Opinions on Process Lenses...

Nick Zentena wrote:
 > Miles <basmpu.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
 >
  > >
  > > Eskofot
 >
  > > 210/9 Ultragon
  > >
  > > JML Optical Industries
  > > 8 1/4"/8 Process Lens
 >
 > I have the JML and I forget if the Eskofot is the same len that
the Agfa
 > super-intergon is. If you get them cheap. Don't mind using your hat
or maybe a
 > packard. Then the lenses are fine. OTOH if you're planning on
mounting them
 > in shutters I personally wouldn't recommend either. You might find a
used
 > 210mm for about what you'd pay for a new shutter. I do have a
Speedioscope
 > shutter front mounted on my Agfa but I don't know how common those
shutters
 > are. Worse if you're using a bigger format the shutter will cause
problems
 > I'm sure. Fine for 4x5 or maybe 5x7.
 >
 > Nick


I have a:
Wray
19"/10 W.A. Process Lustrar Ser.II
I use it on my 11x14 Seneca. The coverage is enormous, I haven't been
able to to find the limits of coverage with this camera. The one I have
is coated. It appears to be very sharp, but I only do contact prints
from 11x14 so I can't say how it would do if enlarged.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Process Lenses... 

Miles <basmpu.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:

 >
 > Eskofot

 > 210/9 Ultragon
 >
 > JML Optical Industries
 > 8 1/4"/8 Process Lens

I have the JML and I forget if the Eskofot is the same len that the Agfa
super-intergon is. If you get them cheap. Don't mind using your hat or maybe a
packard. Then the lenses are fine. OTOH if you're planning on mounting them
in shutters I personally wouldn't recommend either. You might find a used
210mm for about what you'd pay for a new shutter. I do have a Speedioscope
shutter front mounted on my Agfa but I don't know how common those shutters
are. Worse if you're using a bigger format the shutter will cause problems
I'm sure. Fine for 4x5 or maybe 5x7.

Nick<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Process Lenses... 

"Miles" <basmpu DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
news:1107277998.641075.326190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
 > Hi All,
 >
 > I've come across a large stash of process lenses etc.
 > I've been trying
 > to find info on some of the lesser seen optics and decided
 > I'd post a
 > list to see if anyone has used any of these. As you would
 > expect, the
 > majority are brass barrels. Opinions on any of them?
 >
 > Bausch & Lomb
 > 5x7 f8 Tessar 1c
 > 135/4.5 Tessar - D/S Compur
 > 255/4.5 Tessar 1c (yellow dot)

These are Tessars. Originally B&L had a contract with
Zeiss to build Zeiss design lenses in the US. This ended
with the outbreak of WW-1 but B&L continued to build similar
lenses. The 1c series Tessar is an f/4.5 lens, not f/8
something is funny here.
In general B&L built very good lenses and had decent QC.
I have a couple of Series 1C Tessars which are quite sharp
and good lenses.
I am not quite sure of the meaning of the colored dots
on B&L lenses but think they indicate a classification
system of some sort. This is also the meaning of the
two-letter prefixes on post 1940 B&L serial numbers.
Dial set Compurs were replaced by the ring set version
about 1931. These are perfectly respectible shutters and can
be brought to life with cleaning.
The 1c Tessar is f/4.5, the 2b is f/6.3


 > Bell & Howell
 > 6"/2.5 Unknown
 >
 > W. A. Brown
 > 9.5"/8 Series 60X
 > 14"/9.5 Process
 > 16.5"/9.5 Process
 >

Brown built process cameras and contacted for the lenses.
These are probably four element air spaced types similar to
the Goerz Apochromatic Artar or Gotar. Generally, these
lenses are very well corrected and will perform well at
infinity if stopped down a little. They have very narrow
coverage: the image circle at infinity is no larger in
diameter than the focal length.

 > General Scientific
 > 19"/9 Apo-Scienar
 >
 > Eskofot
 > 150/9 Ultragon
 > 210/9 Ultragon
 >

 > JML Optical Industries
 > 8 1/4"/8 Process Lens
 >
 > Kodak
 > 10"/4.5 No.35 Anastigmat
 >
30 Series Kodak Anastigmats are Tessars. These are good
quality lenses, probably comparable to the B&L Tessars.
Kodak built good lenses and had better quality control than
most others.

