Rietzschel 1,9/13,5cm Prolinear
Does anyone here have any data on this lens? Coverage,flange size, dimensions. Anytihing? I searched on the web and found nothing.

Quote:

On 2004-10-15 16:21, Gammanine wrote: Rietzschel 1,9/13,5cm Prolinear Does anyone here have any data on this lens? Coverage,flange size, dimensions. Anytihing? I searched on the web and found nothing.

Get a copy of The Lens Collector's Vade Mecum. Available from MW Classic Camera (use Google to find 'em) or from a vendor who sells it on eBay. The Vade Mecum says this about the lens you've (a) bought in total ignorance or (b) are about to buy in total ignorance:

"Prolinear f1.9 135mm for Mentor 6x9 reflexes. This has been seen at No165,15x,
and this Mentor No44,37x carries the lens protruding as in the advert. in B.J.A. 1927, p615, while a well known
ilustration shows one in sunk housing- so there was a detailed redesign of the Mentor reflex. The illustration in
Frerk's book suggests this is really a box to surround the lens to protect it. In 1927, Prolinear was credited to
Rietzschel rather than Agfa. Other examples were No170,15x on Mentor No44,76x and 162,59x on Mentor
44,38x.
The Prolinear seen has 4 separate glasses, with the iris in the middle and is very compact from back to front.
It is really nearest the Speedic type of layout (App049) with the rear glass of a triplet divided and replaced by
two positives. The iris is between glasses 2 and 3. This raises the interesting idea that this and the Astro
lenses could have been licensed from different patent holders, though it is not known if TTH were involved. It
seems to be a reasonably contrasty and sharp lens, at least suitable for news work in bad weather at full
aperture but not suitable for extreme enlargement- perhaps rather in the same class as the Kino-Plasmat. It
must be a really scarce lens. [When a 135mm lens was focussed at f22, and opened up, the image remained
compact in the centre up to about f2.8, and then formed a halo of up to 3mm dia. from the outermost zone:
when this was isolated using a centre spot to remove light of f2.5 or less, the best focus was some 1.9mm
nearer the lens, pointing to some 1.5% under correction of spherical aberrations in this area. Away from the
centre, there seemed to be appreciable astigmatism, and it seems impressive how well it performs in the light
of this.]"

I Couldn't find this in the Kingslake book.
And why you assume my interest in this lens is out of ignorance is absolutely hysterical. Thanks for the morning laugh.
I have a penchant for early speed lenses. I find a world of intrigue in their distance from modern hightly corrected and coated optics. Presently I'm toying around with a 9" Pentac. I'm looking for something older and less corrected
and faster than 2.9.
I had never heard of the Prolinear. I've been looking around for an Ernostar 1.7. There is a long one that will cover 4x5.. I was thinking/hoping there could be some similarities between the two. Coverage being a main point of interest.
I enjoy learning about lenses, particularly ones I never heard of before.
Should they show promise and comply with my budget, then I show interest.
So, thanks for the tip on that publication. And the data on that lens. I'm still undecided about it.

Perhaps we've all learned a lesson on ignorance and assumption today.

Lets review todays lesson.

Part one;
Main Entry: ig·no·rant
Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&nt
Function: adjective
1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence.

And Part two:

Main Entry: as·sump·tion
Pronunciation: &-'s&m(p)-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin assumption-, assumptio taking up, from Latin assumere
4 : ARROGANCE, PRETENSION
5 a : an assuming that something is true b : a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted

Quote:

On 2004-10-16 09:03, Gammanine wrote: I Couldn't find this in the Kingslake book.

You were ignorant about the Prolinear. Have you bought it yet?

Please have the courtesy to thank me for finding the information you needed and telling you what to do to get it, and more, yourself.

Gammanine,

Check your private messages, I did answer you on your question.

Dave

If you read my post Dan...
You would see the comment about my being undecided.
FWIW, at this moment its a matter of price.
You would also see the thank you for the info and the tip on the book. I do appreciate both pieces of info. They are very helpfull. I plan on purchasing a copy of Vade Mecum today.
As humorous as it is to me, to be honest, calling someone "completely ignorant" because they ask a question is not an acceptable, educated, mature response.
However, your use of that term is now completely understandable.
Once again, thanks for todays chuckle. Cheers!!