Size and weight

Ian Grant

Ian Grant

Very Active Poster
Registered User
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
2,712
In an image discussion, here, David M and I were talking about the size of a wide angle lens the 165mm f8 Super Angulon.

Now these weigh around 1.7 kg with a lens board and lens caps and aren't really practical for field work. In comparison here's two other wide angle lenses a 159mm f12.5 Wollensak and a 141mm Ross AM Wide angle (unmarked but a Ross Zeiss WA Protar).

108-wa02sm.jpg

108-wa01sm.jpg

108-wa03sm.jpg


As mention the 165mm SA weighs 1.7kg / 1,700g, however the 159mm Wollensak EWA weighs 340g and the Ross 141mm wide angle only 75g but it has no shutter. Although uncoated the Wollensak and Protar only have two internal air glass surfaces so are reasonable contrast, the widest marked aperture of the Wollensak EWA is f12.5 but it opens to approx f9 for focussing.

Ross made the WA Zeiss Protar under licence and with a max aperture of f16 it was a touch faster than the Carl Zeiss Jena version which was f18. During WWI Ross took over the Carl Zeiss London Mill Hill works and stopped using the Zeiss name & Patent No's (and paying royalties) on any Zeiss designed lenses they made. The Zeiss Mill Hill works was predominantly Binocular manufacture but some Carl Zeiss London Tessar lenses were made, Ironically Ross then continued the Binocular manufacture for the British armed services :D

Earlier this year I bought a near mint 120mm f6.8 Angulon (for £90) I'm very surprised to find it illuminates the 10x8 screen to the corners at Infinity, here will be slight fall of due to vignetting but would improve by f45, It's made me realise that a 165mm f6.8 Angulon might be a good option at 310g it's substantially lighter than the equivalent Super Angulon and very portable.

Ian
 
I have a 121mm f8 Super Angulon. Stopped down to f45 it covers 10 x 8. At this aperture and focussed at 10 feet, everything from 5 feet to infinity is sharp. I made a lightweight fixed-focus box camera with the lens focussed like this, and it worked very well. Don't know why I don't use it more.

Alan
 
What are the respective image circles? In your experience, does one run out of camera movements with any of these lenses? Obviously with a box camera it's a moot point, but if they were used on a camera with movements?
 
Jim, not sure if you are asking Ian or me. In my case I bought the 121mm Super Angulon very cheap many years ago, to use on my first home-made 5 x 4 camera. This had plenty of movements, but the lens covered everything. It was built to work on a 5 x 7 camera I believe, so no problem with 5 x4 coverage. It was when I read that it just about covered 10 x 8 that I decided to make a 10 x 8 box camera. To find the hyperfocal distance for the lens at minimum aperture, for maximum depth of field, I put it on my 5x4 camera, and first focussed on a distant object with the lens wide open. Then I stopped the lens down to f45, and extended the focus until the object was just about still in focus. At this point I discovered that at full aperture the lens was actually focussed at 10 feet. So at f45 I get everything more or less sharp from 5 feet to infinity.
When I bought a 10x8 filmholder I discovered that the T distance ( face of filmholder to film surface) was a couple of mm more than it is on a 5x4. I could have made an allowance for this but decided to stick to the lens/film distance already worked out as this would favour close objects being photographed, rather than infinity.
There's the faintest hint of coverage fall-off at the corners. So this lens would only work on a regular 10x8 camera if you didn't use movements.

Alan
 
The trouble with these old lenses is finding one at all or one in good condition. I have looked for quite some time for a 159mm Wollensak or a 165mm Angulon, but nothing. Well...there was a 165mm Angulon on eBay about six months ago that was listed at a ridiculous price for the condition; I passed.
 
Alan Clark said:
I have a 121mm f8 Super Angulon. Stopped down to f45 it covers 10 x 8. At this aperture and focussed at 10 feet, everything from 5 feet to infinity is sharp. I made a lightweight fixed-focus box camera with the lens focussed like this, and it worked very well. Don't know why I don't use it more.

Alan
Click to expand...

Your 121mm Super Angulon has more coverage than my 120mm Angulon but both vignette on 10x8, that's not total vignetting where the aperture is obscured at the edges so there's zero exposure there, rather partial occlusion of the aperture leading to significant extra light fall off (think partial eclipse).

I tried my 210mm Symmar S on my 10x8 wonderful it illuminates the whole screen but looking through the cut off Beattie Intenscreen corners there's the partial eclipse of the aperture is quite obvious even stopped down well, This is something I live with using my 65mm f8 Super Angulon on my 5x4 cameras.

I have a second 159mm ExWA Wollensak with separation but with tests it might have a second owner on this Forum :D

Ian
 
Ian, yes, I did say that there is the faint hint of fall-off at the corners.
But it is hardly noticeable.

Alan
 
Has any one looked at the price of a Nikon 9000 - 8000 glass film holder, for the price you can buy a new Epson v800 and some change, I am afraid it’s supply and demand, and I want one so bad, but can’t justify the asking prices to my pocket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top