Header banner

MF3D-group Conversations Photos Files All groups About
<< Previous Thread Soviet Standards :-) Next Thread >>

Subject: Soviet Standards :-)
Date: 2010-09-07 07:43:42
From: lattie_smart
Quoted in a new eBay Sputnik auction by a Russian seller :-):
----------------------------------------
NOTE: Soviet lens manufacturers wrote even about NEW lenses:

"The components of modern high quality lenses are produced from special grades of glass. The smelting process involved causes inevitable formation of gasses which get trapped in the glass to form bubbles. They are always noticed with complex photographic lenses. The bubbles do not affect the lens performance or the quality of the image. Soviet state standards also allows the presence of next minor defects: scratches with the width less than 0.02mm at each surface of each optical element with total length no more than double element's diameter; dots with diameter less than 0.3mm no more than 5 dots; several minor pieces of dust and no more 2 napkin fibers with the length no more 3mm. Therefore, the factory does not accept claims about bubbles and minor defects of clearance found in lenses or exchange such lenses."
---------------------------------------------------

That said, commrades, I got mixed feelings just getting back my rolls of Provia 100. One was taken in my Spud, the other with some identical scenes taken with my Tessar 3.5 Rolleiflex. I couldn't tell the difference between the shots w/ a viewer or loupe! Great for the Spud, but leaves me wondering why I have the Rollei! (maybe for flattie close-ups with lot'sa Bokeh?)

Maybe I'll take John's advice and get a second bargain spuddie for hypers.
Subject: Re: Soviet Standards :-)
Date: 2010-09-07 10:30:06
From: John Thurston
lattie_smart wrote:
- snip -
> That said, commrades, I got mixed feelings just getting
> back my rolls of Provia 100. One was taken in my Spud,
> the other with some identical scenes taken with my Tessar
> 3.5 Rolleiflex. I couldn't tell the difference between
> the shots w/ a viewer or loupe! Great for the Spud, but
> leaves me wondering why I have the Rollei! (maybe for
> flattie close-ups with lot'sa Bokeh?)

If you were shooting from a solid tripod at a reasonably
small aperture (f/16-f/32) and you can't tell a difference
in the off-center sharpness, I suggest at least one of the
following explanations:
A) You have some nice hoods on your 'scop
B) You've already adjusted the focus on your Spud and damped
it's front element
C) You have a phenomenal Sputnik
D) You have a mediocre Rolleidoscop

Why would you keep the Rolleidoscop? It weighs more than the
Sputnik, but the shutters are more likely to fire at a
regular rate and the body is more likely to be light-tight.
It is also, IMHO, a much sexier looking camera.

--
John Thurston
Juneau Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us
Subject: Re: Soviet Standards :-)
Date: 2010-09-07 12:35:48
From: lattie_smart
> Why would you keep the Rolleidoscop? It weighs more than the
> Sputnik, but the shutters are more likely to fire at a
> regular rate and the body is more likely to be light-tight.
> It is also, IMHO, a much sexier looking camera.
>
Actually, it's a Rolleiflex - but you're right, it certainly won't frighten girls away as much as a three-eyed monster!
Subject: Re: Soviet Standards :-)
Date: 2010-09-07 13:42:04
From: John Thurston
lattie_smart wrote:
>
>> Why would you keep the Rolleidoscop? It weighs more than the
>> Sputnik, but the shutters are more likely to fire at a
>> regular rate and the body is more likely to be light-tight.
>> It is also, IMHO, a much sexier looking camera.
>>
> Actually, it's a Rolleiflex -

oi! That's a whole different kettle of fish. In fact, you
might say its a kettle of apples and oranges.

The reason to keep the Rolleiflex is because it's a kick-ass
camera, is compact, has rapid film advance and will be
excellent for slide-bar shots. You will be assured of
perfectly matched focus, aperture and focal-length.

(Of course, if I had read your original message more
closely, I would have seen that you explicitly stated it was
a 3.5 'flex. I don't know why I was reading 4.5 'scop.)
--
John Thurston
Juneau Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us
Subject: Soviet Standards :-)
Date: 2010-09-08 01:02:19
From: Don Lopp
Hi Lattie

I doubt that, even at age 82, I would have
a difficult time in determining which slide
was taken with the Spud, assuming that the
Tessar lens was a decent one, and was made
after 1960, as Zeiss made many, "Tessar lemons",
between 1947 and 1960.

