Agfa Isolette with Apotar lens

[oftheherd]

nothing wrong with being different...and we all are as it turns out

have trouble beleiving though that if we presented in front arvay (or anyone else) the choice between an old Sanyo TV and HDTV plasma and said you can keep whatever one you like best there would be any takers on the old Sanyo 😉

Hey Chippy, how did you catch the TV reflection in your microwave? Oh ... that really is a San .... 😀

 

[charjohncarter]

Chippy, I just read 'the Southwest England TV Museum' that is really neat. I plan to go to England (in the South) again soon. Maybe I'll go there. Does it still exist? Looks like a photo essay in the making.

 

[Arvay]

So, I'm back with samples.
Isolette I Agnar

Is it really as bad as FallisPhoto says?

 

[Arvay]

These two for wide aperture

 

[Muggins]

Well, I have to say that I'm quite surprised - the Agnar I had was on a Silette (so 35mm-sized) and I found that it gave grainy and washed-out colour, nice in evening light but a bit of a PITA otherwise. Apart from some rather distracting bokeh wide open, yours doesn't look bad at all.

Adrian

 

[Arvay]

I like its bokeh. Looks swirly 🙂

 

[FallisPhoto]

Is it really as bad as FallisPhoto says?

Actually I'm pretty surprised. From what little I can tell from your posts, it looks better than anything else from an Agnar I've ever seen.

 

[Arvay]

I bought it for USD 35 at almost mint condition. Probably this is the point that the lens is like new?

 

[chippy]

Hey Chippy, how did you catch the TV reflection in your microwave? Oh ... that really is a San .... 😀

hehe yeah it is a sanyo...now that you mention it the pictures in my microwave do better, they come out more crisp!

 

[chippy]

Chippy, I just read 'the Southwest England TV Museum' that is really neat. I plan to go to England (in the South) again soon. Maybe I'll go there. Does it still exist? Looks like a photo essay in the making.

not sure if its still there or not CJC (i presume it is).

its not my old tv of course. but i did just a few years ago get rid of a nice one I purchased from new MMMMany years ago.

forget the brand fancy fuiniture series model--just a small one about 18 inch i think it was, never ever broke down or cost me dime--sad to see it go really but they just take up space. my sister still has an old PYE tv my mother bought when we were small kids and wont get rid of it for sentimental reasons, even though she has all the latest plama and LCD TV's, she thinks its hilarious that it still works.

talking of tv's it reminds me when i was kid of about 12 years old. i grew up on the beach front in the country (a few hours drive from Adelaide), we found all sorts of things to occupie our spare time--one past time i had was dismantling anything i got my hands on, usually radios and such. one day i bought this big old B&W TV set (worked on vaulves) and decided to convert it to work by remote control (by using long wires attatched) didnt really have the slightest idea what i was doing! but upon pulling the tv apart and putting it back together feeling pretty proud of my invention, i got comfy and sat back as far as the wires went, in my chair on the other side of the room and proceeded to turn it on...yep i even made it turn on by remote 😀....anyway i turned on and then the biggest dam explosion i had ever heard followed, it dam near blew the back of the house off haha....i had to quickly scramble and put the flames out and get rid of all the edvidence of the tv and everything lest my old man found out ,my life wouldnt of been worth didley squat!

 

[Windscale]

Chippy, I just read 'the Southwest England TV Museum' that is really neat. I plan to go to England (in the South) again soon. Maybe I'll go there. Does it still exist? Looks like a photo essay in the making.

http://www.tvmuseum.co.uk/

Can I visit?
- Well, yes and no. As stated above, currently there is no physical museum to visit, although small tours can be conducted around the storage premises by prior arrangement. For more information, please send an email to mike@tvmuseum.co.uk

 

[Solinar]

This shot reminds me of the 105/4.5 Agnar on my old Viking 4.5 - which was essentially a base level Billy Record II with the 5 speed Pronto shutter for the US.

Back ePay's early days it was common to pick up an old Viking 4.5 in its original box with instructions for about $15. The usually needed all the work of the all Agfas needed with bellows and a better shutter donated from an old Franka Rolfix in Bower livery. The latter was another German folder in US livery that cost even less than the Viking.

 

[FallisPhoto]

I bought it for USD 35 at almost mint condition. Probably this is the point that the lens is like new?

Most of mine cost about $10 - $15 and I restore them. I figure that if I am going to have to install new bellows, heat the front lens assembly and remove it to clean the grease out, recollimate the lens, disassemble the shutter and clean and lube it, and so on, it isn't really going to be mint anymore anyway, so why spend the extra bucks? I just look for cameras with good metal.

 

[chippy]

From my experience, you can add the Cassar to that list. Don't forget the Elmar either.

