Graflex.org

[troublemaker]

Hello all,

I have here before me, an old B&L lens. It says it is a Planatograph 8-1/2".
I am interested in any particulars regarding this thing. It is in an old B&L pneumatic shutter that seems to work fairly well.
The glass is in decent condition, and since it is a 5x7, it makes a nice bright image on 4x5 GG. I am thinking to use it for some portraits I want to do.
Anyway, I am curious about what type of lens it is, manufacturing dates, intended uses, or whatever anyone may know about it. I will probably mount it on a Pacemaker Graphic lens board soon and test it out with a 2x3 back.
Stephen

[ This Message was edited by: troublemaker on 2004-05-06 17:18 ]

[Les]

It's turn of the century, not a long run (gone by '39 from my records) I can't put my hands on my early B&L stuff right now but I suspect it's 4 elements but don't know which if any are cemented or not.

[troublemaker]

It doesn't look to be cemented, but does appear that it may be 4-element.
For sharpness it looks like it may be a nice little performer, but contrast remains to be seen in actual film testing.
Stephen

[Les]

I think you'll find you'll have a noticeable light loss and low contrast with this lens. Every time light enters glass some of it is lost. With a Dagor there are 4 air to glass surfaces.

You've got 8. The Planar was a disappointment until coatings came a long. Until then you could find them on graphic cameras where the light and flare could be controlled.

So, keep the sun at your back and the lens heavily shaded. But just for the heck of it shoot either a chandelier or somebody's house at Christmas time with all the lights and luminaries--it should be interesting.


les

[troublemaker]

I have been thinking to do a Harley chopper witha lot of chrome sparkling, like a detail close up shot. There's a biker bar, Walker's cafe, not far from here.
An 1-1/4 slip on adapter will facilitate my big lens hood for my Tele-Raptar for shade,and I always try and stand so that my body provides some extra shade.
Thanks,
Les for the info. If you come across any more on it let me know.
regards,
Stephen

[t.r.sanford]

I'll be interested in learning the results of your flare test. From the name and age, I'd guess, vaguely, that the "Planatograph" may be a variant of the symmetrical arrangement of achromats that Ross (or someone in England) called a "Rapid Rectilinear" and the German makers called an "aplanat." If it is, it will have two cemented doublets, and should exhibit good contrast. If it's not cemented, the contrast probably will be sadly lacking, as noted.

[troublemaker]

I intend to see if I have a lock ring and lens board to fit my Pacemaker this evening and test the lens with a 2x3 roll back on a 4x5 this weekend, perhaps tomorrow. I'll use the same subjects I have been testing my press lenses on for sharpness and contrast and add a couple shots with lots of shiny stuff and see what we get. Much more economical to run tests with 120 instead of sheet film... and I need to test a 90mm angulon and 162 Optar so will post when film developed.
Stephen

[troublemaker]

Pretty good contrast, and sharpness. I'll look at the negs more closely and try and compare to my other lenses this evening.
I didn't do anything as far as flare. Any recomentdations on testing flare? I would like to side by side a couple lenses this week before I leave for the Sierra.
I think I am taking 103 Trioptar, 135 Optar, and 8" Tele-Raptar and 65Rapter (only WA I have right now.)

[t.r.sanford]

I think your test of a chromed machine with lots of specular reflection should provide a pretty good indication of flare.

If what you have is a "Rapid Rectilinear" type, it should be a good performer stopped down. I once read a book published in the early '20s whose author suggested that the supersession of that design by three-element "Cooke Anastigmat" derivatives was driven less by the correction of astigmatism than by the relatively greater ease of figuring three uncemented elements -- whose curves thus did not have to match precisely -- than of figuring four, two of which were to be cemented. And, of course, the term "anastigmat" was a fine marketing tool!

I have an old B&L US4 (or f: "RR"-type lens in (now unworkable) pneumatic shutter that, according to my father, covered a 5x7-in. format. I judge the focal length to be about 180mm., so he may have been right but I tend to doubt it. I made some test exposures with it on a "Graphic View" about 25 years ago, and was impressed by the results.

[troublemaker]

Since I will be getting ready to leave for thre weeks, the flare test will have to wait till I get back. I will certainly do it and will use another Optar or something to compare the images. My Graftar produces some realy cool six point stars on some reflective things like poished metal and rounded objects, and don't even need the special filter!
I looked a the negs again. Using only the center of the image circle on a 120 film back, an 11x14 enlargement is quite good, reasonably contrasty, and almost as sharp as my 90mm Angulon shot from the same position. I consider this Angulon pretty good, very good compared to the 90 or 60mm Raptars. Thus I would imagine full 4x5's with the old B&L will be excellent at 11x14 or a bit larger. It might even be better than my 8" Tele-Raptar, which I do not consider a stellar piece though it is very clean and functional. Wollensak is all over the place on quality. I have a 135 Optar that beats a 135 Symmar, so go figure.
Anyway, it certainly works, and while I am a bit challenged in the technical terminology of lenses and construction, I appreciate all the info as it is beginning to sink in. I need to go back to the university library and get the book they have on lens contsruction as it shows cutaways of various element designs and accompanying text.
At least I understand circle of confusion. It used to be that place one finds when wondering why the photos look so crappy.
Now, Less has suggested that, perhaps because of the name "Planatograph", that it is a pre-coatings Planar type. I can not tell by looking at it if it is cemented or not. If it is, it is in excellent condition, the glass is nearly perfect.
regards,
Stephen

[ This Message was edited by: troublemaker on 2004-05-10 01:21 ]