I have never seen a 3 element lens that was
as optically the equal of a well made 4 ele-
ment Tessar type lens.

I am assuming that both exposures were made
on a tripod.

I have had the opportunity to view, many, many
Spud films in the last 12 years.

It is my guess that, you may have to purchase
several Spud cameras to find two Spuds that
have a lens focal length that does match each
other.

Regards,

DON
Subject: Re: Soviet Standards :-)
Date: 2010-09-08 07:54:24
From: lattie_smart
Hello Don!

I must admit this is the first time I ever read the word "lemons" in the same sentence with "Zeiss" and "Rolleiflex!"
(It's like you're telling me there is really no Santa Claus!) ;-)

But you're certainly right on both other accounts:

My Rollei looks to be 1950 vintage...
and this is my third, pimped-out Spud...

I stop down to at least f/11 and use a tripod and use a cable release on nearly all my MF shots (w/ only 6 pairs per roll, you have to make each count)

"Conventional Wisdom": decent 3 and 4 element lenses show the most difference wide open and little closed down (esp. for stereo DOF) My Rollei is still gorgeous at wider stops - bokeh and all.

I can't imagine seeing any more fine details in the slides - maybe it'd show more in print enlargements. Examining the edges with a loupe, my corrected eyes can't see any softness or distortion there. In normal, stereo viewer conditions, it's mostly immaterial.

Now, I've noticed some unquantifiable quality in the good TL-120 slides I've seen. I can only describe it as more "vivid color depth." But it's not necessarily perceived as more sharp, individual details (such as those that would be from greater contrast and lost in shadow details).

This may be all moot soon, as I found a deal on an older TL-120.... ;-)




--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Don Lopp wrote:
>
> Hi Lattie
>
> I doubt that, even at age 82, I would have
> a difficult time in determining which slide
> was taken with the Spud, assuming that the
> Tessar lens was a decent one, and was made
> after 1960, as Zeiss made many, "Tessar lemons",
> between 1947 and 1960.
>
> I have never seen a 3 element lens that was
> as optically the equal of a well made 4 ele-
> ment Tessar type lens.
>
> I am assuming that both exposures were made
> on a tripod.
>
> I have had the opportunity to view, many, many
> Spud films in the last 12 years.
>
> It is my guess that, you may have to purchase
> several Spud cameras to find two Spuds that
> have a lens focal length that does match each
> other.
>
> Regards,
>
> DON
>
Subject: Re: Soviet Standards :-)
Date: 2010-09-19 15:12:44
From: coronet3d
--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Don Lopp wrote:
> I have never seen a 3 element lens that was
> as optically the equal of a well made 4 ele-
> ment Tessar type lens.
Don,
I'm glad to see you're back posting here. I would find it hard to believe that an uncoated Tessar of any brand would outperform a coated three element lens from a quality manufacturer. GOMZ/LOMO is a different animal since the comrades there produced lenses of varying quality.
Steve
Subject: Re: Soviet Standards :-)
Date: 2010-09-19 19:49:51
From: Don Lopp
I do own several, coated, 3 element lensed MF cameras
along with several 4 element lensed MF cameras. Most
of the 3 element lenses are: Agfa Agnars, Agfa Apotar,
Voigtlander Voigtars, C. Zeiss Triotar and Zeiss Novars,
plus the triplets on the Sputnik.

The Sputnik camera body was partially based on the Voigt-
lander Brilliant 2 1/4 reflex camera. A major difference
was that the Brilliant came with several lens and shutter
options, Tessar or Voigtar lenses, plus Prontor or Compur
shutters.

Three element lenses do vignette from wide open up till
f/ 8-11, whereas the Tessar types only vignette from wide
open to f/4-f/5.6. Also, the Tessar type lenses, with
their extra 4th lens element do offer much better control
of astigmatism, which is a common shortcoming of the basic
triplet design.

I do consider the 4 element, uncoated, 75mm Tessars, on the
Roleidoscope stereo camera, to be optically superior to any
3 element lens, coated or uncoated, that I have ever tested.

