Archaic/Proto Euryscope?

[Steven Tribe]

This was a quick buy-it-now purchase!
Listed as a Petzval Voigtländer - although it looked like a Euryscope.
Serial no. is 22646, which is around 1878/9 which is very early for a Euroscope/RR from Voigtländer. I think Zinke-Sommer only started his design work at Voigtländer around 1877.
It is the usual engraving design Wien Braunschweig for the period and has no identification for the lens - as usual.
Instead of the usual single digit under the front rim, this has two and looks like:

III
5

My restricted knowledge of the Euryscopes led to believe this was probably a series III
size 5 (a) - which is certainly a size I could use!

To my surprise it has a focal length of around 24" and the F is close to F8 - and it has huge coverage. So it is much nearer the series VI size 5!

Perhaps Zinke-Sommer did some experimenting with the existing F8 type RR's before the catalogue listed Euryscopes appeared?

Here are some illustrations.
Note the "different" lens hood.
Comments gratefully received.

[cdholden]

I have a smaller RR from about 1882-3, and understood that they hadn't started calling them Euryscopes yet. Mine is not labeled as such. Yours is a few years older than mine and much longer focal length, but mine does not have the series notation or model number. It does, however, have a slot for waterhouse stops. Does yours? I can offer a photo of it when I get back on Monday.
At 24" FL, I am sure it would look much nicer on the front of my 12x20 than sitting on your table.

[Steven Tribe]

Yes it does have the waterhouse slot, with a rather unusual side support for the two sides of the waterhouse stops (missing, of course!). But this could be the usual design for Euryscopes?

Any images will be gratefully examined!

[cdholden]

Steven,
I just remembered that I bought mine from this forum. Check out the photos in the original post:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?p=582121
Eddie even has the external links still active.

Chris

[Steven Tribe]

Yes I remember it now - Eddie has so many offers!

You asked the question:

"The thought of an aftermarket addition is curious to me. Do other lenses from the same era with waterhouse slots have a ring/shelf/lip inside to hold the stops from wobbling around, or is it just a slot on the outside of the barrel? This appears to have a ring inside, but there is also retainer/keeper spring on top of the iris assembly. The iris looks like it would be easy to remove, but the "shelf" it's mounted to has me wondering if it maybe wasn't put there as a factory option instead of a later addition."

My waterhouse slot/frame and edges answers your questions. I think the four cut threads for mounting the two side pieces have been used for your iris system.
I also noticed that the barrel has been reversed on your early Euryscope. That is the series size appears down on the mounting flange end rather than under the lens hood.
Perhaps this was necessary because of the iris design?

[Fotoguy20d]

Steven,

I have a Euryscop similar to Chris' if I remember his correctly. Serial number a bit over 25000 makes it around 1881-1882 I believe. Mine is marked #1, down by the flange, then the serial, then the waterhouse slot, then Voigtlander & Sohn, then Wien, then Braunschweig. Going and looking at Eddie's posting, looks pretty much identical to Chris' but without the aperture. Mine has the side support for the waterhouse, each held by a single screw installed from the front of the lens. I can try to get pictures later today if it'll be of interest.

Dan

[Fotoguy20d]

I had a couple of minutes now...

and, a couple of shots with this lens. The portrait is on Delta 100, the landscape on Ortho. Both wide open (I only recently made stops for this lens). It has a beautiful look wide open I think - I prefer it that way to stopped down.

Dan

[Steven Tribe]

OK - it looks as though Voigtländer may have reversed the engraving on some runs.
My holding edges have a pair of screws each - but I can imagine that Voigtländer thought that a single screw was enough for smaller lenses.
However, my edges are mounted from the back. Which means that they are identical to yours and Chris's modified iris - in respect to the engravings.
It would good optical design to place all the messy brass things out of the direct light passage - so perhaps your front and rear cells have been reversed?

[Fotoguy20d]

I've never been able to remove the rear element from the barrel on mine - maybe someone took them out and reversed them accidentally and put that one in very tight. It wasn't important enough to me to risk damaging anything.

[Steven Tribe]

I am sure now that your cells have been put back wrongly early on. The permanent stop holding rim is bevelled from the same side as the start of the engraving (that is, from the front).
As you say, it doesnt matter as these are symmetrical and the slot is midway!
My rear cell is the easy one to turn! I won't even attempt the flange (fortunate so it didn't get lost!).
Is yours approximately F8 too?

[Fotoguy20d]

Mine is f6. It's around 8" FL (catalog says 8.25"), and the opening of the stop flange is somewhat over 1.25" (it's hard to measure down in the barrel). The catalog (http://www.antiquecameras.net/1890lenscatalogue.html) bears this out, or perhaps I just rounded to make it match. You've now gotten me eager to use this lens over the weekend (it'll be the same event where the previous photos were shot).

[Jim Galli]

Steven, I think it's likely the same as this one (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=77185). Too bad I deleted the images of the lens. Images made with it remain though. It also said #5 on it and was 24" f8. Looked identical to yours except for the trash can lid. It had a normal bell just like any of the early Euryscop's did.

