Recommend A Trashy But Interesting 8x10 Lens?

[Ari]

Hi,
I thought I'd defer to the experts for this one.
I've shot portraits on 8x10 with a Caltar 360 and Commercial Ektar 12" but I'm looking for something different, with a garbage-y mystique.
Something of lesser quality (quality being somewhat subjective) than a modern multicoated lens, but with a look all its own.
A lens that isn't afraid to showcase its flaws.

I was thinking of a Turner-Reich convertible; they usually come up for about $100 in a shutter.

Your thoughts?

[Erik Larsen]

Try a magnifying glass with a Packard shutter. Relatively sharp in the middle and depending on the size of the glass pretty fast also. It definitely has a garbagey look too it:)
Erik

[Ari]

Hmm, thanks, Erik;
I think that's too much trash, and not enough mystique. :)
I'm not really looking for a swirly lens, or a Holga/hipster type lens; just one that does an interesting job, if not a good one.

[j.e.simmons]

I use a Rapid Rectilinear made no later than 1917. $15.50 on eBay years ago. I like the softer, less contrasty look. When used with green x-ray film, it gives a really old look to the image.
juan

[Louis Pacilla]

Hey Ari.

You could give a 300mm/360mm f4.5 Heliar a try. sounds like it might fit the bill.
Here's Dan's Heliar page.
http://www.antiquecameras.net/heliarlenses.html
It will try and explain it's qualities but trying one first would be best.

[John Kasaian]

Smear a little vaseline on whatever lens you already have.

[cowanw]

I know what you want: a Dallmeyer Adon variable focus telephoto lens

[Ari]

Thanks everyone.
I've decided to go with a Heliar Variable Rectilinear Telephoto Magnifying Convertible lens.
Smeared with Vaseline, of course.

That should show up in quite a few searches. :)

[Tim Meisburger]

Damn! Now that you have endorsed it, the price of these previously affordable lenses will skyrocket!

[Mark Sawyer]

Will that be the achromatic, non-achromatic, or apochromatic Vaseline?

[goamules]

Both the Turner Reich and Rapid Rectilinears are very good, sharp lenses. The heliar is of course a classic portrait lens. None are what I'd call "poor" or "trashy." I'd keep looking.

I guess it's hard to recommend a lens because of your colorful adjectives describing what you want; "trashy, garbagey mystique, and lesser quality but not full of flaws." Those are impossible to pin down, and the last two are contradictory.

If you just want an older, uncoated lens that will have less contrast than a modern, that's easy. "Less contrast" is not a "flaw", so I'd look for some of the above, which were, in their time well respected lenses. Or an uncoated Tessar IC (less sharp than the IIB), or an Aero Ektar (so fast they can be hard to focus accurately). Just tell us what features in your photos you are really looking for in clear terms!

[Terry Christian]

A trashy lens? You want to photograph with it, not take it on a date to a NASCAR race and then out to Hooters for some hot wings. ;-)

[Jim Galli]

Did somebody say "trashy" and "Heliar" in the same sentence??! Oh my?!?!? Sacrilege!! Blasphemy!!!!

A 15 - ish inch "fast" (at least f6). (The f4 anbd f4.5 Portrait Euryscop's are to die for) Rapid Rect is the first thing that comes to my mind. A #4 Series IV Euryscop, or cheaper equivalent. The ubiquitous Wollensak Versar (many of these are unbranded and show up as "Northern Supply Co. Group & Portrait f6" etc.

The Turner Reich has hidden possibilities if you're the type who can relieve one of element 4 & 5 out of one of it's groups. Just adds the most subtle of correction loss. "Roundness" "Plastic" etc. I need to go to Napa Valley and take a course in Wine description.

[E. von Hoegh]

A trashy lens? You want to photograph with it, not take it on a date to a NASCAR race and then out to Hooters for some hot wings. ;-)

He wants a lens with the imaging equivalent of a tramp stamp, but a correctly spelled tramp stamp. (winking smiley)

[John Kasaian]

Turner Reichs are fine lenses but old, and every one I've seen suffers from wanky balsam seperation around the edges---some examples are quite occluded. You could probably find a near "terminal" example quite cheaply. That, with a smear of vaseline ought to be trashy enough for ya'

[Ari]

Thank you, everybody; sorry if I offended any Heliar fans.
They are beautiful, but more than I want to spend.

I'm going to see what I can get out of a cheap T-R someone has offered; it sounds like just the ticket for a little experimentation.

[DrTang]

Ilex Paragon.. I think they made em in 12 and 14" anyway

there is something about them...they are sharp..but they are..for a better word - Gritty

like 60's British B&W street photography gritty

I guess they are the opposite of all the mushy lenses people seem to love

[Jody_S]

If you want a just plain 'bad' lens, I have an 8x10 Scientific Lens Co. Rapid Rectilinear in pneumatic shutter. That thing can't produce a sharp image no matter what I try.

