When did decent wide angles show up? [lens history question]

[Dan Fromm]

Previous discussion on LFF from 2008:
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...a%EFl-Rusinov)


Bernice

Post-WW II lenses, irrelevant to this discussion. And yes, I enjoy thread drift as much as the next person.

[Bernice Loui]

4/4 double Gauss would be Wide Field Ektar and related?
Never heard of Perigraphe VIa, if curious enough, might give it a try. Then agin, there is not that much motivation to do so.

Performance at large apertures would be exampled by the 75mm f4.5 Biogon and related. Trade off being size-weight of the lens. Speaking of better performance at age apertures, it is claimed by Rodenstock the 35mm, 45mm, 55mm APO grandagon has good performance at f8 or so ?


Bernice

Bernice, its time for you to buy and try a Perigraphe VIa. I suggest a number II, 90/14, they're relatively inexpensive and easy to find. And you should learn more about 4/4 double Gauss type wide angle lenses.

If you read this discussion from the beginning you'll find several posts in which I directed the OP to sources of information about ancient w/a lenses. W/a lenses have been made since the 1860s. The big advances have been in maximum aperture and performance near wide open, not in coverage.

[goamules]

Um...the Protar V, from about 1891 I believe.

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...] Speaking of better performance at age apertures, it is claimed by Rodenstock the 35mm, 45mm, 55mm APO grandagon has good performance at f8 or so?

In my experience the 35mm Grandagon settles in at ƒ16 which is a good compromise with their center filter.

[Pere Casals]

The second is not an improved version of the first, it is entirely different.

Well, it depends on if you look at the front or at the rear section.

Of course I'm an amateur and Kingslake wasn't it at all, but if the 1951 kept the same name it had to be because the rear sections had the same concept.

Both designs have a lot in common in the rear section, the 1951 design adds a cemented element, but the concept it's very close:





Possibly (guessing) the added cemented element was to balance the pupil tilting introduced in the front section. So beyond comparisson with Sonnar/Aviotar to me both designs (34-51) have the rear section concept in common.

[Dan Fromm]

Well, it depends on if you look at the front or at the rear section.

Of course I'm an amateur and Kingslake wasn't it at all, but if the 1951 kept the same name it had to be because the rear sections had the same concept.

Both designs have a lot in common in the rear section, the 1951 design adds a cemented element, but the concept it's very close:





Possibly (guessing) the added cemented element was to balance the pupil tilting introduced in the front section. So beyond comparisson with Sonnar/Aviotar to me both designs (34-51) have the rear section concept in common.

Weasel words, Papi, weasel words. They don't make you any less mistaken.

We're not comparing single cells, we're comparing complete lenses.

[Pere Casals]

Weasel words, Papi, weasel words. They don't make you any less mistaken.

We're not comparing single cells, we're comparing complete lenses.

If you compare complete lenses then later Biogons are also completely different to the 1951 one:









Then add all derivatives around...

See the Super Angulons...


The question is: what makes a design be a biogon derivative ?

[MAubrey]

In 1910, $40 would get you a B&L Extra Wide Angle Series V F/18, 4-7/16" in a Volute that covered 5x7

That'd be ~$1100 if we adjust for inflation.

[MAubrey]

If you can tolerate Google Translate from Italian (or you know Italian), Marco Cavina's article on the history of Zeiss symmetrical wide angle design is a good read:

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_...gon/00_pag.htm
https://translate.google.com/transla...n%2F00_pag.htm

[Mark Sawyer]

The Petzval Orthoscop was designed as a wider-angle "View Lens" along side Petzval's "Portrait Lens" in 1839, but wasn't manufactured until 1856-'58. (Early photographers were mostly interested in portraiture.) It was manufactured by Dietzler (under Petzval himself), Voigtlander, Ross, CC Harrison, and probably a few others.

The Harrison & Schnitzer Globe Lens was even wider angle, and came out in 1862-'63.

Busch's Pantoscope followed that in 1865, then came Dallmeyer's Wide Angle Rectilinears in 1866. The WAR's were copied and improved by many manufacturers, and were quite popular through the rest of the century. They're still fairly common, fairly cheap, and perform rather well.

I'd say the last noteworthy "vintage" wide angles were the Zeiss Protar Series V and the Goerz Dopple Anastigmat (Dagor), which occupy the space between vintage and modern wide angles.

And then there are the exotics like the Hypergon...