Meyer Doppel Anastigmat 135/4.5, Nippon Promar 75/3.5 - worth getting? :)
in my never ending strolls around I found two lenses - just for me, one for free and one for $30. The one for free is uncoated Nippon Promar (75/3.5) in Crown II shutter, and the one for money is old uncoated Meyer-Goerlitz Doppel-Anastigmat Helioplan 135/4.5, in D. R. P. IBSOR funny self-cocking shutter. The glass in both cases is perfect, the shutters working almost fine
The question is, do I need that Helioplan? Maybe it gives an interesting picture - as I can understand, it's a dialyte? Can its halves be used as a convertible lens, or they're not fully corrected? And this Promar, as I can understand, it's made by Asahi for old Minolta folders - is it a Tessar clone, or just a triplet? What can you say about these lenses, maybe there's something interesting? I already have got both 135/4.5 Tessar and Xenar, and they're giving me different pictures Can't invent a usage for Promar yet, but it's still coming free in package...
Last edited by eumenius; 07-29-2006 at 05:36 PM. Click to view previous post history.
If the Tessar and the Xenar give you different pictures, you'll find yet another version of "different" from the Helioplan.
My "standard book" from 1910 says that the halves of "uncemented symmetrical anastigmats" like dialytes and such will only give a satisfactory image at very small stops. I can believe this after trying a 135/4.5 Rodenstock Eurynar (another dialyte). He then goes on to say that these lenses have the potential to be sharper than the more popular cemented anastigmats (Protars, Dagors etc), but are let down by the reduced contrast.
I know nothing about the Promar, I'm afraid.
-- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
I think that my little passion for old lenses should be satisfied - after all, it's a different design, and why shouldn't it be able to give something interesting and authentic-looking? If I would need a higher contrast and less reflexes, I would just take a modern lens like, uh, 150/5.6 Symmar-S The shutter works fine, the glass is flawless, so there's some potential
A Promar is a different story - I have first to invent where could I put it But I can't say if it's a triplet or a Tessar type. I would try to find some pictures made with early 6*6 MInolta folders - maybe they would tell me the story... but this Crown-II shutter looks like TLR style Compur-Rapid 00, so maybe this lens was taken out from some TLR.
I finished yesterday a full CLA of my newly acquired Ikoflex II - chrome-plated, with Tessar 75/3.5. The main issue was the haze and dirt accumulated somehow between front cell lenses, and the damn Zeiss engineers made the barrel with no thoughts about the need of future disassembling! I had to make two small holes for wrench on cell's underside, and two slots on its rim - there was no other way to repair it. But everything inside is very clear now, and the lens doesn't look modified at all About 8 turns of a very fine-pitched screw, in a very inconvenient place - why ZI people have decided to make it that way? But I'm not surprised at all after all these celluloid bands with numbers, affixed to silk cords inside I tried to shoot some contre-jour subjects - the contrast is of course lower that with coated lenses, but that's how it should be, right?
I'm resurrecting this old post to give some info about the Promar.
AFAIK, the Promar Nippon 75/3.5 lens in a Crown-II shutter is found on the Auto Semi Minolta rangefinder folding (4.5x6) and on the Minolta Flex and Minoltaflex Automat TLR, all of them pre-war.
The lens is supposed to have four elements and it is said that it was supplied by Asahi Kogaku (the later Pentax).
The TLR models have 1/300 top speed while the Auto Semi has 1/400, that should help to recognize its origin. I also believe that the lens rim is black on the Minolta Flex and chrome on the Automat, but would not bet anything on this.
Originally Posted by eumenius
Last edited by rebollo_fr; 11-14-2006 at 08:14 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: minor mistake in a model name