Difference between revisions of "Polyplast"

From Camera-wiki.org
Jump to: navigation, search
(layout fix)
(added pics of the lens set)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{Flickr image
 +
| image_source=http://www.flickr.com/photos/heritagefutures/8269002863/in/pool-camerawiki/
 +
| image=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/8487/8269002863_0883dbe405.jpg
 +
| image_align= right
 +
| image_text= [[Staeble | Dr. Staeble's]] Polyplast-Satz (lens set)
 +
| scan_by=Dirk HR Spennemann
 +
|image_rights=with permission
 +
}}
 +
  
 
[[Staeble|Dr. Staeble]]'s '''Polyplast-Satz''' was a lens kit for folding cameras.<ref name="Staeble1912">Optisches Werk Dr. Staeble & Co. G.M.b.H Muenchen. pp. 32-36: 7.5, 10.5, 12, 13.5, 16.5, 19.5, 22, 26, 32 [http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/staeble_1.html 1912 Catalogue extracts] at www.cameraeccentric.com</ref> It allowed to assemble lenses by mounting one back element on the back of a shutter/iris assembly, and a front elements group on the frontside of the same shutter. The back element remained in place while  the front element group could easily be exchanged by another since it was fixed on a special fast mount. This allowed for a range of focal lengths.<ref> Some commentators were very critical of this approach: "Occasionally, for some reason, a designer will try the effect of combining two dissimilar cemented components about a central stop. It is hard to see the virtue of such an arrangement, except perhaps as an economy measure." (Kingslake, Rudolf [1989] A history of the photographic lens. London: Academic Press, p. 102).</ref>
 
[[Staeble|Dr. Staeble]]'s '''Polyplast-Satz''' was a lens kit for folding cameras.<ref name="Staeble1912">Optisches Werk Dr. Staeble & Co. G.M.b.H Muenchen. pp. 32-36: 7.5, 10.5, 12, 13.5, 16.5, 19.5, 22, 26, 32 [http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/staeble_1.html 1912 Catalogue extracts] at www.cameraeccentric.com</ref> It allowed to assemble lenses by mounting one back element on the back of a shutter/iris assembly, and a front elements group on the frontside of the same shutter. The back element remained in place while  the front element group could easily be exchanged by another since it was fixed on a special fast mount. This allowed for a range of focal lengths.<ref> Some commentators were very critical of this approach: "Occasionally, for some reason, a designer will try the effect of combining two dissimilar cemented components about a central stop. It is hard to see the virtue of such an arrangement, except perhaps as an economy measure." (Kingslake, Rudolf [1989] A history of the photographic lens. London: Academic Press, p. 102).</ref>
 
{{Flickr image
 
{{Flickr image
 
| image_source=http://www.flickr.com/photos/89864432@N00/2434965060/in/pool-camerawiki/
 
| image_source=http://www.flickr.com/photos/89864432@N00/2434965060/in/pool-camerawiki/
| image=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2353/2434965060_1fa6607fa7_b.jpg
+
| image=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2353/2434965060_1fa6607fa7_z.jpg
 
| image_align=
 
| image_align=
 
| image_text=1919 advertisement for the lens kit
 
| image_text=1919 advertisement for the lens kit
 
| scan_by=Uwe Kulick
 
| scan_by=Uwe Kulick
 
|image_rights=pd
 
|image_rights=pd
}}{{br}}
+
}}
  
 
== Notes ==
 
== Notes ==

Revision as of 15:41, 13 December 2012


Dr. Staeble's Polyplast-Satz was a lens kit for folding cameras.[1] It allowed to assemble lenses by mounting one back element on the back of a shutter/iris assembly, and a front elements group on the frontside of the same shutter. The back element remained in place while the front element group could easily be exchanged by another since it was fixed on a special fast mount. This allowed for a range of focal lengths.[2]

Notes

  1. Optisches Werk Dr. Staeble & Co. G.M.b.H Muenchen. pp. 32-36: 7.5, 10.5, 12, 13.5, 16.5, 19.5, 22, 26, 32 1912 Catalogue extracts at www.cameraeccentric.com
  2. Some commentators were very critical of this approach: "Occasionally, for some reason, a designer will try the effect of combining two dissimilar cemented components about a central stop. It is hard to see the virtue of such an arrangement, except perhaps as an economy measure." (Kingslake, Rudolf [1989] A history of the photographic lens. London: Academic Press, p. 102).