| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Niko80 |
Posted - May 23 2013 : 4:18:57 PM
I never paid much attention to the serial ranges of pre-war FED equipment until I had a conversation with Jacques about the connection of FED-S serials and the corresponding 50mm f/2 lenses.
http://ussrphoto.com/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2353
Interestingly, from the information we have, the pre-war FED lens serials do not start at zero for each type but they have certain ranges which may even overlap:
FED 50mm f/3.5 macro lens
10.000 - 15.xxx
20 serials in the wiki (some 2 and 3digit serials do exist but were excluded here)
Note thet the lower cluster of points belongs to the 1st version with pins, the points above the gap belong to the 2nd version without pins.
FED 50mm f/2 for FED-S
20.000 - 33.xxx
47 serials in the wiki
FED 100mm f/6.3
30.000 - 39.xxx
61 serials in the wiki
FED 28mm f/4.5
40.000 - 46.xxx
29 serials in the wiki
Comparison of serials per lens type:
The total serial range plotted together:
Some interesting observations:
.)Within the range of found serials there are no great gaps, except between 1st and 2nd version of the 50mm f/3.5 macro lens.
This may (!) mean that that indeed all serials were really used in production.
.)As Jacques pointed out, the serial range of the 50mm f/2 and 100mm f/6.3 lenses overlap.
Was this because the demand for the 50mm f/2 was greater than planned?
And if really only 2.000 FED-S cameras were produced, why do we seem to have 13.000+ 50mm f/2 lenses which are very rare to find singly?
.)There is a large gap between the last 50mm f/3.5 serial and the first 50mm f/2 serial. Generally only few macro lenses are known, by far less than the other lens types.
I guess the demand was smaller even though I believe it was the only macro lens available at this time.
Again, many questions, but that's what makes this stuff so interesting.
Regards,
Christian |
| 24 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Jul 18 2013 : 04:02:52 AM
Here it is:
http://leitz-camera.eu/photoalps/3056-3.jpg
Faulty double 5 evident... Same pressure and defect for the stamps.
And this lens belongs to the 1st series, with two pins.
Jacques. |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Jul 18 2013 : 03:38:44 AM
Yes, Christian. Certainly a faulty double stamp.
I try to find it out, if it is always for sale.
Amitiés. Jacques. |
| Niko80 |
Posted - Jul 17 2013 : 7:07:26 PM
Jacques, I noticed you found a FED 100mm f/6.3 lens with a strange serial on ebay: 355469
What could have happened here?
My first guess would be that the "5" was accidentally stamped twice. Does the lens, apart from the serial, look different in any way?
Here's a rare example of a singly-sold FED 50mm f/2 lens:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-SM-Fed-2-50-31613-FREE-SHIPMENT-/280920240857
Regards,
Christian |
| Niko80 |
Posted - Jun 24 2013 : 6:29:11 PM
Ah, I didn't know diferent versions of the meter existed. 
Do you know examples for ones made of brass or aluminium?
Would be interesting to see if certain serial ranges are made from a particular material just like the shutter cages.
My light meter No.11153 appears to be made of aluminium and weighs about 225g. But my scale isn't very precise, I'll weight it at university tomorrow for better results.
By the way - I have the clam shell leather case for it too.
Regards,
Christian |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Jun 22 2013 : 09:33:36 AM
Yes,Christian, I had seen that (and put the number in the wiki).
Perhaps it is a question of series: it seems there are three different ones (aluminium, chromed brass and bakelite) by the wiki. But I never saw a bakelite one...
BTW, it would be useful to weigh the meters... 231g for mine (s/n 6446). |
| Niko80 |
Posted - Jun 17 2013 : 4:39:22 PM
Interesting light meter on on ebay.
No. 2429 without "3" ruins the theory that all light meters below 4000 had the "3" prefix.
|
| Niko80 |
Posted - Jun 13 2013 : 4:33:20 PM
So many prototype lenses?
Again somehing new for me. Are they all unnumbered?
I saw the one at Leicashop too, I should visit their site more often. After all I only live a couple of minutes away from their store in Vienna.
Regarding UV - you don't need any hightech equipment for that, a simple UV-torchlight from ebay will suffice. I paid about 6€ for mine.
Just remember not to look at the light source directly, this stuff can really damage your eyes, especially the LED-versions!