 > Hugo Meyer
 > 420/8 Reproduktions Anastigmat

Can't find this in my lens list. Look at the reflections
of a small flashlight shown into the lens. That will give
you some idea of the construction. Glass-air surfaces are
very bright, cemented surfaces are very dim. Even in coated
lenses the glass-air surfaces will be much brighter than the
cemented ones.
Most older process lenses were of the
four-element-air-spaced type known as a Dialyte. In this
type all of the elements are either double curved or plane
on one side. The other common four element air spaced lens
is the Homocentric. In this type all of the survaces are
concave to the stop. This type is common for wide angle use,
for example the Kodak Wide Field Ektar is of this type.

 > Nuarc
 > 6 1/2"/8 Process
 > 10 3/4"/8 Process
 >
Nuarc is another company who made process cameras and
equipment, the lenses will have been made under contract by
someone else.

 > Precision
 > 37.5cm/9 Process Anastigmat
 >
 > Staeble
 > 105/5.6 Magnogon-R
 >
 > Taylor Hobson
 > 18" Series V Cooke Process
 >
A Triplet. TT&H was a high quality builder.

 > Wollensak
 > 6 3/8" 161/4.5 Graphic Raptar
 >
For Speed Graphic cameras, a Tessar. Other lenses of this
series which I have tested were awful. They evidently have a
design error leading to an enormous amount of either Coma or
oblique spherical. check the corners. If you have to stop it
down further than about f/9 to get them sharp its like the
others I've seen. Too bad because the Wollensak
Rapax/Graphex shutter is excellent.


 > Wray
 > 8 1/4"/6.8 Wide Angle
 > 19"/10 W.A. Process Lustrar Ser.II
 >
The second lens is probably a modern Plasmat type (six
elements in four groups), most wide angle process lenses are
of this type. I can only guess about the first lens. The
speed suggests its a Dagor type but it may be something else
if its a modern lens

 > And - has anyone seen a coated Goerz Artar with no red
 > dot? The number
 > indicates it is pre-RD.
 >
I am pretty sure that Goerz coated some Artars before the
red-dot series. The serial number list which is generally
available is not reliable. I have a Red-Dot with a serial
number earlier than that indicated as the first one.
It is always possible the lens was coated after market.
Goerz was one of the last lens makers to coat their lenses.
 > Thanks! Miles
 >
I wish I had more.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk DeleteThis @ix.netcom.com<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Process Lenses... 

Hi Miles:

Due to a problem with my ISP's NewsGroup quotas, I'm coming in on this a
couple of weeks late... process lenses are optimized for 1:1 and
thereabouts, for precision copying. They seem to be available
inexpensively now because the printing industry has almost completely
moved to digital.

Although they can be used in our LF cameras, they will not fill the
ultra large formats at infinity that they will for copying work.

This was taken with the Eskofot/Ultragon 210 mounted in an Alphax
shutter and which was removed from a vertical copy camera capable of
making 24x30" copies. At infinity the image circle vignettes on my
11x14 but as you can see here, it's ok for 8x10:

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://hemenway.com/images/8x10%20Birches%20Sumac.jpg" target="_blank">http://hemenway.com/images/8x10%20Birches%20Sumac.jpg</a>

A caveat, the above was taken about 4-5 years ago before I had a decent
scanner, and before I knew how to scan.


The following was taken with Fujichrome with my 11x14 camera with an
Apo-Ronar-CL 420mm process lens taken from a huge, room filling process
camera on tracks. The back of the camera was built into the wall of the
darkroom and had a 30x40 vacuum film holder. It doesn't vignette on
11x14 but if you look closely you will see that the corners are quite
soft. This doesn't happen at 1:1 macro work, but will for most other
distances. I've since moved this lens and shutter to the lensboard for
my 8x10:

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.hemenway.com/11x14/images/SwampMaple-Ronar420mm.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.hemenway.com/11x14/images/SwampMaple-Ronar420mm.jpg</a>

I've since standardized on a Symmar-S 360mm and an old Protar 360/590
convertible.

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.hemenway.com/11x14/images/TwistedTree-Symmar-S-360mm.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.hemenway.com/11x14/images/TwistedTree-Symmar-S-360mm.jpg</a>
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.hemenway.com/CharlesRiverProtar590.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.hemenway.com/CharlesRiverProtar590.jpg</a>

In some ways I think that I wasted a lot of time and film trying to get
some success from the various process lenses, and with the exception of
the Eskotfot 210, (which is a nice little wide angle for the 8x10) I
might have been better off buying the Symmar-S much earlier.

