Photo taken with Repromaster 150mm-f:9.

[Petzval 1840]

Hi:

I have been a few months out of the forum due to familiar problems, caused by my aged mother (90 years).
Thanks to a progress in my intentions, due to my Siberian fiancée, I publish again in this forum.

This morning I have taken a few photos with the Repromaster 150mm-f:9. This photo has been taken without tripod, with my Pentax K 200 D, a F:9.

I hope that the specialists should give us informations about this lens Repromaster for 150 mm - f.9.

Bests Regards. David.

[luisalegria]

No expert, me, but -

Lens seems to be made by Agfa for their line of process cameras (used for typesetting) .

Or maybe someone else in Germany made it for Agfa.

These lenses are known for moderate wide-angle coverage (for large format), pretty even illumination (not much brighter in the center), and I think they are flat field. The 150mm may even cover 8x10 apparently. These would be quite interesting for a large format photographer.

Of course, this all doesn't matter for use on DSLR. It looks like it is probably quite sharp.

[luisalegria]

Just for comparison, if that lens was used on an 8x10 view camera it would be the same as a 24mm on 35mm film.

The large format people really like that.

The only problem is no shutter, and they are apparently not so easy to mount on shutters.

[Attila]

Welcome back David! Nice to see you here again!

[Petzval 1840]

Hello all the people:

Attila: thanks for his words, they have been a few hard months.

The photo was taken by haze and at a distance of approximately 100 m or more, without tripod. I believe that this photo reflects faithfully the topic but a friend of the Spanish division of MF-Manualens.com - retouched the pic and increased the contrast. I give them the link:

http://manualens.com/foro/index.php/topic,4883.0.html

I sent to Jesito the photo full size (4,5 Mpixels) and he extended details of the center and of a corner of the image, in addition to eliminating noise and increasing the contrast. Thank you Jes!


Bests Regards: David

[Jesito]

[Sevo]

[luisalegria]

Sounds like its a cheap enough lens that would work for a 4x5 Speed Graphic, though there are plenty of good cheap 135-162mm lenses for 4x5, that aren't limited to f/9

What one really would want it for is 8x10, and there we have a shutter problem. Packard shutter maybe, or the good old lens cap. I suppose one would want to use this stopped down anyway, so its all going to be long exposures.

[martinsmith99]

What a difference a bit of PP made!

Welcome back!

[Petzval 1840]

Hi all the people:

Martin: you know that I do not know English but believe that you criticize the quality of the lenses of plastic (PP): I am completely in accordance with you.

This evening I must go to harvest forage with the tractor and I already have the Wollensak prepared 90 mm (3 1/2 ") Raptar Wide angle that were using the Graflex or Speed Graphic. I hope that you will see the photos...

Bests Regards: David.

[Jesito]

[cyberjunkie]

[wupdigoj]

Hello. I own two rodenstock apo-gerogon (120, f9 and 150 f9), also plasmat type, I think similar to the repromaster. I have been said these lenses were used in compact repro cameras. I found them in a rubbish bin, attached to a big sort of board.
Just for the fun, I have adapted them to the compur shutter of an old 9x12 certotrop camera. Both of them are very sharp at infinity although I don't own any other large format (modern) lens, so I can not really compare. The shorter focal (150 mm) covers nicely 9x12 cm, with lots of space for movements, so I suppose It will cover 5x7 inches also. I have used them only at f22.

I also use the 150 mm lens to enlarge the negatives in a home-made enlarger, but it is a pain to focus (slow lens and not so bright light source). The image quality resulting from enlarging a 9x12 cm negative in a 20x25 cm paper is just stunning!!.

Javier

[Sevo]

[cyberjunkie]

[cyberjunkie]

Two small clarifications, before somebody gets too upset about my generalizations:

1) Only a few "wide" graphic arts lenses can be really considered as true wide angles for large formats. Only Konica Hexanon GRII lens family, as well as WA Apo Gerogons, WA G-Clarons, and similar objectives, get as much as 75 degrees angle of field.
When we term Ultragons or G-Clarons as "wide" process lens, it means that those lenses have wider field than the classic "dialyte" projects as Apo-Ronars or Repro-Clarons, or tessars optimized for close distances, as the Apo-Nikkors.
So please don't expect that a 150mm Ultragon would cover 8x10" at infinity, a true wide-angle lens as an old Schneider Angulon 165mm (so with a slightly longer focal) will cover the format only stopped down a few stops (f32, i think).
In fact, the Angulon 8/165 was made to cover 18x24cm, that's somewhat smaller than 8x10".

