Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Is there a Biogon that isn't superb?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 2:42 pm    Post subject: Is there a Biogon that isn't superb? Reply with quote
Is there a Biogon that isn't very good?
They all seem to be stunning from the samples I've seen. All other Zeiss designs have some good- and some not-so-good lenses, but the Biogons are always looking exceptional, no matter how old they are.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, I just can confirm that Orio's Zeiss Biogon 2/35 ZM is an absolutely amazing lens!


PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow, you mean you've found something you really like? lol


PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, I agree. Mr Bertele did a great job when he copied, err continued Mr Russinov's work.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting info:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?34804-Information-about-the-Russian-optics-designer-Michael-Roosinov-(Mikha%EFl-Rusinov)

Quote:
Most of our readers are probably familiar with the name of Michael Michaelovitch Roosinov, a Russian engineer, a pionner of modern wide angle lenses.

Relevant discussion in the archives :
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...hp/t-9784.html
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00O6xC

So far the only information I knew about this inventor was the text of the 1946 US patent
http://www.google.com/patents?id=_vJ...m=4&dq=2516724

But I'd like to know more about the man. I attempted several Internet searches but all drove me in to endless loops back to the previous references. Then a reader of our French MF/LF forum, Arne, found a reference to a Russian web page.

The name of the inventor is spelled Roosinov Michael Michaelovitch in the US patent.
However a spelling closer to the original Russian name would be: Russinov Mikhaïl Mikhaïlovich (in fact Rusinov is even better, see below)


This is the relevant page for those who can read Russian ! (do not forget to switch the settings your web browser to Russian encoding !)
http://www.russar.spb.ru/science_2.html

So, at least I can add a portrait of Mikhaïl Mikhaïlovich Russinov to the gallery I have in my copy of Kinsglake "History of the Photographic lens".
Those of you -- I know you are many -- who maintain a private chapel with a burning candle in front of the Icons of All Saint Optics Designers, besides Saint Paul (Rudolph), Saint Ludwig (Bertele) and Saint Pierre (Angénieux), you shoud add the portrait of: Saint Mikhaïl (Russinov)


And for those who want to read some technical details of the story and the link to Roosinov/Russinov's and Bertele's famous designs, look here;
http://books.google.fr/books?id=OJrJ...l=fr#PPA151,M1

US patent 2734423 by Ludwig Bertele
http://www.google.com/patents?id=9Rd...BAJ&dq=2734423


I know I like the Jupiter-12 2.8/35 a lot, so much I have three copies Smile


PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting, I didn't know that it wasnt originally invented by Zeiss

Are there any more Biogon copies except the Jupiter-12?

Last edited by ForenSeil on Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:46 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think Nikon made some Biogon types for rf in the 50s, not sure if Canon or any other Japanese maker did.

I don't think there are many Biogon copies, there were other designs appearing in the mid 1950s.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I thought they became only submissive because SLRs nearly eliminated rangefinders and biogons generally have a very long rear elements so can't be used with SLRs. Hasselblad Biogon seems to be the only exception.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
Interesting, I didn't know that it wasnt originally invented by Zeiss.


Many attributions to Zeiss might, properly, include reference to others.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
Yes, I agree. Mr Bertele did a great job when he copied, err continued Mr Russinov's work.


Courtesy, Andre E.C.

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum65/72984-copy-biogon-jupiter-12-a.html

Quote:
Indeed, in 1951, Dr.Ludwig Bertele, based his Biogon design (second and current form) on a double ended reversed-telephoto objective design, patented by M.M Roosinov in 1946. Which consists of a central positive structure with one or more large menisci at each end making a roughly symmetrical arrangement.

The Zeiss design had two menisci at the front and a single strong meniscus element at the rear. The distance from the element to the plane of the film is very short to lower distortion levels and increase contrast, therefore interfering with the mirror on SLR designs.

A master patent wasn't possible for this design, and many other companies embrace this excellent optical disposition, examples are Schneider's Super Angullon, with one menisci at each end, the Wild Aviogon and the Hologon developed by Dr.Erhard Glatzel in 1966 ( in reality, the Hologon it's a modification of the Biogon design).

So no, M.M Roosinov just created a design which gave the base to another concept.

Surelly, Bertele is the creator of the Biogon design!


PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
I thought they became only submissive because SLRs nearly eliminated rangefinders and biogons generally have a very long rear elements so can't be used with SLRs. Hasselblad Biogon seems to be the only exception.


Oh, dear. Long rear groups (element usually refers to a single piece of glass) don't entail short back focus. f/4.5 Biogons made to Bertele's simplified version of the Aviotar he designed for Wild have short back focus.

The "Hasselblad Biogon" has ~ 18 mm back focus, can't be used in any SLR. The Hasselblad Super Wide and derivatives are all fixed lens viewfinder cameras. The same lens was used on a number of aerial cameras, some fixed lens cameras, others not, and was for a time available for the Alpa 12. I shoot one extracted from an aerial camera on a Century Graphic. Longer versions (45 mm, 53 mm) were supplied for use on 6x9 Linhof Technikas and there was a 75 mm version sold for use on 4x5 view cameras and on a variety of aerial cameras.