[goamules]

Good find. This just confirms that Voigtlander changed their engraving styles, model numbers, glass formulas, and other parameters often. It's very hard to know what they called a lens in your hand, unless you have their catalog from that year. What was a Series xxx one year, became a different design a few years later...etc. It's really hard to tell these. I've had an F6, F7, and F8 without "Euryscop", and have a couple of F6 ones and an F9 now that are marked Euryscop. If you could get a catalog from your year range, it would help.

[Steven Tribe]

The "trash can" shutter is just a thick brass extra (non-Voigtländer) which had attached to the original lens hood with two small rivets - one of which had already fallen out.
This is what it looks like now.
To-day is continuous rain so its nice to have some fun activities on the kitchen table!
CCHarrison has a good list anno 1880 and Prochnow has a very good listing but he doesn't include the odd early series.

[Jim Galli]

The "trash can" shutter is just a thick brass extra (non-Voigtländer) which had attached to the original lens hood with two small rivets - one of which had already fallen out.
This is what it looks like now.
To-day is continuous rain so its nice to have some fun activities on the kitchen table!
CCHarrison has a good list anno 1880 and Prochnow has a very good listing but he doesn't include the odd early series.

There ya go. Put it back together with a little flux and heat to wick some solder in the joint and it'll be good as new.

[Tim Deming]

Hi Steven,

I remember seeing this lens on ebay and was puzzled by it as well. I agree it is definitely an early Euryscop, but the "III" and "5" engravings look non-Voigtlander to me. These non-script engravings are very different in style from those on the rest of the lens and were likely added post-manufacture. Most Euryscops in this serial number range are Series IV type, as you've figured out, and usually have no series engraving and can also have no number engraving as well. I've noticed that in many early Voigtlander lenses, the max. aperture varies a lot with focal length (especially true in the larger petzvals). I'd guess that many of the early "non-series" Euryscop IVs started around f6 and then went to f8 and higher as the FL increased -possibly due to limits in working the larger pieces of newer glass at the time?

cheers

Tim

[Steven Tribe]

I thought that perhap you, Jim, could used the contraption instead of your "older technology" hand/wrist trick?

Tim, the lens had already received offers before I jumped in. There was no real idea of the size given in the listing - seeing the 5 convinced me it would be an OK buy.
I remember seeing another Euryscope with a Roman number up top - but it must be at least three years ago. The 5 is a lot fainter than the rest of the engraving and was certainly missed by the seller.

[Steven Tribe]

On cleaning up, it looks a lot like an original engraving.
I think this might be earliest complete Euryscope around.
I doubt a catalogue from the 1870's will turn up.
There is too much verdigris (and worse) to leave the surface as it is.

[Tim Deming]

Hi Steven,

I have a Euryscop, about the same serial number as yours. At the top it only has the number "3". I'm pretty much convinced it is a "series IV" type, similar to yours. This number is engraved in the same style script as the serial number, that makes me think it is original. This lens also has been fitted with an iris diaphragm, with numbering from 0-5 to mark different openings. These engraved numbers look old, probably they were put on not too long after the lens was made. However, the script for the iris letters is slightly different (more vertical) than the other numbering. I'm thinking that this means the iris numbering was not original factory Voigtlander. The "non-Voigtlander" looking script for "III" and "5" on your lens makes me feel the same about those engravings. Just my 2 cents. You clearly have a very early Euryscop!

cheers

Tim

p.s. I know a picture is worth a lot more than words, but I dont have access to post a picture at the moment. I can do it in a few days if you are interested.

[Steven Tribe]

Perhaps it would be a good idea to "advertise" for all those with the early non-marked Euryscopes (from about 21,000 onwards) so we can form some idea of how many early series (F values) there were - or if there was just only one series, where the F values increase as the EFL increases?

[Paul Fitzgerald]

"Perhaps it would be a good idea to "advertise" for all those with the early non-marked Euryscopes (from about 21,000 onwards)"

this one is #22416, 17.5in FL at f/7 (65mm glass). It's marked 'C' so it should be the last of their petzval designs BUT both cell form very nice images and appear to be the same FL, symetrical. It has the same stop sleeve arrangment as Steve's.

[Steven Tribe]

I am certain this a Euryscope (RR) - just "230" older than mine.
My glass diameter is 73mm and has a focal length over 20" - so must be the size up from yours, Paul.
The best match (of our two examples) I can find with the Euryscopes which were sorted into series (after about 1885) is the Series IV - but with increasing F for the bigger sizes.
So yours would have a coverage for at least 14x17"?
Our two barrels have reversed engravings/or swapped front and rear cells. The lateral supports for waterhouse stops on mine are mounted on the "Voigtländer ...." side.

[Ole Tjugen]

So it's the "pre-serie" Euryskop f:7.2, introduced in 1878? That seems to fit - and the number could refer to the number of the lens, it was made in 7 focal lengths from 127mm to 1070mm.

That could well make a #5 around 500mm. More likely around 640mm, I would think - that's a more common size to cover 30x40cm.