2) When i gave a simple rule of thumb about the optimization of enlarging and repro plasmats, i was thinking more about the former, than about the latter specialization. All the components of the very good Componon-S family, with optic cells threaded for standard shutters, can be used as extra-sharp taking lenses for table top photography. Some lenses have a little different optimization, as the G-Componons, calculated for 1:20 ratio, so they should be somewhat better at longer distances.
Perfectly symmetric process lenses should have the sweet spot at 1:1, something less, something more...
Most process lenses with plasmat-like optical layout should not differ too much: late G-Clarons examples were optimized for 1:5 to 5:1, while the WA version was advertised for 1:2 to 2:1 (the specs make me guess that the quality at infinity should not be their strong point).

Most of the lenses mentioned in this thread are close relatives of the expensive and sophisticated plasmats used as "normal" lenses on studio cameras. Many professional still life photographers used Componons (in shutter) for their table-top pictures for adverts.
Many others used, and some still use, G-Clarons for general photography, mostly for large or ultra large formats (up to 11x14"). For example, the 355mm G-Claron is one of the (very few) low cost options for 11x14" cameras.
Ultragons should perform the same, but their practical use is not as simple as unscrewing the cells from the barrel, and fitting them in a standard shutter: a front shutter (or a behind-the-lens one) is needed, a solution that's not as simple and precise, as with leaf shutters.
With a 150mm Ultragon the best use would be what's portrayed in the first post of this thread. A medium format camera would be better than a 35mm or a DSRL, and we must keep in mind that with a 150mm focal, 1:1 reproduction ratio is achieved with 30cm. of bellows extension!
Most medium format bellows need the use of additional extension tubes to get so far...

have fun

CJ

[wupdigoj]

In my previous post the focal lengths are 150 and 210 mm (not 120 mm). Apo-gerogon lenses are not easy to mount in a shutter. In fact I have been lucky to own a really big dial set compur which originally mounted a very old Xenar 150 mm 3,5 which is O.K (sort of) in the center, but very soft at the corners. Curiously this lens is not a tessar copy, but an inverted tessar (the front group is cemented).
I mounted the 150 mm gerogon in front of the shutter using a home made adapter ring. The other lens (210) is mounted directly into the lens board, with the shutter in front of the lens. It is weird, and probably it would vignette in a larger format, but for 9x12 or 6x9 cm it works just fine. I have only tried theses lenses at infinity. The image in the glass is so dim that I think they would be very difficult to focus (or even see any image) at 1:1 ratios or so... From my negatives I guess theses lenses are difraction limited at least at f:22 (only use this), even at infinity. Regards

Javier

[cyberjunkie]

Thanks Javier.
I guess that you refer to the Apo Gerogon when you write that's a reversed Tessar. Xenars are "true" Tessars, as far as optical project is considered.
Of course all the lenses that were sold for a very long time, as the Schneider Xenar, were probably recalculated a few times, either for the availability of new glasses, or because of the diffusion of computers, after WWII. Sometimes it could even be that the reason for changes is the demise of a good old optical glass, used with full satisfaction for the production of photographic lenses, that all of a sudden becomes illegal, because of new comunitary directives!
For these reasons, and maybe some others, objectives sporting the same name, but made at different times, can be slightly different: glasses, lens radii, and spacing can have varations from one example to another.
Nevertheless, a Xenar is a Xenar, i don't think it changed the optical formula becoming a reversed Tessar... so i think that what you wrote applies to Apo Gerogons. I think i have to slap myself in the head for having thought the opposite, even for a single second!

