I used to have a set of series vii lenses from Zeiss Jena like the ones you have plus a 22 cm cell. I found that if I put the longest fl in back using combinations of cells I would get the best results. It is possible to mount the cells in a copal #1 shutter but might be difficult to find someone to do it, maybe SK Grimes? The cells are very usable but single cells need to be stopped down. The only reason that I sold my set is that I got tired of figuring out the aperture and changing cells around. They are fabulous lenses.
Shutter problem would be easily solved by using a Sinar shutter or similar.
Never warmed up to convertible lenses as the hassle factor proved more than resulting images on film. Keeping track of lens cells used, figuring out actual aperture to be used for a given lens cell or combo is not so easy and easy to get mixed up.
There was a time when convertible lens sets aka "Casket Sets" were popular due to the cost and more related to having a variety of view camera lens focal lengths. Much has changed since then. It became easier to acquire lens focal lengths as needed as a unit. This greatly simplified the possible mix up of lens cell -vs- aperture of the configuration and all that. Another reality to consider, a unit lens can be designed, produced, optimized as a unit-system resulting in superior optical performance to a mix-match lens cell group aka Casket Set.
Bernice
I have adapted my Protar to work with my Sinar Copal shutter, if anyone doubts the high quality that can be achieved with a convertible lens should try a Cooke triple convertible Xva, even the older XV version is no mean performer, see many of Ansel Adams images.
Sinar shutter is the easiest solution.
Been and done the B&L convertible protar and etc.. not for me..
IMO, what lens was used by any famed photographer to produce a famed photograph does not always apply to re-do of the same. As lens-camera and photographic materials involved can be identical, until the much longer list of variables completely alters that ideology.
AA did use a Cooke convertible for that famed image "moonrise over hernandez". Reading the AA accounts of struggling with combining lens cells to get the needed focal length (if AA has a single fixed focal length lens as needed, the odds of AA producing more than a single sheet of MOH film is very good), light meter and all... notes it was far from lens and camera alone as the light was changing allowing a single sheet of film to be exposed.
What makes that AA image significant is not the lens or film format used, it is the lighting and composition that resulted in the image it is. Seen this AA print in real life, they are different based on when this specific image was printed by AA and his emotional expression when this image was printed. Another factor of the print that points to lens alone being a lesser factor.
Lens or camera alone never makes the expressive image, that is mostly up to the image maker.
Bernice
Originally Posted by Tony Lakin
Are those cells coated? I took a 9x12 ICA Ideal with an uncoated 22/22 Protar VII on a trip to the Himalayas a few years back, I had fun with it. The camera got closely inspected at customs in China on the way back home, however. I had less luck with an uncoated Meyer Plasmat a different time but that was more about weather conditions on that trip than the lens.
Not coated, I sometimes use a multicoated skylight filter and a good lens hood with any uncoated lenses when I use them, however I often prefer the uncoated effect, I haven't used this Protar yet.
I see, looking at the photos I wondered if the cells had been single coated after production. I've seen mention of some coated Protar VII cells but haven't seen or used any.
My unresearched hypothesis is the "...AR" in Protar started a whole industry of naming lens designs to end in "...AR".
Garrett
flickr galleries
https://english.stackexchange.com/qu...in-photography
(not my work and not definitive but I saw it some while ago and the last post reminded me of it).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks