veteran device tested

I am not certain whether this qualifies as an experiment or if there is a more suitable classification.But it might interest those who have cameras with unusual formats.

Some time ago at a camera market I found a camera that my father once recommended to me as reasonably good, so i had to buy it. A Zeiss Tenax from 1939 with a 40mmf2 sonnar and 24x24mm format. This gives 50 exposures on a 36 exp film so only today I received the developed and printed results.

What can be interesting to others is both that the rangefinder and the lens combine to give sharp prints with good colours after more than 80 years (no time to put the negatives under the microscope to examine edge sharpness) and that the local print machine does recognize the format so that I did not get 1 1/2 negative frame in each print. Presumably other labs doing C41 also can adapt to non-standard formats.

p.

126 Instamatic was basically 35mm stock w/sq. format so I'm not surprised your film was printed correctly.

No sample photos? 😟

David

Ad the wish for picrorial illustrations: too much bother to fire up the flmscanner. Also, aesthetics is independent of tthe device used, while the limited size of netpictures is useless for judging technical quaity which is the interesting bit in this case.

p.

I disagree. Large images can now be uploaded onto this site. Also you could upload to on-line storage like FlickR and link to there from a post here.

I am still unsure whether trying out 90 year old camera designs to see if they match current products counts as Experiments. But given the good performance of the Zeiss TenaxII, I decided to try a far humbler Dresdner mass product from Balda. A «Super Baldinar» produced in 1939. Similar ambitions as the Tenax with a 1- 1/500 shutter, rangefinder and a less prestigious 4 element lens (instead of the Sonnar that the Tenax I used came with)

This time the D.I.Y. part came in addition to the experiment part since the rear surface of the front element of its Xenar was cloudy, Tthe front ring did not budge even with strong finger pressure . Since I intended to thoroughly clean the innards I iused a normally absolutely forbidden method. I applied a little bit of penetrrating oil to the crack between the bellows mount and the front of the lens and waited one day.

The element came out, but so did element number two, which sat in the same unit. The enclosed snap documents the surgery. Now when it is together again I just have to wait for the rains to take a pause.

As ro the invitation above to load full size pictures I can scan the negatives when time allows and apart from cleaning up levels, no sharpening.

[post edited by Alan to add a preview picture]

Interesting project. I'm looking forward to your results. The lens in question is a 50/2.8 one, correct? Who is the manufacturer of that lens?

Some of those lenses from that era are still able to produce nice resutls even though most are quite low contrast. I have a 90 year old Zeiss lens, which I love for its rendering, a Graphikon 90 mm (apparently f/2.3):

Happy Women's day! by simple.joy, on Flickr

Hard to be soft in a good way... by simple.joy, auf Flickr

As @xpatUSA has mentioned it's possible on several places to upload a full sized image and even link to it, so you don't have to use your limited space here.

Also looking forward to the scans from the first camera mentioned with the Sonnar - which film scanner do you use? Seems like quality of the digital pictures varies a lot depending on that aspect...

the lens is as I mentioned, a Xenar and made by Schneider as usual. It is the 2,8 variety, not the earlier 2,9. Uncoated of course, so I will avoid having strong light against when trying.

p.

I overlookd your asking about my scanner. It is an ancient Minolta something with the brilliant Vuescan program. Usually quite good results if a bit slow (butb recently I killed off the Windows side loaded OS on my big computer and so I need to load the Linux version).

I have found that using my ordinary camera plus a bellows and a reasonably good enlarging lens is almost as good as scanning slides (much faster, but no possibility to adjust black/ white points and RGB levels) On the other hand, Kodachrormes are difficult to scan and fishing slides out of their mounts is tricky if they are not in GPmounts while copying the ancient cardboard mounts requires well behaved plane film.

p.

Thanks, you‘re right - I‘ve overlooked your Xenar mention!

Thanks! The Minolta filmscanners (at least the ScanElite) are said to be among the very best! When used on a modern camera (for macro work or film scanning) the lenses from those tend to be even better than enlarging lenses.

For my non critical, unscientific use I find an old enlarger lens pefectliy adequate, but today I need to copy a slide while my olympus bellows-copying is on loan elsewhere, so I a trying to use a macro on an old Novoflex rig.

p.