Regards,
Christian |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Jun 13 2013 : 03:42:20 AM
I think that my "z" is really a regular lens (or a pre series) which was slightly modified afterwards for cost reasons. You are right to say that Bill's one is quite different: this one is a prototype, like the half dozen I already saw. One of them was for sale some months ago at Leicashop's: too expensive for me!
I will try to take pictures of the rear inside before putting in the wiki.
Thanks for sharing about fluorescence. Would be interesting for some of my rare lenses...
Amitiés. Jacques. |
| Niko80 |
Posted - Jun 12 2013 : 8:00:22 PM
Marvellous, so the low serial macros definately look different.
But your "z" still looks more like the regular lenses than Bill's Prototype. Is there anything inscribed on the front ring?
I think you should add the photo to the wiki.
I see you already noticed in 2009 that there is a mix-up between macro and 100mm lenses in the wiki pictures.
I contacted Luiz about this a while ago but got no repy. I'll fix this when I find the time.
Regarding UV, the glass of the 50mm/3.5 lenses is definately different than the glass of other lenses. As far as I know both the regular and the macro industar use exactly the same set of lenses so no wonder they look the same under UV.
The fluorescence of the other lenses is comparable to my post-war Soviet SLR lenses like Helios-44/2 and MIR-10A/3.5. I think the pale yellow fluorescent color is due to Lanthanoids used to increase the refractive index of the glass.
For comparison, my modern Nikon SLR lenses show no fluorecence at all, but an older enlarger lens, EL-Nikkor 135/5.6 does show a quite strong one.
Regards,
Christian
|
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Jun 12 2013 : 4:28:38 PM
Hello Chris,
Absolutely nothing between c. 184000 and 200000. Except a lot of Fed converted to Leicas... I really wonder if it is a pure accident...
It's not exactly the same between 201800 and c. 210000. I have seen these last ten years several cameras in this range. But they are excessively rare: perhaps 5 or 6... Very strange. Anyway, all we can do is to speculate...
Jacques. |
| ChrisS |
Posted - Jun 12 2013 : 3:57:52 PM
Hi
While on the subject of gaps in s/n, has anyone seen Fed-1 numbered between 184xxx and 200xxx or 201800 and about 210xxx? These are of course end of 1e (Berdsk) and start of Red Flag, and end of Red Flag and start of 1f. Personally I do not think there are any Fed 1 in these groups, and that would mean about 24000 gaps in production. I've no idea why these gaps should occur but suspect it was somehow due to the move from Berdsk back to Khakov and the difficulties in restarting production. Is it possible that there could be some other products using these numbers? I know of at least one post war German manufacturer who used a single continuous range of serial numbers with specific blocks of numbers allocated to different products (different cameras and accessories).
Just a thought, ATB Chris. |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Jun 12 2013 : 10:26:43 AM
In fact, there are two references:
This one:http://www.ussrphoto.com/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1172&SearchTerms=fed,macro,lens
And that one: http://www.ussrphoto.com/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1137&SearchTerms=fed,macro,lens
Jacques. |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Jun 12 2013 : 10:18:55 AM
What you say about lenses under UV is interesting.
So, macro lenses could have been made with another glass...
Concerning my two macro lenses (s/n 3, with pins and 14568, without pins), I have just compared it.
The earlier one is more "talkative" = there are more cyrillic inscriptions on it.
And in fact, it's not really a "3", rather a "z".
When looking inside from the back of the lens, the two screws blocking the rear module are not the same.
I think there can be somewhere a thread about that s/n 3.
I try to find it out.
Jacques. |
| Niko80 |
Posted - Jun 11 2013 : 4:55:29 PM
I see...
So the data on FED Cameras produced each year are only estimates?
I agree that from the data we have, large gaps seem unlikely, maybe except for the gap between 1st and 2nd version of the macro lens. The current gap in the graph seems a little too large for a sampling artifact, but we'll see how things develop as we get more serial numbers.
I'll try to check ebay every now and then.
Regarding the low macro serials - do you still have the number #3 ?
Does it look different in any regard to later lenses?
Bill Parkinson's prototype lens had no serial at all.
Some other fun facts regarding FED lenses:
Under UV light, the 28/4.5 50/2 and 100/6.3 lenses show a weak yellow fluorescence, whereas the 50/3.5 Industar and macro lens - which obviously use the same optical lenses - show no fluorescence at all.
I have not seen any variation within the same model but I don't have any post-war FED lenses for comparison.
