jdeed1 Posted March 3, 2010 Share #1 Posted March 3, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am looking to buy a 21mm Super Angulon 3.4 and have seen two nice examples, however when referencing their numbers on Puts Lens Compendium they are listed as the earlier f4 version. Their year of manufacture tallies with the newer lens start date ie 1963 and later and certainly photos of the lens show them as f3.4. Puts indicates that the information used in compiling the Compendium has come from Solms but acnowledges that the old records are sometimes unclear. Do I take it that in both instances the Compendium is wrong rather than having suspicions about the lens? What reliance do other forum members place on the Compendium? John Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 Hi jdeed1, Take a look here Lens numbering. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jc_braconi Posted March 3, 2010 Share #2 Posted March 3, 2010 I have found "errors" in all the reference books I own. if you post the s/n we can compare with my own sources Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdeed1 Posted March 3, 2010 Author Share #3 Posted March 3, 2010 JC the one I am most interested in is no. 2035243 with my second choice no. 2027850. Thanks for your help, John Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickp13 Posted March 3, 2010 Share #4 Posted March 3, 2010 john fyi, a third one is chrome, with both caps, hood and finder. 21mm super angulon f3.4 (1964) 2035704 hope that helps .................. greetings from hamburg rick Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/114269-lens-numbering/?do=findComment&comment=1246043'>More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted March 3, 2010 Share #5 Posted March 3, 2010 JC the one I am most interested in is no. 2035243 with my second choice no. 2027850.Thanks for your help, John the 2035243 is a 3.4/21, chrome, one from a batch of 1000 made in 1964. the 2027850 is also a 3.4/21, chrome, one from a batch of 500 also made in 1964. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted March 3, 2010 Share #6 Posted March 3, 2010 JC the one I am most interested in is no. 2035243 with my second choice no. 2027850.Thanks for your help, John You can be SURE 2.035.243 is a f 3,4... I have 2.035.263 and it is like that... maybe made the same workday:) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdeed1 Posted March 3, 2010 Author Share #7 Posted March 3, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) JC, many thanks. Most reassuring. John Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdeed1 Posted March 3, 2010 Author Share #8 Posted March 3, 2010 You can be SURE 2.035.243 is a f 3,4... I have 2.035.263 and it is like that... maybe made the same workday:) Luigi, thanks for the post. Will now hopefully buy the lens, John Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted March 3, 2010 Share #9 Posted March 3, 2010 I have a chrome one 1 967 xxx of the early first batch of 1000 made in 1963 and a black one 2 563 xxx 1973 made. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdeed1 Posted March 3, 2010 Author Share #10 Posted March 3, 2010 JC, do you see any difference in the results you get between the chrome version and the newer black? John Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted March 4, 2010 Share #11 Posted March 4, 2010 The only difference is in the OAL for use with the M5 & CL , best aperture @ f:8. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ismon Posted March 5, 2010 Share #12 Posted March 5, 2010 JCB, Me too. Have you noticed that the DOF scale on the later (black) lens is compressed, when compared to the earlier (chrome) lens engraving. Looks like Leitz thought it best to reduce the circle of confusion to preserve details in big enlargements. ISMON Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted March 5, 2010 Share #13 Posted March 5, 2010 Have you noticed that the DOF scale on the later (black) lens is compressed, when compared to the earlier (chrome) lens engraving. Looks like Leitz thought it best to reduce the circle of confusion to preserve details in big enlargements. Isn't it just that the later lens has a coarser focusing helical (shorter throw)? That's the case with other focal lengths: the CoC hasn't changed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted March 5, 2010 Share #14 Posted March 5, 2010 (edited) JCB,Me too. Have you noticed that the DOF scale on the later (black) lens is compressed, when compared to the earlier (chrome) lens engraving. Looks like Leitz thought it best to reduce the circle of confusion to preserve details in big enlargements. ISMON Indeed, that's a bit strange... they are really different, in the sense that declare different DOF values... not a question of focus throw... the "first" DOF scale looks identical to the one of the previous SA f4 (for instance, at infinity, around 1,5 meters at f8) while the second looks more "strict" (at infinity, around 2 meters at f8) Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Edited March 5, 2010 by luigi bertolotti Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/114269-lens-numbering/?do=findComment&comment=1248774'>More sharing options...
