Questions about my Carl Zeiss Jena Double Protarlineas 160mm 6.3 Nr 91827

[Embdude]

The front ring is marked Carl Zeiss Protarlineas Nr 91827 f-285mm it is rather deterioated with the white paint completly gone and the black lacquer mostly gone leaving lots of bare aluminum. The rear element is the same, a Protar (marked protarlineas) 285mm, I cant make out the rear SN but it would be in sequence if it was originally sold as a double-protar

Housed in a Voightlander labeled dial set Compur shutter. It seems to me likely this was not the original mounting. From what I have read in the 1903 Zeiss catalog this makes it a series VII doppel-protar 163mm f6.3
I am also thinking I recall the early ones were in MM and later ones CM so it is likely the lens predates the shutter and was likely originally a barrel type lens. The housing is aluminum…
Any ideas of whether it belongs to the shutter or not?

After reading this summers Protar thread : https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?169655-Apertures-for-Zeiss-Triple-Convertible/page4
I have a few more questions.

The lens is in mm and supposedly this changed to CM around late 1909 however there is no sign of any protar series # marked on the ring or around the barrel which supposedly Zeiss stopped marking about 1928… so likely made before 1910 and after 1928 ???

the 1901 Zeiss english catalog only lists the double protar 285mm in the series VII section. So this is why I believe it is a VII... https://www.google.com/books/edition/Photographic_Objectives_and_Photo_optica/cnkWAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0...

I would like to clean it up a bit and re lacquer/paint the casing and repaint the engravings. The glass pops out easily enough so any ideas for removing the existing lacquer and how to best go about repainting it?

Cheers234267

[David Lindquist]

Unfortunately s/n 91827 isn't listed in Hartmut Thiele's Fabrikationsbuch Photooptik I Carl Zeiss Jena. Looking at the page that covers serial numbers 88,701 through 96,496, well there's a lot of different lenses; Tessar, Apo-Tessar, Planar Apo-Planar, Unar. Protars are listed variously as "Protar", "Protarlinse", "Protarlinse Serie VII" and "Protarlinse Serie IV" and "Doppel-Protar". All focal lengths on this page are in millimeters. In general in the cases where "Fertigung", the date production of a particular batch of a particular lens began is given, the year is 1907. (My thanks to Arne Cröll for translating some of Thiele's terms for me). Don't know what to make of this not being marked with its "Series".

Looking at this page I'd say the records are a bit less complete than what Thiele gleaned from later years, i.e. 1920's-1930's. If you can get the glass out you might be able to tell how many elements in a cell, four of course for the Series VII. Series IV might be three, not sure of that.

Wonder how they decided whether to use brass or aluminum.

David

[Joseph Kashi]

[QUOTE=Embdude;1667895]The front ring is marked Carl Zeiss Protarlineas Nr 91827 f-285mm it is rather deterioated with the white paint completly gone and the black lacquer mostly gone leaving lots of bare aluminum. The rear element is the same, a Protar (marked protarlineas) 285mm, I cant make out the rear SN but it would be in sequence if it was originally sold as a double-protar

Housed in a Voightlander labeled dial set Compur shutter. It seems to me likely this was not the original mounting. From what I have read in the 1903 Zeiss catalog this makes it a series VII doppel-protar 163mm f6.3
I am also thinking I recall the early ones were in MM and later ones CM so it is likely the lens predates the shutter and was likely originally a barrel type lens. The housing is aluminum…
Any ideas of whether it belongs to the shutter or not?

....

The lens is in mm and supposedly this changed to CM around late 1909 however there is no sign of any protar series # marked on the ring or around the barrel which supposedly Zeiss stopped marking about 1928… so likely made before 1910 and after 1928 ???
....

/QUOTE]


FWIW, here's some additional information.

I have, and just physically checked, a virtually identical Zeiss Jena-made Double Protar VIIa. The lens cell S/N are 218009 front and 218010 rear. Both are marked as 29CM and the cells are made of brass. The cells are in what appears to be a small dial-set Compound shutter, model number/ name not visible. The shutter appears to be a factory mount with Aluminum spacing tubes. The brass aperture scale is marked in mm and also marked as 17CM with f/stops using an older European aperture numbering system. I just use the mm scale and do the mental math assuming it's a 165mm +/- lens (580mm combined front and rear FL divided by the nominal Protar VIIa 3.5 divisor = 165 mm combined cell FL.)

This is an excellent lens that still resolves and covers very well. It produces very nice 5x7 BW negatives, even in comparison with modern MC lenses.. It's good enough that it still has a place in my primary 5x7 kit with the new Canham MQC57 camera, along with my best MC Sironar and Fujinon lenses.

Because the front and back cells are matched 29CM made sequentially, it's a fully symmetrical lens and thus should have good correction for a lot of different aberrations. It's the best of the several Zeiss-made and B+L - made Protar VIIa lenses that I've used and tested, the others of which use differing, not matched, FL cells.

I seem to recall seeing comparable Protar VIIa 29/29CM combinations in the B+L catalogues listed as 16.5 CM / 6.5 inch lenses made under license in the US. This one was made in Germany.

[David Lindquist]

[QUOTE=Embdude;1667895]The front ring is marked Carl Zeiss Protarlineas Nr 91827 f-285mm it is rather deterioated with the white paint completly gone and the black lacquer mostly gone leaving lots of bare aluminum. The rear element is the same, a Protar (marked protarlineas) 285mm, I cant make out the rear SN but it would be in sequence if it was originally sold as a double-protar

Housed in a Voightlander labeled dial set Compur shutter. It seems to me likely this was not the original mounting. From what I have read in the 1903 Zeiss catalog this makes it a series VII doppel-protar 163mm f6.3
I am also thinking I recall the early ones were in MM and later ones CM so it is likely the lens predates the shutter and was likely originally a barrel type lens. The housing is aluminum…
Any ideas of whether it belongs to the shutter or not?