88286

[Ari]

Ilex Paragon.. I think they made em in 12 and 14" anyway

there is something about them...they are sharp..but they are..for a better word - Gritty

like 60's British B&W street photography gritty

I guess they are the opposite of all the mushy lenses people seem to love

Dr Tang,
Thanks, I will try to find one if the T-R is not what I'm after.

[Ari]

If you want a just plain 'bad' lens, I have an 8x10 Scientific Lens Co. Rapid Rectilinear in pneumatic shutter. That thing can't produce a sharp image no matter what I try.

88286

Hmm, thanks, Jody; maybe a plain "bad" lens is too far over the line.
I know my descriptions are lacking in accuracy, it's really something intangible that I'm after; something I'll know once I see it.
I don't mind trying out a wide assortment of lenses, as long as they aren't the pictorial/soft-focus kind.

[Alan Gales]

I think Ari wants a Sally Mann lens! ;)

[Ari]

I think Ari wants a Sally Mann lens! ;)

Does it come in a shutter? :)

[Alan Gales]

Does it come in a shutter? :)

I suppose you would have to use a Jim Galli shutter. Of course you could buy a smaller one in the same condition.

Could you imagine sending a lens in the condition of the ones Sally Mann uses to SK Grimes and asking them to mount it in a shutter?

[Brian C. Miller]

Ari, if a lens is, in fact, actually sharp, then it isn't "interesting." In a real print, the differences between various non-pictorial lenses are down in the minutia. My Wollensak 6-1/4" 8x10 lens is my most "interesting" non-pictorial lens, in that it's sharp in the center and goes soft in the edges and corners. I think it's from 1935, approximately. I also have a Busch Rapid Aplanat f/8 No.4 13 inch lens, and that thing is older, and sharp. So no, it's not "interesting."

If the image from an 8x10 negative is reduced to a 640x480 pixel JPEG image, then all differences are lost! (Unless it's a pictorial lens, that is.) So any "trashy" or "interesting" lens that isn't pictorial won't be evident. Now, there's the Wollensak Versar lens, and that only really shows its pictorial characteristics when it the rear is removed, and the front is mounted on the back. Otherwise it will sharpen right up, especially if the groups are loosened from the barrel. (I wonder if Wollensak decided to take one of their normal lenses, put it on a slightly-too-short barrel, and sell it as a portrait lens. Hmmm...)

Anyways, if you don't want a lens that obviously distorts, then you are going to be on a very big search for something that you can't quite define. Sound like a case of equipmentitis to me.

[oysteroid]

You could always try designing and grinding your own lens. Even if you try your best to do it all perfectly, you are sure to get plenty of character in that lens, and you'd have extra bragging rights for having made it yourself! And with a little experience, perhaps you could learn to modify your design to get just what you want! Just watch out for silicosis! And be careful that you don't catch such a lens-making bug that you forget about photography!

[Ari]

Ari, if a lens is, in fact, actually sharp, then it isn't "interesting." In a real print, the differences between various non-pictorial lenses are down in the minutia. My Wollensak 6-1/4" 8x10 lens is my most "interesting" non-pictorial lens, in that it's sharp in the center and goes soft in the edges and corners. I think it's from 1935, approximately. I also have a Busch Rapid Aplanat f/8 No.4 13 inch lens, and that thing is older, and sharp. So no, it's not "interesting."

If the image from an 8x10 negative is reduced to a 640x480 pixel JPEG image, then all differences are lost! (Unless it's a pictorial lens, that is.) So any "trashy" or "interesting" lens that isn't pictorial won't be evident. Now, there's the Wollensak Versar lens, and that only really shows its pictorial characteristics when it the rear is removed, and the front is mounted on the back. Otherwise it will sharpen right up, especially if the groups are loosened from the barrel. (I wonder if Wollensak decided to take one of their normal lenses, put it on a slightly-too-short barrel, and sell it as a portrait lens. Hmmm...)

Anyways, if you don't want a lens that obviously distorts, then you are going to be on a very big search for something that you can't quite define. Sound like a case of equipmentitis to me.

Thanks, Brian.
Yes, it may seem like gear-related obsessiveness, but I'm trying to learn a little bit about older lenses; I know nothing right now, and the 8x10 opens up a lot of possibilities.


You could always try designing and grinding your own lens. Even if you try your best to do it all perfectly, you are sure to get plenty of character in that lens, and you'd have extra bragging rights for having made it yourself! And with a little experience, perhaps you could learn to modify your design to get just what you want! Just watch out for silicosis! And be careful that you don't catch such a lens-making bug that you forget about photography!