Process lenses make great LF format Macro lenses if you can figure the
bellows factor correctly for good exposures... I'm a bit challenged in
that department.

There's nothing like a good lens:

I took this with the 360mm two Fridays ago:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://hemenway.com/NubbleIslandWinter-small-01282005.jpg" target="_blank">http://hemenway.com/NubbleIslandWinter-small-01282005.jpg</a>

and this one in August:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.hemenway.com/Fruitlands-11x14/" target="_blank">http://www.hemenway.com/Fruitlands-11x14/</a>

Jim




Miles wrote:

 > Hi All,
 >
 > I've come across a large stash of process lenses etc. I've been trying
 > to find info on some of the lesser seen optics and decided I'd post a
 > list to see if anyone has used any of these. As you would expect, the
 > majority are brass barrels. Opinions on any of them?
 >
 > Bausch & Lomb
 > 5x7 f8 Tessar 1c
 > 135/4.5 Tessar - D/S Compur
 > 255/4.5 Tessar 1c (yellow dot)
 >
 > Bell & Howell
 > 6"/2.5 Unknown
 >
 > W. A. Brown
 > 9.5"/8 Series 60X
 > 14"/9.5 Process
 > 16.5"/9.5 Process
 >
 > General Scientific
 > 19"/9 Apo-Scienar
 >
 > Eskofot
 > 150/9 Ultragon
 > 210/9 Ultragon
 >
 > JML Optical Industries
 > 8 1/4"/8 Process Lens
 >
 > Kodak
 > 10"/4.5 No.35 Anastigmat
 >
 > Hugo Meyer
 > 420/8 Reproduktions Anastigmat
 >
 > Nuarc
 > 6 1/2"/8 Process
 > 10 3/4"/8 Process
 >
 > Precision
 > 37.5cm/9 Process Anastigmat
 >
 > Staeble
 > 105/5.6 Magnogon-R
 >
 > Taylor Hobson
 > 18" Series V Cooke Process
 >
 > Wollensak
 > 6 3/8" 161/4.5 Graphic Raptar
 >
 > Wray
 > 8 1/4"/6.8 Wide Angle
 > 19"/10 W.A. Process Lustrar Ser.II
 >
 > And - has anyone seen a coated Goerz Artar with no red dot? The number
 > indicates it is pre-RD.
 >
 > Thanks! Miles
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Process Lenses... 

Jim Hemenway wrote:
 > Hi Miles:
 >
 > Due to a problem with my ISP's NewsGroup quotas, I'm coming in on
this a
 > couple of weeks late... process lenses are optimized for 1:1 and
 > thereabouts, for precision copying. They seem to be available
 > inexpensively now because the printing industry has almost completely

 > moved to digital.
 >
 > Although they can be used in our LF cameras, they will not fill the
 > ultra large formats at infinity that they will for copying work.
 >
 > This was taken with the Eskofot/Ultragon 210 mounted in an Alphax
 > shutter and which was removed from a vertical copy camera capable of
 > making 24x30" copies. At infinity the image circle vignettes on my
 > 11x14 but as you can see here, it's ok for 8x10:
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://hemenway.com/images/8x10%20Birches%20Sumac.jpg</font" target="_blank">http://hemenway.com/images/8x10%20Birches%20Sumac.jpg</font</a>>
 >
 > A caveat, the above was taken about 4-5 years ago before I had a
decent
 > scanner, and before I knew how to scan.
 >
 >
 > The following was taken with Fujichrome with my 11x14 camera with an
 > Apo-Ronar-CL 420mm process lens taken from a huge, room filling
process
 > camera on tracks. The back of the camera was built into the wall of
the
 > darkroom and had a 30x40 vacuum film holder. It doesn't vignette on
 > 11x14 but if you look closely you will see that the corners are quite