There's another misconception in this thread. Biogon is not a design type. It is a trade name, has no implications for design. The first Biogon was an f/2.8 lens designed by Bertele for Zeiss, was made to be used on the Contax rangefinder. Contax is also a trade name. Re the first Biogon, see US Patent 2,084,309.

Bertele's f/4.5 Biogon is described in US Patent 2,721,499. If you look at the two patents I've referenced you'll see that the lenses are quite different.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
danfromm wrote:
There's another misconception in this thread. Biogon is not a design type. It is a trade name, has no implications for design.

Unfortunately the distinction, between design type and trade name, is often confused even by apparently authoritative sources.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
DanielT74 wrote:

Quote:
Indeed, in 1951, Dr.Ludwig Bertele, based his Biogon design (second and current form) on a double ended reversed-telephoto objective design, patented by M.M Roosinov in 1946.


Time to make a basic fact straight: the optical scheme called Biogon is a Zeiss patent and was created in the 30s.
(it was, if I remember correctly, related to the wave of new optics that were conceived for the Berlin Olympics of 1936).
The fact that a specific Biogon lens in the 50s was inspired by, or copied from, a Russian lens of the 40s, which was in turn
inspired by, or copied from, the original Biogon concept, does not change the fact that the concept of Biogon wide angle
optical scheme is entirely a Zeiss creation.

The overall concept is one thing, the actualizations of it are another. Just think of how many Planar lenses variations exist. But the
double Gauss scheme is the basic concept in all of them.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Is there a Biogon that isn't superb? Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
Is there a Biogon that isn't very good?
They all seem to be stunning from the samples I've seen. All other Zeiss designs have some good- and some not-so-good lenses, but the Biogons are always looking exceptional, no matter how old they are.


Indeed Zeiss was (and is) most successful at wide angle lens than at any other type of lens.
The optical excellence of the Biogon is largely due to the non-retrofocal design, which allows a correction of distortion that simply
isn't possible with a retrofocal wide lens.
Biogons however are not without limits: the proximity of the exit pupil to the focal plane enhances the natural fall-off of light in the
corners. For this reason, some of the extreme non-retrofocal wides such as Contax G's Hologon 16mm. are sold with a correction
radial gradient filter.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
DanielT74 wrote:

Quote:
Indeed, in 1951, Dr.Ludwig Bertele, based his Biogon design (second and current form) on a double ended reversed-telephoto objective design, patented by M.M Roosinov in 1946.


Time to make a basic fact straight: the optical scheme called Biogon is a Zeiss patent and was created in the 30s.
(it was, if I remember correctly, related to the wave of new optics that were conceived for the Berlin Olympics of 1936).
The fact that a specific Biogon lens in the 50s was inspired by, or copied from, a Russian lens of the 40s, which was in turn
inspired by, or copied from, the original Biogon concept, does not change the fact that the concept of Biogon wide angle
optical scheme is entirely a Zeiss creation.

The overall concept is one thing, the actualizations of it are another. Just think of how many Planar lenses variations exist. But the
double Gauss scheme is the basic concept in all of them.


Orio, I think you are badly mistaken. Bertele's first and second Biogon designs have him and the patent holder (more or less, CZJ for the first, Zeiss BRD for the second) in common. Otherwise they are entirely different.

I posted the patent numbers. They are available online at www.uspto.gov Go look at them before you disagree with me again about this.

Last edited by danfromm on Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:55 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:54 pm    Post subject: Re: Is there a Biogon that isn't superb? Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

Biogons however are not without limits: the proximity of the exit pupil to the focal plane enhances the natural fall-off of light in the
corners. For this reason, some of the extreme non-retrofocal wides such as Contax G's Hologon 16mm. are sold with a correction
radial gradient filter.
Wrong again. Illumination that falls off with cos(theta)^4 is the case for most lens designs. Designs like those of some of Roosinov's Russars and Bertele's Aviogon, second Biogon, Super Aviogon, ... use a tilting exit pupil (that's Roosinov's big contribution) to limit falloff to cos(theta)^3.

Oh, and by the way, Russar is also a trade name, not a design type. Go look at Russars in the 1963 GOI catalog.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio was correct in that there is a problem with falloff of illumination and the use of a centre grad to correct.

I don't understand the exact physics of how the Biogon types work, I just enjoy using them, my last roll of 35mm was with one (J12).



That one is a black 1960s LZOS one for Kiev, seems sharper than my earlier KMZ copy but also seems to have some glow, I can't see any fungus and I like the effect, especially on shiny objects. Just wish the J12 would fit on my NEX-3, I've tried both M39 and Kiev versions and they fit, but can only be used at the min focus distance, if you try to focus them any further and the rear element hits the plastic frame around the sensor.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Orio was correct in that there is a problem with falloff of illumination and the use of a centre grad to correct.


Ian, you and Orio haven't used f/4.5 Biogons or, I fear, read much about them.

