Argus A2 50mm F/4.5 (How low can you go...)

[Alun Thomas]

I just finished adapting this Argus lens. It's (according to internet sources) a prewar, uncoated, 50mm triplet type lens. It is not yet labelled as an anastigmat lens, and according to online sources, Argus at this point bought it's lenses from third parties. Later they would buy out a lens making company and start making their own. I disassembled it and gave it a clean, fortunately with no coating comes no fungus, only dust and grime. The shutter has a detachable firing pin you can take out to install a remote cable. The shutter has a 'T' setting (push to open, push again to close) so I opened it with that and left it in that state.

This lens isn't very good, it never really gets sharp, but it's also not as bad as you'd expect. Being a triplet, the uncoated surfaces are far less of an issue than with faster prewar lenses like the Biotar or Primoplan. The images are low contrast by modern standards, but I would think that it was probably considered acceptable in 1939.

Anyhow I went out this evening to see if this lens is usable, and to see what a 1939 owner of such a camera could expect to get in the way of image quality...

(All images taken with camera pictured, standard fine jpegs, no PP)





Wide open. The right hand side of the image is not good, but this is probably due to the rubbish job I did with the adaptation.



What it does mean is that you're one step ahead when it comes to blurring the background...

#4


The New Plymouth gardens have way better flowers than my one...

#5


F/4.5 will only give you so much separation. The A2F camera actually focusses fairly closely, I couldn't get quite as close due to the 12-19 helicoid which was the only one I had which gave infinity focus.

#6


#7


#8


#9


#10


I used the plate from the A2B camera which latches the lens 'in' when not in use, to adapt the lens. This plate is not properly flat, which, on the A2 camera, doesn't matter, it's not a factor when is use. Here though, it means that the adaptation works a little bit like a tilt adapter. Sometimes it means you can't have all of a particular flat scene in focus properly, you have to choose which part is in focus and let go of the rest.

#11


Looking very Soviet...

#12


1st rule of MFL lens threads: All threads must contain at least one (but not limited to one) seagull pic...

#13


#14


#15


The lens handles bright lights in the frame center quite well, especially compared to lenses from subsequent decades with coatings and more elements.

#16


You can get flare with the light source in the frame corner, and reduced contrast, but to be honest, even then it's not too too bad.

#17


#18


#19


#20


Had to stop and detour up a side road on the way home to get this one. When the light is this good, it almost doesn't matter if the edges of the frame suck...

[Ultrapix]

Long story made short:

- Poor lens. or poor adaptation, or both;
- Good, very good, photographer

[calvin83]

Good adaptation work!

For a lens attached to a budget camera in the pre-war period, the performance on a high MP digital camera is not that bad. The post-war Cintar 3.5 will be a better triplet.

[caspert79]

Interesting to see such an old lens in action in the digital age. Thanks for sharing 👍

[alex ph]

The lens is really good. Ok for some possible faults of adaptation, otherwise it delivers a good clarity and interesting IF-OOF transitions. You might say, with f4.5 WO every lens tends to be good. And it would partly be true. This one gives a space for a creative play.

Shots from #10 and on show more the eye of photographer than lens' qualities. Congrats!