Anybody know what camera this is, and what model Weston meter?

[Jim Galli]

I agree only Double Protars, ie one lens that can be split, However not like the Triple convertible lenses that seen to be mostly a US thing and the Cooke XV was aimed at the US market because by then their major market was the US and Hollywood.

As to why Ansel Adams would be using a camera like this (regardless of disputes as to the exact format) they are just so small compared to most US made cameras of similar/equivalent format, also practical and had the best optics then available.

Ian

Could you elaborate on this Ron? The books I have indicate he used this lens on 3.25 X 4.25, 4 X 5 and 5 X 7 film. My Zeiss catalogue shows the 14.5 cm Double Protar covers an 8 3/4 inch circle "at small stops" which is cutting it close on 5X7.

Thank you for reminding me about the bayonet fitting. I have some memory now of hearing about this years ago, probably even pre-internet!
David

I wondered about proper terminology when I wrote this and checked my circa 1933 Zeiss catalogue. (This is a reprint of their catalogue published for the U.S., bought it on eBay). They use "Double Protar" for an objective made up of two (f/12.5) Protar lenses whether the two are of the same or different focal lengths.

I identified this lens as such not because I could really tell by looking at the photograph but because Ansel Adams refers to using a 5 3/4" Protar as well as its 22 and 29 cm components in some of his older books that I have. And to my eye the lens shown looks consistent with the 14.5/22/29 cm Double Protar that I have. (My Zeiss catalogue shows focal lengths both in inches and centimeters with 14.5 cm being the same as 5 3/4 inches).
David

Protar's came either way in Series VII. Many were 2 equal focal lengths together which gives a double combo at f6.3 Many more were triple convertible and quite possibly still referred to in literature as double protars. Calling them triple or triple convertibles may have been an Americanism. Ron's comment about 9X12 is appropriate. These were small cameras and you likely might be able to use the single 22 but probably wouldn't have bellows enough for the 29cm. Most of this type camera was sold with Tessars or their equivalent. Entry level cameras for their day, although I would suppose the Zeiss was top of line for this type.

[IanG]

Protar's came either way in Series VII. Many were 2 equal focal lengths together which gives a double combo at f6.3 Many more were triple convertible and quite possibly still referred to in literature as double protars. Calling them triple or triple convertibles may have been an Americanism. Ron's comment about 9X12 is appropriate. These were small cameras and you likely might be able to use the single 22 but probably wouldn't have bellows enough for the 29cm. Most of this type camera was sold with Tessars or their equivalent. Entry level cameras for their day, although I would suppose the Zeiss was top of line for this type.

I have to disagree because these 9x12 cameras were the work horse cameras in Europe after WWI, yes there were cheap entry level versions but there were also high end models as well. Zeiss made a variety of 9x12 cameras covering that range, the cheapest with Dominar lenses the majority with 6.3 or 4.5 Tessars and only the top models with the option of the much more expensive Double Protar.

The ICA/Zeiss Juwel is one of the more versatile of the pre-WWII 9x12 cameras, as well as being one of the most expensive, it's Triple extension so could use a Protar split easily. It's closest competitor was probably the Silar sold by Meyer with an f4 Double Plasmat or an f4.5 Plasmat set (Triple Plasmat). The Silar was also a Triple extension camera and when it's manufacturer Perka Präzisions-Camerawerk in Munich closed was made by Linhof.

In a 1931 BJP Almanac the Zeiss lens adverts mention "The Double Protar and Sets of Convertible Protars" so both Zeiss and Meyer are using the term Double when the lens has two equal FL cells and can be split to give a second focal length,, and Sets when it's two different FL cells that can give 3 focal lengths called - a Triple Convertible in the US.

Ian

[Bill_1856]

It's interesting (to me) that this appears to be a square bodied camera (and thus a reversible back), whereas most 9x12 cameras achieved their compact size and minimal weight with a fixed back requiring rotation of the camera to go between landscape and portrait modes.

[IanG]

It's interesting (to me) that this appears to be a square bodied camera (and thus a reversible back), whereas most 9x12 cameras achieved their compact size and minimal weight with a fixed back requiring rotation of the camera to go between landscape and portrait modes.

It's also unusual because very few pre-WWII 9x12 cameras had a drop bed and tilt. Of course that was a hallmark of the later Linhofs but seems to have been first used around the early 1920's by Perka and their Silar and Ica and the Juwel, ICA's budget version of the Juwel the "Favorit" had the same revolving back but only double extension bellows and no drop bed or tilt and was offered with the f6.3 & f4.5 Tessar or a Protar,.

So Ansel Adams Juwel camera was one of the best 9x12 cameras then available from any manufacturer. Assuming the Protar behaves like the 120mm f6.8 Dagor I tested recently it will behave more like a modern coated lens than an uncoated Tessar in terms of internal flare and contrast.

Ian

[David Lindquist]

Just to add to the mix of information here, in the references I mentioned, the 3 1/4 X 4 1/4 camera that Adams used with the 5 3/4" Protar as well as the 22 and 29 cm components was identified as a " 3 1/4 X 4 1/4 Zeiss Juwel". The 5 X 7 cameras were both a 5 X 7 Juwel and a 5 X 7 Linhof. In some cases the 5 X 7 Juwel was equipped with a 4 X 5 back. Books are from the late 1940's, primarily _Yosemite and the Sierra Nevada_.
David

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Could you elaborate on this Ron? The books I have indicate he used this lens on 3.25 X 4.25, 4 X 5 and 5 X 7 film. My Zeiss catalogue shows the 14.5 cm Double Protar covers an 8 3/4 inch circle "at small stops" which is cutting it close on 5X7.