[eddie]

i will try and find the photos of the various euroscopes i have had. my catalog system sucks so lets see how we do.....

[Paul Fitzgerald]

"So it's the "pre-serie" Euryskop f:7.2, introduced in 1878?"

There's the confusion, it's marked 'Wien, Braunschweig' so it's before 1863 ?

"Our two barrels have reversed engravings/or swapped front and rear cells. The lateral supports for waterhouse stops on mine are mounted on the "Voigtländer ...." side."

Same here, I guess we just swapped the cells around. :D

[goamules]

"So it's the "pre-serie" Euryskop f:7.2, introduced in 1878?"

There's the confusion, it's marked 'Wien, Braunschweig' so it's before 1863 ?

"Our two barrels have reversed engravings/or swapped front and rear cells. The lateral supports for waterhouse stops on mine are mounted on the "Voigtländer ...." side."

Same here, I guess we just swapped the cells around. :D

I think the early label was Wein und Braunschweig. They dropped the "und" at some point early on, then dropped Wein later. I agree it's easy to switch the two lens elements around, ending up with the engraving going the wrong way.

Here is a pre-Euryscop I had, it just had a arabic 4 engraved at the top. It was a 14.5" F6. I called it a "series IV" though it was before they used a series or "Euryscop". I have another serial number 29,3xx that is just like it, but about F7. I've read they started using the Euryscop name around serial number 30,000.


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3345/5824413917_36032a6aba.jpg


Here is one C. Pritchett was selling on this board, that has the roman numerals:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4010/4622890000_6a68cba8c2_b.jpg

[Ole Tjugen]

It seems "Wien und Braunschweig" was used on the lenses for a long time. Also, Aplanats like the Euryskop's can't have been made before they were invented, in 1866. Voigtländer made the first Aplanats in 1867, under license from Steinheil.

Voigtländer made some Petzvals in Wien, then opened a second facility in Braunschweig to avoid a fight with Hr. Petzval over the patent. The inscription may well have been in use long after the Wien facility was abandoned!

[Steven Tribe]

C. Pritchett's "III" is identical to mine, except that the "III" is engraved a little higher on mine so that there is place for the "5" just underneath. This is the infamous lens from last year - I knew I had seen the III before! Now home with Jim Galli. This is another one in the 22,xxx range. I'll do a more exact measure of the precise focal length/F value tomorrow. But it is around 24".
Ole, are you quoting from a book reference about the pre-series Euryscope - the F value and size matches well with mine?

[Ole Tjugen]

Steven, I had a quick look in Thiele's big list and made some deductions from that and my own experience as well as a couple of other books I can't find at the moment.

Could the "III" be a barrel size??

[Steven Tribe]

Probably.
The "5" is obviously the lens size/efl ( which is exactly 24"/600mm ).
It could only be the barrel diameter (which is 87mm) or the flange size ( which is 91mm).

[Colin Myers]

I was quite interested by this thread and thought that one of my earlier "Euryscopes" was similar to that of the original poster. Mine turned out to be a few years younger, serial # 25510, with the #4 adjacent to the mounting flange and Wien, Braunsweig the other end. Previous posters have made reference to lenses marked Wien und Braunsweig. I have never seen a lens so marked, perhaps someone
could show an image. I would be interested to see the style
Colin

[Tim Deming]

Hi All,

Here are a couple older Euryscops mentioned a few posts back.

The Euryscop 3 is just a few hundred lenses (by serial number) more recent than Steven's lens. Note the script 3, and the period after the number (similar to Colin's lens above). This lens matches up perfectly with a Euryscop Series IV No. 3. Looks like they started "standardizing" the Euryscop IV series just around this time. The Iris was likely added after production, note the different engraving style.

In the Euryscop 2, the engraving style is the same as above, but "Euryscop" has been added. Again, this lens matches up perfectly with a Euryscop IV No. 2. Addition of "Series IV" came some point later.

To me, it seems like the "III" and "C" designations were, as Steven mentioned earlier, notation for some sort of proto-euryscop as Voigtlander figured out what new type of lens they wanted to make. The Petzvals were Series I, The f4 Portrait Euryscop was Series II, so a new lens as series III or C makes sense. Based on the range of serial numbers posted above, it seems they converged to the Series IV specs within a few hundred lenses.

One wonders where the "real" Series III f4.5 Portrait Euryscop fits in. The oldest of these I have has a serial No. in the 36000 range -much later. It would be interesting if someone had older Portait Euryscops to see how they all fit in this series.

cheers

Tim

[Paul Fitzgerald]

"Previous posters have made reference to lenses marked Wien und Braunsweig. I have never seen a lens so marked, perhaps someone
could show an image. I would be interested to see the style"

here you go. :D

[Fotoguy20d]

"Previous posters have made reference to lenses marked Wien und Braunsweig. I have never seen a lens so marked, perhaps someone
could show an image. I would be interested to see the style"

here you go. :D

What an amazingly clean barrel

[goamules]

Here are a couple more with the early "und" marking, on Voigtlander 6" petzvals though.