Would like to try one day, but as you said, there's no time right now to be anything but a photographer.
It would certainly yield interesting results, maybe not the kind of "interesting" I was after. :)

[Joe Forks]

Bausch & Lomb 8x10 Tessar IIb, or the IC as Garrett recommended

[Ramiro Elena]

Ari,
I've got a couple lenses mentioned in the thread. Although very common, I've come to love Tessars. I never remember which one I've got IIb or Ic but here are some examples:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rabato/tags/bl/

The other lens that's nice and not expensive is the Euryscope RR.
http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss=2&w=71073452%40N00&q=euryscope&m=text

Mine is almost 12'' and I find it to be too small. I run out of movements very easily.
Also, a Petzval without swirls and good coverage is very nice too.

[Ari]

Ramiro, thank you.
I love both sets of photos, especially the Euryscope.

I've a lot to consider, and I'll likely start with the aforementioned T-R.
Thanks, everybody.

[Mark Sawyer]

Thanks, Brian.
Yes, it may seem like gear-related obsessiveness, but I'm trying to learn a little bit about older lenses...

Yup, and then you can learn a little bit about women... :confused: In either case, you could spend forever trying to learn one, and it wouldn't necessarily tell you much about all the others...

An uncorked Velostigmat would give you the most flexibility, from the old smooth-but-sharp(-enough) of an uncoated Tessar to a slightly soft portrait lens to a very soft pictorial lens, and (I think) it does them all well.

But right now, I have a B&L Tessar Ic on the studio 8x10. Wonderful lens. But then, aren't they all? :)

[E. von Hoegh]

I think Ari wants a Sally Mann lens! ;)

Well, for a mere $999 I'l take any lens Ari sends me and with my patented mixture of sand, cigar ash, coal clinker, and moon rock I'll completely destroy the surfaces. I'll throw some in the shutter, too, so Ari can brace the camera with his head while holding a lens cap on with one hand and removing the darkslide with the other.

[Jody_S]

Well, for a mere $999 I'l take any lens Ari sends me and with my patented mixture of sand, cigar ash, coal clinker, and moon rock I'll completely destroy the surfaces. I'll throw some in the shutter, too, so Ari can brace the camera with his head while holding a lens cap on with one hand and removing the darkslide with the other.

Or he could buy just about any lens off fleabay advertised with 'perfect glass' and get pretty much the same result.

[John O'Connell]

Anything from Carl Meyer. It's a made-up marque and reputedly some lenses just had mismatched cells screwed into shutters.

Also, interregnum Wollensaks might work for you, and also triplets from the same period.

[Ari]

Yup, and then you can learn a little bit about women... :confused: In either case, you could spend forever trying to learn one, and it wouldn't necessarily tell you much about all the others...

An uncorked Velostigmat would give you the most flexibility, from the old smooth-but-sharp(-enough) of an uncoated Tessar to a slightly soft portrait lens to a very soft pictorial lens, and (I think) it does them all well.

But right now, I have a B&L Tessar Ic on the studio 8x10. Wonderful lens. But then, aren't they all? :)

You see, I just learned something :)

[Harold_4074]

Dang, if only you wanted help with using a superb lens to make trashy pictures, I'd have something to contribute.....

[Ari]

Just re-read this last page with a hearty chuckle; thanks, everyone.
Will be receiving a very beat-up T-R 12-21-28 soon; if I'm lucky, it may even have some fungus or mold on it.

[Jim Galli]

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/09-28-2007/TR4-The_Picture1aS.jpg
the graduate

made with a modified turner reich 10 3/4" lens

[ImSoNegative]

nice shot Jim, who is the lovely young lady in the picture

[ImSoNegative]

i bought this intersting lens last year, not sure what it is but its hard as hell to focus because of the softness, here is a shot i did with it back in the summer,

[Jim Galli]

i bought this intersting lens last year, not sure what it is but its hard as hell to focus because of the softness, here is a shot i did with it back in the summer,

The young lady is my eldest, Heather. She'll be 33 in an hour and 16 minutes.

What a lovely look that lens has!!

[Jody_S]

Just re-read this last page with a hearty chuckle; thanks, everyone.
Will be receiving a very beat-up T-R 12-21-28 soon; if I'm lucky, it may even have some fungus or mold on it.

I was the proud owner of a prime T-R convertible lens a few weeks ago, but as usual I f-ed it up. I separated the elements and re-glued them and completely ruined the lens in the process. It is now nearly as sharp as my Dagors.

[ImSoNegative]

the lens i have is forever wide open, the images do have a pretty cool to them though, what i was doing was taking my copal 3 and mounting it on the front stopping it down a bit, alot easier to focus that way plus had a shutter too, but now i have it mounted on my 5x7 w/ a packard