Period lens suggestions for 1915-ish 8x10?

[IanG]

It sounded like he wanted "period" to go with his camera. I'd get a convertible Protar VIIa. Then you have a few options for focal lengths.

Many of us like to have a lens (or lenses) contemporary to the camera in question. That doesn't preclude also having modern lenses as well.

I see it from a restoration perspective where I try to match a lens to suit a camera of the same period, and also a lens that might have been used with the camera, so not a lens rarely seen in the country.

Dan, other were suggesting Tessar type lenses not what the OP was asking for.

Ian

[Dan Fromm]

Interesting point, Garrett. I wonder which he values more, appearance or performance?

[Patrick13]

I was going to write a long winded missive on the false dichotomy between appearance or performance, but I think that it's obviously meant as a talking point and not a philosophical challenge! That and the morning coffee is settling in and I'm much happier after that first cup

Part of the charm of fixing a century old camera is in outfitting it appropriately, otherwise there are many modern options available and without the hassles of needing a refit. This also leads to teaching moments when someone sees the kit out, talk about a little history, how materials science and optics worked a century ago. Plus there's the craft of maintaining and getting the best out of old gear.

I had thought that the thread title of "Period lens suggestions" would be enough to get my intent across

That being said, these were built from 1910-1917 more or less, and shipped with economy lenses so any change will be already not to spec and because they were probably used long after the end of production "period" could encompass another decade into the 1930's without getting too far off point.

That also being said, great thread and all the suggestions are welcome and might lead to a second lens for other purposes than charm!

[Patrick13]

I found a very old Goerz 9-1/2" double-anastigmat in a broken shutter at a good price. Glass looks in great shape, the shutter I can fix or replace.
Now to get the camera itself restored...

[j.e.simmons]

I use a Conley RR lens, probably made by B&L. Research shows these were made until 1917. These turn up in various focal lengths on this forum and on eBay. Mine is a triple convertible, and I liked it so much I paid Grimes a fortune to mount it in a modern shutter.

[Pere Casals]

Any recommendations on something representative for portraits and landscape, which would be moderately wide angle (250mm or so?) and won't break the bank?

I've a favourite a lens that's IMHO unique in that way:

Voigtländer Universal Heliar f/4.5, 30cm or 36cm, this is a 1926 version of a 1902 lens.

"Voigtländer is an optical company founded by Johann Christoph Voigtländer (de) in Vienna in 1756 and is thus the oldest name in cameras. It produced the Petzval photographic lens (the fastest lens at that time: f/3.7) in 1840, and the world's first all-metal daguerrotype camera (Ganzmetallkamera) in 1841, also bringing out plate cameras shortly afterwards. "


The "Universal" 1926 version is quite expensive, the Heliar (not "Universal" of 1902) is much cheaper, also an incredible glass.


The "Universal" makes landscapes and dream protraits. I has a ring to set diffusion. Set it to zero for a sharp picture. Then you can add onirics.

Diffusion is achieved when internal element moves out of optimal place so controlled spherical aberration is added.

It happens that "diffusion" is directed to the center of image, thus softening skin without adding an aura.

An incredible glass !!!


The Heliar is very sharp, and with somewhat low micro-contrast, fantastic bokeh.


http://www.antiquecameras.net/heliarlenses.html







https://www.flickr.com/photos/558734...57643501915954

"part of the Heliar's lore is related to Japanese Emperor Hirohito, who is claimed to have so admired the Heliar lens, that he would only allow his picture to be taken with a Heliar"

[goamules]

On the question posed earlier, "performance" is what he's looking for. As in, a lens that performs exactly like the one that came on the camera in 1915. You cannot get 1915 performance in a 1960s lens. It's why people drive old sports cars, they want something that performs like long ago, not some 300 horsepower Mazda with an intercooler and turbocharger. Just because certain specifications like "sharpness" or "drag co-efficient" improve as materials and process do, doesn't mean they're "better" for everyone. If we all chased specs, we'd all be shooting iPhone cameras. Good luck to the shooter!