 > soft. This doesn't happen at 1:1 macro work, but will for most other

 > distances. I've since moved this lens and shutter to the lensboard
for
 > my 8x10:
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.hemenway.com/11x14/images/SwampMaple-Ronar420mm.jpg</font" target="_blank">http://www.hemenway.com/11x14/images/SwampMaple-Ronar420mm.jpg</font</a>>
 >
 > I've since standardized on a Symmar-S 360mm and an old Protar 360/590
 > convertible.
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.hemenway.com/11x14/images/TwistedTree-Symmar-S-360mm.jpg</font" target="_blank">http://www.hemenway.com/11x14/images/TwistedTree-Symmar-S-360mm.jpg</font</a>>
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.hemenway.com/CharlesRiverProtar590.jpg</font" target="_blank">http://www.hemenway.com/CharlesRiverProtar590.jpg</font</a>>
 >
 > In some ways I think that I wasted a lot of time and film trying to
get
 > some success from the various process lenses, and with the exception
of
 > the Eskotfot 210, (which is a nice little wide angle for the 8x10) I
 > might have been better off buying the Symmar-S much earlier.
 >
 > Process lenses make great LF format Macro lenses if you can figure
the
 > bellows factor correctly for good exposures... I'm a bit challenged
in
 > that department.
 >
 > There's nothing like a good lens:
 >
 > I took this with the 360mm two Fridays ago:
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://hemenway.com/NubbleIslandWinter-small-01282005.jpg</font" target="_blank">http://hemenway.com/NubbleIslandWinter-small-01282005.jpg</font</a>>
 >
 > and this one in August:
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.hemenway.com/Fruitlands-11x14/</font" target="_blank">http://www.hemenway.com/Fruitlands-11x14/</font</a>>
 >
 > Jim
 >
First of all these are beautiful images. I wish I could do as
well:-)
The bellows correction is simple. Devide the focus distance for the
close up by the focus distance for infinity. The ratio is the number of
stops by which you must increase the exposure. To get the difference in
time square the number of stops.
For example, at 1:1 the focus distance is double that for infinity
so the exposure must be increased by 2 stops or 4 times the time.
This is the inverse square law operating between the lens and the
film.
To be rigorous the focus distance should be the distance from the
rear principal point to the film, this will make the formula applicable
to retrofocus and telephoto lenses but for typical LF lenses the
principal points lie inside the lens so the error is not significant.
FWIW, the extension from exactly infinity focus to exactly the
distance for 1:1 magnification of the image is exactly one focal length
and is a way of measuring the focal length of lenses.

Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk.TakeThisOut@ix.netcom.com<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Process Lenses... 

Richard:

Thanks very much, for the compliment, it means a lot coming from you.

Your explanation is appreciated. I'll try it in April/May when the
flowers arrive. The snow has stopped but there's more forecast for
tonight. I complain, but all in all, I'll take the snow over rain and
mudslides.

Regards,

Jim Hemenway



Richard Knoppow wrote:

<snip>
  >>
  >>Jim
  >>
 >
 > First of all these are beautiful images. I wish I could do as
 > well:-)
 > The bellows correction is simple. Devide the focus distance for the
 > close up by the focus distance for infinity. The ratio is the number of
 > stops by which you must increase the exposure. To get the difference in
 > time square the number of stops.
 > For example, at 1:1 the focus distance is double that for infinity
 > so the exposure must be increased by 2 stops or 4 times the time.
 > This is the inverse square law operating between the lens and the
 > film.
 > To be rigorous the focus distance should be the distance from the
 > rear principal point to the film, this will make the formula applicable
 > to retrofocus and telephoto lenses but for typical LF lenses the
 > principal points lie inside the lens so the error is not significant.
 > FWIW, the extension from exactly infinity focus to exactly the
 > distance for 1:1 magnification of the image is exactly one focal length
 > and is a way of measuring the focal length of lenses.
 >
 > Richard Knoppow
 > Los Angeles, CA, USA
 > dickburk DeleteThis @ix.netcom.com
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Process Lenses... 

