Realist lens variations

[JLH3DPHOT@xxxxxxx]

I am finally getting around to respond in part to Allan's post dated
03/10/96.  

>.......there is still some confusion/doubt in my mind about the
> full line of lenses used for Realists.

Join the club Allan.  Basically you have reached the same point that I have
in finding factual information regarding the 1940 to 1960's era in stereo
photography.  To my mind there has not been a thoroughly researched,
accurate, and published (encyclopedia /all encompassing) work on the
manufacturing procedures and specifications of items produced in the "golden
age of stereo photography".  There are many good sources available however
and I would be lost without them. 

  I use a variety of published sources for my own research.  They include (in
part), Charles Piper's TECHNICAL PAGE, 4th. edition;  REEL 3-D NEWS  1978,
79, and 80, by David Starkman and  Susan pinsky;   THREE-DIMENSIONAL
PHOTOGRAPHY by Herbert Mc. KAY;  the STERO REALIST MANUAL, by Morgan and
Lester;  THE STEREO REALIST GUIDE, by Greenberg;  Jason Schneider's three
part edition,  ON CAMERA COLLECTING;  H. D. Abring's  VON DAGUERRE BIS HEUTE;
  STEREOKAMERAS VON 1940 BIS 1984 by Werner Weiser;   McKeown's GUIDE TO
ANTIQUE &CLASSIC CAMERAS;  any photography magazine from this era that has an
article or series of articles about stereo photography;  Harry Poster's
pamphlet guide,  back issues of Stereo World;  and the PSA and ISU
publications;  and of course the Photo 3d digest archives.   
(I'll probably think of ten more after I sign off like the New England
Journal of Photography etc.)

I'm sorry that I cannot answer most of your questions with positive
assurance.  There must be someone on the list who can.   If I could only
recall those countless conversations held during camera shows, club meetings
and conventions.  I know some of your questions have been discussed and
debated by the experts in the field.

>2. Kodak Ektar (usually rated highly for performance, 
>but a notch below the Custom Rare Earth Lenses.  They may be 
>considered better than the next lens listing, but I hope 
>someone more knowledgeable than me will comment on that)

IMHO I rate the "Germany" marked 2.8 Realist lenses over the Ektars.  In fact
this lens is my favorite performer in the Realist format cameras that I use
at this time.  This lens is the equal to my Custom Rare Earth Lenses and
consistently outperforms (to my eye)  most 2.8 David Whites and  2.7
Wollensaks.  I am always reassessing and comparing and may find an Ektar or
other lens that becomes a favorite.  Given the inconsistency of optical
quality control of the time, coupled with using these lenses on cameras with
shutters that are approaching the half-century mark, and considering the
condition of the slide film used (possible unknown heat damage etc.) along
with the vagaries of processing quality (big yellow are you listening?), it
may be difficult to accurately make a qualified analysis without access to a
dedicated lab like Popular Photography's.

>(..............are there lenses on 2.8 Realists with the name
> "Steinheil" appearing on the barrels?  I have never seen any.)

I have not seen the name Steinheil on any 2.8 Realist cameras.
I have found some 2.8 Realist David White lenses that seem to be better
performers than others.  I sold one that was well worn and replaced it with
one that was close to mint in appearance.  That was a mistake.  No wonder
that David White 2.8 was well worn it must have been the previous owners
favorite camera.  The "Mint" example was not as good.  In fact when I compare
slides taken with the worn David White 2.8, it seems to be as good as my
current favorite the "Germany" 2.8.
(and the circle continues)  I better sign off while I'm chasing my tail.

I'm looking for that 3.5 Realist with "Germany" on the barrel
that I saw once..........I think.  Or was it a dream in color and 3D?

three deeply dreaming on.....

jim hollis
philadelphia


        

 


------------------------------