Elmar's for 6x6 (medium format) are not a common lens to come across, common for 35mm though. however i think you will find the Elmar is a 4 element design. in its elarly days (pre-mid 20's) its design varied somewhat from time to time, so maybe thats where some confusion comes from, and it can be said (well it said by some authors) that it is a modified triplet with the last element split and then cemented, however by enlarge it is considered a tessar based design 1-1-2...(just like a Solinar) not a triplet in the true sence we are comparing these other lenses as (cooke triplets)

Edit;; just for a more clarity- i think the modified triplet idea comes about because Leitz started with anastigmats and then came the Elmax of various configurations which ended up being a triplet, and by splitting the rear element in 1925-26 came the common/standard f3.5 Elmar 3 (1-1-2). but in reality i think its really based on a tessar which by 1926 the patents by Zeiss on the tessar freed up in some way--thats more or less how i remember it anyway

 

[chippy]

I am sure you know what you are saying and are right. I will one day put up the agnar and try it out. I have seen some good pics by others using this lens. But as far as the Apotar is concerned I am sure it is a worthy performer. I use mine quite frequently.

no doubt many consider the Apotar a worthy peformer and should you have the chance to try the Agnar alongside it you should see some differences.

the layout/design/formular/configuration/type of a lens, even though they may be both triplets (1-1-1) can vary a great deal. i beleive professional lens makers reffered to the 'precription' of a lens more so when they designed or made a lens rather than what we are simply calling 'type' or 'design', that on its own doesnt differeniate one triplet/lens from another enough.

a lens maker will alter and take into account various things to produce a result he is after, and usualy constrained to be within a budget too by the company its intened for, the Agnar definately falls into this catorgory and this causes the lens designer/maker to have to sacrifice one aberation for another; things like the air spacing between the elements, the exact shape/curvature of the glass and the type of glass used all affect the end result..a bunch of other more technical terms as well. there are different types and quality of glass and often the glass is refered to as having a high or low index rating which needs to be matched relative to the other elements in the lens. subsituting one element for a higher or lower index, or even the quality in glass may require the lens maker to change the quality and index of the other elements as well.

 

[FallisPhoto]

Elmar's for 6x6 (medium format) are not a common lens to come across, common for 35mm though. however i think you will find the Elmar is a 4 element design. in its elarly days (pre-mid 20's) its design varied somewhat from time to time, so maybe thats where some confusion comes from, and it can be said (well it said by some authors) that it is a modified triplet with the last element split and then cemented, however by enlarge it is considered a tessar based design 1-1-2...(just like a Solinar) not a triplet in the true sence we are comparing these other lenses as (cooke triplets)

Edit;; just for a more clarity- i think the modified triplet idea comes about because Leitz started with anastigmats and then came the Elmax of various configurations which ended up being a triplet, and by splitting the rear element in 1925-26 came the common/standard f3.5 Elmar 3 (1-1-2). but in reality i think its really based on a tessar which by 1926 the patents by Zeiss on the tessar freed up in some way--thats more or less how i remember it anyway

Chippy, all I can say is that the one elmar that ever passed through my hands, a few years back, was very definitely a triplet (although it was 35mm). Incidentally, according to what I have read, an "Elmar," going by the way Leica names lenses, is pretty much anything slower than f/3.5.

 

[chippy]

should of held on to it, it may of been a rarity, you know how leica people are, you could of made a fortune selling it hehe. i could be wrong, i dont claim to be an expert in any way on leica lenses but i get the immpression that 'the slower than 3.5 Elmar' therory comes about in much later years simply due to marketing and longer lenses. but all have more than 3 elements. i cant actually think of ant 3 element lenses leica made after those early ones. leica were all about getting every bit of resolution they could from the lens to compensate for the 35mm film

there is about 10 000 leica nuts on RFF that virtualy know what the Leitz lens designers had for breakfast on the 23rd of April so i am sure they can clarify, or maybe i can post the question-that way i will look like goose if its wrong LOL.

still if you would be a betting man and someone asked you, i would go with what i said, you can send me half the carton of whatever that beer is you drink over there, although i reckon you blokes are into burbon eh, ,,,well that will do as well haha

 

[VictorM.]

One of the more sought after Leica lenses is the rare "3-Element" Elmar 90/4. Leica has also produced 50mm f/2.8 Elmars for many decades.

 

[FallisPhoto]

One of the more sought after Leica lenses is the rare "3-Element" Elmar 90/4. Leica has also produced 50mm f/2.8 Elmars for many decades.

I definitely should have held onto it then.

 

[chippy]

I definitely should have held onto it then.

sounds like it, though then you need an Leica M mount camera to go with it and they cost a few bob. or you could of sold it for a heap

a rarish lens by the sounds of it, according to the leica forum it was just that one 90 lens that came in the 3 element lens and then only in its final years of production.