Exactly. That's why generalizations are dangerous.Originally Posted by Mark Sawyer
About danger, earlier this year I spotted a 210/9 Repro-Claron in ebay.co.uk for very little money. So I went to the archive.org version of Schneider's old site and downloaded the Repro-Claron brochure. It says that the cells will go in a #0. I bid, won, paid, the lens arrived and guess what? The cells' barrel are huge, won't fit any shutter I have.
Goerz, Red Dot Artar happened about after serial numbers beginning with 78x xxx... They are coated, but serials numbers in the 77x xxx ... can also be coated. RDA in barrel were more often than not used for process cameras, optimized for near 1:1 or so. Regardless they work fine at infinity.
Trade off being they have smaller image circle of good definition while their circle of illumination is larger than the image circle they can produce. These are most effective as longer than normal focal length lens, aka "Telephoto lens." The other trade off, they have higher definition with low geometric distortion and excellent color rendition. In case of RDA, moderate contrast.
The Red Dot, Gold dots and gold rim thing with Goerz lenses are more of a marketing thing.
Bernice
Thanks, Bernice,
After more reading, it seems my original statement, that mine was made 'during or after 1926' was based on misinformation. The serial number is 762650, and according to this source, it was made between 1937 and 1945, probably closer to the later year.
No, generalizations are never dangerous.
Wait, I meant generalizations are always dangerous.
I mean, oh, never mind...
"I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."
The second LF lens I bought for 5 x 7 was a 305mm f/9 Repro Claron in a Copal shutter. Bought it new in 1971, still using it.
According to the brochure, a #3. Unfortunately my 210 didn't read the brochure and won't go into a #1 as the brochure claims. As I said, generalizations are dangerous. Or, catalogs don't always report every production variation.
Nope, no mis-type. It was a Kodak Wide Field Copy lens 18" and f16 max aperture. Adam at SK Grimes mounted in a copal 3. The 10" wide field Ektar is f6.3 and in an Ilex 5.
Mike
Mike
“You can’t have everything. Where would you put it?”
This is the key; a factory mounted in shutter lens is not necessary the same critter as the process lens. The mounts for the lens elements are sometimes different due to the requirements of mounting in a shutter as are Copal shutter mounts themselves (there are at least 3 different bore diameters for the Copal 3 shutter not including variations in the mounting flange thread).
And you are correct, its the generalizations that can trip us all up.
But for a newbie, buying a lens and thinking it just screws into a shutter can be an expensive failure (been there, done that when I was younger).
Mike
“You can’t have everything. Where would you put it?”
Most processes lenses in barrel are not direct to shutter compatible. The thread pitch and diameter are often different thread pitch and diameter of shutters.
In the case of Goerz RDA and similar, Goerz shutter mounted lenses have adapter rings to convert their lens cells to shutter diameter and thread pitch. Goerz shutter mounted lenses are optically adjusted to 1:20 > infinity instead of 1:1 or similar as Goerz believed their lenses in shutter will be used for image making on a camera while their barrel process lenses are often used o process cameras back in the days when process camera were an essential part of the printing process.
IMO, if you're serious into barrel lenses, get a Sinar shutter and be done with this. Converting barrel lenses to shutter can be expensive and with more complications than needs to be.
Bernice
Ah, Kodak Wide Field Copy lens. Thank you for clarifying.
David
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks