A Lens For 8X10, Cost Less Than $100, That You Use Regularly?

[desertrat]

A better question would be which ones in a working, usable shutter are under $100? And which of the old, oddball shutters are good bets for functionality?

I only have a few data points, but I'll share what I have.

All of my under $100 lenses came in Wollensak pneumatic shutters. None except one of them were working properly as received. The earlier shutters have two external cylinders, the later ones have cylinders inside the shutter. They are fairly easy to work on, but getting them to work more or less properly requires a lot of tinkering. Sometimes the screws holding the two halves together have to be not quite snug, or the blades will drag. One of mine had shims between the two halves, very difficult to keep in place while assembling the shutter, and it wouldn't work properly without them.

Most of the slow speeds are fairly consistent, but nowhere near the marked values. The speed cams on the dial set models do not have steps, so intermediate speeds can be selected.

If you like or need the precision of a Copal or Compur, you will not be happy with these shutters. If you are comfortable working with a Packard, most of my cheap pneumatic shutters work fine on T, B, and at least one instantaneous speed, which I think is the rough equivalent of a Packard. One of my shutters, missing a lot of parts, works only on B, but I figured how to lock it open with a small screwdriver for focusing.

I do have one pneumatic shutter that worked perfectly as received. It is my oldest one, marked Rauber & Wollensak Opt. Co. After examining the lens, shutter, and flange, I don't think it was ever mounted on a camera or used. The flange doesn't have a mark on it, the shutter only has some dust. The R.O.C. symmetrical lens unfortunately has some small circular scratches on the center of the rear element, probably from improper storage. The cell rims don't extend quite far enough beyond the lens crowns to protect them.

[jnantz]

i have a few, that i paid less than 50$ for
but now they have a value that is well over 50$

[premortho]

My God...I'm a spendthrift. And I was so proud of myself for getting a Turner-Reich triple convertable 12-21-28 for $110.00 plus a Packard shutter for $28.00...My father was right when he told me I understood as much about economics as a pig understands about Christmas----oh woe is me

[Stephanie Brim]

I was looking at that lens on Ebay a while ago. There's one going for $225 BIN, with a $150 starting bid. I know it covers 8x10. It's tempting, but I don't have the dosh at the moment. Heh. How is it?

[premortho]

Couldn't have been this one, I've had it 2-3 years. Mine is a barrel lens. That one must have a functioning shutter for that kind of money. Mine takes good photos, but it's of course un-coated, so you have to watch out for flare. I only do contact prints in 8X10, and it's pretty awsome for that. In all three focal lengths. It really works well with paper negs and x-ray film, because it was made for orthochromatic film. The 28 inch length is an really not an anastigmat, so focuses better for ortho than for pan film. For pan film, you should set the lens back about .04 (If I remember correctly) of the bellows extension you are using in order to focus the red light rays correctly. The easier way to do this in landscapes at the kind of distances you'd use a 28 inch lens would be to focus right smack dab in the middle of the in focus range, then shorten it up until you are close to going out of focus, and shoot it from there.

[desertrat]

I was looking at that lens on Ebay a while ago. There's one going for $225 BIN, with a $150 starting bid. I know it covers 8x10. It's tempting, but I don't have the dosh at the moment. Heh. How is it?

I just looked at that auction. I think that lens is overpriced for a 5X7 T-R triple. Also, based on my experience, it may not cover 8X10 using both cells. I have two of these, and the later ones don't cover as wide an angle as the early ones. The single cells probably would cover 8X10, but you would need to stop them well down to get decent image quality. I would recommend getting an 8X10 T-R. They come up fairly regularly, but as with most old LF lenses, only one in 10 or 20 has a decent starting bid. You should be able to get a nice one for about $200, and an ugly but working one for a little over a $100.

There's a lot of old classic glass in 12" to 13" focal length that would give you good images:

Ilex Paragon f 6.3
Ilex-Caltar f 6.3 (same lens as above)
Wollensak Velostigmat series 1 or series 1a in f6.8 or f6.3
The series 1 is a Royal Anastigmat, renamed. The series 1a is a copy of a Zeiss series VIIa Protar.

If you're patient, several of these should turn up in the next couple of months on the 'bay.

There are lots more old classic lenses than these, but many have 'cult' status and collectors and enthusiasts bid them up to outrageous amounts. The ones I mentioned aren't desired by the collectors, but can give good images, if you get one that doesn't have any serious problems.

[Kirk Fry]

I have bought G-Clarons 355, 240 and 210 for all for less than $100 back in the day before they were "discovered" during the period when all the copy cameras were trashed. The one surprise was a Zeiss 210 Tessar from pre-1920 in a vintage dial set copal that surprisingly also covers 8X10 that I got for less than $100. All of these lenses make nice images on 8x10.

[Stephanie Brim]

I just looked at that auction. I think that lens is overpriced for a 5X7 T-R triple. Also, based on my experience, it may not cover 8X10 using both cells. I have two of these, and the later ones don't cover as wide an angle as the early ones. The single cells probably would cover 8X10, but you would need to stop them well down to get decent image quality. I would recommend getting an 8X10 T-R. They come up fairly regularly, but as with most old LF lenses, only one in 10 or 20 has a decent starting bid. You should be able to get a nice one for about $200, and an ugly but working one for a little over a $100.

There's a lot of old classic glass in 12" to 13" focal length that would give you good images:

Ilex Paragon f 6.3
Ilex-Caltar f 6.3 (same lens as above)
Wollensak Velostigmat series 1 or series 1a in f6.8 or f6.3
The series 1 is a Royal Anastigmat, renamed. The series 1a is a copy of a Zeiss series VIIa Protar.

If you're patient, several of these should turn up in the next couple of months on the 'bay.

There are lots more old classic lenses than these, but many have 'cult' status and collectors and enthusiasts bid them up to outrageous amounts. The ones I mentioned aren't desired by the collectors, but can give good images, if you get one that doesn't have any serious problems.

The 300mm Tessar-type I have is a Bausch & Lomb. I've been looking for that particular company, too, since they're not really sought after. There's an interesting RR in Unicum shutter on there right now ending Monday, but there's no mention of focal length which makes me not want to jump on it.

I think that people are seeing that people will pay big for brass lenses and they're starting to list what appear to be no-name ones at outrageous prices. Heh. I don't have time to stalk Ebay anymore, but I've added a couple more to my watch list. :P

[jnantz]

SNIP

I have bought G-Clarons 355, 240 and 210 for all for less than $100 back in the day before they were "discovered" ...

exactly .
in the 80s + 90s a lot of barrel lenses sold for nothing ..
now, the same lenses sell for large sums ...
if i was to buy the optics i use these days,
i wouldn't be able to afford it .

[premortho]

Yes, jnanian is right. If I had to spend what that e-bay guy wants for a Turner-Reich Triple Convertable, I'd be out of the market. I'd be looking for a rapid rectilinear, maybe barrel mounted for short money. Or an acromat landscape lens, maybe with rotary stops or even waterhouse stops. They all take pictures. It's a rare photographer that uses an 8X10 for snapshots...so how fast a lens is, or how many instant speeds it has can all be worked around by choice of negative emulsions. Maybe because I've used a Packard shutter for so many years, I take a lighthearted look at more sophisticated shutters.