Back to Apo Gerogons...
I don't own one, so i have no first hand experience about these lenses. I never found a bad review about them, so they should be a nice purchase.
I have to admit that my reference to Apo Gerogons was a typo, i meant Apo Germinar. Both are process lenses, the former made by Rodenstock, and the latter by Zeiss Jena in the DDR.
I thought about purchasing one or the other, a few times, in the recent past, but i always gave them a pass because of the price, and because of the difficulty of having them fitted in shutter.
In particular, i felt that Apo Germinar lenses were way overpriced most of the times! I just did a quick search, and found that it is still true, while some other first class process lenses are easy to buy, and very affordable (if purchased in barrel!).
I know very little about Apo Gerogons, because AFAIK they were not made in very long focals (that's what i am interested in..), while i know something more abut the similarly named Apo Germinars. They were made in many focal lengths, and every now and then i find one of the long ones on auction (for example the 750mm, very useful with LF and ULF formats... if you have enough bellows!).
Some were made under the Docter Optics brand, and i think that the few examples that were actually sold, should command high prices.
AFAIK even the old models made in DDR should be of good mechanical quality, properly assembled, and with very good optical quality. Something that is not always true, with lenses coming from the other side of the iron curtain.
Unfortunately, as the Staeble Ultragons, and as the Apo-Gerogons, these lenses are very difficult to be fitted in shutter. The most viable option is to front mount the lens, as you did with yours.
It's not an universal solution though, only the shorter focals can be adapted this way. The longer ones get too bulky, and the diameter of the thread for the retaining ring gets too large, the only way out is the usual one: use a front (or behind the lens) shutter.
Most of those shutters have either "B" (manually timed exposure), or "B" + "I" (instant, only one time, usually around 1/50 sec), so they are not as flexible and easy to use, as conventional leaf shutters.
The same situation applies to nearly all the process lenses of longer focal, and that's very unfortunate, because there are other very good lenses that can be purchased at reasonable prices, if the perspective buyer is willing to exercise a little patience, and is willig to spend some time doing some basic searches on the Web.
Most of those lenses are not "wide" by any means, so for the same coverage one should choose a longer focal, but the quality/price ratio is very high, and in most cases the performance at infinity is absolutely not a problem!
I personally own a Goerz USA Red Dot Artar (16.5 inches), and an Apo-Nikkor 470mm, which are both considered to be top performers.
I got them because i had the chance to pay very little, and i was very happy to take that chance! But i wasn't prepared to pay much more than that anyway, as i was going to buy whichever good cheap process lens was available for a reasonable price. What i had in mind was something like a Cooke Apotal, a Wray Hi Res Lustrar, a good B&L process lens, or anything like that.

I took the time to write down all this stuff because i think that many young or unexperienced forum users, just entering the field of MF lenses for medium or large format photography, could be helped with some basic advice, showing them that there are good old process lenses available for purchase at very affordable prices, either in the "wider_than_normal" or "WA" versions (mostly of plasmat type), or in the conventional "narrow field" for repro cameras (mostly dialyte, but also with Tessar or reversed Tessar optical layout).
The latter ones, expecially if in the shorter focal lengths, can find a new lease of life if mounted on bellows, and used as macro lenses with medium format cameras. To reach 1:1 reproduction ratio a set with bellows + tubes is needed in most cases (but there are lenses, like Repro-Clarons, that were also made in very short focals).
Graphic art lenses with a wider field of view are a perfect low cost solution for large format cameras, expecially if somebody is just venturing into that field, and doesn't want to spend too much money before understanding if that new approach suits him or not.
With a very cheap 4x5 camera (some can be had for a hundred bucks or so), any one of the mentioned lenses would do. With a 25 ISO B&W film, and maybe with the help of one ND filter, the lens can be stopped down as much as to allow the lens cap to be used as a shutter... like the pioneers did for so long during the epic times of photography

have fun

CJ

[luisalegria]

I have some interest in this as I am thinking of building an 8x10 camera from parts I have. It will be a "Frankenstein monster". I am of course not a serious photographer at all, and I am very cheap.

I have been shooting 4x5 on photo paper, but I am getting tired of cutting up 8x10 paper. Why not just use the whole sheet ? Well, it sounds a good excuse anyway.

The big problem is lenses and shutters of course. Barrel lenses will do for me, I don't mind using the lens cap method as my "film" is slow.

Lenses for 4x5 are easy and cheap, I have plenty. But 8x10 is a much bigger problem.

I have an Ilex Paragon S 8 1/4" (from a big Graflex I think) and a Bausch&Lomb 8 1/4" repro

Both are Tessars, so they are unlikely to cover 8x10, as per published specifications these are good for a bit over 5x7, maybe 6x8. Maybe, maybe, for portraits, with "artistic" vignetting they would cover 8x10 ?

Something like these Agfa Repromasters sounds like a good option.

[cyberjunkie]

[luisalegria]

Thank you very much for the advice !

I will certainly look for the G-Clarons ! And these Repromasters.

I was planning to make the bellows myself; I tried doing this for my Speed Graphic/Busch Pressman repair jobs, and I got usable bellows, not pretty but they worked. I replaced them with proper spares from parts cameras.
Its much easier to make bigger bellows I have found.

I have a couple of enormous shutters - an Ilex #4 and a Compound #4
They are on my Wollensak 15" Telephoto and 16.5cm Biotessar, but I can "borrow" them.

Something must mount on these !

I have had and sold several oscilloscope lenses, Ilex and Wollensak makes of different focal lengths. They usually come on interesting large shutters like Ilex #3. The lenses themselves can make interesting "pictorial" lenses for 6x6cm or 6x9cm format, depending on the lens; they will cover about that at portrait distances. They can be very sharp stopped down.