giordano Posted March 6, 2010 Share #15 Posted March 6, 2010 That's interesting. Focused at infinity at f/8, the black lens shows DOF extending from about 1.8m to infinity, while the older ones show about 1.4m to infinity. These distances indicate circles of confusion of about 30µm and 40µm respectively. This is the first time I've seen or heard of a Leica lens engraved for a CoC other than 30-33µm (1/30 mm). Are there any others? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted March 6, 2010 Share #16 Posted March 6, 2010 I wonder if this "non standard" CoC has some relation with Schneider... they designed (and, I think, built) the Super Angulon f4... maybe they used to adopt a "larger" CoC (related to their attitudes towards large formats ?) in their DOF figures... this passed unmodified to Leitz, and only after some years they decide to revert to their own CoC standard... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted March 8, 2010 Share #17 Posted March 8, 2010 Could be. If so, maybe the Curtagon PC lenses for the Leica reflex cameras also use 40µm. For that matter, does the Hologon in M-mount have DOF markings? I wonder if these use the old Contax CoC of 50µm. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted March 8, 2010 Share #18 Posted March 8, 2010 Could be. If so, maybe the Curtagon PC lenses for the Leica reflex cameras also use 40µm. For that matter, does the Hologon in M-mount have DOF markings? I wonder if these use the old Contax CoC of 50µm. The Hologon has not an iris.. it's f8 fixed (f16 considering the filter)... I think that the two "ears" around the focus ring are to be considered as DOF indicators (supposed DOF is an issue for a 15 mm f8..., but they DID it to focus, differently from the fixed-mount Zeiss version... ) Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/114269-lens-numbering/?do=findComment&comment=1251917'>More sharing options...
giordano Posted March 9, 2010 Share #19 Posted March 9, 2010 Luigi, I can't see the focusing scales clearly enough in the Hologon photo, but if you have the lens maybe you can check this. According to the "Barnack" DOF calculator, with a 15mm f/8 lens (the gradated filter doesn't affect the DOF) focused at infinity, depth of field at various CoC diameters is as follows: CoC From To 30µm 94cm ∞ 40µm 70cm ∞ 50µm 56cm ∞ Which of those is indicated by the "ears" on the Hologon focus ring? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted March 10, 2010 Share #20 Posted March 10, 2010 (edited) Luigi, I can't see the focusing scales clearly enough in the Hologon photo, but if you have the lens maybe you can check this. According to the "Barnack" DOF calculator, with a 15mm f/8 lens (the gradated filter doesn't affect the DOF) focused at infinity, depth of field at various CoC diameters is as follows: CoC From To 30µm 94cm ∞ 40µm 70cm ∞ 50µm 56cm ∞ Which of those is indicated by the "ears" on the Hologon focus ring? I haven't IT ... dreamed to have one for years, then I found a self justification to renounce in the fact that it doesn't follow the std. Leitz numbering, so hasn't a proper place in my collection... (the REAL rea$on i$ ...). My idea on the "ears" as DOF indicators is simply a speculation... here's a pic that is a bit clearer about... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! In respect to the values you quoted, my hipotesis seems wrong... focusing, say, to about 30 cm, the "ears" would give a DOF extending from infinity to something around 10-15 cm... I do not know if Leitz, when listed the Hologon, declared, as they did usually, the DOF figures... but could be not... I remember that Jim Lager (at that times employed at Leitz NY) writes that it was listed for such a brief period that in Leitz NY the "marketing materials" (including the tech specs, one can suppose) arrived the same day that a telex which announced lens' discontinuation. Probably DOF figures were declared by Zeiss in the specs of the Hologon Camera... which can have the (fixed) focus set not exactly to infinity, but something less just to maximize DOF. I can't find specific Zeiss materials about, but in the Net found this : "Due to optical nature as an ultra-wideangle lens which generates immense depth of field, the HOLOGON ultrawide camera is literally need not have to focus from 0.5m ~ infinity (OO)." Edited March 10, 2010 by luigi bertolotti Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! In respect to the values you quoted, my hipotesis seems wrong... focusing, say, to about 30 cm, the "ears" would give a DOF extending from infinity to something around 10-15 cm... I do not know if Leitz, when listed the Hologon, declared, as they did usually, the DOF figures... but could be not... I remember that Jim Lager (at that times employed at Leitz NY) writes that it was listed for such a brief period that in Leitz NY the "marketing materials" (including the tech specs, one can suppose) arrived the same day that a telex which announced lens' discontinuation. Probably DOF figures were declared by Zeiss in the specs of the Hologon Camera... which can have the (fixed) focus set not exactly to infinity, but something less just to maximize DOF. I can't find specific Zeiss materials about, but in the Net found this : "Due to optical nature as an ultra-wideangle lens which generates immense depth of field, the HOLOGON ultrawide camera is literally need not have to focus from 0.5m ~ infinity (OO)." ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/114269-lens-numbering/?do=findComment&comment=1254135'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.