Advice please...re Dallmeyer Lens

**Richard K.** · 15-Mar-2010, 16:10

I have 2 Dallmeyer lenses. Here is what is scribed on them:

Lens1: #14513 J.H. Dallmeyer
London
No. 3
Rectilinear
PATENT

Lens2: #55441 24x30cm
J.H. Dallmeyer
London
No. 1
Rectilinear
PATENT

Both have rotating disk stops. What do I have here? Two Rapid Rectilinears? Two Wide Angle Rectilinears (WARs)? Or one of each? Which is which? What format will they cover (well the bigger one anyway)?

IMPORTANT: what are their focal lengths? I searched the VM but couldn't quite suss it out.

The reason this has come about is that when I first got these, I did a rough measurement of FL (house across the street projected on my wall) and got around 7" for the first one (the No. 1) and 13" for the second. I had the second one flanged and mounted and when I got it back home from the shop, I checked the FL, this time it seemed around 9". Now my memory isn't great so maybe I'm misremembering the FL, that's why I'm asking what they should be. I don't think the man at the store swapped the rear elements with another lens as he couldn't even find a flange or caps to fit the lens let alone a whole other group. But could he have done something like reverse an element? There was no need for him to do so but I don't understand why the FL seems to have changed. Or was it 9" all along and is it supposed to be that?!? I also (and again, I may be wrong) seem to remember that the rear barrel side was a nice brass colour, now it's blackish. Any ideas sincerely appreciated!

Here is a picture of them:

**Steven Tribe** · 15-Mar-2010, 16:33

It is there in the VM!
WAR and RR do look similar. The no.1 is a wide angle (100 deg) RR efl is 7" - as you measured. Covers 12x10. The no. 1 is probably the ordinary RR - half plate size - with a focal length of 8 1/4 inch.

**goamules** · 15-Mar-2010, 17:09

They are both Dallmeyer Wide Angle Rectilinears. Neither is the Rapid Rectilinear which was patented later the same year. The RRs do NOT look similar to a WAR. They are longer relative to diameter, not short and squat like the WAR. They do not have the deeply curved front element. And they do not have the significantly smaller back element (relative to the front)

Good lenses. Don't know about "creaping focal lengths" though!

**Richard K.** · 15-Mar-2010, 19:29

goamules, where in Arizona do you live? I spent 4 moths there back in '87 on sabbattical, loved it and am considering emigrating (for the winters anyway!)

...so you have the Dallmeyer #3 WAR too? According to your flickr page or is that (Garrett?) not you? What do YOU say the FL is?

**Steven Tribe** · 16-Mar-2010, 03:04

"They are both Dallmeyer Wide Angle Rectilinears. Neither is the Rapid Rectilinear which was patented later the same year. The RRs do NOT look similar to a WAR. They are longer relative to diameter, not short and squat like the WAR. They do not have the deeply curved front element. And they do not have the significantly smaller back element (relative to the front)"

First of all - WAR and RR have identical engravings.
I would not describe the original Dallmeyer as "squat" compared with the WAR's that were to follow.
I have always used the EFL compared with the no. size to make a guestimate of which model it is. The Numbers and EFL reported by Richard for no. 3 (I called this no. 1 in my posting, sorry) is 9" - which doesn't match with the Dallmeyer WAR range. But the 13" he thought is was originally does match with the WAR no. 3! Very odd - perhaps Richard looked the no. 3 up in the VM and remeber the EFL listed there for no. 3? Unlike Goamules, I can't see the curvature of both lenses - or the size of the rear lenses in the photographs.

The way to confirm what you have is to open up both objectives and focus both at the same time on a wall. The difference in illumination between an F15/F16 and an F8 should be easily seen.

**Richard K.** · 16-Mar-2010, 09:47

Originally Posted by Steven Tribe

"
The way to confirm what you have is to open up both objectives and focus both at the same time on a wall. The difference in illumination between an F15/F16 and an F8 should be easily seen.

I will do that and report on it (just did- they read virtually the same with my digital meter, probably just the difference between an f/15 1867 lens and an f/16 1895 lens (#55441) - so they are both WARs?) BUT that still doesn't explain why the lens labelled as N0. 3 is around 9" FL. Shoudn't it be 13" for both RR and WAR according to the VM? What's confounding me even more is that I thought that I DID measure it to be 13" FL before I had it mounted and flanged and that's why I wonder what happened! Let me ask a point blank question:

Should a Dallmeyer WAR or RR marked No. 3 (serial number 14513, making it either from1867 or 1868 I think) be 13" FL or can it be 9"?

If it can only be 13", I have a problem, no?

**goamules** · 16-Mar-2010, 10:03

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....

The two lenses the OP posted pictures of are fat diameter relative to length . That's what I meant. I've seen the focal lengths of Dallmeyers vary over the years. And the Vade Mec is NOT always correct. But when a lens looks like nothing else, as these WARs do, it is what it is.

For markings, here is one of my WARs, a No. 3. I measure it at about 12 inches focal length. And no, Steven, I do not concur with your statement, "... WAR and RR have identical engravings." I cannot see the rear in the OPs picture, but he can measure the rear diameter and compare it to the front. If smaller, it's a WAR. I can look at the pictures tell yours is "short and squat", and I can see the engraving that says "Rectilinear" not "Rapid Rectilinear." Do we need to go on?

And this is a Rapid Rectiliniear, as evidenced by its "longer" look, and the engraving which says so:

**goamules** · 16-Mar-2010, 10:17

Oh, one more. When you say you have rotating wheel stops, it's a WAR....

**Steven Tribe** · 16-Mar-2010, 10:43

Ok, OK,OK - don't hit a man when he is down! Must be the superficial similarity bween the Ross WAR and their portable symmetrical I was thinking about!

**Richard K.** · 16-Mar-2010, 13:54

OK I measured and the rear is definitely smaller than the front. So, it's a WAR.
But if that's the case, can I please have THIS question answered?

Can a WAR from 1868 labelled N0.3 have anything but a 13" FL? 9" in my case. What makes this SO maddening is that to the best of my recollection (but my memory is failing) I measured the FL to be 13" when I got the lens, goamules' No.3 is 13", the VM states 13". So why does the lens measure 9" upon return from the shop where it was flanged? Could there have been another rear group lying around of exact same diameter to fit the barrrel? Seems VERY unlikely. But even if I mismeasured initially and it was 9', shouldn't it be 13" according to the VM and goamules own property?!?! I am so confused!!!