Zeiss military glass.

[enliten]

Zeiss military lenses, anybody have any idea of the quality?
From what I can ascertain these were used in aerial recon cameras for large format panoramas.

See below:

http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/l10021.html

Same site also has some fairchild lenses which appear to be the same design and whole panoramic aerial camers.

[Orio]

The Topogon is probably the most famous one, developed (if I remember correctly) in the 30s within a conjunct
German-Soviet military airforce development effort.
There is a new member in the forum who is a former Zeiss technician, he can surely add more and better information.

[woodrim]

[fuzzywuzzy]

[danfromm]

The late Charlie Barringer (that's Charlie Barringer as in Barringer & Small, Zeiss-Ikon Compendium) had a drawer full of those things. He regarded them as useless. The cells won't go into a standard shutter, the diaphragm (two blades, IIRC, square aperture) scale isn't calibrated. Charlie thought they were Planars.

If you must get one, get the Fairchild equivalent (not made by Zeiss, Roger doesn't know everything). http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/l10066.html or http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/l10429.html Less expensive, superb, equally useless.

IMO no Zeiss lenses sold for military applications are worth the trouble of adapting to small chip digicams. The 38/4.5 Biogon is worth using on, e.g., a Century or 2x3 Crown Graphic. As for Topogons, Lamegons and the like, what's the point of hanging a relatively long focus wide angle lens in front of a tiny chip? Braggin' rights, perhaps, but that's not worth much. The Agiflite 150 Sonnar and 350 Tele Tessar are basically unusable except on an Agiflite; if you want to use those lenses, get them in Hasselblad mount and use 'em on a Hasselblad.

[luisalegria]

There may be a problem mounting such a short back focus lens on a Speed Graphic. I would think you'd want a Speed because of the focal plane shutter, though even 75mm may be too short for infinity. Its also going to be a pain to focus because the lens would have to be in the box, where the standard is off the focusing gears. I've run into that problem with several lenses I've been trying to get running on Graphics.

It could be interesting on a specialized project camera, as an alternative to a pinhole.

Any idea of the coverage on these things ?

[danfromm]

Luis, the late Charlie was an ingenious adapter. He couldn't see a way to use the things.

The aperture isn't scaled. This is a problem.

Re using on a 2x3 Speed, not possible, at least for the Fairchild lens. Its barrel is too fat to pass through the front standard and its back focus is shorter than a 2x3 Speed's minimum flange-to-film distance. I think, could be mistaken, that this is true of the Zeiss lens as well. Oh, yeah, both were made to cover 6x6. 80 mm circle.

If you'd read my lens diary you'd know that I'm an imaginative adapter too. More imaginative than my friend, in fact. I wouldn't have one of those lenses as a gift.

Re specialized project, what's the point, except perhaps braggin' rights? If you want to take pictures with a 3" Planar, just get a Rolleiflex ... Or get a Hasselblad and shoot with an 80 mm Planar. As Klaus will no doubt tell us, zeit ist geld.

[luisalegria]

Hey, every tinkerer needs his illusions of competence ! Otherwise we'd stop tinkering !

I don't think these things are easily adaptable either, though I have gotten past the standard size problem (for one) by modifying standards. Other options include my super duper ugly adapted Zeiss Oryx with 4x5 back with home-made 3"lensboard standard - alas now in parts again because of bellows problems. I couldn't quite do 65mm with that, but 75mm, maybe.

6x6 coverage isn't worth it though.

I am playing with an 80mm Norita that seems to cover 6x9 if I squint at it correctly, and, with the proper sacrifices to the correct evil spirits, may be able to sink the barrel into a 3" lensboard.

[danfromm]

[Sevo]

The cameras they were for - KB-18 - are Vietnam war era stike damage monitoring 70mm cameras that delivered a full-area scan of the bombing area with a combination of a rotating prism and the aircraft motion. That is, these lenses are optimized for something very different from a static image through a circular aperture on a two-dimensional film.

To get it to deliver something closed to its designed resolution you'd at the very least have to substitute a glass plate the strength of that prism, and would have to do something about its one-dimensional aperture - but if you are unlucky it won't have much of a performance in a different configuration. There are reasons why these are dirt cheap and all over the place.