I am considering a Graflex RB Series D camera with a lens described as follows: Goerz Double-anistigmat, Series 111 no. 0, FOC 4 3/4 in, no. 160391. Could someone tell me about this lens: Focal length, relative quality, any other features I might need to know about. Thanks

I know someone will tell you more, but I'll give you what little I've got. Don't know about the quality?
The book says simply, 4 3/4" (120mm) f/6.8. Covers 3 1/4 x 4 1/4. Oddly, this lens doesn't give any angle of coverage but all the others in this series are 60 degrees. 6 elements in 3 groups.
It's not a Dagor, but it shouldn't be 'bad'?

Quote:

On 2003-03-12 08:56, xyzphoto wrote: I am considering a Graflex RB Series D camera with a lens described as follows: Goerz Double-anistigmat, Series 111 no. 0, FOC 4 3/4 in, no. 160391. Could someone tell me about this lens: Focal length, relative quality, any other features I might need to know about. Thanks

Not to disagree with Rich or anything, but according to the Lens Collector's Vade Mecum the Goerz Double Anastigmat Series III is indeed a Dagor. Should be f/6.8. Focal length is 4.75 inches (the tipoff is FOC 4 3/4). Made from roughly 1900-1922. Supposed to be convertible. Supposed to suffer from focus shift on stopping down. And not at all a bad lens.

You're not disagreeing with me, but with the "LF Optical Ref Manual"
I relooked up the lens. There's a "Double anastigmat" and a "Doppel anastigmat", two different lenses according to the book. The 'Doppel' is classed as a Dagor. The "Double" is not and "introduced in 1893". The Doppel/Dagor is good for 5x7 at 90 degrees, the Double for 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 at 60 degrees. So it may depend on what the lens really is or who did the writing of the references?

And oddly, the "no 0" doesn't appear for any lens in the book by Goerz?

And... I will finally be able to see the VM myself as I figured out what the problem was and ordered it on the MW web site last week. Still no e-mail from them, but I'm hoping...


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: RichS on 2003-03-12 18:51 ]</font>

Quote:

On 2003-03-12 18:45, RichS wrote: You're not disagreeing with me, but with the "LF Optical Ref Manual" I relooked up the lens. There's a "Double anastigmat" and a "Doppel anastigmat", two different lenses according to the book. The 'Doppel' is classed as a Dagor. The "Double" is not and "introduced in 1893". The Doppel/Dagor is good for 5x7 at 90 degrees, the Double for 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 at 60 degrees. So it may depend on what the lens really is or who did the writing of the references? And oddly, the "no 0" doesn't appear for any lens in the book by Goerz? And... I will finally be able to see the VM myself as I figured out what the problem was and ordered it on the MW web site last week. Still no e-mail from them, but I'm hoping... <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: RichS on 2003-03-12 18:51 ]</font>

Um, according to the Vade Mecum both are the same formula. And they say that it all began with the (their words) "Original Double Anastigmat f7.7 This was made in 3.5-35in, and was made from 1892. ... Later the Series 111 was renamed Dagor and when the patent ran out, was exploited by many firms."

Doppel is german for double.

Don't you just love names and the confusion they cause?

Cheers,

Dan

Quote:

On 2003-03-13 04:39, Dan Fromm wrote: Um, according to the Vade Mecum both are the same formula. And they say that it all began with the (their words) "Original Double Anastigmat f7.7 This was made in 3.5-35in, and was made from 1892. ... Later the Series 111 was renamed Dagor and when the patent ran out, was exploited by many firms." Doppel is german for double. Don't you just love names and the confusion they cause? Cheers, Dan

Well, I would hope that both references are a "work in progress"...
The naming confusion in lenses drives me nuts especially when someone advertises an "anastigmat" without giving a manufacturer... And many others...
I suppose the only way to see which reference is right is if xyzphoto buys it and lets us know the len's coverage. I just noticed in the book that the 'approximate' date of the Doppels is 1906. Maybe there's a corresponding patent date on the lens?

