Weird Coverage with Wollensak 159mm Velostigmat ?

**Cor** · 13-Feb-2011, 06:32

I mounted my (to me) new Wollensak Velostigmat Wide Angle Series III f9.5 8x10 6 1/4 inch (159 mm). Had some problems with the Betax no3 shutter (see other thread) but that is solved now.

So I mounted it and to my disappointment and surprise it does not cover 8*10, I would say perhaps only 5x7 or even just 4x5). The lens clearly states 8x10 as well as info I could find on this lens state that 8x10 should be covered with ease.. !

How can this happen? The front serial number is 274167, the back element reads 4167.

What does surprise me, not being familiar with these lenses is, when you look at an element from the front the element there is a grey rim of about 10mm making a smaller circle of the glass surface, if you screw out an element you can see from the back that this grey ring is caused by the mounting of the glass ( see photographs below..is this the way it should be? I guess so..

(I bought the lens form a friendly gentleman, who is currently in holiday, and upfront told me that I could return the lens if I did not like it..well I like it for it's compactness and the excellent state, a light WA lens for my 8*10..but if it does not cover it has no use off course)

Best,

Cor

**eddie** · 13-Feb-2011, 06:57

what is your definition of cover?

i think it is within a couple of mm of the diagonal of an 8x10 sheet......not "with ease". the f12 version may cover slightly more.

maybe you should look at my lens here if you are serious about covering 8x10 with a 165mm ish lens. a MUCH better choice.

i used my 159mm for serious pretzel like movements on 4x5.

**Cor** · 13-Feb-2011, 07:26

He eddie,

Well with ease is perhaps exaggerated, but it should cover right ?

Now I only see a small circle (say 5 cm wide) sharp, and the rest of the view is very unsharp, that should not be, but why?

That Angulon sure is nice, but it is huge compared to this Wolly, and so is it's price..;-).. I am not really looking for massive coverage..

Best,

Cor

**eddie** · 13-Feb-2011, 08:01

Originally Posted by eddie

i think it is within a couple of mm of the diagonal of an 8x10 sheet......

**Brian Ellis** · 13-Feb-2011, 08:11

I've owned two of these lenses, both covered 8x10 easily. I'd guess there's something wrong with your lens or something else along the line.

**Jan Pedersen** · 13-Feb-2011, 08:13

Are you sure that you got the spacing correct? The wolly 159 will cover 8x10 period.

**Louis Pacilla** · 13-Feb-2011, 08:16

How far are you stopping down the lens? I think you'll need f32 & down to f45-64 to get fairly sharp at corners .

No movement to speak of & No f 22 for less diffraction w/ these little wides.

Ya just gotta stop 'em down when focused at infinity. If you focused much closer than that you can get away w/ f 16-22

Should work though.

BTW- it will "cover" at wider opening just a little soft @ f 16-22 in my experience.

**Cor** · 13-Feb-2011, 08:17

Originally Posted by Jan Pedersen

Are you sure that you got the spacing correct? The wolly 159 will cover 8x10 period.

Well the elements are screwed in a Betax No 3 shutter, and cannot go in deeper, I guess this is the original combination, were could I find spacing info so I can check?

Best,

Cor

**Jan Pedersen** · 13-Feb-2011, 08:29

Measured from the edge of the front rim to the edge of the back my f12.5 measure 32.85mm
My f9.5 Raptar measure 33.8mm
As Louis said, you will need to stop the lens down to get the entire 8x10 plane in sharp focus but there should not be any mechanical vignetting until at least 1.5" to 2" front rise.