[Colin Myers]

Thanks guys for the two sets of images, with "In Wien und Braunschweig" script lenses.
Really interesting
Colin

[Steven Tribe]

Mr. Euryscope.
While we are waiting for more old Euryscopes, I thought I might post a picture (public domain) of Hans Sommer from 1890. He was Peter Voigtländer's stepson and did all the optical maths for all the Euryscopes until 1899.
The German biographies use most time on his composing - lieders and operas but they agree on the dates 1877/78 for his start with Euryscopes. Rudolf Kingslake writes 1888 - but this must be a mistake.

[Steven Tribe]

My guess is that this series which became the Series IV (after 1880?) started of as a a C series, then became III, finishing up with just the size number. Which is what Tim suggested!

Here is a summary:

22204 III
22436 C
22510 5
22646 III 5
22968 3
25212 1
26032 1
26538 5 (focussing mount!)
29623 4
32533 Euryscope 2

It doesn't fit perfectly - but supports III/C transition to plain lens size around 22500 and the intro of Euryscope between 29624 and 32533

[Steven Tribe]

26538 is a first series Petzval missing the hood, but the thread was hidden as the objective had been reverse mounted in the sleeve. Sorry about that - it has the same dimension as the 5 euryscope.

[Steven Tribe]

A revised list.

2193X II (mentioned in VM)
22204 III
22436 C
22510 5
22646 III 5
22968 3
25212 1
26032 1
29623 4
32533 Euryscope 2

VM mentions that the "real" Euryscopes debut corresponds to the availability of the new glass - making the F4 and F4.5 possible.

[Colin Myers]

Steven, interesting to see your "Time Line"
I have another bigger Euryscope, which I have always regarded as being a series1V lens although it bears no marking to support this line of thought.
At serial # 32215, it does shorten up your line by some 318 numbers.
Hope this helps develop things.
p.s. this is a very fine lens with superb glass, a full set of waterhouse stops in the original wallet and what appears to be the original front cap. Rather reminisent of my old grandmothers biscuit barrel lid, with a large central knob.
Colin

[Steven Tribe]

2193X II (mentioned in VM)
22204 III
22436 C
22510 5
22646 III 5
22968 3
25212 1
26032 1
29623 4
32215 Euryscope 6
32533 Euryscope 2

[cdholden]

As I read this thread again to catch up on recent posts, I see we get into the "named" lenses. I get to contribute another two cents. I don't have it in front of me, so no photos at this time.
I have a Portrait Euryscop 4a (identified in later catalogs as Series III but not on this one) with serial number 31,2xx. I don't recall the last two digits. This places its date of manufacture in early 1886. The 4a coincides with later catalogs showing this FL to be around 11". It has a slot for waterhouse stops. It is lacking the original flange, but the skilled hands and minds at S.K. Grimes have made one for me. It also has a much darker color than others I've seen. The darkest Euryscop I've ever seen, as a matter of fact. This also adds to earlier posts:



<snip>
the Euryscopes which were sorted into series (after about 1885)
<snip>

How much later? When do the "series" markings begin? Not on this one in early 1886.



<snip>
the number could refer to the number of the lens
<snip>




<snip>
I've read they started using the Euryscop name around serial number 30,000.
<snip>




<snip>
One wonders where the "real" Series III f4.5 Portrait Euryscop fits in. The oldest of these I have has a serial No. in the 36000 range -much later. It would be interesting if someone had older Portait Euryscops to see how they all fit in this series.
<snip>



I have another bigger Euryscope, which I have always regarded as being a series1V lens although it bears no marking to support this line of thought.
At serial # 32215, it does shorten up your line by some 318 numbers.


Tim,
Does your Portrait Euryscop say "Series III" on it? Mine does not. I'm not trying to go off topic from the older ones, but this is all good data in the Euryscop family history.

Chris

[Steven Tribe]

2193X II (mentioned in VM)
22204 III
22436 C
22510 5
22646 III 5
22968 3
25212 1
26032 1
29623 4
312xx 4a (identified as a F4.5 "series III" size 4a)
32215 Euryscope 6
32533 Euryscope 2

"darker color" is this glass hue or brass finish?

This early appearance of the F4.5 could explain why they are called 1a, 2a.......8a. Otherwise, they would be confused with the proto Euryscopes/RR with their 1,2 etc.

[Tim Deming]

Chris,

My oldest Portrait Euryscop (ser # ~36,xxx) does say "SERIES III" on it, as well as the number ("3A" I think). So, the Series designation was included by then, if not earlier. For completeness, I will get the full serial # when I get home tonight.


2193X II (mentioned in VM)


Steven,

perhaps you want to add that this series II was a f4.0 lens so it doesnt get confused with the others?

