I am cosidering a purchase of the hypergon 84mm made by Wisner and I would like to know if anybody has had any direct experience with it.I bought a set of plasm ats from him and their claims were exagerated in terms of sharpness etc. I would appreciate any kwnoledge about this lens
I wouldn't trust a word Ron Wisner says. Sorry. I couldn't resist the opportunity to take a shot.
Ron Wisner sells glass to make a buck fast. Some are ok , and some come in last. But one thing is certain when one draws the curtain : Wisner's no fool , too many still drool.
I think there is a reason that there are two abstract drawings rather than actual photographs on Wisner's web page of his Hypergon--it was never made, and probably never will be made. Call Lens and Repro instead.
Sorry I am a poor rhymer.
If it was never made, that isn't very surprising. I think a Hypergon must be just as difficult to make as it is to use. Not impossible, of course, and the center filter Wisner proposed to supply would make its use simpler than it was with Goerz's fan. The "rotary" shutter would help, too.
I have a Fuji Hypergon, a tiny little lens in sleeve mount - no adjustable diaphragm. I have no idea what the application of this strange object may have been. If anyone knows anything about it I would be grateful for the information.
I looked through my collection of old books, and was surprised to discover that the original Goertz Hypergons were not particularly expensive as new. In 1910 th Hypergon 7.5cm (75mm) cost 135 Mark with the star aperture, 120 Mark without. The same 135 Mark would buy you a Zeiss Tessar serie IIb 150mm/f:4.5 (130 Mark), or almost a 160mm f:4.5 Voigtländer Heliar at 140 Mark. Admittedly there were cheaper lenses, but there were also those which were a lot more expensive - Like the fast f:3.4 Zeiss Tessar Serie Ic.
So would it have been relatively easier to grind the deep concave lens faces in 1910?
Ole, what an interesting question. I went back a little further, to 1910, and found very much the same situation. Thinking about possible factors, the Hypergon glasses are of relatively small size, of course. The expense of centering while cementing elements into groups would not have been a factor. This may have been a rather significant cost. The particularly expensive lens of that period was the Zeiss Series VIIa with its four elements in each of the two groups.
It is hard to compare expense factors from that period to those of the present because labor costs were then so low. Employers would have tasks done by hand which today would, at least in "developed" countries, be unthinkable.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks