Rank Taylor Hobson Varotal V 40-400 F4 lens

kidu79 · Joined: 05 Feb 2013 Posts: 4 Location: Romania

Hi all

Do you have any information about the above the lens from the title?
I have one of these, but I don't know what was this used for?, what mount it has? , is it still usable now in the "digital era"?, what is the market price for such a "dinosaur" ?

I assume it's a cinema lens, not photo lens, since it has the T-factor stated also (T4.5) on it.
It's very heavy, around 9-10kg, the ZenitE shown in the pics feels like a feather compared to this lens.

Here I attach some pictures:

Thanks for any feedback/information about it.

PS: for some strange reason I can see the pictures if I edit the post and push the Preview button, but after I submit the post, it seems that the link to the pictures is broken. @Admins: please help! F1! Confused

SVP · Expire: 2017-12-17

Should look ok now:

kds315* · Expire: 2021-03-09

Old TV camera zoom lens, for small sensor size not very high resolution.

danfromm · Joined: 04 Sep 2011 Posts: 576

Interesting. I have a similar TTH monstrosity, an f/5.6 Varotal 10:1. Not particularly usable because the zoom group doesn't move as it should, there's a mechanical problem.

My beast doesn't have a t/stop engraved, is lighter than yours. It is somewhat unusual in that the front surface is concave to the subject. Mine's mount is similar to yours', and I think both fit TV cameras as Klaus said.

TTH also made Varotals for cine cameras. The VM describes them as very sharp. G. H. Cook, TTH's chief designer and responsible for the Varotals and other TTH lenses (12"/4 tele, for one), won a technical Oscar for his Varotals.

I'm sure Klaus is right about your monster, but mine projects a rather larger image circle than he suggests.

kidu79 · Joined: 05 Feb 2013 Posts: 4 Location: Romania

Hi all

In the mean time I have found this link: http://www.smecc.org/rank_taylor_hobson.htm

So it seems it's designed for 35mm film, so it's not that "small sensor"...it should work fine on APS-C sensor, and probably give some vignetting on FX sensors.

@SVP: thank you very much for help with the images, and for the welcome message.

kds315* · Expire: 2021-03-09

For 35mm film? A TV camera?? Guess you got something mixed up...

Vidicons and the like had 1" format at the time and by that strange definition that meant not 25.4mm but a 16mm image diagonal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

But surely a test will reveal what it really delivers Wink

Btw. the funny thing is that the glass was made by SCHOTT in Germany, the optical lens making by SCHNEIDER Kreuznach in Germany and the coating by Balzers also in Germany. See http://www.fernsehmuseum.info/rank-varotal-iii.html (in German, use google translate if needed)

Oh and you may read this then also: http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000lOx

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

The TV camera this lens was original used for probably had a 1-inch tube, 400 lines resolution.

That means the image circle will probably not be much bigger than that required for a 1-inch tube and you might find it vignettes on M4/3, let alone APS-C.

The resolution of the TV system was low, but the lens might be sharp as some other TTH TV lenses of the same vintage are sharp, I've seen some Ortals that came off a turret mount on a studio camera perform very well on digital SLRs.

I think this Varotal will be from the early 1960s and replaced the earlier Ortals that were prime lenses and were fitted onto a camera with a turret.

Only way to find out for sure what the image circle and resolution are for sure is to ask the lens itself.

Before you spend any money getting a suitable mount put on it, make a DIY one, lots of tape, some cardboard tube, it can be done.

However, is it worth it, this lens is huge and heavy, looks like something that will need to be mounted on a tripod.

kidu79 · Joined: 05 Feb 2013 Posts: 4 Location: Romania

actually I have tried this lens last year with results like this:

These pics are taken with Fuji S5 (APS-C sensor) behind the lens, no adapter used, so the optical axes were not really aligned, and also some external/unwanted light was also present.

Later on I have made on a lathe and metal adapter (M42 thread) and used the M42->NikonF adapter to mount the camera on the lens.
I have obtained this:

This last picture was taken late in the evening, so higher ISO was used.

Here is a picture of how this lens looks like:

It's not me in the pic, it's a buddy with who I share this hobby.

The lens was fixed on a Bilora C-936 video tripod (rated for 7kg equipment) but I needed to use that beach chair in front of the lens to give some extra support.

ManuallyYours · Joined: 21 Jun 2012 Posts: 35 Location: Lyon, FRANCE

Disappointed by the pix I saw. I really thought the result would have been better. Why a such "bad quality" for this kind of glass-monster ?

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

This lens was designed for 1 inch tube TV cameras. At that time, TV had around 400 lines, later it became around 600. Therefore the lens didn't have to be high resolution, it also didn't have to be highly corrected for some abberations. I'm not sure what the design criteria would be for such a lens, it would have to be parfocal of course, to allow zooms.

kidu79 · Joined: 05 Feb 2013 Posts: 4 Location: Romania

please consider the following:

- first picture was keeping the camera by hand behind the lens (no alignement, light going between camera and lens, so on...)
- second picture was using an adapter, so optical axes are aligned, no ambient light going between lens and camera, but the adapter was shiny inside (milled steel part) so some internal reflection are probabily causing some artefacts. Also this was taken in the evening (around 8pm) at ISO3200 , with no stabilization and wide open...

for this "old timer" I would say it's decent... anyway, since this monster cost me a six-pack of beer for 2 lenses like this (this one, and one disassembled) I would say the quality is not that bad Laughing