Hugo Meyer Gorlitz serial numbers

[Jan Pedersen]

My 210 Dagor have served me well as a semi wide on 8x10 for the last two to three years but, i did often run out of IC.
Until recently i did not know of any other compact lenses with coverage larger than the Dagor that was when i discovered the Hugo Meyer 20cm f9 Wideangle Aristostigmat.
The 20cm f9 is listed as a 100 degree Double Gauss which according to my calculations is about 470mm.
Now that i do have a fine example (Uncoated) of this specimen i am of course curious about serial numbers and manufacturing dates. The lens is curently at SK Grimes to have a filter adaptor made but i think i remember it was in the 62xxxx range

My question is, Did Hugo Meyer ever document serial numbers on their lenses?

Thanks.
jan

[Dan Fromm]

P-H Pont did, in his little book Les Chiffres Cles. According to him, 62xxx was made in 1935.

[Jan Pedersen]

Dan, i had a feeling that you would be one of the first to respond. Thanks.
1935 explains why it is uncoated. Does P-H Pont mention the sequence these Aristostigmats where made, changing from f9 to i believe f6.3 and for how many years the f9 was made?
Thanks again.

[John Schneider]

Until recently i did not know of any other compact lenses with coverage larger than the Dagor that was when i discovered the Hugo Meyer 20cm f9 Wideangle Aristostigmat. The 20cm f9 is listed as a 100 degree Double Gauss which according to my calculations is about 470mm.

There's also the 10x12 Protar V which covers 7x17 at small stops.

[Dan Fromm]

Jan, Pont's chronologies are simple lists of years or ranges of years and serial numbers.

The VM is confusing, as it often is, says that Aristostigmat is a trade name that was applied to several design types. It reports the first w/a Aristostigmat as f/6, introduced in 1909. f/9 is new in the 1926 BJA, it says, f/6.3 in 1936 but it says f/9 was offered post-WWII to 1950.

It isn't clear when Aristostigmat production ended. FWIW, my little 100/6.3 was probably made in 1958.

I hope that someone with better information, perhaps Arne Croell, will set us straighter.

Cheers,

Dan

[Jan Pedersen]

Thanks again Dan, always interesting to know some of the history behind the little nuggets we collect and use.
The different Aristostigmat models are fairly well desribed also in the sales litterature from Hugo Meyer just not anything about dates.

John, good point about the protars, i never really did pay much interest in them.

Thanks.
jan

[John Schneider]

This thread and another recent one alerted me to this nice little lens, and without looking I just happened upon one (marked "Weitwinkel Aristostigmat 1:9 F=200mm"). It's on its way to me know so I don't have it in hand, but I do know that the s/n is 180xxx. Dan, would you possibly mind looking up when this lens was made? Many thanks, John

[Ole Tjugen]

I'm really only commenting here to make it easier for myself to find this thread again when I get home next week. I have a bit more information than the VM gives, but it isn't readily accessible when I'm on a drilling rig in the middle of the North Sea...

[JBAphoto]

Great for all of you with modern Aristostigmats, but about old Hugo Meyer wide angle lenses?

In my case a 6" f15 (f fifteen) Nr4 Hugo Meyer Rapid Wide Angle 9.5x7" SerieNr 39794

This lens has a sharp centre at f32, with the most amazing curvature of fiord and astimatism - Physically it feels like a wide angle rabid rectilinear

Any information please?

This lens is shown on my [URL="http://www.jbaphoto.com.au/snapshots.html"]

mail2@jbaphoto.com.au

[Ole Tjugen]

Hm - all I have data for are those for the German domestic market, and that one is most likely made for export since the intended format is given in inches. But it corresponds to 18x24cm, a very familiar German/metric plate size.

So looking through the list, I see only ONE Meyer f:15 lens: The Euryplan Serie X f:15, made in focal lengths from 90m to 320mm. Stated coverage 105 degrees, patented by Meyer in 1914. 4 elements in two groups, calculated by Meyer - sounds like a WA Aplanat to me - but not a very "aplanatic" one since the original Steinheil calculation has very good flatness of field.