Simple and not so simple lenses

P

Pelle-48

Amateur photographer
Local time
3:13 AM
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
16
My grandparents had a boxcamera with a meniscus (1 element) lens.
It makes me sad when I see all old photos from 1920-1950 with really low quality. I have been reading on Wikipedia about Kodak Brownie. The idea was to sell it for 1 dollar around year 1900. So I guess 1 element was a requirement.
Cook triplet was a real improvment (compared to meniscus). Just now I have a Bessa I and the Vaskar should be a Cooke triplet. It should be fine for BW but not the best for colour.
Tessar is an improvement from Cook Triplet at least regarding colour.
I have it in my Fujica G690 with the 100mm 1:3.5 Fujinon.
Double Gauss is very popular in all SLR normal like my Minolta MC Rokkor 55mm 1:1.7. I guess at high opening like 1:4 and 1:5.6 they beat Tessar.
There are also some 5 element lenses available like the Fujinon 90mm for newer 9x7 or 9x9 Fujica or some normals for Zensa Bronica.
Any more info about them? Better then Tessar but not than Double Gauss?
 
Last edited:
A lot depends on speed and angle of coverage. Some very long, very slow Leica lenses (there was a 560/6.8, as far as I recall) were cemented doublets only, and a Tessar is superb up to about f/6.3 for 'normal' coverage. But if you want more speed or a greater angle of coverage you need more and more glasses.

Another factor, of course, is magnification. For a contact print or 'en-print' (='enlarged contact print size', maybe 1,5x - 2x) you don't need much more than a meniscus or cemented doublet with a maximum aperture of f/11 or so. Make 10x blow-ups and it's another story.

When 35mm was introduced, postcard-sized prints were normal and whole plate (165x216mm) was regarded as big. Most people over-enlarge.

Cheers,

R.
 
Yes sometimes you can really do very well with few elements. In 1964 I got a Contessa LK with a Tessar 50mm/ 1:2.8. Compared to the Minolta Rokkor 55mm/ 1:1.7 it was never really sharp not even at f/11 so I believe something was wrong with it. But in this link we can see how good a Tessar-construction can be:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

The Nikkor Ai-P 45mm/ 1:2.8 is a 4 element Tessar

Compare it with all other Double-Gauss (all the 50mm)!

And this is a 5 element:
Pentax SMC-DA 40mm/ 1:2.8

Not a bad lens!
 
I use a 3 element Meyer Optik Trioplan 100mm F2.8 on occasion. It's nothing like as sharp as other lenses I own with more modern designs, however there is something about the results that I like - possibly some kind of retro appeal.

original.jpg

(I missed the focus slightly on this but I still like the shot)

I also use a 4-element 50mm F2.8 Tessar occasionally - it is quite sharp, even wide open, though.
original.jpg

At F2.8 and closest focus
 
Pelle-48 said:
My grandparents had a boxcamera with a meniscus (1 element) lens.
It makes me sad when I see all old photos from 1920-1950 with really low quality. I have been reading on Wikipedia about Kodak Brownie. The idea was to sell it for 1 dollar around year 1900. So I guess 1 element was a requirement.
Click to expand...

Actually, many of these old box cameras are capable of exquisite results today. The problems with many early snapshots are mainly the result of camera shake, poor development and printing and use in inappropriate conditions. "Instantaneous" exposure was roughly around 1/25th, whilst the available snapshot films circa 1900 were 3 to 6 ISO. Even into the early 50s, 32 - 50 ISO film was "normal" for casual users. You really did need 'the sun shining over your shoulder" for a decent exposure:)

It also has to be remembered that many amateurs developed and contact printed their pictures at home - in the early 30s, my mother, aged 10-12 worked under the kitchen table, with the cloth pulled down. Photographic magazines from the time also reveal that some commercial darkrooms were not much better. I have an Amateur Photographer from 1900 which describes ordinary rooms with windows masked by a single sheet of brown paper. Quality was inevitably sometimes poor. That was why large-scale commercial development and printing (popularised by Kodak) became so popular.

So - there were many troubles facing users of box cameras, unconnected with the optical quality of the instruments - looking back today, the wonder is that so many superb shots remain :)

Cheers, Ian
 
Last edited:
Apropos of nothing much, but on the subject of box cameras, I have often wondered about the "Champion Camera" favourably reviewed in AP in 1900. Available only from toy shops it cost exactly one penny, as did a packet of five plates and developer.

I wonder if we, with our Leicas, get half the joy out of photography as some urchin did with his Champion? I think I know the answer :)

Oh, and of course, there's always this - http://www.photographersgallery.com/photo.asp?id=622

Cheers, Ian
 
Last edited:
i guess today you might end up sued or in jail for being "a pervert", "a paparazzi", "a terrorist" if you made such a shot.
 
Pherdinand said:
i guess today you might end up sued or in jail for being "a pervert", "a paparazzi", "a terrorist" if you made such a shot.
Click to expand...

Actually not - the girls were paid models and the whole thing was a set-up for Picture Post magazine :)

Cheers, Ian
 
Pherdinand said:
i see:) my ignorance spoke, then.
Click to expand...

Far from it Pherdinand - for years I thought the same :) Hardy had written an article claiming that it was possible to take fabulous spontaneous pictures with a cheap, old camera (this is in 1951, when quality new cameras were effectively unobtainable in Britain). Picture Post was a "progressive" magazine and the item chimed with the spirit of joy in self-denial propagated by the Atlee government (which it supported). Hardy was dispatched to prove that you didn't need an expensive nasty foreign camera and came back with a suitable bag of snaps, which were published.

What the magazine did not say ( and Hardy did not tell the editor) is that the pictures were carefully staged with models in perfect conditions, and not the spontaneous shots they appeared and pretended to be :) But they were taken with a box camera :)

Cheers, Ian :)
 
On a humorous note, I just sent an RF-Coupled 50mm single-element lens to a friend for use on an M8. It is made using a single-element lens "custom-Hacked" onto an I-61 mount. He showed some samples of the pictures to one of his friends, who also wanted one.
 
A lens that gets maximum mileage from its glass is the 3-element Elmar 90 from the mid-60s.
 
Brian, that's funny :) the most expensive rangefinder with the cheapest (sorry) lens.
Can we see the results somewhere?

Triplets are quite alright. The novar anastigmat on my super ikonta can do wonders. Just don't do pixel peeping in the corners of the frame.
 
Testing of MF lenses

Testing of MF lenses

Pherdinand said:
Brian, that's funny :) the most expensive rangefinder with the cheapest (sorry) lens.
Can we see the results somewhere?

Triplets are quite alright. The novar anastigmat on my super ikonta can do wonders. Just don't do pixel peeping in the corners of the frame.
Click to expand...


Here you can compare some lenses for MF:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html

One issue is easy to see- distance scale is sometimes (often?) wrong.
Normally f/16 should not give better results than f/11 if you are in 50-150mm range. For 200mm and longer it should....
 
I'm betting that shots from the M8 with the single-element lens will come up on the forum. I traded for some more parts lenses, and plan on continuing the experiment. I'm thinking a ""bad-Glass" J-8 would be perfect for doing the next one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom