Bausch & Lomb Lens Date Code

[Brian Downey]

Many of you are aware of the code Kodak used to indicate date of manufacture*. It has been suggested that Bausch & Lomb used a similar code in their serial num bers - but the "key" seems to have been lost. Maybe we can reconstruct it. Her e's what I propose: 1. Those of you who have a B&L lens with a coded serial number (2 letters follo wed by some numbers) send me the _complete_ lens info. For example, I have a le ns labeled "Bausch & Lomb Optical Co. - Rochester, N.Y.,U.S.A. - Gold Dot - Mage nta Dot - Protar V. - 90mm E.F. - f/18 - UF3271". The rear element has a matching serial number (only). Pl ease also include any other info that might help us date the lens: if you are th e original owner, when you purchased it; if your lens is still in its' original box, any other labeling info on the box; any sequence info such as "must be afte r x because of ... but can't be after y because of ...", etc., etc. Please also include any pieces of B&L history or "lore" that might shed light on this proble m.

2. I will collect all your submissions for a few weeks and then re-post them h ere and to the rec.photo.equipment.large-format newsgroup (and perhaps also the cryptology newsgroup)

3. Hopefully a pattern will develop that will help us decode at least part of the sequence.

As you'll notice in my example, I included every piece of info on lens with a "-" between parts of the label. I don't know if there will be any changes in the labeling structure that might help us decode the sequence but, just in c ase, please send it all.

Also it has been suggested that, if the lens is in a shutter, we might be able t o use the shutter info tohelp date it so, if yours is in a shutter please also i nclude; shutter type, size, description, serial number.

If the code is like Kodak's, it's fairly simple - two element, direct substitution, with the second element 1-9 or 0 and the first element 4-9 (the co de isn't reported to have started until after WWII --- anybody know otherwise - or when it stopped?). If we're lucky it might be fairly simple -- like if the s erial numbers don't reset to zero each year. Sound like fun?? Please take a second to help. The larger the "example pool" we have, the better our chances of success. Thanks Brian Downey

* The Kodak code is CAMEROSITY where C=1, A=2, etc. (e.g. a lens with a serial number beginning with RA was manufactured in 1952).

[mark mccarty]

Hello Brian:
I found your B&L serial # post in the archives, so I don't know if you ever got it solved.
Anyway, I have a f/5.6 508mm (20 inch) B&L telephoto anastigmat that I'm using on my Agfa/Ansco
8x10. It has the serial # MS7137R, and I'd love to know its history. It looks like it was made for
a military or space operation, is huge, and weighs a ton.

Thanks,

MM

[Dan Fromm]

Mark, what do you use for a shutter on that monster lens and how well does it shoot?

Cheers,

Dan

[robotnumber10]

Wow, someone else has this lens. I have the same Bausch & Lomb Opt. Co Telephoto Anastigmat Focal Length 20 inch (508MM) f/5.6. Serial number of mine is US1616R.

I have read that this lens is from a Korean War era bomber camera. Unfortunately, mine came from a junk yard and although externally is not bent up, it is dirty on the inside and the aperture ring does not work.

[pin-register]

baush & lomb telephoto anastigmat 20'' (508mm) f/5.6 #5 universal shutter..app. 2 1/4 lb not to bad. sn# vf7879r. ??? my studio partner of years had this lens, it seems to cover 8x10. I really havent used. all clean and works, only a 1/50 speed. lou.@ photo gizmo, called it a 3rd bace lens. pre-focus and shoot. any way ? any news about this (elvis) hunk a hunk a lens ? thanks

[Maretzo]

If not too late:
B&L Tessar 1c 164mm f 4.5 UF152 in a Betax No 3 shutter

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

@Maretzo: Well, your lens is from 1942 and the #152 made in that year
@pin-register: your lens is from 1944 and #7879 made in that year
@robotnumber10: your lens is from 1942 and #1616 made in that year
@mark: your's is from 1942 and #7137 made in that year

Hope that helps a bit,

Cheers,

[Dan Fromm]

Ok, Klaus, share the code, direct us to the magic table, or share the magic table with us.

Cheers,

Dan

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

If your neighbor, the "Zeiss Historical Pesident" does'nt do it, giving a great role model - why should I...??
.
.
.
give me a bit, I'll make it available, I'm not that type....

[Dan Fromm]

But Klaus, you're not my neighbor. Unlike you, he's never consigned me to the outer darkness.

Cheers,

Dan

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

OK Dan, so I won't.

[Dan Fromm]

Klaus, I'm appalled that you think being unpleasant to me is worth depriving other people of information.

[Shingoshi]

Klaus, I'm appalled that you think being unpleasant to me is worth depriving other people of information.
Was there some reason you needed to antagonize here? Two parties are responsible here, not just one. And I for one would like to have an answer to this question:

Bausch & Lomb 20"/503mm f/5.6 VF1666R.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

[CCHarrison]

I believe the answer is provided here:

http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=20524

[Shingoshi]

I believe the answer is provided here:

http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=20524
I've posted my reply (http://forum.mflenses.com/bausch-and-lomb-date-code-serial-number-scheme-t20524.html#179026) there.

Thanks!
Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

[Dan Fromm]

Was there some reason you needed to antagonize here? Two parties are responsible here, not just one. And I for one would like to have an answer to this question:

Bausch & Lomb 20"/503mm f/5.6 VF1666R.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao
Interesting. Klaus slaps everyone to slap me, you slap me too. You should have slapped Klaus.

The tagline you used on the MF lenses forum
"The distribution of knowledge must not be the commodity of tyranny.
Solution: The immediate equalization of all knowledge among all beings."
explains very well why I found Klaus' behavior appalling. I can't understand why you don't use it here too.

Cheers,

Dan

[Shingoshi]

Interesting. Klaus slaps everyone to slap me, you slap me too. You should have slapped Klaus.

The tagline you used on the MF lenses forum
"The distribution of knowledge must not be the commodity of tyranny.
Solution: The immediate equalization of all knowledge among all beings."
explains very well why I found Klaus' behavior appalling. I can't understand why you don't use it here too.

Cheers,

Dan
That's because I just joined and haven't setup my preferences completely. But thanks, I'll do it now! I became a member because of this thread. Now I can only hope that I get the lens in question.

As per above, I believe deescalation is always the preferred course of action.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

[Shingoshi]

Sorry to create a new post just for this, but I need to know the thread size on the back of the lens in question here. Is this your standard Copal #3 mount? I now realize that even if I don't get the lens I wanted, there are still others available for sale. They're not as rare as I thought. So it won't hurt so much if I don't get it.

Thanks,
Xavian-Anderson Macpherson

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. I just checked my USAF data sheets. I'm sure they're incomplete.

Anyway, they list only one 20"/5.6 B&L telephoto, say it covers 24x36, i.e., 35 mm, and weighs 10 pounds. This is wildly inconsistent with a post earlier in this thread that reports a 20"/5.6 B&L tele that covers 8x10.

FWIW, the one reported in the USAF data sheets seems poorly achromatized but is quite sharp over a very narrow field (5 degrees). Back focus is 5".

All of which makes me wonder how many different 20"/5.6 teles B&L made and how well they perform. User reports, anyone?

[Paul Fitzgerald]

That is the lens used on the original 'Big Bertha' Speed-Graphic sports cameras, just do a goggle search.

[Jim Galli]

I too am glad to have some new information about B&L numbering as I have many of their lenses. For Shingosi, a Copal 3 opens to 52mm iirc (if not someone will correct me quickly). A little rapid mathematical calculation indicates that 5.6 into 508mm would need a 100mm aperture rendering a copal 3 useless unless you want to start at f11 or so and pay for a LOT of machine work to make it happen. A Fuji 600mm lens would be a far more elegant and cheaper solution

Gotta love the internet. A thread started in 2000 finally gets some answers, sort of, in '09 that come through the back door of another site.

[Michael Roberts]

So...I have two B&L Zeiss Protar VII lenses with serial nos. 989xxx and 1189xxx that don't fit either the pre-'42 number list or the 1940's alphanumeric code....

What's up with that?

[Dan Fromm]

Michael, you're not the first to have had problems with the list. See http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=54143

I hope that Klaus will notice the discrepancies that have been brought forward, check his work/sources, and if necessary correct his list.

Cheers,

Dan

[c.d.ewen]

For Shingosi, a Copal 3 opens to 52mm iirc (if not someone will correct me quickly).

Jim: The Word According To Grimes (http://www.skgrimes.com/products/index.htm) is 45mm.

Michael: Me, too...see attached.

Charley

[Shingoshi]

I too am glad to have some new information about B&L numbering as I have many of their lenses. For Shingosi, a Copal 3 opens to 52mm iirc (if not someone will correct me quickly). A little rapid mathematical calculation indicates that 5.6 into 508mm would need a 100mm aperture rendering a copal 3 useless unless you want to start at f11 or so and pay for a LOT of machine work to make it happen. A Fuji 600mm lens would be a far more elegant and cheaper solution

Gotta love the internet. A thread started in 2000 finally gets some answers, sort of, in '09 that come through the back door of another site.
If I understand optics correctly, only the size of the object needs to be 100mm. And if you look at the front of this lens, you'll see that it indeed has a very large objective. However, the rear of the lens is NOT as large. For most large-format lenses, the middle of the lens has an almost wasp-like body. At least my Nikkor SW 150mm f/8.0 is that way. In fact someone had already asked a question about the shutter being used with one of these lenses. So since you have as many lenses, please instead just measure the threads on the back of the lens. I need to know what that thread size is, regardless whether I use a shutter on this lens or not.


MILLIMETERS #0 #1 #3 #00**
A (Hole Dia.) 34.7 41.8 65.0 26.6
B (Thread Dia.) 32.5 39 62 25.5

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

[Dan Fromm]

Shingoshi, relative aperture (the f/number) = focal length/diameter of the entrance pupil. We often approximate the entrance pupil's diameter by the diameter of the aperture, but looking at lenses will convince you that the approximation isn't always that good.

Y'r 150/8 Nikkor's entrance pupil's diameter is 150/8 = 18.75 mm.

Y'r dream lens' entrance pupil's diameter = 508/5.6 = 90.7 mm.

A #0 shutter's iris' maximum diameter is 24 mm; # 1, 30 mm; #3, 45 mm. All shutter sizes Compur/Copal/Prontor/Seikosha standard.

US-made shutters aren't that well standardized, per http://www.skgrimes.com/ilex/index.htm an Ilex #3's max is 1.275"; #4, 1.73"; #5, 2.575". Betax #5 might be a tiny bit larger. Might, I'm not sure.

There's no standard conventional shutter that will take your dream lens' cells.

I will agree with Jim. If a lens isn't in shutter, adapters to put it in a shutter are usually prohibitively expensive. There are exceptions, yours probably isn't one. Adapters to mount a lens in front of a shutter can also be extremely expensive.

A behind-the-lens shutter might do for you. At the moment I'm having a 610/9 Apo Nikkor (entrance pupil 67.8 mm, so it won't attain f/9 in an Ilex #5) adapted to be mounted in front of a #1. The conventional solution -- "everyone" knows that my rig will severely limit coverage, but they're wrong -- is a Packard or Copal-Sinar shutter. Another unconventional solution is to convert a Speed Graphic into an "in front of the lens" shutter. Barbaric, but its been done.

Not to discourage you from dreaming, but unrealistic dreams are hard to realize. I suggest that you think hard about your goals and alternative ways to attain them, also that you learn the relevant arithmetic.

