Nokton, skopar, serenar, apo lanthar - lens names and types?

[brianentz]

I’m really enjoying my recent deep dive into rangefinder photography. But I wish I wasn’t so clueless regarding these and other terms regarding optical design. Any help?

 

[4season]

In the days of folding cameras, lens options from base model to top-of-the-line was something like Skopar > Heliar > Apo-Lanthar.

Noktons are high-speed lenses.

Price aside, there can be very good reasons for choosing a Skopar or Heliar over higher-line optics, such as smaller size and weight.

 

[reddesert]

These are just trademarks, they aren't technical optical design terms. I think these trademarks mostly belong to Voigtlander. A couple of them are names for a particular lens design, for example a Heliar usually means a particular 5 element design, a Skopar is usually a Tessar type I think. Apo-Lanthar refers to a lens that was supposed to be better color corrected (more apochromatic) due to using glass with lanthanum as an ingredient. Nokton typically means fast lenses (noct- as in nocturnal, night). But you should realize that the terms date back as far as 1900 (original Heliar design) and they don't have a specific technical meaning. They only retain a meaning as long as the company holding the Voigtlander trademarks chooses to reserve Heliar for fancier lenses than Skopar, etc. http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Heliar

 

[reddesert]

Oh, I forgot, "Serenar" is the name Canon used on its rangefinder lenses. It doesn't indicate any specific lens design. It's like the way Nikon lenses are labeled "Nikkor," or Mamiya lenses labeled "Sekor."

 

[pbromaghin]

I believe that in the 1950's, Color Skopar was the more modern coated Tessar type as compared to the uncoated Skopar (Tessar type).

 

[mtnbkr]

Price aside, there can be very good reasons for choosing a Skopar or Heliar over higher-line optics, such as smaller size and weight.

That, and at least for myself, I find myself avoiding using the largest apertures on my fastest rangefinder lens because I struggle to nail critical focus when the lens is wide open. I realized late in the game that I'd be better off just buying the smaller, cheaper, and "slower" lenses to begin with.

Chris

 

[film4Me]

I only managed to see six reflections in a Bessa II Color Skopar. I'm perplexed why I'm not seeing the other two, to make a total of eight. Am I not holding the torch right? I only have the lens/shutter, I plan to fix it to an old folding camera for 70mm film if the 105mm Skopar covers it. I think it might, yet to see.

 

[Dali]

Like reddesert, I think these are trademarks and have nothing to do with photography.

 

[film4Me]

Thanks. Tessar types, as the Color Skopar is supposed to be, have eight reflections if they have 4 elements, with the two rear elements stuck together. I've read about 3 element Tessars, and 4 element Triplets - totally confusing to say the least. Thing is I've never been able to find a lens construction diagram for the Color Skopar, not saying it isn't a Tessar, just saying I can only spot 6 reflections, which usually indicates a triplet.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I only managed to see six reflections in a Bessa II Color Skopar. I'm perplexed why I'm not seeing the other two, to make a total of eight. Am I not holding the torch right? I only have the lens/shutter, I plan to fix it to an old folding camera for 70mm film if the 105mm Skopar covers it. I think it might, yet to see.

Two air-spaced elements in the front cell, four air-glass interfaces, four strong reflections.

Two cemented elements in the rear cell, two air-glass interfaces, one glass-cement-glass interface, two strong reflections and one weak reflection. The weak reflection can be very hard to see.

Counting reflections is easier when the cells are removed from the shutter.

Re 70 mm film, no consumer cameras take 70 mm film as is used by "Hollywood" and some aerial cameras. I think you mean 120 film. Old roll film cameras that take 120 film have gates for 2.25" x 1.75" (nominal 6x4.5), 2.25" x 2.25" (nominal 6x6), 2.25" x2.75" (nominal 6x7, rare in pre-WWII cameras) and 2.25"x3.25" (nominal 6x9). The 105 Skopar was a normal lens for 6x9 cameras.

Re attaching a particular lens to any old camera, if it isn't the lens the camera was made for focusing is going to be difficult.

Re y'r comment in post #9 above, the Color Skopar is a tessar type, not a triplet. The only lenses badged "Skopar" that aren't tessar types are Apo-Skopars. They are Heliar types.

 

[film4Me]

The weak reflection can be very hard to see.

Oh ok, thanks. I just spotted the weak reflection after doing what you advised, but only had to remove the front glass.

I have 70mm bulk color and B&W film to use up, and I was thinking if the 105 Color Skopar covered 90mm long for 120, it would cover the width of 70mm film. But that of course means that I would have to check if the Color Skopar will cover the 107mm length of the Kodak 2A's negative. The focus won't be a problem, I'll push the standard back along it's rails and use a screen on the film gate for focusing, and then mark the rails.

 

[JPD]

Re y'r comment in post #9 above, the Color Skopar is a tessar type, not a triplet. The only lenses badged "Skopar" that aren't tessar types are Apo-Skopars. They are Heliar types.

True for the real Voigtländer lenses. The Cosina made lenses with these names could be of "whatever" design.

 

[brianentz]

Wow. Thanks for the responses. Quite a lot of information here. Interesting but not terribly relevant to the craft, I guess.

 

[brianentz]

That is, the nomenclature isn’t relevant to the craft. Your information is appreciated

 

[MattKing]

I've tweaked your thread title to perhaps attract some further attention!
If you would like a book about this sort of thing, Rudolf Kingslake comes to mind: https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/lense...BsPBZlKEGMyXq0#edition=65578919&idiq=59327184

 

[film4Me]

That is, the nomenclature isn’t relevant to the craft.

It seems that way. In fact, a favorite picture of mine that I took last year, and it's not a good shot technically in terms of equipment being used, was taken with a bakelite camera sporting a single element lens. Also fixed focus and single speed. You can imagine what the image looked like, taken with such a cheap and basic camera. But the scene in the photo has so much real-life charm about it, I could never part with it. It's a street scene, with a few country folk, in an economically dying rural town not far from where I live. And us rural "hillbillies" inherently identify with each other, so the pic is a bit personal as well. All those positive photographic elements came together in a camera not conducive to any sort of quality, and the story in the photo meant more to me than the equipment used.

 

[Dali]

It seems that way. In fact, a favorite picture of mine that I took last year, and it's not a good shot technically in terms of equipment being used, was taken with a bakelite camera sporting a single element lens. Also fixed focus and single speed. You can imaging what the image looked like, taken with such a cheap and basic camera. But the scene in the photo has so much real-life charm about it, I could never part with it. It's a street scene, with a few country folk, in an economically dying rural town not far from where I live. And us rural "hillbillies" inherently identify with each other, so the pic is a bit personal as well. All those positive photographic elements came together in a camera not conducive to any sort of quality, and the story in the photo meant more to me than the equipment used.

Great! Now we talk photography!

 

[MattKing]

All those positive photographic elements came together in a camera not conducive to any sort of quality

I'll quote/paraphrase my late father on this issue.
"There have been more good photos taken with Instamatics than all the fancy 35mm SLRs combined."
Over his career, he probably saw hundreds of thousands of photos - that is what working in a busy Kodak processing lab and dealing with customers would do.
It isn't the camera, it is the operator.

 

[film4Me]

I'll quote/paraphrase my late father on this issue.
"There have been more good photos taken with Instamatics than all the fancy 35mm SLRs combined."

I can believe it.

 

[pbromaghin]

It seems that way. In fact, a favorite picture of mine that I took last year, and it's not a good shot technically in terms of equipment being used, was taken with a bakelite camera sporting a single element lens. Also fixed focus and single speed. You can imagine what the image looked like, taken with such a cheap and basic camera. But the scene in the photo has so much real-life charm about it, I could never part with it. It's a street scene, with a few country folk, in an economically dying rural town not far from where I live. And us rural "hillbillies" inherently identify with each other, so the pic is a bit personal as well. All those positive photographic elements came together in a camera not conducive to any sort of quality, and the story in the photo meant more to me than the equipment used.

Show it to us!

 

[film4Me]

Show it to us!

I'm reluctant to show it, our Fed Govt won't like what I said about the dying town, plus I have other reasons. It's not a photo I wish to make public, it's endearing to just me and the folk who live in my wider location. So I'll show another street scene I took on the second film I exposed in the same camera at a different time. Nothing in this pic was posed, just took the scene as it was.
Perfekta 6x6 FP4 IDII 1:1 8mins

 

[ChrisGalway]

Here is a link to an informative article by C B Neblette, a legend in photographic technology although not a lens designer himself:

CollectiBlend: Library: Cameras by C.B. Neblette

Everyone interested in older photographic lenses should read this!

 

[brianentz]

I've tweaked your thread title to perhaps attract some further attention!
If you would like a book about this sort of thing, Rudolf Kingslake comes to mind: https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/lense...BsPBZlKEGMyXq0#edition=65578919&idiq=59327184

I put it in my cart

 

[RalphLambrecht]

These are just trademarks, they aren't technical optical design terms. I think these trademarks mostly belong to Voigtlander. A couple of them are names for a particular lens design, for example a Heliar usually means a particular 5 element design, a Skopar is usually a Tessar type I think. Apo-Lanthar refers to a lens that was supposed to be better color corrected (more apochromatic) due to using glass with lanthanum as an ingredient. Nokton typically means fast lenses (noct- as in nocturnal, night). But you should realize that the terms date back as far as 1900 (original Heliar design) and they don't have a specific technical meaning. They only retain a meaning as long as the company holding the Voigtlander trademarks chooses to reserve Heliar for fancier lenses than Skopar, etc. http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Heliar

may I add the Leitz terms Simmicron (around f/2) and Summilux(around f/1.4)?

 

[Paul Howell]

Kodak used Ektar for it's top of the line lens, my 1943 Kodak Ho to Take Better Pictures described the 50mm 1.9 as 7 elements in 4 groups, it was designed for the Ektra. Kodak also used Ektar for the 3.5 100 that was fitted to the Medalist which I think was a 4 elements in 3 groups. By the 90s Kodak used Ektar for a lens on a point and shoot, likely a 4 or 3 element design.