Weird Coverage with Wollensak 159mm Velostigmat ?

[Cor]

Jan,

Thanks, I measured mine as accurate as I could with a vernier calliper, it is indeed 33.85mm, but 2 glass plates beneath and below to check if the lens is out of parallel, as far as I can see with that crude method: no.

I indeed stopped down to f45 and oddly did not see even the "sharp" part in the middle getting more Dof, although that is hard to judge a f42..defenatly the rest of the image did not get sharp..I do not understand..

Ps the 2 scans of the element look OK?

Thanks & best,

Cor

[Cor]

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-...?msg_id=004VMm

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum44/5784-pick-n-mix.html

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses-wide.html

http://photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/004fdX

http://www.allenrumme.com/lensdb/Wide%20Angle.html

Thanks for the links, eddie..no mentioning of my problem though..the lens looks very nice but perhaps some of the groups/elements are out of place..

[Brian Ellis]

Thanks for the links, eddie..no mentioning of my problem though..the lens looks very nice but perhaps some of the groups/elements are out of place..

One thing to consider is that Wollensaks generally were inexpensive lenses and I doubt that their quality control was all that great. You may just have a lemon.

[Brian C. Miller]

Are you sure that you have that particular lens? I didn't notice any printing on yours, so I uploaded an image of mine.

[John Kasaian]

A Betax #3 is a large shutter for such a tiny lens. I'd be surprised if any 159 Wolly WAs came this way from the factory. Perhaps during the mounting somethingwasn't done quite right?

[Chauncey Walden]

The 1957 Wollensak catalog says that the lens came in a #4 barrel or a #3 Rapax or Alphax. And, the lens arrangement was (( (( )) )).

[Chauncey Walden]

Here's the construction of the various Wolly lenses.

[Chauncey Walden]

Well, try again.

[c.d.ewen]

Cor:

I have this lens mounted in a barrel, and a separate Betax 3. Measuring both, I note the barrel to be much shorter than the shutter. This really proves nothing, as my shutter was meant for another lens. I was just wondered about cell spacing, as too much distance might make it look like you're shooting through a tunnel. Hope this isn't a red herring.

On Brian Miller's shutter, and apparently yours, there's a chrome ring around the lens, with a single hole through it. This seems to be a lock ring for the front cell. The shutter has a central mount, which is threaded internally and externally. My best guess is that during assembly, the front cell is screwed into the middle the proper distance, then the chrome ring is unscrewed up behind the cell to lock it in place.

RE: that grey rim - I suspect it's easier to make a bigger lens than a small one, so Wolly made a bigger lens but only wanted you to use the sharper center, and thus mechanically vignetted it. If you were Jim Galli, you'd get rid of the rim and shoot the thing like an f/4 Verito.

Charley

[eddie]

Thanks for the links, eddie..no mentioning of my problem though..the lens looks very nice but perhaps some of the groups/elements are out of place..

i was not trying to correct the problem. you asked about coverage.

your broken miss-matched shutter/lens issue is a different thing.

what is the problem again? maybe i am just not following.