1907 Voigtlander Heliar 4.5/360mm

[plaubel]

How does a compendium hood attach to a lens?

Since our cameras have movements, and for avoiding vignetting, , it would be better to fix a flexible compendium ( with movements, too) to the front standard or to the camera body.

Old studio cameras didn't use a compendium which came later in time; with some rods and a large cloth instead of a hood or a compendium, I believe everything should be done fine.

On the other hand, from time to time I find flares as a useful tool to reduce contrast, and as an artistic add, too.

Ritchie

[Cameron Cornell]

Thank you fellows for your help with this. The lens is in export customs in Germany. It should be here in a week or so. I'll rig something up to deal with lens flare if it arises, but it doesn't sound like a compendium hood is the thing.

As to my original question about whether this is a 1900 patent or 1902 patent lens layout (symmetrical vs. asymmetrical), that remains unclear. Maybe it doesn't matter. I'll see if I can figure it out for myself when I actually have the lens in my hands.

In any case, I can't wait to start using the thing. I'll have the lens board made as soon as I receive the lens, but the shutter won't be built for another month (the fellow at the Packard Shutter Company has a long backlog. I am stunned and pleased that he's still in business at all).

I'll come back and post some images on the image forum after it all comes together.

Cheers!

Cameron Cornell
www.analogportraiture.com

Oh and please forgive my skeleton of a website. I just knocked it together a couple of months ago. It is very much a work in progress. I have dozens of negatives I want to print scan and upload, but I keep using my darkroom Sundays to process new film or print portraits for friends or people who've ordered prints and the backlog just GROWS.

[Steven Tribe]

If you want to recreate the original "German" atmosphere, you might want to think about getting a silent Grundner shutter which Europeans much prefered over the Packard.

[Cameron Cornell]

Thank you, Steven. I've never heard of a Grundner shutter. I will look into it.

[Tim Meisburger]

Steven, if you took a couple of those shutters and mounted them on a stereo camera, then fixed a red light inside the camera, then mounted a long tube for your bulb; you could set it by your front door on Halloween, then hide in the bushes, then when the little tykes came looking for candy you could pop those eyelid shutters, revealing the glowing eyes, and scare hell out of those kids. Might save big on candy...

[Steven Tribe]

I know that the eyelid design of these shutters invokes mirth to the uninitiated - but they really are fantastic in use!

I have about 4 of them and have sold 3 others to buyers of big lenses from me who were sceptic about them at first, but they became very impressed.

They were made in a size up to 6" free opening and can fit into a restricted space, like the back of a dedicated lens board or mounted on a plywood board screewed into the rear of the front standard.

The ad shown, doesn't give much of an idea of what they look like, so I also enclose a size suitable for the 360mm Heliar and a large one on a support for a 40cm Petzval. They never found their way across the Atlantic!

[Cameron Cornell]

Here is the first photograph made with the Heliar I was asking about in this thread. I had a new Packard Shutter fabricated, so that didn't come in until a couple of weeks ago. I made this portrait of my daughter on Saturday.

To answer the somewhat esoteric question I posed in the original post: I do believe upon examination that this lens, which was manufactured in 1907, has the asymmetrical design of the 1902 patent even though the 1900 patent number is inscribed on the lens.

In any case, I'm happy to have it.

Cheers-

Cameron Cornell
Washington State

[Steven Tribe]

Congrats!

Certainly worth the wait.

I have had another look through the x sections of the Heliar glass through the decades. There is no sign of a "Symmetrical" Heliar in production early on. In fact, I find it hard to imagine what a symmetrical triplet would look like. The only explanation I can give is that Voigtlander made an F4.5 triplet anastigmat just before they released the first Heliar. This is based on, but quite different from, the Cooke designs they produced under licence from T,T & H. This triplet has a layout quite similar to the Heliar, where the central double concave lens is close to the rear lens.

The change in the Heliar design (to the Dynar system) came around 1923. The Universal Heliar never had this change. It looks like the F3.5 Heliar always had the "Dynar" optical design.