As far as I have seen Wollensak never said the 110 would cover more than 5x7 or an 8.6 inch circle. Where did you find your figure? 10.6 would be the circle for 6.5x8.5, the rating for the 135mm wide angle.
As far as I have seen Wollensak never said the 110 would cover more than 5x7 or an 8.6 inch circle. Where did you find your figure? 10.6 would be the circle for 6.5x8.5, the rating for the 135mm wide angle.
Yes, it's in the Wollensak 1930s and 1940s catalogs on Camera Eccentric.
http://www.cameraeccentric.com/img/i...nsak_15_08.jpg
But the image circle for the lens I have does not increase at all as I stop the lens down from 12.5 to f64. No idea why not.
It's definitely mechanical vignetting. However, the lens is in its original shutter (Wollensak Betax No. 2), so there is nothing mechanical that is unintended interfering with the coverage.
This lens has a relatively low serial number--low five digits. I am wondering if the lens was manufactured before Wollensak figured out they could market it for 6.5 x 8.5 coverage and if they subsequently changed the housing for the series IIIa 5x7 lenses.
Thanks!
It's a good thought. I went through all of the Wollensak catalogs on Camera Eccentric last night and the 1906-07 catalog does list an extreme wide angle available only in barrel b/c the lens elements were too close to put in a shutter. [I also found the 1903 catalog lists an extreme w.a. lens with a fl of 4 1/2" specifically for the 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 (not 5x7) format.]
However, the series IIIA is listed beginning in 1922 through 1949 (in different focal lengths from the earlier ex.w.angles and was offered in Betax shutters, like I have). As in the page above, these were offered in shutter with the the 100 degree description.
One other possibility for the discrepancy is the 1922 catalog lists the 5x7 lens diameter as 27/32 inch. Mine only measures 3/4 or 24/32. This could account for the 10 degree difference in coverage I am getting.
In any event, thanks for your suggestions. I'll keep looking for more examples of the lens Wollensak described. Maybe I will find one. If not, it's probably not that big a deal as I'm really digging this camera with the 159mm lens on it. 110mm might just be too wide for my taste on 4x10.
Last edited by Michael Roberts; 16-Oct-2019 at 10:15.
Michael, Hi
Congratulations on your lovely 'new build'
Have you thought of experimenting with one lens element only................?
regards
Andrew
Thanks for the compliment and for the suggestion, Andrew. I’ll try it!
Tried just the front element. Stopped down to f45, it will actually cover 8x10 with what looks to be acceptable sharpness.
However, the focal length is 8 3/4" (indicating a symmetrical design), so this doesn't meet my goal of having a lens to cover 4x10 with a f.l. shorter than the 159mm Ex.W.A. I already have.
I'll keep looking for another 4 5/16" to try.
Here’s a few that are less than 159 and cover 4x10:
110 and 130 Rodenstock Perigons (ICs of 314 and 371, respecrively)
110 Schneider Super Symmar XL (IC of 288)
120 Schneider Super Angulon (IC of 288)
The 120 SA is affordable and easy to find, unlike the others, but it’s a big lens.
Keith Pitman
Bookmarks