Small post on the Harrison Globe Lens

**CCHarrison** · 4-Dec-2011, 06:24

Please see

http://antiquecameras.net/blog.html

Thanks
Dan

**goamules** · 4-Dec-2011, 11:24

Yeah, I wanted that Globe in the auction, but had to pass due to not enough funds in the lens account. They're out there, but I only see one or two for sale every couple years.

**Two23** · 5-Dec-2011, 08:09

I'll agree that prices on brass lenses were getting high, but I think in the past several months they have begun to cool. I'm mostly going by prices I see on eBay, as well as a few private sales. I'm wondering if part of the reason they were a fad, or maybe Europeans are not nearly as aggressive as they were in buying? I've become much more picky than I was a year ago with my own buying.

The globe is interesting from an historical perspective, but from what I've read it's diffiucult to actually use. I don't buy lenses I won't use.

Kent in SD

**Mark Sawyer** · 21-Jan-2018, 14:59

Resurrecting an old thread to ask a dumb question about Globe lenses. Since the Globe was two cemented achromats, what technically made it not a Wide Angle Rapid Rectilinear/Aplanat?

**Steven Tribe** · 22-Jan-2018, 06:46

Because it was "designed" before the invention of Dallmeyer RRs and Steinheil aplanats. Design is a doubtful word as they were apparently trying to mimic the structure of the human eye - not using known optical principles and calculation. It was not capable of productng a rectilinear image. The UK would have nothing to do with the Globe (Trail Taylor's commentaries). The French made a few attractive copies, then did some radical changes - still using a reference to the Globe - and probably approached the RR/Aplanat design without infringing on the patents.

There were other, less "spectacular" wide angle lens around like Ross LA (large angle) around this time.

**Mark Sawyer** · 22-Jan-2018, 13:02

Originally Posted by Steven Tribe

...It was not capable of producing a rectilinear image. The UK would have nothing to do with the Globe (Trail Taylor's commentaries). The French made a few attractive copies, then did some radical changes - still using a reference to the Globe - and probably approached the RR/Aplanat design without infringing on the patents.

There were other, less "spectacular" wide angle lens around like Ross LA (large angle) around this time.

Being a symmetrical design, the Globe was among the most rectilinear designs of its day. And Ross produced Globe lenses under license from Harrison, so there was at least some interest in the UK.

But was it simply that Harrison and Schnitzer designed the Globe before the RR/Aplanat terms were coined that makes them not RR/Aplanats? I suppose I'm just testing the semantics of the design classification, but I'm curious what I'm missing...

(BTW, Ross also produced the moderately wide angle Orthoscop (Petzval's view lens, a counterpart to his landscape lens) under license from Voigtlander. And the unsuccessful Sutton Water Lens was made (in a very few examples) by Ross, and as you said, Ross had their own semi-wide design, so Ross was very involved in early wider-angle lenses.)

**Steven Tribe** · 22-Jan-2018, 13:56

It would be pretty easy to find out how rectilinear the original Globe if a lucky owner is willing to test - I remember Trail Taylor complaining about the flare - but I don't have the book with me here in Spain to detail his comments.

I have never seen any Globes from Ross, but will check when I get back. It certainly wasn't a big seller, to put it mildly - perhaps the reviews were bad or Victorian nationalism wouldn't accept anything from "over there"!