FED light- and dark-yellow filters show a beautiful orange fluorescence, much stronger than the Zeiss and Leica filters I have.
No pre-war FED lens or filter shows any sign of elevated radioactivity.
This rules out uranium or thorium doted glass which was mostly used in large-aperture lenses from the 50s to 70s.
Regards,
Christian |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Jun 11 2013 : 09:13:59 AM
Unfortunately, we don't have the records of the factory. They are definitively lost. If we had, no doubt the round numbers would not be at the beginning of each year... But thanks to Fricke's work, we have a general landscape, if not always very precise.
About holes, I think there were no holes between two batches. Nor probably inside a batch. For example that c. 7000 4,5/28 were really made. The proof? Of course, none! But there is nothing else in the 40/47000 range. And why would they have let holes? It's just the same for the bodies. Of course, to cheat the Plan is impossible!...
I have the complete Zeiss data, compiled by Hartmut Thiele from the official records of the factory. It shows a very complex organisation where:
-there is no hole between the batches (there are some very tiny exceptions),
-the dates are the delivery ones, not the dates of making. So, the Sonnar s/n 1845001 was delivered the 24/05/37 whereas the s/n 1872801 was delivered the 18/05/36. More than a year earlier! But the first Sonnars were for the rare Tenax II and the last for the Contax...
So, continuous batches for different items. And dates of delivery which don't follow the s/n. Inside the batches, very certainly no hole for Zeiss. But some small reorganisations when necessary: I have seen Zeiss lenses which are not in the good batch!
Concerning your other questions:
- the 3,5/50 rigid macro was certainly difficult to make. Some different and very interesting prototypes of this lens are known. Perhaps those with one or two digits were in fact pre serie lenses...
- about the 90° finder with 6 digits, it is very probably an error of engraving. Not the first time... This lens belongs to one of my friends and its serial number is verified...
Jacques.
|
| Niko80 |
Posted - Jun 10 2013 : 6:52:59 PM
Jacques, I agree with your conclusions.
But are you sure the serials regardless if FED or Leica are truely continuous?
I mean - if really every single serial was produced - how did they manage to start exactly at a round number each year?
This would require very exact planning of production to reach the desired number of items manufactured, and I cannot believe this always worked out.
Serials of FED cameras also start with a round number each year which makes me doubt that they are really continuous. However I have not found any references to the numbers available on the web, is there any literature on what serials were produced in a certain year?
We'd have to check if we find a FED camera serial near the very end of each year's batch, closest I found was 115732 with the year's limit of 116000.
Regarding Leica, of course you can assign a certain serial to a certain year or even batch, but that does not mean that the full range actually ever existed.
I believe production stopped before the last possible serial number for each year was reached.
Anyway, the problem is that with Leica's way of numbering you cannot say how many numbers of a certain item were produced in a certain serial range, and exactly that is what our assumptions for the total amount of each lens or accessory produced rely on.
Unresolved issues:
What about the one- two- and three- digit serials of the macro lens?
Are those engraving errors or do they represent a seperate batch?
Same goes for the 90° Finder with one digit too much.
Regards,
Christian |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Jun 10 2013 : 3:41:55 PM
In this listing, there is all the Leitz's production, about lenses, from 1933:
http://www.forloren.dk/lbf/leica_lens_serial.htm
There is no hole, and the batches are continuous.
Jacques. |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Jun 10 2013 : 3:16:10 PM
Hi Christian!
Please, keep your temper!
Leitz used batches for all the production: bodies and lenses. And two different batches: we can have the same number for a body and a lens. Very probably...
It's absolutely the same thing for Fed bodies. We have continuous batches for the bodies, corresponding to the Plan. So, we have some 183xxx Fed 1a to 1e, without missing numbers. Very probably always!
It changes a bit for the lenses. Leitz used a continuous numbering by batches for their lenses, from c. 90000 to 5 or 6 Mn now. But the s/n 600000 does not say if it is an Elmar, a Summar, an Hektor, which focal, etc. Fed used a numbering by great blocks. We know that the s/n 28000 was a 2/50mm, that the s/n 35000 was a 6,3/10mm, and that the 280000 does not exist.
But there are two mysteries. At least!
First, the numbering of macro lenses. Till now, I thought that this lens was considered as an accessory by the factory. In fact, it is always possible, even if there are some accessories in the same range. Of course, a macro lens could not have the same serial number as a 90° finder, for example. This lens would have been made in small batches, as well as the other accessories. The total of all that being 20000 items...
Second, the numbering of the normal 3,5/50mm lens. But it's not really the problem now.
To sum up, for me (but I can be totally wrong),
-the numberings of bodies and lenses are independant,
-the range of the accessories (including the macro lenses) would be 1-20000. Of course, I will be wrong if we can find two items with the same serial number. And the problem will be to find the small batches corresponding to each accessory...
-the range of the three other lenses is 20001-46xxx or 47xxx, and we cannot have anything else in that range (except bodies).
Amitiés. Jacques.
PS: you are right to neglect the "3" before the early meters: I think it is for "Exposure".
|
| Niko80 |
Posted - Jun 10 2013 : 2:12:53 PM
I checked how Leica used to number their contemporary cameras and accessories, usually a lot of rather small batches were produced, often several per year. Interestingly the serial number gaps between batches seem pretty random, I have no clue what was the reason for that.
See here for the Hektor 28mm f/6.3, the equivalent to FED 28mm f/4.5:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Hektor_f%3D_2.8_cm_1:6.3
If the FED factory handled serial numbers in a similar way, it would be impossible to extrapolate the number of manufactured items from the serials we have, instead this would mean that only a fraction of the total serial range actually were produced. |
| Niko80 |
Posted - Jun 01 2013 : 9:47:56 PM
Awesome, thanks!
I haven't seen the panoramic head before, I think we should create a wiki entry for it.
I wish I had Bunimovich's book, I was very close to getting one from ebay once but lost the bidding by a few €.
As for the accessories, serial distribution of each item is less chaotic as I thought.
FED exposure meter
23 serials in the wiki
Serials up to 4000 are preceded by a "3", which I believe is not a number but a Cyrillic "Z" or "backwards E". These are shown in orange.
FED 90° finder
35 serials in the wiki
I excluded the serial "100411" for reasons of scale, I still believe there is something wrong with it, see below in the comparison of all serials.
FED self timer
14 serials in the wiki
Comparison of serials per item:
The total serial range plotted together:
Now this looks like a total mess.
Even worse, if we include the strange 90° Finder serial, we see it lies way out of te range of any other serials.
Maybe this is an engraving error or a custom-made item, but just like the low serial numbers in lenses we just don't know what happened at the FED factory.
At this point I can't find any pattern in the distribution, but I think it is clear that the full range of serials can't have been produced as it was probably the case with the lenses.
But even if only small batches were produced, why not continue with the serial where you stopped before?
I hope you find my graphs useful, please let me know if I've made any mistakes or forgot something.
I've also updated the lens-serial graphs at the beginning of this thread, check out the gap between 1st and 2nd version of the macro lens!
Regards,
Christian |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - May 28 2013 : 09:44:19 AM
I have updated the wiki (lenses and accessories).
And don't forget the panoramic head s/n 937!
http://www.ussrphoto.com/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=878&SearchTerms=panoramic,head
Jacques. |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - May 28 2013 : 08:35:01 AM
Concerning the accessories, I think that batches were made following the demand. This would explain the overlappings which are in fact following batches. And probably there were about 16000 Fed accessories made. But how many right angle, or lightmeters or selftimers, it's impossible to say.
But basically, there is an unsolved question. If it's normal that s/n of the accessories begin with "1", why would the lenses begin with c.10000?
A mystery more...
Jacques.
|
| Niko80 |
Posted - May 27 2013 : 11:04:16 AM
Jacques, I am already working on visualising the other accessories-serials too, don't worry!
But these serials are somewhat of a mystery to me.
Especially those of the right-angle finder, which go over a very wide range, certainly not all numbers were really produced.
The problem is we don't have a lot of data, I'm still trying to find more bfore I start making graphs. Please submit whatever you find to the wiki.
Regards,
Christisn |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - May 27 2013 : 07:51:02 AM
Very interesting. It looks perfectly clear now. Thanks.
If I can, I would say it would be much interesting (and useful) to do just the same with the prewar Fed accessories. From s/n 1 to c. 15000, these serial numbers seem entangled. As if some small batches had been ordered (and delivered) from time to time, following the demand.
If we compare with the lenses, it seems that these ones were more or less planned from the beginning. Not the accessories.
But certainly I ask too much!
Anyway, I will have a look at the wiki to see if I have completely put my data.
Amitiés. Jacques. |
|
|