Carl Zeiss manufactured these, matched fl lenses, in large
batches so as to maintain quality control, the last batch in
1938.

Thanks for the inquiry,

DON
.

My experience has been that anti-reflection coatings will
not cure the problems of an inferior lens.
Subject: Re: Soviet Standards :-)
Date: 2010-09-20 09:17:30
From: coronet3d
--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Don Lopp wrote:
>
> The Sputnik camera body was partially based on the Voigt-
> lander Brilliant 2 1/4 reflex camera. A major difference
> was that the Brilliant came with several lens and shutter
> options, Tessar or Voigtar lenses, plus Prontor or Compur
> shutters.

Some focusing Brilliants are fitted with Heliars - but uncoated unfortunately.
> Three element lenses do vignette from wide open up till
> f/ 8-11, whereas the Tessar types only vignette from wide
> open to f/4-f/5.6. Also, the Tessar type lenses, with
> their extra 4th lens element do offer much better control
> of astigmatism, which is a common shortcoming of the basic
> triplet design.
>
The only downsides I've seen with three element lenses are 1) slower than Tessars - not a big issue in stereo and 2) some slight distortion. Most of the problems with the Sputniks have nothing to do with the lenses, but with the build quality of the camera itself. If you fitted Planar lenses on a Sputnik, you would still have most of the same problems. I have a polaroid ID camera with f8 triplet lenses that produces some of the sharpest images I've ever seen. I also have a Semflex with a Som-Berthiot f4.5 triplet lens that also produces outstanding sharp images. Meyer Trioplans are also very well regarded lenses.
Steve
Subject: Re: Soviet Standards :+ triplets vs Tessars.-)
Date: 2010-09-20 16:07:22
From: Don Lopp
On 9/20/10 8:17 AM, coronet3d wrote:
> I have a Polaroid ID camera with f/8 triplet
> lenses that produce some of the sharpest images,
> I have ever seen.
Interesting, I was not aware that Polaroid cameras
were capable of producing, "sharp images", regard-
less as to the quality of their taking lenses.

> Meyer Trioplans are also very well regarded lenses.
Interesting, though Meyer Trioplans are collectable,
for their antique value but certainly not considered
to be quality lenses by any of the current photo-
graphic community, that I am aware of.

> Some focusing Brilliants are fitted with Heliars -
> but uncoated unfortunately.
I have looked for a Voigtlander Brilliant camera
fitted with Heliar lenses for more than 50 years,
wthout any success.
I don't understand your words, "but uncoated un-
fortunately", as Both Ted B. and Oleg V. continue
to send beautiful images to the MF folios, using
uncoated Heliar lenses, on their Voigtlander Stere-
flektoskop cameras.

> The only downsides I've seen with three element lenses
> are 1) slower than Tessars -
(1) Are you alleging that f/3.5 triplets are slower
than f/3.5 Tessars ?

Apparently Steve does not consider astigmatism to be
a major problem with triplet lenses, even though this
is the principal reason that, triplets, such as those
on the Sputnik must be stopped down to f/16 or to f/22
to obtain an acceptably sharp image.

> Most of the problems with the Sputniks have nothing to
> do with the lenses, but with the build quality of the
> camera itself.
Interesting, as out of the many Spuds I have seen, they
all needed some adjustments of their focus on one or on
both of their lenses. My experience with,"Spuds", is that
the build quality problems can be fixed, with some effort.
We continue to see beautiful MF slides in the MF folios,
taken with Sputnik cameras.

> If you fitted Planar lenses on a Sputnik, you would still
> have most of the same problems.
Please explain how a pair of Planar lenses could be made
to be operational, on a Sputnik body. How would they be
focused and or Synchronized.

What are the, "most of the same problems"?

Regards,

DON
Subject: Re: Soviet Standards :+ triplets vs Tessars.-)
Date: 2010-09-20 17:23:42
From: Aaron Muderick
Don,

Polaroid packfilm (peel apart) can be plenty sharp.  P55 was a dream at around 150lp/mm with a good lens.  Even the 3000 speed stuff is 40lp/mm when the negative is scanned.  The integral (SX-70) stuff is less so because of all the chemical layers.

