View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Murray@uptowngallery.org
Joined: 03 Apr 2002 Posts: 164 Location: Holland MI
|
Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2004 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello:
I just bought (but haven't received via mail yet) 15+ front cells (apparently unused) for the Rodenstock-Ysarex 127 mm f/4.7 (Polaroid 110?, although they say Rodenstock-Ysarex) on them) lens.
If this is a tweaked Tessar, does anyone know if the front cell is (+) or (-) f.l.? And if it's a single element? (Tessar is 4 el., 3 group, so one has to be a 'doublet'.
These could be white elephants if they're negative. Maybe work as a 'Telek'-type teleconverter? If (+) I could use for homebrew lens experiments.
Oh, for other posters, regarding the radioactive Lanthanum glass reputation, in the Aero-Ektars (which are not Tessar-type, however) the radioactive cells are at the rear if used. They usually yellow over a couple decades too, and because the R-Y cells I bought are colorless, I'd assume they're not 'hot.
I will probably use a 4x5 CG of course for my experiments.
Thanks
Thanks |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Les
Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 2682 Location: Detroit, MI
|
Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2004 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the front cell on my Y_R is slightly negative. Now I"m not sure how they mounted it, but with an old Xenar I had, you could remove the two pieces of glass and then the front on it's own was a nice 4x loupe. The rear is the cemented doublet.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
glennfromwy
Joined: 29 Nov 2001 Posts: 903 Location: S.W. Wyoming
|
Posted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
RE: Lanthanum glass; the lanthanum is not the cause of the radiation in itself. The Aero Ektars had Thorium in the glass and that is a problem. It was always said to have been a mistake on Kodak's part but I have read study reports on this that state that Kodak's own documents say it was added intentionally.
Now, if you will excuse me, I will go sit in the closet and glow for a while ------
_________________ Glenn
"Wyoming - Where everybody is somebody else's weirdo" |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Murray@uptowngallery.org
Joined: 03 Apr 2002 Posts: 164 Location: Holland MI
|
Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2004 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, great, negative...I hope there are some scratched ones that need replacement somewhere in the world )
Glenn? from WY - I still want that bed rail...
Scrapin' my wallet (don't laugh)
Murray |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Murray@uptowngallery.org
Joined: 03 Apr 2002 Posts: 164 Location: Holland MI
|
Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2004 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am figure the Rodenstock-Ysarex cell out, based on approx. f.l. of front meniscus, an dresult of cell + apparent f.l. of random lenses I have at home.
Front meniscus appears to be close to 50 mm or +20 diopters.
Combination of front meniscus and double concave (nearly plano-concave)2nd element is negative. The cell and a lens of approximately 111 mm or + 9 diopter had an apparent f.l. of about 8.25 inches or 210 mm or +4.75 diopters. This means DCV lens is
-24.2, cell is -4.2, and missing element(s) to give 127 mm f.l. or +7.87 diopters need to be +3.67 diopter or 272 mm.
I am doing to try to lengthen it a bit. The 111 mm/ 9+9 diopter lens I had was the back element of a Schneider Xenagon or Curtagon from a Kodak Retina Reflex that was screwed up. This will give me 210 mm roughly.
Above was inspired by lens equation discussion in Greene's "Primitive Photography...".
Murray |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
45PSS
Joined: 28 Sep 2001 Posts: 4081 Location: Mid Peninsula, Ca.
|
Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2004 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Read about Hot Lens here.
_________________ The best camera ever made is the one that YOU enjoy using and produces the image quality that satifies YOU. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|