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

Uncoated Lenses
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:10 pm    Post subject: Uncoated Lenses Reply with quote
Hi folks

I need an uncoated lens for an experiment.

As far as I know I only have two uncoated lenses, a WW2 Ross Xpress f4 5 inch (127mm) and a pre-war Zeiss 75mm enlarger lens.

I really need something wider than either of those, preferably less than 50mm although I could manage with a 50mm.

I know pre-war Leica lenses were uncoated but hey, it's just and experiment and Leica lenses are stupidly expensive, so let's ignore those!

Let's hear your suggestions, perhaps I will have to remove the lens from a pre-war camera?


PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Eh? Wot? Are you unaware of the "cameras, photography" sections on www.ebay.com, www.ebay.co.uk, www.ebay.fr, www.ebay.fr, ...?

Many pre-WW-II lenses are on offer there, some for low prices. Some are good, others aren't, some are in shutter, others aren't, some are attached to cameras, others aren't. Go and look.

FWIW, some uncoated lenses suffer little from lack of coating. Dagor, Tessar, and f/7.7 Uno types, for example.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Of course I am, why did you bother with such a sarcastic and unhelpful reply?

Read what I wrote, I want a wide angle if possible.

Sure I could strip a lens from an old camera but I'd prefer not too anmd I'm unlikely to find anything wider than 50mm. 6x9 have 105mm lenses, 6x6 have 75mm, 6x4.5 have 50mm, I would like something wider.

I would like to hear people's suggestions as to which pre-war lenses are best, Tessars are good, i know that, but what else is worth looking at? Triplets don't interest me.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ian, you didn't say you were looking specifically for a pre-war lens. I once removed the remains of the coating from a Vega 12b using metal polish and you could do that with any cheap wide angle. I don't know if that's helpful to you - it's certainly not meant to be sarcastic and I don't think Dan's reply was either.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
No, anything uncoated will do. I considered removing the coating from something like a Helios-44 as I have a few of those but having taken one apart, I know the optics are in two blocks and trying to dismantle those blocks is probably impossible so I could only remove the coatings on the outer surfaces.

I'm sorry for my reaction.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ian, you could have been clearer. Y'r 5"/4 Xpres is a fairly wide angle lens, y'r enlarging lens isn't. Focal length has little to do with angle of view.

Please tell us what you hope to learn from your experiment.

If you're looking for an uncoated wide angle lens, uncoated and ideally shorter than 50 mm, you're in trouble. There aren't many lenses that fit that specification and few are inexpensive. A 28/8 (I think that's it, haven't touched one for a while) Tessar for Contax might do for you.

If you don't have one already, buy a copy of A Lens Collector's Vade Mecum. The VM is incoherent, incomplete, inconsistent, incorrect, infuriating and invaluable. The person who posts on http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/ as ccharrison sells it on CD-ROM for, IIRC, $15 plus postage. Its well worth the money.

And remember that before WW-II 35mm was very much a niche format. I gather that most of the cameras sold in those days were relatively inexpensive fixed lens folders with normal lenses.

That said, a number of makers cataloged short w/a lenses. Ones shorter than 90 mm seem to be rare and the better grades, e.g., Cooke Ser. VIIb, are, as sellers on ebay.co.uk sometimes say, sort after.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have some 25, 35mm etc. lenses from around 1927, but they or not wide angle (they are tele lenses - I see your grin Dan Wink ).
I won't even mention the 120 degrees Hypergon, since that's not only very hardy to find, but very expensive too.

Here some shots done using them:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/sets/72157627851997021/ Heliostigmat 35mm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/sets/72157627851705333/ Hypar 1 5/8" (41mm)

Is such what you are looking for?

The recommendation for the Lens Vademecum is a very good one indeed.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the Vade Mecum.

The Ross Xpress 5inch has a fov of 70 degrees but on APS-C it is only slightly wider than a 135mm so no good for my purposes.

I guess I'll have to make do with a 50mm lens, beign an experiment I don't want to spend very much.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It would have helped to mention that you need it for a APS camera, that's why Dan's comments.

My examples were done using a Lumix GH1, so not that far from what you are looking for.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
What about enlarger lenses? Aren't a lot of those uncoated? I don't need the ability to focus as I will be shooting at infinity.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 9:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Of course I had thought that through, but unfortunately most are coated lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
MIR 45mm in pentacon six mount is uncoated. I use it with tilt adapter.