The brass color of my euryscops is all over the place. The darker ones appear to be so due to aging/environment. My cleanest lenses are light golden brassy.

cheers

Tim

[goamules]

Steven, it would be best to break your list into colums, with Speed, Serial, Engraving, etc. Then you could find out exactly when they started using the word "Euryscop", when portrait models came about, etc. For example:

Speed / Serial / Engraved with Name? / Engraved Series number? / Engraved Size number? /

F6 / 29,222 / No name / No series / 4
F6 / 30,000 / Euryscop/ No series/ 4
F6 / 31,111 / Euryscop/ III/ 4
F6 / 31,222 / Euryscop/ Series IV/ 3

If you hosted the table on a website, it wouldn't bounce this thread to the top every time you find one.

[cdholden]

"darker color" is this glass hue or brass finish?


darker brass finish




This early appearance of the F4.5 could explain why they are called 1a, 2a.......8a. Otherwise, they would be confused with the proto Euryscopes/RR with their 1,2 etc.

I think the "a" nomenclature was to differentiate the offerings within its own Portrait Euryscop family, not from other Euryscop options. 3a has a longer focal length than 3, 4a longer than 4, etc.
It is clear that the "Series" term was in use by 1890. In reading page 6 from the 1890 catalog at http://www.antiquecameras.net/1890lenscatalogue.html (Thanks Dan!) there is no reference to "Series" yet, only "Portrait Euryscop" vs "Portrait Objectiv" (petzval, now called First Series).
The date at the bottom of this Official Report is May of 1886, around the same time as my lens was produced, possibly before "Series" became a classification.
It also looks like Voigtlander bet the farm on this new "Euryscop" name: Euryscop, Portrait Euryscopes, Rapid and Extra Rapid Euryscopes, Wide Angle and Rapid Wide Angle Euryscopes, Quick Wide Angle Euryscop.
I'm starting to feel like Forrest Gump is telling me about all the ways he can cook with shrimp.

I agree that a table should be kept/hosted elsewhere so I don't keep bumping this every time I decide to post an observation.
*bump* :)

[Steven Tribe]

"Steven,

perhaps you want to add that this series II was a f4.0 lens so it doesnt get confused with the others?"

Tim, I asumed that a no. 21,93X called a Series II by VM is so early that it was only called this because of a "II" engraving. I understand that the construction of the later series II - from around 1890 - would have required the new glass which was just coming on the market at this time and not available back in the 21,000 - 22,000period.

[Steven Tribe]

Checking the layout of the modified rear design of Dallmeyer's Petzval I CCHarrison's Petzval article, I rediscovered this:


"Hermann Wilhelm Vogel wrote in his book, The Progress of Photography Since the Year 1879;

"Voigtlander's new Portrait Lens.—This has a front combination similar to the old Petzval. But the back combination consists of two single lenses cemented, by which the reflection of light occurring in the old form with separated lenses is avoided. The focus of these lenses is relatively shorter than that of the old form with similar opening. For instance, Voigtlander's C lens, by substituting the new back combination, has its focus shortened from 10 inches to 7 1/2 inches, thus increasing the illumination in the proportion 9:16. The new back combinations may be bought separately, so as to be used with any lenses by the same maker. We thus have the power to shorten or lengthen the focus, and correspondingly increase or lessen the light at will, by using the new form of back combination.""

Could this be the source of serial number 22436 labelled C.

There will be a new interesting addition soon.

[Tim Deming]

Hi Steven,

thanks for this info. I think you found the "link" between the Petzvals and the Euryscop lenses. Also explains some of the vague references (in the VM I think) to later Petzval's made by Voigtlander with cemented rear groups.

FYI, in case you missed them, 2 additional "C" lenses sold recently on eb@y:

#22131 and #22416

sadly, not to me!

cheers

Tim

[Steven Tribe]

Well done in spotting the two new "C"s.
Looking at the structure diagram shown in the CCHarrison article, I think we have a very complex problem with the design of all proto-euryskops! I begin to doubt whether the term "Euryscope" is that suitable for quite a wide range of lens designs and speeds! The illustration shows a far from symmetrical pair. The description about using the front achromat from a standard Vogtländer Petzval with the new "C" rear cell likely means that all C labelled lenses have this Petzval achromat/C rear cell structure - which should identifiable without too much dismantling.
I have given my "III" another check and it appears completely symmetrical.
In terms of focal length, diameter etc., it matches the later series VI well. It is in-between the 5a and 6a sizes, focal length 24, 25.5, 28" and glass diameter 3, 3.25,3.5".

[Steven Tribe]

Another, 250903099345. Serial Number 25,122. Engraved as size 0. measured by a reliable seller as around 5", F5.3 and covering 4x5. Close to 0 size for the later series IV.

[Steven Tribe]

Three more in "our" range of umarked "RR"s.

I have worked out the approximate F for them.

22,957 marked size 4, 50cm focal length F7.7

24,927 marked size 3, 32cm focal length F6.4

28,139 marked size 8 (yes eight!) focal length 125cm F9.6

[Emil Schildt]

28,139 marked size 8 (yes eight!) focal length 125cm F9.6

I think I know what lens you're referring to....

This is the one (not this but another in aluminium) I got offered in Prague a couple of years ago - and didn't buy!.....

Bad decision.