Cheers,

Dan

On re-reading your post, perhaps you're contemplating mounting a 508/5.6 in front of a large shutter. I doubt that lens' rear can easily be stuffed into any readily available shutter, also that it is threaded externally at the rear. In general LF lenses in barrel are not threaded externally at the rear. Mounting threads are usually located right behind the diaphragm. There are indeed exceptions, I have some, so there's no need to remind me that they exist. In any case, adapters are costly and you'll have to plan to support the lens. If you don't support it, there's a very real risk that it will break the shutter its hung from or break your camera's front standard.

[Shingoshi]

I actually had no intention of mounting this lens in a shutter at all. But rather than really stir up other issues, I'm not even going to say what or how I intend to use it. The only thing that's important here, is that I NEED to know the thread size on the back of the lens. I see the threads there. But since I don't yet have the lens, I can't measure it.

So please someone, measure the threads on the back of the lens. I also wouldn't mind knowing what the filter size is as well. BTW, I also have a Sinar. But I don't have the shutter you're talking about. I was trying to find my old parts catalog to find the numbers for the Digital Shutter. And again, not for the shutter sake, but for the mounting system it used. I'm looking for something that I can mount this lens into. The old Sinar Handy, Alpa and others had a conical piece that you would mount your lens into. But I'm not finding what I'm looking for.

Thank you!
Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
Shingoshi

[Shingoshi]

So many lenses, and no tape measure? Such a cruel world we live in!

I don't need a lecture. I need the measurements.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

[Jim Graves]

Given the earlier issue in this thread indicating a reluctance to share this information, I thought ... just in case the other forum's archives went kaput ... it would be a good idea to post the underlying information here also:

"Up to 1942, Bausch & Lomb used a numerical scheme but then changed to a two letter + digits scheme. As far as I know only the first letter is significant for the production date, the second is a code class for lenses, microscopes etc.

The decoding is a s follows:
A 1941 G 1963 N 1962 V 1944
B 1945 H 1959 P 1958 W 1948
C 1949 J 1955 R 1954 X 1952
D 1953 K 1951 S 1950 Y 1956
E 1957 L 1947 T 1946 Z 1960
F 1961 M 1943 U 1942

So a lens with UF 743 means a lens made in 1942 and it was the lens#743 made in that year. "F" stands for photographic lenses.
I am not sure what happened after 1960 though.

So to be complete, here the serial numbers before 1942:

1 1876 32000 1900 170000 1924
150 1877 33000 1901 175000 1924
350 1878 35000 1902 180000 1925
800 1879 40000 1903 185000 1926
1100 1880 45000 1904 190000 1926
1450 1881 52000 1905 195000 1927
1750 1882 57000 1906 200000 1928
2000 1883 63000 1907 205000 1929
2500 1884 69000 1907 215000 1929
3000 1885 76000 1909 225000 1930
3800 1886 82000 1910 230000 1931
4500 1887 86000 1911 235000 1932
5300 1888 89000 1912 240000 1934
6375 1889 95000 1913 244000 1935
7600 1890 98000 1914 247000 1935
9200 1891 104000 1915 250000 1936
10000 1892 110000 1916 260000 1937
11700 1893 120000 1917 270000 1938
13900 1894 129000 1918 280000 1939
17000 1895 135000 1919 290000 1940
20000 1896 140000 1920 300000 1940
25000 1897 148000 1921 310000 1941
28000 1898 155000 1922 320000 1942
30000 1899 160000 1923"
_________________ Klaus

[Dan Fromm]

Jim, Klaus' pre-1942 serial numbers are inconsistent with the lenses posters here and in this http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=54143 thread own. You're doing us no favors by spreading misinformation.

Don't tell me that misinformation is better than none.

Yours with a hearty arrgh!,

Dan

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

Dan, it wasn't "my" information, I found it elsewhere and don't remember where it originally came from, so use it with CAVEAT - as always with such stuff ;) I guess now you know why I was reluctant to present it, you get blamed for not releasing it and when you release it, you get blamed for it again. Lesson learned from that? Better not do it... :wink: