278 
scientific and the educational, which requires 
more labor, more skill and more brains, and 
has a more practical, a more permanent value, 
not only for the present, but for the future, the 
highest and most conspicuous place in the 
photographic world. 
They who through the camera reveal nature’s 
secrets rather than they who with the camera 
make nature unnatural should be the leaders. 
Let them come to the front and give the better 
photography a boost. 

The Amateur and the Anastigmat 
Let none who fail to do satisfactory work 
with a rectilinear or even a lens of a cheaper 
grade deceive themselves into the belief that the 
fault is ‘‘all in the Jens.”” Nor should they jump 
at the conclusion that, by the substitution of a 
modern anastigmat, a better quality of work will 
be produced. Such a change, especially in those 
cases where a hand camera and a focusing scale 
are used, would probably result in the produc- 
tion of poorer work, an increase of troubles for 
the worker and a regard for the modern lens 
that would be everything but complimentary. 
In the majority of such cases the user, not the 
lens, is at fault, due to a lack of knowledge of the 
possibilities and impossibilities of the instru- 
ment he is using. 
A lens, to be of extreme rapidity, must have a 
large working aperture, and as that aperture is 
increased, so, in exact proportion, will the depth 
of the lens decrease; whether the lens be a 
single, rectilinear, portrait or anastigmat, the 
law is the same. Because of its double meaning 
the term depth is a misleading one. Depth of 
focus occurs within the camera; depth of field, 
without. Depth of focus is that distance which 
either the front or the back of the camera can be 
moved forward or backward, without making 
any one object visibly out of focus; the smaller 
the stop in the lens the greater will this depth be. 
By depth of field, usually, but erroneously, called 
depth of focus, is meant the clear definition of 
objects at various distances from the lens, and, 
like depth of focus, depth of field is increased as 
the lens is stopped down. Take any anastigmat 
and compare it with a rectilinear of the same 
focal length, using stops of the same value; the 
depth of both will be the same. When a lens 
is represented to have unusual depth, it and its 
advertiser can, without injustice, be regarded 
with suspicion. For depth, the anastigmat is no 
better than any other lens, and when working it 
with a larger aperture than is possible with the 
other types of lenses, greater accuracy in focusing 
is necessary. 
There are few amateurs who can afford a 
genuine, high-grade anastigmat that would 
not own one. When properly focused, an anas- 
RECREATION 
tigmat will cut sharply, with a large aperture, a 
larger plate than will a rectilinear of the same 
focal length; when stopped down, the anastig- 
mat will cover a much larger plate than the 
size for which it is listed, becoming thereby 
useful as a wide angle lens. In all cases where 
uniformly sharp definition is essential, for copy- 
ing and enlarging, especially maps and line 
drawings, there is no other lens that can com- 
pare with a good anastigmat, and no bit of 
rubbish more worthless than a poor one. 
There are occasions when the purchase of a 
lens is like buying a ticket in a lottery. The 
purchaser may get a bargain or he may himself 
be the bargain. The word ‘‘anastigmat” en- 
graved on the mount does not make the lens an 
anastigmat in fact. Spurious lenses are not 
uncommon. There are counterfeits and imita- 
tions. This is not conjecture, not hearsay. The 
writer has had the goods and tested them. A 
portrait lens, purporting to be of a reputable 
and standard European make, would give no 
image, for it consisted of two back combina- 
tions. Another lens, supposed to be from a 
standard maker, would not cut sharply, even 
when used with the smallest stop; the mount 
was genuine, the lenses spurious. A lens that 
was sold for an anastigmat would not cut . 
sharply any part of the plate, even when 
stopped down to f / 22.6, while another from the 
same house, represented to be of the same make 
and of the same grade, was equal to the repre- 
sentations made for it. Both were represented 
to be of one make, but were fitted in barrels on 
which was engraved the name of another 
maker. 
When an amateur asks our opinion in refer- 
ence to the purchase of an anastigmat, or the 
exchange of a rectilinear that does good work 
for an anastigmat, we have two things to take 
into consideration: Is an anastigmat essential 
to the work that is proposed to be done? Can 
the extra outlay that will be required for an 
anastigmat be afforded? Except for very rapid 
exposures and for technical work in which it is 
necessary to have sharp definition at the mar- 
gins of the negatives when it is desirable to 
work with large stops, there will be few occa- 
sions when a good rectilinear will not satisfac- 
torily meet the amateur’s requirements. 
We have no prejudice against the modern 
lens; we would have a set of the highest grade 
if we could. We would be the first to welcome 
good anastigmats from any reliable house, and 
at a price within every amateur’s ability to buy. 
But, until we know of such a lens from a house 
that we can recommend with confidence, we 
shall continue to advise those amateurs to whom 
the prices of standard anastigmats are prohibi- 
tory to be content with their rectilinears. 
