Kodak Anastigmat 152mm f7.7 help needed by forum experts

[lbenac]

Hello,
I need some help and guidance.
I purchased a Kodak Anastigmat 152mm f7.7 in barrel - at least that was it was advertised as.
I have received the lens and of course it is in the wrong barrel.
The barrel looks like one for a Kodak f6.3 tessar/anastigmat.
The front cell does not fit the barrel i.e. if screwed in it will touch the iris and prevent the blades from opening.
The rear cell fits perfectly.
I was going to return it but the shipping cost already paid plus the cost of shipping back does not help. Instead I have elected to accept a partial refund from the vendor.
The barrel and the cells are in very good condition. The front cell serial shows mid five digit number.
The front cell is of similar diameter than an Ektar 203mm. I.e. it screws in a Supermatic 2 shutter.
The rear cells not quite.
What do I need to try to identified the barrel and look for possibly the right f6.3 cells.
There are No.2, No.4 and of course B&L made or Zeiss made, each I think with their own numbering system so it looks somewhat like a shot in the dark.
I will also try to shoot the lens by reversing the lens cells front to back, assuming that a symmetrical design allows for such as I was really looking forward to the 152mm dialyte.
It could also be that the distance between the two cells is totally off as it is after all the wrong barrel.

Thanks in advance fro any help.

Cheers,


Luc

[Mark Sampson]

Got any pictures? Despite 20 years photographing at Kodak i've never even heard of a 152/7.7, and I saw some unusual glass there.

[lbenac]

I will post some tonight after work.

This thread at photo.net http://photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/00RY7J talk about the same lens in a shutter.

The shutter looks like this (cleaner) but showing Kodak instead of B&L.


I am wondering if this was not a white elephant and if the 152mm f7.7 maybe was never issued in barrel only in shutter Diomatic to Ilex. The 203mm f7.7 was issued in barrel I believe.

Cheers.

[John Kasaian]

What I think you need to do is send it back to the seller as there is obviously something wrong with the description (unless you got it so dirt cheap you're thinking of starting a cannibal box!)
There are too many really good 150mm 4x5 lenses going for very reasonable prices these days.

[Dan Fromm]

Luc, I think you have an interesting paperweight. I'll bet that some folding Kodak or other used a 152/7.7 KA in shutter. I don't have the endurance to search this http://mgroleau.com/catalogues_kodak/ site or the wit to use Google Advanced Search on it but you might want to look there.

If I were you -- I'm not and you might not want to be as obnoxious as I can be -- I'd scream misrepresentation and demand my money back, shipping, duties if any, and all.

Good luck, have fun,

Dan

[lbenac]

I was afraid of that....
I bought it from Jim's Camera in Seattle. The store itself is closing but he is still selling on-line.
I already accepted the partial refund. The lure from old barrel lenses and the aggravation to ship back were too strong.
OK you can call me a sucker...

Cheers,

Luc

[lbenac]

Ok so I switched the front and back cells which should be identical in terms of glass.
This allows both cells to seat properly - screwed in - and the iris to operate.

Here are photos of the lens:

Rear cell screwed to the front


F6.3


Front cells screwed to the back serial number mid five digit so obviously before 1940 but no idea otherwise


Cutest lens I have

[lbenac]

I have taken some shots last night:

Wide open


F/11


F/8


F/22


I am quite happy with the sharpness but still unsure if there is changes in the geometry between the different aperture. I understand that it might happen if the lens cells are not at the right distance from teh iris itself.
I have also not yet tested for corner sharpness which can be also a sign.
That said for the intended purpose of the lens I do not care much about corner sharpness unless I decide to take the lens out for landscape.

Overall I feel better than yesterday...

Cheers,

luc

[lbenac]

To IanG

Ian I could not reply to your PM as you mail box is full.
I posted here as as I do not want to seem rude by not answering you right away.:


Hello Ian,

Thank you very much, that is very kind of you.
Vancouver is not the place for camera fairs :-)

I reversed the front and rear cells which should be OK for a symmetrical design. The rear cell can be screwed at the front without blocking the iris and the front cell screw-in perfectly at the back.
It does not address potential issues with the spacing between the two cells and spacing between cells and iris/aperture.
I have posted pictures of the lens and test photos on the original thread.

I am quite happy with the sharpness but still unsure if there is changes in the geometry between the different aperture. I understand that it might happen if the lens cells are not at the right distance from the iris itself.
I have also not yet tested for corner sharpness which can be also a sign.
That said for the intended purpose of this lens I do not care much about corner sharpness unless I decide to take the lens out for landscape.

Cheers,

Luc

[Jim Galli]

Don't over-think this luc. You got lucky that by switching cells front to back you got the distances needed. Images look amazing.