1880s Brass: Taylor, Taylor & Hobson - Rapid Rectilinear

[Scheimpflug]

Lightning strikes twice?

Just a month after finding my 1940's era large-format Dallmeyer with the homemade brass M42 adapter (thread here), I have come across another vintage homebrew monster.

My latest treasure is a brass lens made by Taylor, Taylor & Hobson in Leicester, England. It is marked "R.R.", designating it as a Rapid Rectilinear design, and the engravings specify "8 1/2 x 6 1/2" and "EQ. FOC. 11.31 IN." It also has the word "PATENT" and a small upward arrow engraved through the center of the word, but there is no reference to a patent number. The glass is fungus free.





The interesting part of this particular lens is that it has a long thin metal tube soldered to it.. right over the rear threads. The tube has a square plate on the end, with a small strip soldered to one end at a right angle, and a gentle bend (towards the lens) on the opposite side. There is a ridged flange where the tube meets the plate, so I suspect that only the tube portion is homemade - perhaps just an extension? The ends and joints of the tube are nicely rolled, so I would guess that it was a production can (food or some other product) that had the ends cut out.




I had to disassemble the lens to fix the aperture mechanism, which turned out to be as simple as adjusting the retaining collar so that the aperture ring engaged the pin that operated the iris diaphragm. The lens opened easily, so I took it apart a bit more than I needed to, but I didn't press my luck to take it fully apart. The aperture is stepless, but has markings for f/8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 45, and 64. Only f/8 is marked with the "f/" notation, and only f/8 through 32 have notches filed in the aperture ring. The front filter threads are 43mm or 1 11/16", and this lens came with a very short brass lens hood, so I would assume that the field of view is pretty wide.



And finally, here is a closeup of the front element up against the rear element. I suppose that I will have to use a small jewelers torch to un-solder the tube and clean up the threads underneath, although I am hesitant to apply too much heat as the glass elements cannot be removed first. If I can't safely remove the tube, I will have to figure out the focal length and make an adapter to hold it by the rear plate...




Now, if you are like me, my first question was "How old is it?"

I did some research, and found the "Taylor, Taylor & Hobson" entry in the Lens Collector's Vade Mecum (07/05/2001 edition). There is some interesting information in there, such as this being one of TTH's first lenses, about how iris diaphragms were optional extras (the standard lenses having Waterhouse stops), and about TTH's transition to be called "Cooke Optics" - a name many here will recognize. Here are a few excerpts:

[Farside]

Deduct the length of the extension tube from the stated focal length and see what's left - it might be a clue as to what class of camera (if any) it was adapted to fit.

[Scheimpflug]

[Nesster]

Beautiful, wonderful, excellent, I love it! Thank you for the vicarious adventure!

[Farside]

[luisalegria]

I think you've got it, its a long lens mounted for a smaller camera.

Smaller cameras, such as the usual 1900's 4x5 folders would likely not have the extension for such a long FL. Even now people sell extension tube mountings or extension bellows for view cameras for exactly this purpose.

The only problem I see is the lack of a shutter, which may not be much of a hardship as this thing was probably used at small stops with long exposures.

It could also have been intended for a focal-plane shutter reflex camera like the Graphics.

[nemesis101]

Am I alone in imagining a forum similar to our own (but conducted via mail or telegraph) discussing a member's home-brew success at 'rescuing' a 20 year old 1880s lens and putting it to good use on their equivalent of a Canon 5D MKll, boasting how 'old lenses can be put to good uses even in this modern age'?

lol

Doug.

[luisalegria]

Hi Doug,

You don't need to imagine, people have been doing this stuff since photgraphy began.

We have seen plenty of remounted LF lenses for Leicas and Exaktas for instance.

There were plenty of articles on old photo magazines on remounting lenses on different equipment.

[kds315*]

Your lens is pretty similar to mine (but mine has 6.94" = 176mm focal length). On your lens it reads focal length equals 11.31" = 287mm focal length, so at infinity you need your sensor to away from the center of the lens by that amount. If your lens is say 100mm long, that would then be roughly 287mm - 50mm = 237mm. If you want to use it on a Nikon DSLR, the register is 46.5mm, so you would need a tube of 237mm - 46.5mm = 190.5mm length. Obviously that camera your lens was used on was a larger format camera which much larger register length since your tube is about 124mm long. So it you want to bring it to good use, you would even need a longer tube - but you don't have focusing yet! Focusing closer than infinity needs and even longer tube, so it would be best to fit between your lens+tube a suitable focusing helicoid. There is a long focus helicoid with front and rear M42 threads, which extends between 35 and 95mm if I remember correctly, so for infinity you would need 237mm - 124mm - 35mm = 78mm additional tube (for that Nikon example). It is a bit incoirrect as you would have to remove that square flange at the end, thus losing some length or leave it and use it to attach a suitable long tube with rear M42 mount, that would fit the focusing helicoid. I hope that was clear to understand the principle...

[Scheimpflug]

[Scheimpflug]

[Scheimpflug]

[fish4570]

You guys are making my head hurt ...

[luisalegria]

Something like this maybe -

http://www.stronghorses.com/bstrong/cameras/cam_premo3.htm

or this -

http://members.papadocs.com/buttons49/cameramuseum/code/subpages/666.htm

or maybe even this -

http://www.flickr.com/photos/89864432@N00/4274453901/in/pool-camerapedia

There were versions these that took lensboards.

Its also possible that the rear flange may have been intended to be hooked over a square lens mount and not necessarily used as a lens board.

[cooltouch]

It's an interesting old lens, for sure, and I'd love to see some large format shots taken with it.

Sounds to me like you have quite a bit of data as to format size. Whenever I've had a question about the size of a lens's image circle, I just hold the lens up to a white wall and point it toward a well-lit window, then move it back and forth toward the wall until the projected image is sharp. At that point, you can either guestimate or measure the image circle. Adjust your estimates as necessary if you think you'll need room for movements. No high-falutin' theoretical calculatin' necessary.

[kds315*]

[cooltouch]

The castle shot is fabulous! Very impressive.

[Scheimpflug]

[fish4570]

Woo-hoo! Tilt shift and everything!

Hope you have some grand fun, and we get to look at the results.
Thanks for your shots, too, kds.

[mo]

Don't poke the persons eye out if you take a portrait... awesome ingenuity!!...bravo.

[Scheimpflug]

[Scheimpflug]

Ok, here's a challenge for those of you with trained eyes... or who like guessing.


Three sample pictures, all taken with lenses which can be found in my signature, within minutes of each other using identical camera settings (aside from white balance, which I forgot to lock ). An aperture of f/8 was used for each lens, which is wide open for the TTH RR and stopped down for the rest. They were then all cropped to the same approximate view and scaled by differing amounts to make the subjects equivalent sizes. No other adjustments or post processing was performed.

I made these shots handheld, so focus points are close, but probably not exact. These pictures were also taken though a window, so for what it is worth, they don't quite represent the "best possible" from each lens.



Can anyone correctly identify the lens for each of the three pictures? Feel free to elaborate with your answers, I would be interesting to hear the reasoning behind your choices.



Sample A:



Sample B:



Sample C:

[cheve]

I think it is the 3rd one - this one seems to be more saturated to my eye. From your post showing the disassemble lens, some of the glass element appears to have a yellow/brownish tint to it, I think the saturated look is a result of the tint. the lack of WB treatment for the three sample is a good hint in this case ( ok.. at least in my head)

cheers,

[fish4570]

Oh, I know it's not tilt/shift, but it sure looks like it can boogy ...

[Krisgage]

Cool set up !

Extension tubes and bellows work harmoniously with old brass lenses !