Air Ministry 36inch f6.3 lens

[goamules]

Which makes one wonder: why were giant lenses needed for recon then, but aren't now? Drones have very high resolution imagery, from very small and light modern lenses. Then it came to me: the digital sensors really ARE that good, that you no longer need to shoot onto a large piece of film. The technology has advanced, and there will probably never be a need for a giant Aero lens again.

[Dan Fromm]

Ian, I'm of two minds about encouraging the use of aerial camera lenses. They can be very inexpensive. That's great. And experimenting is good too.

Against that, few will fit in standard shutters and are quite expensive to put in shutter if the job can be done at all. Longer ones can be very heavy. And in truth many aren't all that good. That's not so great.

I still have a pile of lenses extracted from aerial cameras. All were affordable, most just confirm the VM's advice that they're more trouble than they're worth. Exceptions include the 38/4.5 Biogon, 100/2 TTH Anastigmat and 12"/4 TTH, the latter two ex-Vinten F95 and AGI F134/F139 and all three for formats too small to mention here.

[John keys]

I've seen a couple of these lenses for sale here and there but didn't bite, the size put me off. It is good to see some images from this lens, thanks for posting them. I'm sort of curious about the box camera you built too, not that I'm going to rush out and buy one of these lenses.

Thanks The weight is something Though had to use a 35mm enlargers baseboard for the lensboard The camera itself is a box in a box

[John keys]

I don't know about under appreciated. I saw one at a camera fair 5 or 6 years ago it wasn't expensive and came with a camera, it had been used to shoot cricket matches, the whole combination was quite large so unless you had space it wasn't a viable proposition.

There's one on Ebay currently with a BIN price £19950 (just under $3000) but I'd guess you paid a lot less. The one on Ebay has JHD in the REF number which indicates it was made by Dallmeyer, as yours looks identical I think it safe to assume so is yours. I have a slightly later 17" f5.5 coated Military telephoto and it's a very sharp lens.

Ian

Lot cheaper paid £150 which seems the going rate Noticed that one on ebay though seems the sellers a chancer Though if its the same one he might think the fungus is the rare bit..

[IanG]

Which makes one wonder: why were giant lenses needed for recon then, but aren't now? Drones have very high resolution imagery, from very small and light modern lenses. Then it came to me: the digital sensors really ARE that good, that you no longer need to shoot onto a large piece of film. The technology has advanced, and there will probably never be a need for a giant Aero lens again.

H.P. Arnold who wrote for the BJP used to write a few articles a year on aerial, space and astronomical photography, he was a scientist and an expert in his field and even 20 years ago he was describing and illustrating the imaging quality (NASA etc) had was streets ahead of the older aerial cameras shooting 8" roll film. By then it was 70mm and digital sensors.

In terms of films the quality and particularly resolution today since Tmax etc is way better than the films available inWWII when these lenses were made which were Plus-X through to Tri-X,but all thick emulsions (Tri-X disappeared during the War possibly because key sensitising components had come from Germany). n Ilford films were similar.

Ian, I'm of two minds about encouraging the use of aerial camera lenses. They can be very inexpensive. That's great. And experimenting is good too.

Against that, few will fit in standard shutters and are quite expensive to put in shutter if the job can be done at all. Longer ones can be very heavy. And in truth many aren't all that good. That's not so great.

I still have a pile of lenses extracted from aerial cameras. All were affordable, most just confirm the VM's advice that they're more trouble than they're worth. Exceptions include the 38/4.5 Biogon, 100/2 TTH Anastigmat and 12"/4 TTH, the latter two ex-Vinten F95 and AGI F134/F139 and all three for formats too small to mention here.

I had my knuckles wrapped by Randy for being in two minds and sitting on the fence

You do raise serious points though. I have the Dallmeyer 17" (420mm) f5.6 coated military lens mentioned above which has no shutter, it was quite cheap, and a 360mm f5.5 Tele Xenar in a Compur #3. I know which I prefer to use - the Tele Xenar, I have to use the Dallmeyer on a Speed Graphic and then it really needs very good light and a high shutter speed.

While they remain cheap it's good to se people experimenting with them though the can work as John has shown, for wet plate there's no shutter issue.

Ian

[Tin Can]

Thanks The weight is something Though had to use a 35mm enlargers baseboard for the lensboard The camera itself is a box in a box

Thanks for the picture. Always worth a 1000 words. Does anybody know if these are 'true' telephoto? Meaning focal plane distance is shortened.

[IanG]

Thanks for the picture. Always worth a 1000 words. Does anybody know if these are 'true' telephoto? Meaning focal plane distance is shortened.

They are, I have the specs for the regular versions in various BJP Almanacs. My 17" Dallmeyer is about the same flange to film distance at Infinity as my 360mm Tele Xenar.

Ian

[John keys]

The shutter issue is problematic I have just used this lens with wet plate and paper negs My improvised shutter is a top hat but a lens cap would suffice. I follow a rule of two second exposures So with paper negs in the sun Im having to step it down to achieve the 2 second expo.

[Tin Can]

They are, I have the specs for the regular versions in various BJP Almanacs. My 17" Dallmeyer is about the same flange to film distance at Infinity as my 360mm Tele Xenar.

Ian

And I was thinking of my 360mm Tele Xenar, which I shoot on 2x3 Kardan.

I hope your knuckles are OK.

[John keys]

Thanks for the picture. Always worth a 1000 words. Does anybody know if these are 'true' telephoto? Meaning focal plane distance is shortened.

Its infinity point is about 550mm I find with an extra 500mm I get a close focus of head and shoulders on 10x8 at about 8 foot, subject distance..