The failures of the triplet lenses are not as relevant for me because with 3D I am ALWAYS shooting stopped way down.  I also agree that pretty much every problem can be fixed.

Right now I am thinking about getting another Sputnik because my current one has a left eye that is just slightly blurry and no amount of focus synchronization or adjustment can fix it.  It bugs me endlessly.

Aaron



On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Don Lopp <dlopp@rainier-web.com> wrote:
 

On 9/20/10 8:17 AM, coronet3d wrote:
> I have a Polaroid ID camera with f/8 triplet
> lenses that produce some of the sharpest images,
> I have ever seen.
Interesting, I was not aware that Polaroid cameras
were capable of producing, "sharp images", regard-
less as to the quality of their taking lenses.

> Meyer Trioplans are also very well regarded lenses.
Interesting, though Meyer Trioplans are collectable,
for their antique value but certainly not considered
to be quality lenses by any of the current photo-
graphic community, that I am aware of.

> Some focusing Brilliants are fitted with Heliars -
> but uncoated unfortunately.
I have looked for a Voigtlander Brilliant camera
fitted with Heliar lenses for more than 50 years,
wthout any success.
I don't understand your words, "but uncoated un-
fortunately", as Both Ted B. and Oleg V. continue
to send beautiful images to the MF folios, using
uncoated Heliar lenses, on their Voigtlander Stere-
flektoskop cameras.

> The only downsides I've seen with three element lenses
> are 1) slower than Tessars -
(1) Are you alleging that f/3.5 triplets are slower
than f/3.5 Tessars ?

Apparently Steve does not consider astigmatism to be
a major problem with triplet lenses, even though this
is the principal reason that, triplets, such as those
on the Sputnik must be stopped down to f/16 or to f/22
to obtain an acceptably sharp image.

> Most of the problems with the Sputniks have nothing to
> do with the lenses, but with the build quality of the
> camera itself.
Interesting, as out of the many Spuds I have seen, they
all needed some adjustments of their focus on one or on
both of their lenses. My experience with,"Spuds", is that
the build quality problems can be fixed, with some effort.
We continue to see beautiful MF slides in the MF folios,
taken with Sputnik cameras.

> If you fitted Planar lenses on a Sputnik, you would still
> have most of the same problems.
Please explain how a pair of Planar lenses could be made
to be operational, on a Sputnik body. How would they be
focused and or Synchronized.

What are the, "most of the same problems"?

Regards,

DON


Subject: Re: Soviet Standards :+ triplets vs Tessars.-)
Date: 2010-09-21 07:43:44
From: coronet3d
--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Don Lopp wrote:
> Interesting, I was not aware that Polaroid cameras
> were capable of producing, "sharp images", regard-
> less as to the quality of their taking lenses.
I'm shooting on 4x5 film using an adapter.
> > Meyer Trioplans are also very well regarded lenses.
> Interesting, though Meyer Trioplans are collectable,
> for their antique value but certainly not considered
> to be quality lenses by any of the current photo-
> graphic community, that I am aware of.
No, not for antique value, but for lens quality. They are known for their "bokeh" aka out of focus backgrounds, but it is also well known that they're top performers when stopped down.
> I have looked for a Voigtlander Brilliant camera
> fitted with Heliar lenses for more than 50 years,
> wthout any success.
> I don't understand your words, "but uncoated un-
> fortunately", as Both Ted B. and Oleg V. continue
> to send beautiful images to the MF folios, using
> uncoated Heliar lenses, on their Voigtlander Stere-
> flektoskop cameras.
Check out eBay auction #250693921478. They do come up from time to time on eBay, but I'd rather have a converted Kodak Medalist, that has a coated Heliar lens.
> (1) Are you alleging that f/3.5 triplets are slower
> than f/3.5 Tessars ?
Generally speaking three elements lenses are slower than Tessars. Most Tessars I see are f2.8. There are a few more prudent manufacturers who went with f3.5 Tessars. Of course there were f6.3 and f4.5 Tessars but these are pre-WWII antiques. The big exception to this rule is the f2.7 Meyer Trioplans, which have become "cult" lenses. Aren't the lenses on the Wollensak Stereo camera f2.7 triplets?
> Apparently Steve does not consider astigmatism to be
> a major problem with triplet lenses, even though this
> is the principal reason that, triplets, such as those
> on the Sputnik must be stopped down to f/16 or to f/22
> to obtain an acceptably sharp image.
People are shooting Trioplans at full bore, and I don't hear anyone complaining about astigmatism for what's in focus. They love it for what's out of focus. Search "Trioplan" on the web and see what I'm talking about.
> > Most of the problems with the Sputniks have nothing to
> > do with the lenses, but with the build quality of the
> > camera itself.
> Interesting, as out of the many Spuds I have seen, they
> all needed some adjustments of their focus on one or on
> both of their lenses. My experience with,"Spuds", is that
> the build quality problems can be fixed, with some effort.
> We continue to see beautiful MF slides in the MF folios,
> taken with Sputnik cameras.
>
> > If you fitted Planar lenses on a Sputnik, you would still
> > have most of the same problems.
> Please explain how a pair of Planar lenses could be made
> to be operational, on a Sputnik body. How would they be
> focused and or Synchronized.
> What are the, "most of the same problems"?
You miss my point: assuming someone could fit Planars (or even Tessars) onto a Sputnik, the issues of light leaks, aperture synchronization, focus adjustment and general quality issues would still remain. My point is that the lenses are not anywhere near the #1 problem with Sputniks.
Steve
Subject: Re: Soviet Standards :+ triplets vs Tessars.-)
Date: 2010-09-21 08:43:41
From: lattie_smart
perhaps of some relevance to this discussion ;-)