[Steven Tribe]

Not so far away from Prague!
You will notice that these listings have been "cleaned up" a lot this last week - reflecting various contributions here.
There was a Euryskop series IV size 9 - glass 6.5" - efl 46" which was bigger physically.

[vitality]

22,957 marked size 4, 50cm focal length F7.7

I have doubts, that descriptions for lenses are correct. 1st: in the beginning they stated that its petzval (for No3 as well, later changed both to RR)... 2nd: they listed Dallmeyer 3B as 32cm focal. I though it was around 11,5" (correct me if I'm wrong)? Not much difference, but still...
So it might be, that descriptions on that website are not correct.

[Steven Tribe]

Yes, there are a few things they didn't change (like the continued use of "Petzval" after they introduced the suggested RR/Aplanat!). I think this is just a proof reading error. I did tell them to check the 3 sleeveless "Petzvals", as they looked like "our" type (serial numbers), for front/rear symmetrical cells. Which they must have done.
I think there were changes in the actual efl of the 3B during it's long production and the various soft adjustment versions - it's not a "I want my money back" kind of error! I couldn't find much wrong during a quick look at the other lens listings - but there were problems - mostly inadequate descriptions - with other Voigtländer items.

[vitality]

My point was just if it is a mistake with 3B (if its 11,5 instead of 32cm), it might be a same mistake with Euryscop No3. So it would make same 11,5" focal for Euryscope (as in catalog for series IV no 3). (may be they are measuring FL not at infinity?)
And as I understand, with them "I want my money back" is almost impossible, even if it is a more serious error.

[Steven Tribe]

I think you can assume that Euryskop no.3 - with a serial number under 25,000 - is not a very early series IV which will turn out to be an f6. I used the glass diameter - not aperture - for a guestimate . Very few of these types are reported as getting near F4.5 or even F6.
I have not had anything to do with this seller (other than the current situation) but third party information says he is a return/no question asked, if there is real cause for concern at the buyer's end.

[Emil Schildt]

Not so far away from Prague!
You will notice that these listings have been "cleaned up" a lot this last week - reflecting various contributions here.
There was a Euryskop series IV size 9 - glass 6.5" - efl 46" which was bigger physically.

well - it could be this one I had in my hands... my memory fails me - it was BIG - and I think the choise of making the barrel in aluminium was du to the weight (?)...

Biggest lens I have ever hold..

[Steven Tribe]

This is an undate. The "new" lenses are marked with a *.

2193X II (mentioned in VM)
*22131 C
22204 III
*22212 C
*22416 C
22436 C
22510 5
22646 III 5
22968 3
*22957 4
*24927 3
25212 1
26032 1
*28139 8
29623 4
312xx 4a (identified as a F4.5 "series III" size 4a)
32215 Euryscope 6
32533 Euryscope 2

Conclusions?:

Roman numbering/alphabetic marking was given up between 24000 and 24700. After this time, arabic numbers give the size.
C production was probably limited to either just two groups of serial numbers or for a restricted period when no others were made.
The odd identication numbers/letters stretch over just 700 serial numbers. The period from the introduction of just numbers to the adoption of Euryskop engraving is around 7000.

If anyone has purchased one of the 3 "C" lenses sold recently, it would be nice to know whether the front and rear cells are symmetrical?

[Tim Deming]

Hi Steven,

another "C" lens, #22408 also recently sold on E-bayde. Glass (not sure front or rear) was listed as 6cm dia., and with a 500 mm FL. The FL doesn't sound right to me (but I didnt buy the lens, so I cant check).

cheers

Tim

[cdholden]

Jon Wilson posted a response to a FS ad where he mentioned he had an earlier Euryscop than mine. His was in the 30,xxx range. It might be good to add to the timeline above, narrowing the guess/assumption that the Euryscop name started at the 30,000 mark.
Jon, If you're reading this, can you confirm a model and serial? If no reply, I can go back in my past posts and find it when I have more time. I had a post in the same thread.

[cdholden]

Jon Wilson posted a response to a FS ad where he mentioned he had an earlier Euryscop than mine. His was in the 30,xxx range. It might be good to add to the timeline above, narrowing the guess/assumption that the Euryscop name started at the 30,000 mark.
Jon, If you're reading this, can you confirm a model and serial? If no reply, I can go back in my past posts and find it when I have more time. I had a post in the same thread.

s/n # 309xx
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=779969&postcount=6

[Steven Tribe]

Westlicht had 3 of these in their auction to-day. I had already added them to the list some time ago
The final list of items for online bidders still described them as "Petzvals", although up to a few days ago they were using the RR/Aplanat designation. Selling prices were very poor - only the size 8 attracted attention.

[vitality]

Westlicht had 3 of these in their auction to-day. I had already added them to the list some time ago
The final list of items for online bidders still described them as "Petzvals", although up to a few days ago they were using the RR/Aplanat designation. Selling prices were very poor - only the size 8 attracted attention.