Thank you for reminding me about the bayonet fitting. I have some memory now of hearing about this years ago, probably even pre-internet!
David

Of course the Protar could cover upto 5 x 7 (13 x 18). Until now I have only seen this - quite big lens and bigger Compur shutter - on the 13 x 18 Juwel/Palmos/Favorit and Tropicas. Also in the catalogues the top lenses mentioned with the 9 x 12 camera seem to be the Tessars. A protar would make this little camera a bit heavy on the frontside. But might be that a Protar was on the market and - as in Ansels case - matched the new bayonet. And further, of course, a 14,5 cm lens is considered a standard lens for 9 x 12 (4 x 5) camera (I think I misread you post and saw only the 22 and 29 numerals).

EDIT: Just had a look in the ICA-catalogue of 1925, and for a 9x12 ICA Juwel, the Double Protar VII was one of the lenses to choose from - So you must be right David. It came in 3 different focuslength: 13cm, 14,5 and 17cm According to that same catalogue, the bellows of this camera had a maximum extension of 40cm!

It's interesting (to me) that this appears to be a square bodied camera (and thus a reversible back), whereas most 9x12 cameras achieved their compact size and minimal weight with a fixed back requiring rotation of the camera to go between landscape and portrait modes.

The ICA and Zeiss Ikon cameras with square bellows of that era had rotating (I guess that is what you mean by reversible) backs. There were two flavors: a back which you had to take off before you could turn it, and a back that had springs inside and could be turned instantly. I believe that the Tropicas and the Favorites were the first to have this modern back - as already shown in a 1913 ICA-catalogue.

Here's the back of my 10x15 Favorit that has one that can be turned instantly:




And here's a back of my 9x12 Favorit that must be taken off before it can be turned:

ICA's budget version of the Juwel the "Favorit" had the same revolving back but only double extension bellows and no drop bed or tilt
Ian

Yes, ....partly true...the 13x18 Favorit and Tropica also had tilt and - together with their smaller sisters (9x12 and 10x15) had all a drop bed. I guess the Favorit and Tropica where meant as a more portable model (the tropica the most expensive one of the bellows camera's).

[IanG]

Yes, ....partly true...the 13x18 Favorit and Tropica also had tilt and - together with their smaller sisters (9x12 and 10x15) had all a drop bed. I guess the Favorit and Tropica where meant as a more portable model (the tropica the most expensive one of the bellows camera's).

The adverts I have say the Favorit has double extension, which differs from the Juwel's Triple extension, there seems to be some muddling of what's a favorit or a Jewel they are so similar. Either way Zeiss sold them with a Double Protar but then also sold the Protar sets to fit as well.

I did my rough tests with a few post WWII lenses a couple of weeks ago, I'd like to see how a Protar behaves compared to a Tessar in terms of image contrast, flare etc, While I have prices for cameras with the two Tessars or Protar I don't have actual lens prices but adding a Protar instead of a Tessar was a very significant incfrease inprice I'd guess over twice the price of a Tessar though.

David-Lindquist hs been helpfil poining out AA had at least two Juwel cameras as well as a Linhof.AA must have thought the cameras worthwhile @D

Ian

[Ron (Netherlands)]

The adverts I have say the Favorit has double extension, which differs from the Juwel's Triple extension, there seems to be some muddling of what's a favorit or a Jewel they are so similar. Either way Zeiss sold them with a Double Protar but then also sold the Protar sets to fit as well.

I did my rough tests with a few post WWII lenses a couple of weeks ago, I'd like to see how a Protar behaves compared to a Tessar in terms of image contrast, flare etc, While I have prices for cameras with the two Tessars or Protar I don't have actual lens prices but adding a Protar instead of a Tessar was a very significant incfrease inprice I'd guess over twice the price of a Tessar though.

David-Lindquist hs been helpfil poining out AA had at least two Juwel cameras as well as a Linhof.AA must have thought the cameras worthwhile @D

Ian

Indeed the Favorit and Tropica didn't have triple extension so had only small use for the Protar.
The Protar was much more expensive than the Tessar, I guess since one actually bought 3 different focus lengths so 3 different lenses. However I'm not sure whether the Protar - as a combination lens - had better quality than the Tessar. I don't have a Protar so can't test it against my - many - Tessars.....

[David Lindquist]

Thank you very much Ron for your response to my question and getting the additional information out of your ICA catalogue. And thank you Ian for your kind acknowledgment of my information regarding Ansel Adams's Juwels (and Linhof).

And here are some comparative prices from my May 1934 Zeiss (U.S.A.) price list:

15 cm f/6.3 Tessar: $37.50
15 cm f/4.5 Tessar: $48.00
15 cm f/3.5 Tessar: $100.00
14.5 cm (29 cm + 22 cm) Double Protar: $100.00

In all cases prices are for mounted in a Compur shutter. I was a bit surprised that the f/3.5 Tessar cost so much more than the slower versions.
David