http://www.seriousviewers.com/projects/mfcam2/mfcam.htm


--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "coronet3d" wrote:

> >
> > > If you fitted Planar lenses on a Sputnik, you would still
> > > have most of the same problems.
> > Please explain how a pair of Planar lenses could be made
> > to be operational, on a Sputnik body. How would they be
> > focused and or Synchronized.
> > What are the, "most of the same problems"?
> You miss my point: assuming someone could fit Planars (or even Tessars) onto a Sputnik, the issues of light leaks, aperture synchronization, focus adjustment and general quality issues would still remain. My point is that the lenses are not anywhere near the #1 problem with Sputniks.
> Steve
>
Subject: Re: Soviet Standards :+ triplets vs Tessars.-)
Date: 2010-09-21 23:11:18
From: Don Lopp
On 9/21/10 6:43 AM:
>> Don wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> "... but I'd rather have a converted Kodak
> Medalist, that has a coated Heliar lens.
>> The Kodak Ektar lens on the Kodak Medalist
>> camera is not a Heliar lens, as only Voigt-
>> lander built Heliar lenses. Only some of the
>> Ektars were coated. Most of the ones we had
>> on our Navy ship were not coated, only those
>> manufactured after 1943, were coated.
>> Contrary to current rumors, the image was a
>> bit soft, at one end, as the film was not a
>> as flat as it should have been.

>> (1) Are you alleging that f/3.5 triplets are
>> slower than f/3.5 Tessars?
> Generally speaking three elements lenses are
> slower than Tessars. Most Tessars I see are f2.8.
>> Did Rollie put very many f/2.8 Tessars on their
>> TLR reflex cameras? NO, most were f/3.5 Tessars.
>> The f/2.8 lenses were mostly Planars or Xenotars.

> The big exception to this rule is the f2.7 Meyer
> Trioplans, which have become "cult" lenses.
>> Good competition for the Lomo camera, as almost
>> every thing is out of focus.

> Aren'tthe lenses on the Wollensak Stereo camera
> f2.7 triplets?
>> No, 4 element lenses. The 3 element lenses are on
>> the Revere stereo camera.

>> I asked:
>> Please explain how a pair of Planar lenses could be made
>> to be operational, on a Sputnik body. How would they be
>> focused and or Synchronized.
>> No direct answer !
> You miss my point: assuming someone could fit Planars (or even Tessars)
> onto a Sputnik, the issues of light leaks, aperture synchronization,
> focus adjustment and general quality issues would still remain. My point
> is that the lenses are not anywhere near the #1 problem with Sputniks.
>> I am not aware that anyone, including myself, ever said,
>> "that the lenses... are the # 1 problem with Sputniks"!
>> As I said earlier, the Sputnik body was partially based
>> on the Voigtlander Brilliant 2 1/4 reflex camera. Both
>> cameras suffer from reflection problems because of their
>> plastic interior.