"Jim Hemenway" <Jim.DeleteThis@hemenway.com> wrote in message
news:42110095.7080907@hemenway.com...
[SNIP]
 >
 > The following was taken with Fujichrome with my 11x14 camera with > an
Apo-Ronar-CL 420mm process lens taken from a huge, room
 > filling process camera on tracks. The back of the camera was built
 > into the wall of the darkroom and had a 30x40 vacuum film holder. It
 > doesn't vignette on 11x14 but if you look closely you will see that the
 > corners are quite soft. This doesn't happen at 1:1 macro work, but
 > will for most other distances. I've since moved this lens and shutter to
 > the lensboard for my 8x10:
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.hemenway.com/11x14/images/SwampMaple-Ronar420mm.jpg</font" target="_blank">http://www.hemenway.com/11x14/images/SwampMaple-Ronar420mm.jpg</font</a>>
 >

I have a Schneider Repro-Claron as a long lens for my 4x5 (also used
ocassionally on 5x7) which is very nice. Even at infinity it provides a
staggering amount of movement (obviously) and it's a nice focal length.
Also helps that it is the longest non-tele lens I can can realistically use
on my 4x5 without adding an extension rail - even then I need the extension
if I want to focus closer than about forty feet, but I use this mostly for
long landscapes, so that's no problem.

I also have a 150mm Apo-Ronar that makes a wonderful macro lens, on 4x5 and
also on smaller formats - it's very nice for 6x9.

[SNIP]
 >
 > Process lenses make great LF format Macro lenses if you can figure
 > the bellows factor correctly for good exposures... I'm a bit challenged
 > in that department.
 >

Have you looked at something like the "Quick Stick"? I got one recently
just so I could be lazy in the studio and put my calculator away, and it is
very convenient. Mine is labelled as being for 4x5, but the corrections are
the same and as it has focal lengths up to 500mm marked, it should still be
quite useful with your larger formats. They also make one for 8x10 that
I've not seen, and one for smaller formats.

Their page is:

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.visualdepartures.com/quickstc.html" target="_blank">http://www.visualdepartures.com/quickstc.html</a>

You could do the calculations and make your own stick for your favourite
macro lens(es) reasonably easily, but I was lazy and just bought the thing,
and it seems quite good for the price.



Peter<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Process Lenses... 

Thanks, Peter. I'll look into making an 11x14 Quick Stick.

Jim


Bandicoot wrote:

 > "Jim Hemenway" <Jim.DeleteThis@hemenway.com> wrote in message
 > news:42110095.7080907@hemenway.com...
 > [SNIP]
 >
  >>The following was taken with Fujichrome with my 11x14 camera with > an
 >
 > Apo-Ronar-CL 420mm process lens taken from a huge, room
 >
  >>filling process camera on tracks. The back of the camera was built
  >>into the wall of the darkroom and had a 30x40 vacuum film holder. It
  >>doesn't vignette on 11x14 but if you look closely you will see that the
  >>corners are quite soft. This doesn't happen at 1:1 macro work, but
  >>will for most other distances. I've since moved this lens and shutter to
  >>the lensboard for my 8x10:
  >>
  >>http://www.hemenway.com/11x14/images/SwampMaple-Ronar420mm.jpg
  >>
 >
 >
 > I have a Schneider Repro-Claron as a long lens for my 4x5 (also used
 > ocassionally on 5x7) which is very nice. Even at infinity it provides a
 > staggering amount of movement (obviously) and it's a nice focal length.
 > Also helps that it is the longest non-tele lens I can can realistically use
 > on my 4x5 without adding an extension rail - even then I need the extension
 > if I want to focus closer than about forty feet, but I use this mostly for
 > long landscapes, so that's no problem.
 >
 > I also have a 150mm Apo-Ronar that makes a wonderful macro lens, on 4x5 and
 > also on smaller formats - it's very nice for 6x9.
 >
 > [SNIP]
 >
  >>Process lenses make great LF format Macro lenses if you can figure
  >>the bellows factor correctly for good exposures... I'm a bit challenged
  >>in that department.
  >>
 >
 >
 > Have you looked at something like the "Quick Stick"? I got one recently
 > just so I could be lazy in the studio and put my calculator away, and it is
 > very convenient. Mine is labelled as being for 4x5, but the corrections are
 > the same and as it has focal lengths up to 500mm marked, it should still be
 > quite useful with your larger formats. They also make one for 8x10 that
 > I've not seen, and one for smaller formats.
 >
 > Their page is:
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.visualdepartures.com/quickstc.html</font" target="_blank">http://www.visualdepartures.com/quickstc.html</font</a>>
 >
 > You could do the calculations and make your own stick for your favourite
 > macro lens(es) reasonably easily, but I was lazy and just bought the thing,
 > and it seems quite good for the price.
 >
 >
 >
 > Peter
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Opinions on Process Lenses...