Flare badly without a hood.
Practically useless with tilt upward and ceiling light source.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Unfortunately the combination of pre-war + wide-angle for 35mm format is very expensive. Back then they were not really into wide angles. The retrofocus principle was not even invented yet.

Maybe the 40mm f/4.5 Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar with Exakta mount is an option? It looks like this: http://forum.mflenses.com/list-of-czj-m42-t-marked-lenses-t14105,start,15.html#217372


PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
What about enlarger lenses? Aren't a lot of those uncoated? I don't need the ability to focus as I will be shooting at infinity.


Ah, this sounds like an intriguing experiment. An unfocused image at infinity . . . Question I have one lens that focuses "beyond infinity".

But, seriously, lots of post-war enlarging lenses were uncoated before the mid-1950s and I think Dallmeyer actually offered the choice of coated or not even later than that. I believe there was a feeling that uncoated enlarging lenses were "best" for "pictorial" images. (Not unlike the way Cosina Voigtlander 35/1.4s were offered with single or multi coating . . .)

Good luck with the experiment, I hope you'll be able to say more about it in due course.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
MIR 45mm in pentacon six mount is uncoated


Incorrect. It is absolutely coated. The single coating is very weak on most copies but it's there.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I have the Vade Mecum.

The Ross Xpress 5inch has a fov of 70 degrees but on APS-C it is only slightly wider than a 135mm so no good for my purposes.

I guess I'll have to make do with a 50mm lens, beign an experiment I don't want to spend very much.


Its nice that you have the VM. Why don't you use it? I got my copy around the time I started to accumulate lenses, internalized it fairly quickly. The information in it was a great help in deciding whether to pursue a lens on offer and in recognizing poorly described lenses.

What do you mean by wide angle? I ask because 50 mm is longer than normal for APS-C.

There are a fair number of pre-WW-II 35 mm folders with 50 mm lenses, e.g., Kodak Retinas, around. The lenses are nearly all tessar types or triplets. Very few lenses that will cover APS-C and are shorter than normal for the format were made before WW-II. You might look in the VM to see whether TTH made lenses shorter than 30 mm for 35 mm cine cameras (the format is 18x24).

Pre-WW-II enlarging lenses weren't coated, also weren't always optimized for close-up. So an old one might do for you. Newer ones are questionable. I've seen posts here and elsewhere claiming that, for example, Componon and Componon-S enlarging lenses are very good at distance. Could be, but none of the ones I've tried out was.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
google something like the cooke speed panchro


PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nesster wrote:
google something like the cooke speed panchro


What part of "I don't want to spend very much" don't you understand?


PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LOL the whole part of it Laughing My suggestion was meant as a guide to possibly *other* lenses for similar application that don't go for $5 k per gram Crying or Very sad


PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You guys argue among yourselves, I really wish I hadn't bothered asking now.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cannibalize something like a Cine-Kodak (I'm trying to come up with suggestions!) as these - or similar - don't seem to go for exorbitant money...


Cine-Kodak Model BB and K movie cameras 1932 by Nesster, on Flickr


PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Perhaps you could obtain a single uncoated element to use as a meniscus lens.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nesster wrote:
Cannibalize something like a Cine-Kodak (I'm trying to come up with suggestions!) as these - or similar - don't seem to go for exorbitant money...


The OP, who responds to advice he doesn't like by wishing he'd never asked for it, is going to use his uncoated lens on a camera with an APS-C chip. Lenses for regular 8 mm -- camera gate sized 3.3 mm x 4.5 mm -- won't come close to covering APS-C.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't think this is what Ian wants. I've done quite a a bit of meniscus etc. experiments (uncoated) for my soft focus work. Here are some examples using a f1.6/41mm lens: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/sets/72157625776317160/ and here http://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/sets/72157625383642982/ a f1/25mm lens.

I have old uncoated Milar and Summar lenses, but those were for macro not infinity. They do work at infinity tho... Depends on what you actually like to achieve but that seems to be a secret.

Last edited by kds315* on Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:16 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
danfromm wrote:
Nesster wrote:
google something like the cooke speed panchro


What part of "I don't want to spend very much" don't you understand?


Dan, please calm down and don't be so rude to other posters.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2