expensive 8x10 color negatives, but IMHO, an Ilex #5 thats been freshly cla'd is as good as any, however I suspect you'll probably want a multicoated lens anyway for those expensive negatives---take a gander at Fuji. I don't know if you'll find any that will cover 8x10 for under $500 though.

[E. von Hoegh]

Your Wolly is a prize lens!
I agree with Mr. Galli about the shutter & expensive 8x10 color negatives, but IMHO, an Ilex #5 thats been freshly cla'd is as good as any, however I suspect you'll probably want a multicoated lens anyway for those expensive negatives---take a gander at Fuji. I don't know if you'll find any that will cover 8x10 for under $500 though.

Jesus, John! Don't tell him that! He'll want more for it! (shaking head smiley)

[Jim Galli]

Your Wolly is a prize lens!


I wrote up this page (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Conley/1114Conley.html) some years ago done with an identical lens, which btw, I still have, also in an Autex, and so pocked up with chips etc and the Autex not working at all, it truely is worthless, except for the fact that it makes killer images.

[desertrat]

Jim, I bookmarked that page because it truly is an inspiration. I recently bought a similar series I Wolly, a little older and slower, convertible but not triple. I think your shots prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that most of the complaints about poor contrast in old uncoated 4-group lenses are due mostly to haze between the groups that is often invisible unless the shutter is held open and the lens sighted through at a strong light source. I admit that flare and ghost images would be a problem in these lenses if the light source or large specular reflections are in or near the scene, but I seldom photograph anything like that. Right now, the ancient Royal Anastigmat rebadged Velostigmat is my most used lens.

[Corran]

Just want to say that indeed, a 210mm Symmar-S DOES COVER 8x10.

This has been well documented. You can find many shots with one on 8x10 on my blog linked below. I don't use it anymore because I got a 210mm with more coverage though, because the Symmar-S has no movements to speak of.

[John Kasaian]

Not multi coated, but G Clarons are always a good choice. The 240mm is one of my most used 8x10 lenses.

[E. von Hoegh]

Just want to say that indeed, a 210mm Symmar-S DOES COVER 8x10.

This has been well documented. You can find many shots with one on 8x10 on my blog linked below. I don't use it anymore because I got a 210mm with more coverage though, because the Symmar-S has no movements to speak of.

294mm image circle. That's nearly an inch shy, the corners are soft on the examples I have seen. Of course, if your standards are low enough.....

http://schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/symmar-s/data/1,5,6-210mm.html

[Corran]

Somehow I knew you were going to say that.

Check out the lower-left corner in this photo (it's the only one in focus) and tell me it's soft:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hv7jVJhCDXM/T4TDttaTl8I/AAAAAAAAAuw/SFGvxjU5udQ/s1600/0041s.jpg

[E. von Hoegh]

Somehow I knew you were going to say that.

Check out the lower-left corner in this photo (it's the only one in focus) and tell me it's soft:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hv7jVJhCDXM/T4TDttaTl8I/AAAAAAAAAuw/SFGvxjU5udQ/s1600/0041s.jpg

Corran, I really don't give a shit. Mine didn't cover. The end.

[Corran]

Whatever.
To the OP: it does cover, I guess assuming you know how to use it. The end.

[ic-racer]

Just want to say that indeed, a 210mm Symmar-S DOES COVER 8x10.

This has been well documented. You can find many shots with one on 8x10 on my blog linked below. I don't use it anymore because I got a 210mm with more coverage though, because the Symmar-S has no movements to speak of.

Yes, that was my 'starter lens' on my Century. Got one on ebay for $125. They are very sharp also. If you add any back swing or tilt the coverage increases compared to being parallel to the subject and focused at the far point. The short distance between the standards with this focal length helped minimize wobble on the camera's 100 year old focus base.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/ic-racer/cameraandbellows.jpg