You guys don't give up easy do you? I admire your knowledge and tenasity and enjoy reading your deliberations. You satisfied my needs some time ago when I concluded the lens was of sufficient quality for my needs. Thanks. But if you keep posting, I will continue to read. For whatever interest it might be to you, US Pat. no. 528155 is stamped on this lens. It is on a camera on Ebay, #2916623499.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: xyzphoto on 2003-03-13 18:01 ]</font>

Neat camera and looks like it would be a lot of fun to use.
Can't speak for Dan, but I find it very interesting that there's such a difference between the two 'references' and this helps us all know about such things.
By the way, I consider Dan as one of the experts around here and he's helped out more people than I could count with this kind of info. Me, I just read this stuff out of a book and still don't know a tessar from a Dagor...

Quote:

On 2003-03-13 18:44, RichS wrote: Neat camera and looks like it would be a lot of fun to use. Can't speak for Dan, but I find it very interesting that there's such a difference between the two 'references' and this helps us all know about such things. By the way, I consider Dan as one of the experts around here and he's helped out more people than I could count with this kind of info. Me, I just read this stuff out of a book and still don't know a tessar from a Dagor...

Um, Rich, I don't know beans about this stuff. I have a couple of somewhat useful references and aren't afraid to look like a fool, that's all. Per my wife, I AM a fool, so what's the risk?

When it comes down to it, what matters is less what design the lens at hand is than how it performs. And the best way to find that out is to ask the lens, not look in a book.

Cheers,

Dan

Arrr, geeesss... Now you went and ruined one of those internet assumptions we make about people. And here I thought you were one of those old photo guys who knew all about the old lenses. Next I'll hear that Les looks this stuff up in books too.

Well, that actually makes me feel a whole lot less dumb! Now all we have to do is get all these references together and straighten them out!

And if lenses could only talk, literally... What you say is true all around except in the case of possibly wanting a lens that's beyond talking distance. That's where conversations like this one spring up and show the usefullness of this group. I'm looking for one of a half dozen extreme WA lenses for 8x10 right now and if I don't let my impulses get ahead of me, I'll be asking about them when/if I find them. I just wish we had old-time camera stores to walk into, browse and try things out... And I live a spit away from Rochester! You'd think there would be a decent store there of all places...

Thanks for letting me know we're both in the same boat, sort of. And I think we're all fools in our wives eyes in some way or other The classic phrase "Don't you already have one of those" rings in my ears...

I'LL NEVER ADMIT TO IT!!! NEVER NEVER NEVER!!!!!

What IS an old photo guy? Is it an old guy with old photos? Is it just a guy with old photos? Is it an old guy with photos? is it...uh....ZZZZZzzzzz.

Quote:

On 2003-03-15 15:52, clnfrd wrote: What IS an old photo guy? Is it an old guy with old photos? Is it just a guy with old photos? Is it an old guy with photos? is it...uh....ZZZZZzzzzz.

An "old photo guy":

You can remeber the exact exposure and why you used this lens over that one for every picture you have, but you have no idea of where it was taken or who those people are?

You tried a "digital darkroom" but the computer blew up when you poured the chemicals in.

You think Ansel shows promise...

You think color photography will never catch on.

You can't understand why Graflex won't answer their phone...

When you do look something up in a photo reference book, you laugh at the mistakes the researchers made.

You haven't needed a light meter for LF shots since Weston came out with the Master II.

You wonder why people talk about what kind of battery their meter (or camera) takes.

You don't realize that you're giving the same look to someone with a new digital camera as they are giving to you.

You still can't figure out how to put a new bulb in that electronic flash, but it keeps working so who cares...

You know the answers to questions posted on Graflex.org...


... Sorry... an off-the-top-of-my-head work-in-progress...

I'll answer my own question. An OLD photo guy is what I see when I look in a mirror. Been meaning to throw the blamed mirrors out. And I figured out how to replace the "bulb" (xenon flash tube) in my electronic flash about 50 years ago. Fred.