I shoot a 38/4.5 Biogon on a 2x3 Century Graphic in front of a 2x3 (you and Orio would say 6x9) roll holder. The lens is claimed to cover 80 mm (nominal 6x6). In fact it covers 84 mm, with good illumination to 82 mm and good image quality until the image goes totally black at 84 mm. I get very nice, when I want to crop that way, 24x82 panoramas. No center filter is needed with the 38/4.5 Biogon on 6x6.

I don't believe there is a center filter for the Hasseblad Super Wide. If I'm mistaken, please correct me. As I said, f/4.5 Biogons' falloff follows cos(theta)^3, not ^4.

I also shoot a 47/5.6 Super Angulon. On 2x3 (100 mm circle) it sees 93.5 degrees, is indeed two stops down from center to corner. I've never felt the need for a center filter with it, even with E6 films. Perhaps if I used much in the way of movements, but all my humble Century Graphic allows is a little front rise.

I also shoot a 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon. On 2x3 (100 mm circle) it sees 110 degrees. I sometimes use a center filter with it.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You're just being obtuse Dan. Orio referenced the Hologon and it's need of a centre grad and I agreed with him on that point.

Thanks for the further info, but no need to argue rights and wrongs, it's all good info to have in a thread about Biogon types.

I have long lusted after one of these:



But I think a 15mm Heliar on a suitable rf body might be more likely.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
danfromm wrote:

Orio, I think you are badly mistaken. Bertele's first and second Biogon designs have him and the patent holder (more or less, CZJ for the first, Zeiss BRD for the second) in common. Otherwise they are entirely different.

I posted the patent numbers. They are available online at www.uspto.gov Go look at them before you disagree with me again about this.


For convenience, the optical schemes of the two designs, taken from your patent references, are given in Kingslake's book - p 128 for the first design and p 151 for the second.

As you indicated earlier, Biogon is a trademark not a design.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

... it's all good info to have in a thread about Biogon types.


The point is that Biogon is not a lens type. It's a Trademark which is owned by Zeiss. Zeiss can use it as they wish. Zeiss have applied it to two types of lens. The second is a derivative of Russinov's work and clearly acknowledged as such in the patent literature (Bertele). Russinov's design is not a derivative of the Zeiss/Bertele lens design to which Zeiss first applied the name Biogon.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
You're just being obtuse Dan. Orio referenced the Hologon and it's need of a centre grad and I agreed with him on that point.

Thanks for the further info, but no need to argue rights and wrongs, it's all good info to have in a thread about Biogon types.

I have long lusted after one of these:



But I think a 15mm Heliar on a suitable rf body might be more likely.


Ian, I'm not being obtuse, I'm being a stickler.

There are two Biogon design types, both due to L. Bertele. What the Hologon you want has in common with both Biogons is that it is a wide angle lens. What the Hologon you want doesn't have have in common with either Biogon is design type and that it is an extreme wide angle lens.

Not all wide angle lenses are "Biogon types." People do indeed fall into the trap of using the words that way, but that doesn't mean that they're right. What it does mean is that they're ruining perfectly good words by misuse. This is somewhat acceptable from people like the OP and Orio who aren't native speakers of English and who are doing us a large favor by trying to communicate with us in English instead of their native languages. {re the OP, one of my teachers, the Swiss-German economist Karl Brunner, did all of his technical economics in English, insisted that it was impossible to think clearly in German. I don't know German well enough to evaluate Karl's assertion fairly, but he clearly believed what he said.]

As for Orio, he insinuated that Biogons (Betele's second type) need center filters. You're right, he didn't say it directly but I think it is fair to conclude that's what he meant.

Heliar is a trade name that began as a design type. The Heliar design type, which for most people includes the Dynar design type, is not a wide angle lens, typically covers somewhat less than its focal length. A 15 mm Heliar to the original prescription wouldn't come close to covering 24x36.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sometimes dan, your attention to detail makes you miss the big picture.

I know that the Heliar was a Voigtlander lens design, I have a pair of very nice 6x9 Bessas, one with 3.5 Voigtar and one with 3.5 Skopar, I'm not rich enough to afford the Heliar version, but I would love to have one.

The lens I was referring to is the 15mm Heliar made by Cosina and given the Voigtlander badge:



I wasn't inferring anything from what Orio wrote about centre grads, I took it at face value, that the Hologon (both the Contarex fixed and the Contax G versions) require a centre grad. In that, he was correct so I agreed.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I believe the Mamiya 50mm f6.3 for their Universal Press cameras was a Biogon clone?


PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rawhead, please don't take this personally. You're repeating more nonsense from the Internet. Many people have made the same mistake with respect to the 50/6.3 Mamiya Press lens.

Here http://www.cameramanuals.org/mamiya_pdf/mamiya_universal_black-2.pdf is a cross-section of the 50/6.3. Fine lens, but not at all what's in either of Bertele's Biogon patents.

Eric Beltrando has posted three prescriptions from Bertele's US 2 721 499 here: http://www.dioptrique.info/base/n/n_biogon.HTM

Ian, you're using Heliar the trade name. I hate Heliar the trade name because it misleads the unwary who don't understand the difference between trade name and design type. I knew what you meant. All the blame lies with the marketing geniuses at Cosina.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3