>> Steve initiated this discussion by writing:
> "I would find it hard to believe that an
> uncoated Tessar, (lens), of any brand would
> out perform a coated three element lens from
> a quality manufacturer". My experience indi-
> cates that internal baffles plus a well de-
> signed lens shade will offer, almost, the same
> degree of flair protection as will the anti re=
> flection coating of most 3 and 4 element,"normal
> "fl", lenses.

>> Why are you, (Steve), "assuming that someone
>> could fit Planars...onto a Sputnik"? The Sputnik
>> camera would have to be redesigned to enable the
>> Planar lenses to be adjusted for the purpose of
>> appropriate focus. Planar lenses require unit
>> focus, not the simple rotation of the front lens
>> element as is the case with the Sputnik lenses.

Best regards,

DON
Subject: Re: Soviet Standards :+ triplets vs Tessars.-)
Date: 2010-09-22 07:47:04
From: coronet3d
Taken from http://www.bnphoto.org/bnphoto/KodakMedalist.htm
"The lens on the Medalist is a 5-element coated f/3.5 Ektar of a Heliar design by F. E. Altman that is sharp, even by today's standards. The Ektar for the Medalist I had inner air-glass surfaces coated. The Ektar for the Medalist II was Lumenized, a superior hard single-coating process developed by Kodak that employed magnesium fluoride that reduced inner reflections and increased lens speed when using reversal films."
No Don, Voigtlander were not the only manufacturers of "heliars", although they're the only ones to put the "Heliar" name on their lenses. The flare you're talking about is from stray light sources. There is also flare just from internal reflections between the lens elements. This latter flare reduces overall contrast. Some photographers like the fact that uncoated lenses reduce contrast as it helps them maintain detail in shadow areas. But these photographers are adjusting the contrast of the image in a darkroom. I shoot on slide film, B&W or color, and therefore do not have the ability to correct for this in a darkroom - hence my preference for coated lenses. I can understand a preference for a Rolleidoscop over a Sputnik, but from what I've seen the main advantages of the Rollei product over the LOMO product is in build quality, not the magic of Tessars.
Steve
Subject: Re: Soviet Standards :+ triplets vs Tessars.-)
Date: 2010-09-22 08:03:43
From: coronet3d
Taken from http://www.bnphoto.org/bnphoto/KodakMedalist.htm
"The lens on the Medalist is a 5-element coated f/3.5 Ektar of a Heliar design by F. E. Altman that is sharp, even by today's standards. The Ektar for the Medalist I had inner air-glass surfaces coated. The Ektar for the Medalist II was Lumenized, a superior hard single-coating process developed by Kodak that employed magnesium fluoride that reduced inner reflections and increased lens speed when using reversal films."
No Don, Voigtlander were not the only manufacturers of "heliars", although they're the only ones to put the "Heliar" name on their lenses. The flare you're talking about is from stray light sources. There is also flare just from internal reflections between the lens elements. This latter flare reduces overall contrast. Some photographers like the fact that uncoated lenses reduce contrast as it helps them maintain detail in shadow areas. But these photographers are adjusting the contrast of the image in a darkroom. I shoot on slide film, B&W or color, and therefore do not have the ability to correct for this in a darkroom - hence my preference for coated lenses. I can understand a preference for a Rolleidoscop over a Sputnik, but from what I've seen the main advantages of the Rollei product over the LOMO product is in build quality, not the magic of Tessars.
Steve
Subject: Re: Soviet Standards :+ triplets vs Tessars.-)
Date: 2010-09-26 13:46:04
From: Don Lopp
On 9/19/10, Steve wrote: "I would find it hard to believe that an
uncoated Tessar of any brand would outperform a coated three element
lens from a quality manufacturer". (Note the words, "of any brand").

Can anyone, other than C Zeiss, legally use the name Tessar ?

