This is not a Portrait Euryscope Series III #5

[Louis Pacilla]

Trying to stop over bidding for this:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...:X:RTQ:US:1123

I contacted the seller & they said it is a Collinear Series III #5.

Not that a Collinear is a bad lens but certainly a different beast. Not to mention the extra $ you may have bid for the Portrait Euryscope.

The seller added a tiny bit buried at the bottom of the listing that says it's a Collinear series III #5

The title (still present) is just so misleading. Like the guy that sold the series IV as "PORTRAIT" Euryscope.for I believe around $1800 WOW If you don't know better you can take a bath.

[Jim Galli]

This is a 135mm lens. Very small. I sold one last month for $80. People have lost their minds.

I may be wrong on that. 1905 catalog lists #5 as 250mm. Still not a portrait or even a non portrait Euryscop which I think people must be thinking it is to bid $500.

[Steven Tribe]

Prochnow lists the series III Kollinear no. 5 as 15cm made for 16x21cm. The no. 8 was 25cm.
The F7.7 is a surprise. Could be the remains of a casket Collinear III set which started at this f value?

[paulMD]

Prochnow lists the series III Kollinear no. 5 as 15cm made for 16x21cm. The no. 8 was 25cm.
The F7.7 is a surprise. Could be the remains of a casket Collinear III set which started at this f value?

Looks like Prochnow is an author, do you have a book title or URL? Sorry, it's a bit OT, I just want to bookmark as many of these books and references as I can.

edit: this?

[Tim Deming]

Prochnow lists the series III Kollinear no. 5 as 15cm made for 16x21cm. The no. 8 was 25cm.
The F7.7 is a surprise. Could be the remains of a casket Collinear III set which started at this f value?

Hi Steven,

FYI, that f-stop range (f5.4 to f6.8) is a typo in Prochnow's book (p.23-633). The original series III collinears start at f6.8 then switch to f7.7 at larger sizes.

cheers

Tim

[Steven Tribe]

PaulMD: Voigtländer Report 3 by Claus Prochnow, 2007 - Still available as a new book.
Tim: Thanks, That makes sense in relation to the casket f values - have made the correction.