THIS qualifies as experiments: I tried to use a 100mm macro, and succeeded with the slide carrier fully extended, but it was too wobbly, so I rummaged in a drawer with various bits and pieces and managed to mount a 65mm which did work.

p.

Not an experiment, but a case of DIY:

Still difficult to insert images, i wanted to post a snap of the innards of the Novoflex pigriffC where I am trying to resuscicate its electrical release function. I have already shrunk and comprressed teh picture.

The site algorithm does not seem to provide any means other than linking to a websiteURL even if I have switched off all my paraanoiac safety programs.Possibly Firefox and the current incarnation of Microsoft 10 does not like this site. I am too lazy to leave my desk to fire up the Linux rig one floor below to try again, and give up until encouraaged to try an easier method-

Now my aged memory reminded me that the cryptic arrow symbol performs an upload, so all is well.

p.

problem solved, replacing the microswitch and cannibalizing a Nikon remote control switch (which only short circuits one of the usbC leads) plus soldeing in a jackplug which mates with the pigiff C. However the preicsion required made me call on my capable son to achieve the result. By now i need not have three arms to manage sutter release while focussing. Most satisfactory case of "fremder eingriff", as Leitz service people use to label unauthorized use of screwdrivers.

One supplementary tale while relating this; I once had a IIIc modified at the Hauser Torwerk in Wetzlar, the head man there told me that all the screws they had losened would have to be replaced according to company policy, since their fastening capacity had decreased by having been use once.

p.

A far more recent Zeiss product modified today instead of going out in the snow. I mounted a "diskusionswürfel" on my Zeiss/Winkel junior.

I lit up a highly unauthorized ledl-ight to illuminate stronger than the original 220volt bulb, put he PHACO on a suitale setting and laid a Leitz 1/100mm scale slide on the table.While hoping for the upper combination of extension rings and bellows to suffice.

The beamsplitter worked fine once the cryptic incriptions had been understood, but so far, no reproducible snap of a 1/100mm scale has been produced, so i took a snap of the entire device. maximally shrunk from the original 15Mb or so to fit

I see a Thorlabs spanner wrench on your table. Do you think it's good / worth of it's price?

I agree their policy. I have so many times opened the screws in my old lenses and then when reassembling them broken them.

The Thorlab thing has as precise distance-setting mechanism. One may change the operative ends between pointed and spade-shaped with the minuscule hex key that lives in the paper envelope.

It fufills all needs for both destructive and constructive work.

Exept for basket-cases of fogging and internal oil spills on glass and aperture, I do not recommend unscrewing anything on a reasonably heathy lens, even if the Thor lab device may encourage you.

p.

My use case for that tool is mounting and unmounting the view camera lenses to the lens plates. I'm going to screw and unscrew the retaining ring. It's routine with those lenses, not destroying healthy lenses. I have more lenses than lens plates. So, I have sometimes to unmount an old * lens and to mount the new * one to the lens plate.

*Old and new are very relative terms when speaking about my lenses.

Thank you, this is the answer to the question I was asking. 👍

further to my description above of the unsuccessfull attempt to use a "diskussionswurfel" on a Zeiss Junior.

Since guest are expected soon i have had to clear away all tools and devices from my kitchen table, so the conclusion to this diy project is still missing. All I can report is that the telan lenses on each side of the prism-lump ensure that the optical path remains unaltered. but that the same lenses on the Zeiss extension device makes it impossible to fit them on top of each other. I will experiment with making do with just 2 telans once my kitchen experimental space can be used again.

p.

my kitchen table temporary lab is still kept uncluttered, so instead of taking things apart and assembling ancient devices i revived my table tripod and snapped some pictues . Levels are adjusted but no sharpening apart from drastic shrinking.

very nice light!

whatever light came in through the window. A bit cloudy yesterday but usually bright sun in there in the mornings. Indoor closup snaps avoid having the wind moving the subject.

When i hve time to find the right length extension tube (or rig up a bellows) the DIY projects can continue with higher magnifiation through my ancient Tessovar.

p.

I keep replying to my -by now- imprecise headline. Another experiment will be to make effetive lens-shades for this lot of helix and aperture-less jewels taht I found last week.