On 9/21/10, Steve wrote: "...I'd rather have a converted Kodak Medalist,
that has a coated Heliar lens."

On 9/22/10 6:46 AM, coronet3d wrote:
> "The lens on the Medalist is a 5-element coated f/3.5 Ektar of a Heliar
> design by F. E. Altman...

> The Ektar for the Medalist II was Lumenized, a superior hard single-coating
> process developed by Kodak that employed magnesium fluoride that reduced
> inner reflections and increased lens speed when using reversal films."
Notice, Kodak calls the lens an Ektar lens,not a Heliar lens.

> No Don, Voigtlander were not the only manufacturers of "heliars",
Steve, can you give the name or names of the manufacturers,
who allegedly manufactured Heliar lenses ? Eastman Kodak did not
assert in the Kodak URL), that they had manufactured the, "Heliar"
lens, as Steve has alleged. Which, "Heliar", lens did, Kodak,
allegedly, manufacture? Was it the 1900 original, the 1925 variant, or
the 1949 variant ? I did not notice that Kodak mentioned in their
patent that they were patenting a, "Heliar", lens. The Kodak Ektar lens
patent of 1942 did not show a lens drawing that was the same as the
Voigtlander Heliar 1900 patent or of the Voigtlander Heliar patent of
1925.

Thousands of, (4 element), Tessar type lenses have been manufactured by
Kodak in the last 110+ years. Does this indicate that Kodak has
manufactured, "Tessar", lenses during this time period ?
Millions of, (4 element), Tessar type lenses have been manufactured
in the last 110+ years. Today, only 'Carl Zeiss' is permitted to put the
name, "Tessar", on their lenses.

> I shoot on slide film, B&W or color, and therefore do not have the
> ability to correct for this in a darkroom - hence my preference for
> coated lenses. I can understand a preference for a Rolleidoscop over
> a Sputnik, but from what I've seen the main advantages of the Rollei
> product over the LOMO product is in build quality, not the magic of
> Tessars.

Apparently, Steve believes the Sputnik lenses are equal or better than
tbe uncoated Tessars on the Rollei stereo cameras.
Apparently, Steve does not realize that the Rollei stereo cameras also
have 'build' quality problems including light leaks, very dark corner
images in the reflex viewing screen and a less than wonderful aperture
setting scale om some models.

As regards to coated lenses, a six air- surfae lens such as a triplet or
a Tessar type lens loses about 18 percent of the light transmission. A
loss of about three percent per surface. The lenses that gain the most
from lens coating are the modern, wide aperture, multi-element lenses,
especially zoom lenses. With multi-coating, the light loss is
less than one percent per air-surface, a very significant improvement.

Ten plus years ago, I remember reading about an ISU audience that had
viewed the projection of MF slides, by Dr Werner. The surprise came when
they were told that the MF slides were taken a 50+ year old Heidoscop
with Tessar lenses, (which were uncoated). I am curious as to what the
stereo slides would have looked like, if "Meyer triplets" had been used
instead of the Zeiss Tessars ?

Best regards,

DON
Subject: Re: Soviet Standards :+ triplets vs Tessars.-)
Date: 2010-09-27 13:11:49
From: coronet3d
--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Don Lopp wrote:
> Ten plus years ago, I remember reading about an ISU audience that had
> viewed the projection of MF slides, by Dr Werner. The surprise came when
> they were told that the MF slides were taken a 50+ year old Heidoscop
> with Tessar lenses, (which were uncoated). I am curious as to what the
> stereo slides would have looked like, if "Meyer triplets" had been used
> instead of the Zeiss Tessars ?
>
Coated or uncoated "Meyer triplets"? I still maintain that lens coating is more important than lens formula when it comes to 3D. Lens formula plays more of a role when you're shooting wide open. Unfortunately vintage MF stereo cameras fall into two categories: uncoated lenses or Sputnik. This is what I believe leads to the confusion since the Sputnik has so many issues. I would hardly believe you would advocate twinning pre-War TLRs with uncoated Tessars over using more recently built TLRs with coated three element lenses made by Meyer or Zeiss or an equivalent lens manufacturer.
Steve
Subject: Re: Soviet Standards :+ triplets vs Tessars.-)
Date: 2010-09-27 21:39:58
From: Don Lopp
On 9/27/10 12:11 PM, coronet3d wrote:
>
>
> --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com ,
> Don Lopp wrote:
> > Ten plus years ago, I remember reading about an ISU audience that had
> > viewed the projection of MF slides, by Dr Werner. The surprise came when
> > they were told that the MF slides were taken a 50+ year old Heidoscop
> > with Tessar lenses, (which were uncoated). I am curious as to what the
> > stereo slides would have looked like, if "Meyer triplets" had been used
> > instead of the Zeiss Tessars ?
> >
> I still maintain that lens coating
> is more important than lens formula when it comes to 3D. Lens formula
> plays more of a role when you're shooting wide open.

