Voigtlander Euryscope 3A Heliar: what's the focal length and coverage?

[Asher Kelman]

I have a Voigtlander & Sohn Large Format brass lens with a slit for aperture rings, (but none supplied), Braunschweig, Euryscope 3A Serial Number 35690 and it's a Heliar f 3.5, just for the record. It's 2" diameter and 2.25 inches approx between the front and rear elements.

Anyone know the focal length and coverage. Also, where does one get aperture rings?

Asher

[Louis Pacilla]

If Your lens is a Voigtlander Euryscope series III (Not Heliar) then the lens has a focal length of 8 2/3", works at f4.5 & made to cover 5x8.

It's a very fast Rapid Rectilinear design Not Heliar.

hope that's what you needed.

BTW- made around 1889-90ish

BTW#2- You'll have to make or have made a set of waterhouse stops. Do a search on this forum for waterhouse stops. There is plenty of information on this site .

[Asher Kelman]

If Your lens is a Voigtlander Euryscope series III (Not Heliar) then the lens has a focal length of 8 2/3", works at f4.5 & made to cover 5x8.

It's a very fast Rapid Rectilinear design Not Heliar.

hope that's what you needed.

BTW- made around 1889-90ish

BTW#2- You'll have to make or have made a set of waterhouse stops. Do a search on this forum for waterhouse stops. There is plenty of information on this site .

Louis,

Thanks for your information. Here's the lens!


http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/Asher_Kelman_2007/Heliar 1.jpg


It's a Heliar for sure! Any ideas on the focal length and construction?

Asher

[Steven Tribe]

This is a very modified objective!
The basic (original) engraving is for size 3A - not series III.
The only one of the portrait Euryscopes which has a 3A size is actually Series III. Voigtländer gradually improved their identification during the 1890's. Louis is spot on.
The diameter of the front glass should be exactly 2".
There is no way that this could be a Heliar F3.5 as there would have to be extreme machining to mount a triplet instead of the two end lens cells.
You will note that the engraving style of the "Heliar" etc. is very different and quite non-Voigtländer in appearance.
A F3.5 Heliar would be an interesting acquisition - but the portrait euryscope is very nice too.
There is another size 3a (series VI) - but this doesn't have the prominent hood.

[Asher Kelman]

This is a very modified objective!
The basic (original) engraving is for size 3A - not series III.
The only one of the portrait Euryscopes which has a 3A size is actually Series III. Voigtländer gradually improved their identification during the 1890's. Louis is spot on.
The diameter of the front glass should be exactly 2".
There is no way that this could be a Heliar F3.5 as there would have to be extreme machining to mount a triplet instead of the two end lens cells.
You will note that the engraving style of the "Heliar" etc. is very different and quite non-Voigtländer in appearance.
A F3.5 Heliar would be an interesting acquisition - but the portrait euryscope is very nice too.
There is another size 3a (series VI) - but this doesn't have the prominent hood.
Thanks so much!

Yes, one does get generations of different stamps. Ill be seeing Jim Galli next week and will take this along!

Yes, the diameter is indeed 2".

How much of a hood do you call "prominent". This one is about 9/16 inch. There are two biconcave apparently single elements about 2 inches apart.

Asher

[Steven Tribe]

A couple of photos of the typical appearances of the 3a candidates and the F3.5 Heliar.
Taken from the Prochnow Voigtländer 3 book which is stilll available, I believe. Quality is so as to not infringe copyright!

[cdholden]

As others have stated, if it was a 3A in the Series III group, it should be labeled "Portrait Euryscope", not just "Euryscope" as shown here. Also, a Series III Portrait Euryscope would be f4.5.
The lens design changed for Heliars over the years, but regardless of what was produced at any given time, it was never a rectilinear. Euryscopes are of rectilinear/aplanat design, with the fastest one at f4 (series II). I don't think any made it to f3.5.
This is an interesting lens indeed!

[Jim Noel]

I have a Voigtlander & Sohn Large Format brass lens with a slit for aperture rings, (but none supplied), Braunschweig, Euryscope 3A Serial Number 35690 and it's a Heliar f 3.5, just for the record. It's 2" diameter and 2.25 inches approx between the front and rear elements.

Anyone know the focal length and coverage. Also, where does one get aperture rings?

Asher

Imagine what people would learn if they would only teach themselves to measure these things themselves.

[cdholden]

Imagine what people would learn if they would only teach themselves to measure these things themselves.

Yep.
John Lennon even wrote a song about it.

[Asher Kelman]

Imagine what people would learn if they would only teach themselves to measure these things themselves.


