Busch Portrait Aplanat f6

[goamules]

I have a Em Busch Rathenon Portrait Aplanat No 2 F-6 coming soon. Could an Aplanat expert (like Ole) tell me some of the details of how it differs from a regular aplanat?

My VM research suggests it will be a small one, a no. 2 may be 6" focus. Is the sharp center more narrow than other RR/Aplanats? This could make for interesting portraits, if the coverage is there for 3 1/4 x 4 1/4. Maybe 4x5? I'll post a pic when I receive the lens.

thanks,
Garrett

[Ole Tjugen]

A Portrait Aplanat is faster than a regular Aplanat. That gives a little less coverage.

I can find out in a week or so, but in general a Busch "whatever" No.2 is either 150mm, OR intended for 9x12cm...

[Jim Galli]

Also I think it's somewhere after f7 where aplanats get really sharp, so an f6 like Wollensak's Versar is just slightly soft wide open. Softer than it's f8 brethren.

[goamules]

Well thanks both. Good to get some more expert info from yall. I'll try it out and see, though with wetplate, it's pretty hard to tell what is soft and not.

That's a problem I'm having Jim. I thought it would be really cool to do wet plate collodion with some soft focus lenses from a generation later. Problem is, unless you are really good at making a perfect quality wet plate, your results will vary from what I'd probably see on film. Can you tell me what it is that is making this so? I'm a "seat of the pants" photographer, but is it there isn't enough contrast with WP, or not enough tonal variation? When you compare a good WP to a similar shot in film, what do you see?

I see fewer of the subtle things that you capture so well on film.

[Jim Galli]

Well thanks both. Good to get some more expert info from yall. I'll try it out and see, though with wetplate, it's pretty hard to tell what is soft and not.

That's a problem I'm having Jim. I thought it would be really cool to do wet plate collodion with some soft focus lenses from a generation later. Problem is, unless you are really good at making a perfect quality wet plate, your results will vary from what I'd probably see on film. Can you tell me what it is that is making this so? I'm a "seat of the pants" photographer, but is it there isn't enough contrast with WP, or not enough tonal variation? When you compare a good WP to a similar shot in film, what do you see?

I see fewer of the subtle things that you capture so well on film.

Can't help you. I haven't yet gotten my feet wet so to speak with wet plate. From what I've seen, the opposite seems true. Wet plate has an eerie 3D effect at it's best. Typically that is what you see from period petzval lenses that are very sharp very contrasty at the subject. Perhaps sof focus lenses are a poor choice for wp?

[Steven Tribe]

A thread resuscitation!
Curious about experience with the Busch Portrait Aplanat no.2 as I have just picked one up too! Renes sold one here shutter adapter some time ago. Seems like a interesting alternative for 4x5 where there aren't many options other than the usual F7.7/F8 RR's and aplanats.
I enclose the catalogue details from 1910.
Is it softish fully open (F6)?

[CCHarrison]

and for the English crowd


Dan

[Steven Tribe]

And they match (inches/cms) perfectly, for once!
So there was a no.1 size.