> Unfortunately vintage MF stereo cameras fall into two categories: uncoated
> lenses or Sputnik. This is what I believe leads to the confusion since the
> Sputnik has so many issues.
Strange opinion, as I understand that all of the significant vintage MF
cameras built from 1950 onwards contained coated lenses.

Were Sputniks sold before 1960 ? I doubt it. Who is confused ?

In the case of triplets and or Tessar type lenses, anti-reflection
coatings do not offer a significant improvement over uncoated versions
of the same lens, if a decent sunshade is used. In the case of the
Rolleidoscop, the interior of the camera is covered with black felt,
which does reduce interior light reflections to a minimum. Anti-
reflection coating of a triplet lens will not eliminate the astigmatism
problem inherent to a triplet lens. Only stopping the triplet lens down
to f/ 16, or more, will mask this off axis problem. Coating the lens
will not eliminate the off axis astigmatism problem. In the case of a
properly designed and constructed Tessar type lens, the off axis
astimatism is no longer a significant problem beyond f/8. To gain depth
of focus, the lens must be stopped down even further, up to f/16 or f/22
where diffraction starts to lower the overall resolution.

> I would hardly believe you would advocate twinning pre-War TLRs with
> uncoated Tessars over using more recently built TLRs with coated three
> element lenses made by Meyer or Zeiss or an equivalent lens manufacturer.
> Steve
IMO a baseless allegation, Steve. Please indicate when and where I ever
advocated, the "twinning pre-War TLRs wth uncoated Tessars over using
more recently built TIRs with coated three element lenses made by Meyer
or Zeiss..." ? I have tested both Meyer and Zeiss three element lenses,
and neither brand came close to meeting my performance standards, though
the low, low pries of the Meyer lenses were appealing.

I did build my own MF stereo camera, about 20 years ago, at a total cost
of less than $500, but I have seen no evidence that anyone on this list
would be interested in doing the same. If done today, the lenses would
cost more than $2,000. Synchronizing the shutters and the f/stops was
not a pleasant adventure.

As I indicated before, I have never tested a three element MF lens
that was sharp enough, (at any f/stop), to meet my resolution standards.
I do recommend the Sputnik camera because it does offer a fixable
body, fixable lenses and synchronized shutters, and can offer an
adequate optical performance, at a moderate price, when operated by a
competent stereo photographer. Check out the MF folios, for examples of
quality slides produced with Sputnik cameras.

It takes more than good equipment to produce consistently good stereo
images, as can be seen in the folios.

Best regards,

DON

Best
Subject: Re: Soviet Standards :+ triplets vs Tessars.-)
Date: 2010-09-28 07:48:03
From: coronet3d
--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Don Lopp wrote:
"I have tested both Meyer and Zeiss three element lenses,
and neither brand came close to meeting my performance standards, though
the low, low pries of the Meyer lenses were appealing."
You should have stocked up on the Meyers - they're going for big bucks now. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will) but to my knowledge Rollei stereo cameras did not have front element focusing and moved both lens groups at the same time. This removes about 50% of the problems found with the Sputnik's linked-helical focusing system. You yourself told me once that the way the Tessars are mounted in the Rolleidoscop reduces flare remarkably. I'm sure Reinholf Heidecke had just as much to do with the performance of the Rolleidoscop as Zeiss and Paul Rudolph did. The only MF stereo camera I'm aware of that was made in large numbers between WWII and just recently (3D World Camera) is the Sputnik.
Steve