hamradio
Well-known
So, I won a late '50s Schneider Angulon 90/6.8 for what I thought was a song on eBay. It showed up today, and I unscrewed the front lens cell to begin getting the shutter into working order. I held the cell up to light and found this:
I can't tell if it's separation, or if it's some weird type of fungus or haze. It doesn't look as awful when not under direct light:
I'm not really sure if this is going to cause any problems; I've shot some really wicked looking glass that performed great, though the actual amount of glass in this thing is pretty tiny, and a significant amount is not perfect.
The question is, do I:
-Forget about it and go shoot with it
-Return to the seller for a full refund
-Accept a partial refund from the seller and keep it
I'm not sure if it would have any noticeable effect on image quality. Any thoughts on this? The lens only set me back $40, so it's not the end of the world; I just ended up not getting the deal I thought I did.
A side note, I'm a little puzzled by the shutter the lens came mounted in. It's a Prontor Press with max speed of 1/125, and is self-cocking. Would this lens have come in this shutter originally? It seems like this shutter would be found on a copy camera, or something to that effect, with the limited top speed and self-cocking––but the front plate seems to be made for this lens, though it lacks any aperture markings.
I can't tell if it's separation, or if it's some weird type of fungus or haze. It doesn't look as awful when not under direct light:
I'm not really sure if this is going to cause any problems; I've shot some really wicked looking glass that performed great, though the actual amount of glass in this thing is pretty tiny, and a significant amount is not perfect.
The question is, do I:
-Forget about it and go shoot with it
-Return to the seller for a full refund
-Accept a partial refund from the seller and keep it
I'm not sure if it would have any noticeable effect on image quality. Any thoughts on this? The lens only set me back $40, so it's not the end of the world; I just ended up not getting the deal I thought I did.
A side note, I'm a little puzzled by the shutter the lens came mounted in. It's a Prontor Press with max speed of 1/125, and is self-cocking. Would this lens have come in this shutter originally? It seems like this shutter would be found on a copy camera, or something to that effect, with the limited top speed and self-cocking––but the front plate seems to be made for this lens, though it lacks any aperture markings.
Steve M.
Veteran
If it were me, I'd return it for a full refund and just eat the shipping charges. As you point out, it's a small lens, and a lot of it is questionable. I actually think you have separation AND fungus. I'm no help on the shutter. There are cameras that have the self cocking feature (I have an Agfa Isola that does).
hamradio
Well-known
Hrm. I have a couple hours free tomorrow; I think I'll expose a couple sheets of film in various situations (more towards wide open, stopped down far, in direct sun, etc.) and see how it performs. I think if there is some performance issue, it would be pretty obvious; I have to imagine a portion of the frame would be completely clear and another portion worse.
citizen99
Well-known
Not directly related to the potential impacts of fungus/separation on your image, but in case you haven't seen it here is Ken Rockwell's review of the performance of the 90mm f/6.8 . I don't have the 90mm f/6.8, but fwiw my experience with the 65mm f/6.8 is analogous, allowing for the difference in dimensions of course.
hamradio
Well-known
That's why I was so excited about this; I thought I had snagged a great lens for a great price. Otherwise, I had been hunting for a Graflex Optar/Wollensak Raptar 90/6.8, and even let one go for under $40, knowing this thing was in the mail.
The pictures do play up the messy elements a bit more than it actually normally appears. If the cell is mounted, one can only see it if looking really hard. With the cell unmounted and laying on a table, it also is hardly visible. I'm curious to see what shots from it looks like, when I have a couple free hours tomorrow.
The pictures do play up the messy elements a bit more than it actually normally appears. If the cell is mounted, one can only see it if looking really hard. With the cell unmounted and laying on a table, it also is hardly visible. I'm curious to see what shots from it looks like, when I have a couple free hours tomorrow.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
It looks like a fifty-sixty year old $40 lens to me, what's the problem?
A clean, late version 90/6.8 Angulon in a Linhof Compur shutter will cost over $200.
With either lens you'll need to stop down to f/22 or smaller to get the coverage and optimal sharpness for 4x5. Unless those elements are flopping around or covered in snot, it ain't going to matter.
Those Prontor Pro shutters were practically free when you stole them off old Polaroid copy camera set-ups and people mounted their beater/cheap lenses in them, sometimes reselling the good Compur shutter for a better price. The Prontors are functional and work fine, they just don't have all the speeds and require more force to fire (the cable release stroke cocks the shutter). They may not have flash sync either, don't remember. But some people will pay you $40 just for the shutter so you won either way.
Would be good on one of those plastic Wanderlust cameras or some homemade/Crown Graphic contraption.
A clean, late version 90/6.8 Angulon in a Linhof Compur shutter will cost over $200.
With either lens you'll need to stop down to f/22 or smaller to get the coverage and optimal sharpness for 4x5. Unless those elements are flopping around or covered in snot, it ain't going to matter.
Those Prontor Pro shutters were practically free when you stole them off old Polaroid copy camera set-ups and people mounted their beater/cheap lenses in them, sometimes reselling the good Compur shutter for a better price. The Prontors are functional and work fine, they just don't have all the speeds and require more force to fire (the cable release stroke cocks the shutter). They may not have flash sync either, don't remember. But some people will pay you $40 just for the shutter so you won either way.
Would be good on one of those plastic Wanderlust cameras or some homemade/Crown Graphic contraption.
hamradio
Well-known
I shot a couple sheets with it yesterday, and it's totally fine. Flares super easily if the sun is around, but out of the sun, it's as sharp as I could ever desire. The negs look great. I'll keep it.
Thanks, all!
Thanks, all!
Nokton48
Veteran
Angulons are Dagor formula lenses. I have the 65mm, 90mm, 120mm, 165mm, and 210mm.
Great lenses that take great images. They can go for a lot, or a little.
I use 'em on my Sinar Normas.
Great lenses that take great images. They can go for a lot, or a little.
I use 'em on my Sinar Normas.
Particular
a.k.a. CNNY, disassembler
The fact that it flares suggests to me that it is affected be whatever you see when you hold it up to the light. I have a clean copy, and I like it especially because it is much more flare resident than my super-angulon. It is great for night shooting with streetlights in the frame. These are great little lenses if used within their limitations.
Landshark
Well-known
It does look like fungus so the choices are:
Use it as-is
Put it in the sun (Duluth?) for a few days. A good UV light will also work. That may kill/remove the fungus.
DIY disassemble & remove manually. This one assumes the glass hasn't been etched.
Use it as-is
Put it in the sun (Duluth?) for a few days. A good UV light will also work. That may kill/remove the fungus.
DIY disassemble & remove manually. This one assumes the glass hasn't been etched.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
A brutal but indisputable analysis in the context of the rest of your post. The only thing I'd add is to check the actual separation, cf. http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps how re-shutter.html
Cheers,
R.