Or might be opposite, eBay prices are to high.
About month ago, I visited "photo flee-market", where few price guide books (for 2011) were available to check value of items. First thing, what I checked was Euryscop prices - recommended price for IV series No.4 was 150 EUR (if I remember correctly I found this price in 2 different books).
Well that brings us to two possible situations, or this guide books are not updated with late "trends" (that some of lenses rise in price faster, than others, or books are inaccurate at all), or items on eBay are overpriced.

P.s. My bid was 160, so someone overbid me :)

[Steven Tribe]

Both CDHolden and I noticed this one, 130617797913.
This has the important serial number 30,140. This may narrow down the start of the Euryscope engraving proper.
Interestingly, it appears to be optically identical with the no.4 Series IV.

[cdholden]

30,140 is not marked with the Euryscop name.
30,9xx is marked with the name.
It's down to ~800 lenses now. The search for the transition continues...

[vitality]

30,140 is not marked with the Euryscop name.
30,9xx is marked with the name.
It's down to ~800 lenses now. The search for the transition continues...

I think we can go down to ~400 s/n - 30,503 without "Euryscop" engraving as well.
http://image.invaluable.com/housePhotos/AuctionTeamBreker/54/250454/H1256-L11105451.jpg

[Steven Tribe]

Whilst I remember it - there is actually another transition.
Lenses marked plain Euryscop and then those with the series number (or portrait Euryscop) engraved. The plain Euryscop could contain non-series classifiable types too?

[cdholden]

#4 seems to be quite popular in this 2-3 year time frame.

[Jim Galli]

#4 seems to be quite popular in this 2-3 year time frame.

While #3 will cover 8X10 nicely the #4 is really superb on 8X10 with lots of movement possible. I'll guess that's why they were so popular. I have one that someone took the time to put into a Size 3 Wollensak Studio shutter.

[Steven Tribe]

Another blank marked series IV - this time a size 5 covering 14x17" 23,159.
Listed as 250952846868. Very clean.
Focal length ("just under 20 inches" was checked with the lister. A lister who was delighted to be able to learn the relationship between focal length, aperture width and aperture value!

[Steven Tribe]

Another very early one:

22052 rim marked with III

[Steven Tribe]

This is the latest update.The "new" lenses since the earlier list are marked with a *.

2193X II (mentioned in VM)
*22052 III
*22089 C (appears to be an early version of series IV no. 4)
22131 C
22204 III
22212 C
22416 C
22436 C
22510 5
22646 III 5
22968 3
22957
*23159 5
24927 3
25212 1
26032 1
28139 8
29623 4
*30140 identified as a series IV no.4
*30503 4
*309xx
312xx 4a (identified as a F4.5 "series III" size 4a)
32215 Euryscope 6
32533 Euryscope 4

[Tim Deming]

Hi Steven,

There's another C lens for the list, see post 62 in this thread: #22408

[Steven Tribe]

A minor update

2193X II (mentioned in VM)
22052 III
22089 C (appears to be an early version of series IV no. 4)
22131 C
22204 III
22212 C
*22408 C
22416 C
22436 C
22510 5
22646 III 5
22968 3
22957
23159 5
24927 3
25212 1
26032 1
28139 8
29623 4
30140 identified as a series IV no.4
30503 4
309xx
312xx 4a (identified as a F4.5 "series III" size 4a)
32215 Euryscope 6
32533 Euroscope 4
I think it is worth mentioning that Petzvals in plain barrels, which look very much like early Euryskops, appear to be quite common within this time frame as opposed to earlier productions. They are without size engravings at the barrel edge.

[Steven Tribe]

A minor update

2193X II (mentioned in VM)
22052 III
22089 C (appears to be an early version of series IV no. 4)
22131 C
22204 III
22212 C
22408 C
22416 C
22436 C
22510 5
22646 III 5
22968 3
22957
23159 5
*23834 no number- could be a simple barrel Petzval.
24927 3
25212 1
26032 1
28139 8
*29246 3
29623 4
30140 identified as a series IV no.4
30503 4
309xx
312xx 4a (identified as a F4.5 "series III" size 4a)
32215 Euryscope 6
32533 Euroscope 4

*new
It can be difficult to confirm whether the lenses are Euroskopes or Petzvals as the WHS central position is difficult to confirm in many photos. I think that "no edge size number engraving" means a Petzval in this serial number range.

[Steven Tribe]

I am able to add a considerable number of lenses to-day. They are taken from Corrado's book -page 130. The new lenses (from other sources, as well) are in bold.

21895 VI
21930 II perhaps the same lens as the next one. Date is certain as 1877.
2193X II (mentioned in VM)
21939 I EBay January 2021 very small lens
22052 III
220XX C
22089 C (appears to be an early version of series IV no. 4)
22131 C
22204 III
22212 C
22264 III
22270 C last listed EBay dec 2021reappeared UK saleroom november 2023!
22274
22280 C (added october 2020)
22341. I
22403 III
22498 C
22416 C
22436 C
22510 5
22646 III 5
22724 IIIEBay June 2020
22935 2
22957 4
22968 3
22957
23159 5
23392 5 for sale lfpf july 2018
23751 5
24192 3
24348. 3 Ebay july 2018
24473. 6
24927 3
Corrado gives 25000 as April 1978
25212 1
25217 7 (antiq-photo, Paris july 2018)
26032 1
26037 2. april 2019
26552. 5. Series IV own purchase april 2019
26919. 3. Series IV april 2019
28139 8
29246 3
29623 4
30140 identified as a series IV no.4
30503 4
309xx
312xx 4a (identified as a F4.5 "series III" size 4a)
32215 Euryscope 6
32533 Euryscope 4

Corrado give many more details of Euryscopes after serial number 24192 (dozens!), but they are not included here!

