Does this lense make my camera look small?

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Another b&w effort.
C&C welcome.

[Shadowman]

Looks slimming.

[Manfred M]

Interesting shot. Watch your depth of field as parts of the foreground of the image are too soft. Generally, having the background fall off to softness is considered to be okay. but the engraving and machined parts on the top plate should not be. You should familiarize yourself with the DoF tables and use these to shoot these types of shots. In general I go one stop smaller aperture than what the tables say just to play it safe.

I knew that Leica's USA operation ran rather independently from the German part of the company. offering equipment that was not available outside of North America. I have a Leitz USA Pradolux slide projector with the standard Kodak circular trays, whereas the German built units had the rectangular box style trays. I believe this projector was built by Singer.

Anyhow, the E. Leitz USA / Wollensack lens comb is something I have not seen before. What focal length is the lens?

Wollensack was based in Rochester NY.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

It's a 127mm f4.5 lens Manfred.
I was surprised when I saw it went all the way down to f45.
When I first dug it out of storage, it had a Leica M mount adapter on it. Couldn't get the adapter off for the longest time. Soaked it in some alcohol and put it away for a couple of weeks. Next time I tried to remove the adapter (I wasn't really sure it even was an adapter) it came right off.
I really should try some shots with it on my Nex-7. I bet they'll have the 'look' of an old lens photo.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

A really 'cool' feature is that it has a tripod mount built into it.

[doomed forever]

I've found that info about this Wollensak Telelens here:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...mat90mmf45.htm

It's a Velostigmat 127/4.5 Series II. Must be very rare, never heard about that Leica Lens.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Yes, that would be the one Marc.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Christmas gifts, taken with my Nex-7 and this lens wide open, f4.5, 1/60s w/flash 1600 ISO, SOOC.

[Manfred M]

Thanks for posting the additional images.

The colour shot is interesting as it shows that this lens is made of brass where the paint has worn off. The newer lenses use aluminum (and of course anything really new from the Japanese makers has a lot of plastic, even on the high end stuff).

The other thing that is interesting is that the focal length is marked in mm. Some of the old USA made lenses I've seen had focal lengths marked in inches (2" lens =- 50mm).

[doomed forever]

thanks for posting samples....the colors look a bit dull, the image flat...but for such old lens...very remarkable. back into these days was no multicoating onto the lens elements...each lens element lost a bit of light...glass element. I think this odd 127mm focal length turned later into the usual 135/2.8 or 135/4 lenses...

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Here is that same picture 'tuned-up' a little bit.
As for it being made of brass, yes it is. It is not a light weight lens by any means.

[JBW]

Here is that same picture 'tuned-up' a little bit.
As for it being made of brass, yes it is. It is not a light weight lens by any means.

showing my ignorance big time. Can someone tell me how to see the difference between this old time lens and a modern one in this shot. to me it simply looks good.

[Manfred M]

showing my ignorance big time. Can someone tell me how to see the difference between this old time lens and a modern one in this shot. to me it simply looks good.

Brian - this lens is likely 80 years old. I strongly suspect pre-WW II (I believe E Leitz USA shut down after the USA entered the war). So, no colour film and lenses would not have to be corrected for neutral colours. Likewise, modern interference based anti-reflective coatings were developed by Zeiss, but this remained top secret until the early 1940s. These old lenses actually got better with age as pollutants were deposited on the lens surfaces and helped reduce reflections (an advantage of smoking being fairly commonplace).

Other things to note; at f/4.5 this is a very slow lens by modern standards for fixed focal length lenses. Even the old Tessar design was running at f/3.5 to f/2.8 by the time this lens was manufactured. All lenses were calculated by formula (no computerized ray tracing) and more noticeable softening towards the edges of the image would exist than on today's lenses.

Optical glass was far less sophisticated (variations of crown and flint glass, I suspect) so limited and relatively low refractive indicies. Materials used in construction; glass brass and chrome. I have an older Leica f/2.8 135mm and strongly suspect it might be a brass lens as it is fairly small, but is extremely heavy.

You'd certainly see some of these effects on a standards sized print (for today). Enlargements at the time this lens was made would have been a lot smaller than what we print today and this helped hide some of the lenses shortcomings. If you wanted a large image you went to a photographer with a view camera; the 35mm camera enlargements were simply not that good when you got larger that 2" x 3" / 50mm x 75mm.

The camera body is pre-1945 as the DRP engraved on the body was changed to DBP post-WW II.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Brian - my second posting of the packages is 'tuned-up' to look like a modern lens took the picture. If you compare it to the first image of the packages you'll see how it looks different. On my computer it's very dull looking.
The camera body is actually a 1936 model based on the serial number.

[IzzieK]

Excellent shot...

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Thank you Izzie. I'm actually very proud of the shot showing the tripod mount. That is a handheld, very close focus shot using my Micro Nikkor that I think turned out exceptionally well focused.

[Dave A]

Nice image and interesting thread.

Dave

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Interesting shot. Watch your depth of field as parts of the foreground of the image are too soft. Generally, having the background fall off to softness is considered to be okay. but the engraving and machined parts on the top plate should not be.

Manfred - I've been thinking about what you said above. Doesn't the out of focus top plate add to the effect of showing how large this lens is relative to the camera? If it were all in focus I'd loose the 'tilting' of the lens and the impression it is 'long'.
Comments?

[doomed forever]

Here is that same picture 'tuned-up' a little bit.
As for it being made of brass, yes it is. It is not a light weight lens by any means.

Thanks for sharing, that looks indeed phantastic for such a old lens. For their "character", i do love my old Minolta MD/Rokkor Glass, and also my Yashica ML & Carl Zeiss Vintage MF lenses...they aren't perfect, but they deliver the goods.

[doomed forever]

Brian - my second posting of the packages is 'tuned-up' to look like a modern lens took the picture. If you compare it to the first image of the packages you'll see how it looks different. On my computer it's very dull looking.
The camera body is actually a 1936 model based on the serial number.

Wow, so it's a pre-WWII body....very old. I do personally love old Contax Film SLR & the matching C/Y lenses, because the great old Contarex Lenses from the 60's are out of this world in terms of asking price...if you're more into old MF lenses, you should give the mflenses.com Forum a try.