Of course, Jim, that should be pretty straightforward! :)

However, I was hoping someone has the lens too and might tell us more about it and what it's good points might be.

Asher

[Ole Tjugen]

Noone has that lens, because it doesn't exist - as such. A Heliar os not a Euryscope 3A, and neither of the two was ever an f:3.5...

[Asher Kelman]

Noone has that lens, because it doesn't exist - as such. A Heliar os not a Euryscope 3A, and neither of the two was ever an f:3.5...
Weird if someone went to the bother to falsely stamp "Heliar F 3.5" just to this one lens, a one time only effort, to sell it!

I'm sure Jm Gall will have an explanation. For sure it's going to be fun playing with it.

Was the word "Portrait" generally used in Portrait Euryscope lens markings?

Is it feasible that the designation "Heliar 3.5" was meant to tell the technician to use the Waterhouse stops from a Heliar lens in the studio as they worked well for a particular job with this lens?

Asher

[Tim Deming]

In addition to the added engravings, the lens looks to also be chopped: the barrel appears to have been shortened, and the hood is not like any other Voigtlander hood I've seen. It would be interesting to know the construction of the lens elements. If someone went to this much trouble with all these modifications, they could have put any sort of lens inside.

Tim

[Asher Kelman]

In addition to the added engravings, the lens looks to also be chopped: the barrel appears to have been shortened, and the hood is not like any other Voigtlander hood I've seen. It would be interesting to know the construction of the lens elements. If someone went to this much trouble with all these modifications, they could have put any sort of lens inside.


Tim,

Thanks for this feedback. I will be seeing Jim in several days and no doubt he'll have it apart and will give us a report. I have to mount it to get the focal length. All I can tell so far is that the front element is convex anteriorly and concave posteriorly. The reverse for the rear lens element. I cannot detect any bubbles that would indicate a surface between subunits of a compound lens.

There's no additional central biconcave lens element I'd expect from pictures of Heliar designs. I wonder whether someone introduced a meniscus design to get more light and increase the f stop of the original assembly?

Asher

[Steven Tribe]

I agree with Tim that the barrel has been modified. The rear and front cells (including the brass hood) don't seem to match the appearance of the illustrations of the series III F.4.5. And the position of the waterhouse slot is a bit off.
The presence of euryscope rather portrait euryscope is also a surprise. The main copperplate engraving is basically correct, but there are a few areas that don't quite meet the usual high quality standardisation. Could be a new man on the job, though.

My guess is it is 3a series VI barrel (shown as attached photo 2 earlier) with "other" lens cells mounted which may or may not be Voigtländer glass.

[Asher Kelman]

I

My guess is it is 3a series VI barrel (shown as attached photo 2 earlier) with "other" lens cells mounted which may or may not be Voigtländer glass.
What about the lens shape. The convex outer surfaces and concave inner surfaces are used as a pair of front and rear meniscus lenses or perhaps compound/) in what classical designs? It reminder me of a Protar, however, i cant see any signs of cement.

Asher

[Steven Tribe]

Convex outer surface and concave inner surface is pretty much standard.
If there is a balsam join, and it is a normal euryscope type (not wide angle), the joining surfaces will be on the inner surface - not the side of the lens - just concealed by the flat brass fitting ring.
Even 100 year old balsamed lenses are often in very good condition. Best check is the faint reflection from the join with a narrow beam from a torch.

[Asher Kelman]

Convex outer surface and concave inner surface is pretty much standard.
If there is a balsam join, and it is a normal euryscope type (not wide angle), the joining surfaces will be on the inner surface - not the side of the lens - just concealed by the flat brass fitting ring.
Even 100 year old balsamed lenses are often in very good condition. Best check is the faint reflection from the join with a narrow beam from a torch.
Thanks so much, Stephen,

I tried exactly that. Interestingly, I haven't heard the word "torch" used for a flashlight for years! Reminds me of merry olde England, LOL!

What I see is a perfect 2mm rim that looks like ground glass on the inner surface of the front and back elements.. It's not colored. I'd have thought it would be yellowed with age and uneven. However, it's perfect.

Tak skal du have

Asher

[Steven Tribe]

Thanks for the Danish - as I am ex-English, my language is tainted!
There is a balsam join where the 2mm ground glass edge ends. They didn't fine ground and polish the non-functioning optical surfaces. Admire the quality of the assembly!

[Asher Kelman]

Thanks for the Danish - as I am ex-English, my language is tainted!
There is a balsam join where the 2mm ground glass edge ends. They didn't fine ground and polish the non-functioning optical surfaces. Admire the quality of the assembly!
I certainly do, Steven!

This old lens is very pristine! Just wonder what it will turn out to be.

Asher