A curious Will Wetzlar Maginon 2.5/100 V

[alex ph]

I've got a pretty rare projector lens Maginon 2.5/100 V Will, Wetzlar - find no info about it in net. It has a metal barrel and a serial number. No idea which projector it was used with.

As I already mentioned, I am pretty curious of larger aperture projector lenses and have high expectations about them in beforehand. This one is an odd beast. First of all, it has no five or four elements, but just three, as a regular triplet. Or almost. Its elements are pretty bold, especially the one in the middle, and the front one is not flat from the bottom, but it's a kind of biconvex.



I've read somewhere that triplets cannot go faster than f2.8. So, how this one can?

Some of f2.8 projection triplets, like Angenieux or CZJ are pretty sharp and fetch perfectly well both close range and and infinity. I was really intrigued to discover what the f2.5 serve for. Well, I was surprised.

First of all, the lens just does not fetch infinity. To tell the truth, I don't understand how it is possible. I fixed it to a custom adapter I use for regular projection lenses. So the issue is not in my hands. But all I could get at best from it looks like that:



So you may say "crap!" But it is not. In close range it delivers pretty well, with a very pleasant mild glow that gifts it a character of an old brass lens.


#1


#2


#3


I haven't tried it yet with a slide projector, to test what the faster aperture and this close-field only capability may serve for.

But what is remarkable, if you look at the last two shots, you'll see how radical the OOF transit is. At a distance of just two centimeters from the in-focus area you already see the typical Trioplan bubbles. For example, on the beauty rings of the slightly OOF lenses shot. Is not that unusual?

It looks really similar to the caracter of another (triplet?) lens of the same maker which was presented here in the forum years ago. I mean Rekagon 2.8/50.

What do you think about it?

[paulhofseth]

At least an 85mm2,8 Maginon with metal mount came with the Braun projectors back in the 1970ies.

p.

[alex ph]

Thank you for your input. 2.8/85 Maginon lenses were pretty common in several projector marks, including the rebranded Kindermanns, Revues and Porsts. I think, as everywhere the metal-barrel ones were put to earlier models, and then the productors was seeking to cut production costs and passed to standard plastic barrels.

What is rather special in this one, it has f2.5 aperture. And a 5-digit serial number, as some of early CZJ, Angenieux and Berthiots, for example.

[alex ph]

I decided to flip the second element, to test the lens again. It does not change its infinity rendering in a dramatic way. Although with a Sony FF it works generally better than with a Sony APS-C.

#1


#2
A BW conversion looks pretty cool, to my taste


#3
And here are some white, glowy objects, with contrast boosted

[kiddo]

The 135 revuenon looks very bbar sp tamron style, isn't it?

[alex ph]

That's an interesting comparison, kiddo. Never came to my mind. One of possible origins of this lens is rumored to be Tomioka. This notwithstanding, I think the design is pretty common for lenses coming from the 60s, meanwhile this one comes from the next decade.

Turning back to the topic starter, I mean the fast Maginon, I checked its capacity with a slide projector. And that surprised me once again. It's a very good projector lens, without any specific glow or fuzzyness when used in its predefinite function.

#1 Here is a slide sample projected with the Maginon 2.5/100 and taken with an aus Jena Prakticar 1.8/50 at f5.6


#2 This one is taken with the same Prakticar at around f2


#3 Once again with Prakticar at around f2, but this time the second element of Maginon if flipped, so you see fuzzy edges, but the center is sharp


So, this Maginon's behaviour as a taking glass, especially at infinity, remains highly mysterious for me.

[alex ph]

Still puzled with the lens character, I did a quick study of its focusing track. The lens shows an OOF swirl that disappears progressively and transforms itself into edge fuzziness. But it does not improve "definitely" at infinity. While the image reaches its moderate sharpness peak at edges, the center is already off. That does not seem a typical triplet behaviour. While the lens is good for projection.

#1


#2


#3


#4


#5

[16:9]

You're an element missing . . .

[Ernst Dinkla]

[alex ph]

I doubt my lens has an element missing. The glass composition looks like a classic triplet, does not it?