....

The lens is in mm and supposedly this changed to CM around late 1909 however there is no sign of any protar series # marked on the ring or around the barrel which supposedly Zeiss stopped marking about 1928… so likely made before 1910 and after 1928 ???
....

/QUOTE]


FWIW, here's some additional information.

I have, and just physically checked, a virtually identical Zeiss Jena-made Double Protar VIIa. The lens cell S/N are 218009 front and 218010 rear. Both are marked as 29CM and the cells are made of brass. The cells are in what appears to be a small dial-set Compound shutter, model number/ name not visible. The shutter appears to be a factory mount with Aluminum spacing tubes. The brass aperture scale is marked in mm and also marked as 17CM with f/stops using an older European aperture numbering system. I just use the mm scale and do the mental math assuming it's a 165mm +/- lens (580mm combined front and rear FL divided by the nominal Protar VIIa 3.5 divisor = 165 mm combined cell FL.)

This is an excellent lens that still resolves and covers very well. It produces very nice 5x7 BW negatives, even in comparison with modern MC lenses.. It's good enough that it still has a place in my primary 5x7 kit with the new Canham MQC57 camera, along with my best MC Sironar and Fujinon lenses.

Because the front and back cells are matched 29CM made sequentially, it's a fully symmetrical lens and thus should have good correction for a lot of different aberrations. It's the best of the several Zeiss-made and B+L - made Protar VIIa lenses that I've used and tested, the others of which use differing, not matches, FL cells.

I seem to recall seeing comparable Protar VIIa 29/29CM combinations in the B+L catalogues listed as 16.5 CM / 6.5 inch lenses made under license in the US. This one was made in Germany.

It's a small world. I used to own that lens, serial numbers 218009/218010. I bought it in Copenhagen in October 1970 (my sister was living in Denmark at the time and I was visiting.) I paid the equivalent of $25.00 for it. I sold it in February 1983 for $30.00. Didn't record to whom, may have done it through Shutterbug Ads.

Thiele shows these were part of a batch of 200 29 cm lenses, serial numbers 217966-218161. "Fertigung" not given, based on other lenses listed with serial numbers in this ballpark, I'd say these were made 1913-1914.

Not sure why I sold this, probably wasn't using it much and decided to thin the herd, so to speak. Very glad to hear it's found a good home with a happy user.

David

[Joseph Kashi]

[QUOTE=Joseph Kashi;1667907]

It's a small world. I used to own that lens, serial numbers 218009/218010. I bought it in Copenhagen in October 1970 (my sister was living in Denmark at the time and I was visiting.) I paid the equivalent of $25.00 for it. I sold it in February 1983 for $30.00. Didn't record to whom, may have done it through Shutterbug Ads.

Thiele shows these were part of a batch of 200 29 cm lenses, serial numbers 217966-218161. "Fertigung" not given, based on other lenses listed with serial numbers in this ballpark, I'd say these were made 1913-1914.

Not sure why I sold this, probably wasn't using it much and decided to thin the herd, so to speak. Very glad to hear it's found a good home with a happy user.

David

A small world indeed - I have had this lens for roughly 40 years. I may well have purchased it from you via Shutterbug, which I then read regularly. I had moved from Washington DC to a small Alaska town about 150 road miles from Anchorage in 1977.

[David Lindquist]

[QUOTE=David Lindquist;1667956]

A small world indeed - I have had this lens for roughly 40 years. I may well have purchased it from you via Shutterbug, which I then read regularly. I had moved from Washington DC to a small Alaska town about 150 road miles from Anchorage in 1977.

That must be then, that you're the one who bought it from me. And for some reason I have a recollection of dealing with someone back then who was in Alaska. At the time I lived in Oakland California. I wasn't doing a great deal of buying and selling. Occasionally I'd feel some sellers regret if it were some classic optic not readily available, especially before the days of ebay. I did eventually get another Protar.

David

[Joseph Kashi]

[QUOTE=Joseph Kashi;1668005]

That must be then, that you're the one who bought it from me. And for some reason I have a recollection of dealing with someone back then who was in Alaska. At the time I lived in Oakland California. I wasn't doing a great deal of buying and selling. Occasionally I'd feel some sellers regret if it were some classic optic not readily available, especially before the days of ebay. I did eventually get another Protar.

David


I suppose that it evens out in the long term. Back in 1983, I was feeling definite seller's regret about a classic 120mm Dagor that I sold while still living in DC. That Dagor did lovely 4x5 color work despite being uncoated. On now-preferred 5x7, the uncoated 165mm Protar has a look and field of view similar to that 120mm Dagor.

I also have a 145mm Zeiss Jena-made Protar VIIa ( 29/22 cm cells) as well as some longer B+L Protar VIIa sets acquired in the late 1970s to 1986 time frame. My subjective belief is that, compared to contemporaneously-made B+L Protar VIIa lenses, the early Zeiss Jena Protars VIIa seem a bit better overall and on-par with late US-made Dagors.

Although my various 4x5 and 5x7 kits are all built around modern lenses, I definitely include either a Protar VIIa or Dagor in each kit for those times when a less clinical older lenses is a better match with the scene.