Unless there is a dramatic new source of these lenses, I will just edit this posting to avoiding "bumping"!

[karl french]

Just pulled the trigger on one of these pre-euryscops.

24473 marked 6. Complete with original flange and hood.

[Jac@stafford.net]

It seems that my Voightlander #33713 drops off the list. So be it.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Just pulled the trigger on one of these pre-euryscops.

24473 marked 6. Complete with original flange and hood.

It has no remarkable qualities, but enjoy regardless.

[karl french]

??? Remarkable qualities:

1. 141 years old.
2. Voigtlander.
3. 22"-24" f7ish rapid rectilinear (covering 12x20 with no trouble I suspect.)
4. Not an anastigmat (because, let's face it. after a while anastigmats get boring.)
5. Quite similar to the Derogy No.6 Aplanat I have. Time for a shoot out.
6. Glorious brass and black lacquer.

Seems pretty remarkable to me.

[Jac@stafford.net]

??? Remarkable qualities:Age

1. 141 years old.
2. Voigtlander.
3. 22"-24" f7ish rapid rectilinear (covering 12x20 with no trouble I suspect.)
4. Not an anastigmat (because, let's face it. after a while anastigmats get boring.)
5. Quite similar to the Derogy No.6 Aplanat I have. Time for a shoot out.
6. Glorious brass and black lacquer.

Seems pretty remarkable to me.

1. How can the age of a lens matter? We have thousands of lens designers work which made alternatives to various aesthetic outcomes all from inception to today.
2. to 5. yields only words of impression; not useful.
5. A shoot out? I look forward to that.
6. appeals to poseurs. Does the film care what the lens looks like?

[Steven Tribe]

1. How can the age of a lens matter? We have thousands of lens designers work which made alternatives to various aesthetic outcomes all from inception to today.
2. to 5. yields only words of impression; not useful.
5. A shoot out? I look forward to that.
6. appeals to poseurs. Does the film care what the lens looks like?

-1!

Photography for me is not just utilitarian.
Of course, I may be influenced by having one of these ghost Euryscopes and the no. 7 Derogy aplanat as well!

Will add the new serial number and size number to the list.

[Jac@stafford.net]

-1!

Photography for me is not just utilitarian.
Of course, I may be influenced by having one of these ghost Euryscopes and the no. 7 Derogy aplanat as well!

Will add the new serial number and size number to the list.

What could be special about a Voightlander # 33713?
It is a ghost?

[Jim Galli]

It has no remarkable qualities, but enjoy regardless.

Very un-romantic, but un-arguably true I suppose. But in the hands of a creative artist it can make remarkable images. In the hands of a gifted portraitist, it can conceive lovely likenesses. And certainly, it has imperfections of it's age and lack of technology that add life and interest in this current age of trillions of telephone selfies. It can fill a 14X17 sheet of film with an image impossible to obtain with all the modern stuff. In that, coupled with some talent, I have to dis-agree. It has remarkable quality.

[karl french]

1. Of course the age of a lens matters based on the very fact the there are many lens designs, many of which are no longer manufactured. If a photographer is interested in one of those "aesthetic outcomes" then he or she should find a lens that matches the desired outcome. Lately I'm finding anastigmats boring, so I'm trying to shoot and enjoy the aesthetic qualities of pre-anastigmat lenses.

Furthermore, how many 100+ year old objects do you have that are still fulfilling their telos? That in and of itself is interesting.

2. Not useful? Hogwash. Curiosity demands that what is considered 'top of the line.' is sampled. Is there a noticeable difference in build quality and optical quality between a top tier brand and a lesser/cheaper brand? If not, then I know not to pay the premium, if so, then it's money well spent to buy a premium brand.

3. Is it not useful to find a lens that covers the format you intend to shoot?
4. Aesthetic qualities. Seems like the most useful quality an artist can be interested in.
5. Me too.
6. Take pleasure in the beauty of a well made object. The film cannot care, it is not capable of emotion.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Very un-romantic, but un-arguably true I suppose. But in the hands of a creative artist it can make remarkable images. In the hands of a gifted portraitist, it can conceive lovely likenesses. And certainly, it has imperfections of it's age and lack of technology that add life and interest in this current age of trillions of telephone selfies. It can fill a 14X17 sheet of film with an image impossible to obtain with all the modern stuff. In that, coupled with some talent, I have to dis-agree. It has remarkable quality.

You should know, I guess. You had it in your possession for a while.