UV Capable Lenses Seen on Ebay: Sept 2014

[igoriginal]

Igor, let's at least see a photo of your pile of lenses !! It would be cool.

 

I'd love too. Once I am finished cataloging everything. Thing is, I have many of the lenses (for the time being) neatly vacuum sealed in their own air-tight pouch with desicant and cotton balls added to each air-tight bag to absorb maximum moisture, computer printer-labeled on every bag, categorized and given a filing number, and then stored away. Until they can all be individually spectrometer tested, I'd like to keep them safe from moisture and mold.

 

But, I can definitely put my ever-growing collection "on display", in the future, since I plan on making a photo catalog of each specimen, anyway (during the same time that they will be spectrometer tested). In fact, I dream of the day when a lot of the work is behind me.

[nfoto]

Alex: the focusing ring on these early lenses was scalloped with alternating black and bare metal stripes, hence the 'zebra' designation.

[JCDowdy]

Alex: the focusing ring on these early lenses was scalloped with alternating black and bare metal stripes, hence the 'zebra' designation.

 

They look like this don't they Iggy?

[igoriginal]

I have no idea what you mean by "Zebra originals". I am asking explicitly about the lenses labelled Kyoei W. Acall or Kuribayashi.

 

 

About the "Zebra" design ... this is a common (though creative and imaginative) naming convention adopted by many lens collectors, decribing some of the trends in lens cosmetics of models manufactured in the 50's and early 60's, in which a section of the lens barrel (usually the focusing ring) had been painted in alternating chrome / silver, then black, then chrome / silver, then black, etc., across the knurling of the entire focus throw.

 

These cosmetic paint application schemes in alternating light and dark "stripes" convey a "Zebra" metaphor.

 

And some of the earliest Kyoei / Kuribayashi models exhibited these same cosmetics. Including the ones in my possession.

[JCDowdy]

In fact, I dream of the day when a lot of the work is behind me.

 

I know how you feel Iggy!

 

And yes, when I finallllllllly get my lens measurement apparatus finished you are the nearest source of samples!

[igoriginal]

They look like this don't they Iggy?

 

Yep. Some of the specimens on that page are "Zebra" variants. :)

[igoriginal]

And yes, when I finallllllllly get my lens measurement apparatus finished you are the nearest source of samples!

 

Hmmm. Maybe we can author this book together? As "co-authors?"

 

Just a thought. :-)

 

(After all, you have the testing know-how and competence ... and I have the "collector's bug" and an "obsessive-compulsive" book-keeping nature to want to catalog and file everything to every fine detail. Thus, together, we can pool our strengths, since we regionally live close to each other.)

[igoriginal]

Alex: the focusing ring on these early lenses was scalloped with alternating black and bare metal stripes, hence the 'zebra' designation.

 

You know what, Bjørn, I think you're right about that. It's not that the light parts were always "painted" chrome or silver, but rather that they were alternately left UN-painted, in between the black-painted parts.

 

On the other hand, I have some "Zebra" variants where there is indeed chrome or silver-colored paint that is rubbing off, and revealing a black primer underneath.

 

Thus, it seems that both types of cosmetic approaches were instituted; Some of the chrome / silver stripes in a "Zebra" cosmetic design were actually highly-polished bare metal, while some others were actually painted on top of the existing black primer with a shiny chrome / silver second coating. Both examples seem to exist.

 

(Maybe the bare-metal approach to Zebra-striping was a later form of "cost cutting", to save on paint.)

[Alex H]

Thank You Bjørn and John, I do know what "zebra design" means when it comes to lenses.

 

However, Igor, you did not answer my question at all and here is why:

 

1) I have two lenses labelled Kyoei W. Acall, and I have seen another dozen - they do not have "Zebra design".

 

2) I have seen several lenses labelled Kuribayashi Petri, Kuribayashi Petri Orikkor and Petri - these do have "Zebra design".

 

3) There are a bunch of 35mm 3.5 lenses with "Zebra design" that have nothing to do with Kuribayashi Camera Industry, or even Japan as a place of manufacturing.

 

So, saying "Yes, I have one of the 'Zebra' originals." does not really mean anything.

 

There is a very specific reason it is important for some people to distinguish between these lenses (labelled Kyoei W. Acall, Kuribayashi Petri, Kuribayashi Petri Orikkor and Petri)and the T-mount 35mm F/3.5 rebranded versions.

[Alex H]

P.S. On a general note. I do not appreciate extensive editing of the posts after they were added to the discussion thread.

[igoriginal]

Thank You Bjørn and John, I do know what "zebra design" means when it comes to lenses.

 

However, Igor, you did not answer my question at all and here is why:

 

1) I have two lenses labelled Kyoei W. Acall, and I have seen another dozen - they do not have "Zebra design".

 

2) I have seen several lenses labelled Kuribayashi Petri, Kuribayashi Petri Orikkor and Petri - these do have "Zebra design".

 

3) There are a bunch of 35mm 3.5 lenses with "Zebra design" that have nothing to do with Kuribayashi Camera Industry, or even Japan as a place of manufacturing.

 

So, saying "Yes, I have one of the 'Zebra' originals." does not really mean anything.

 

There is a very specific reason it is important for some people to distinguish between these lenses (labelled Kyoei W. Acall, Kuribayashi Petri, Kuribayashi Petri Orikkor and Petri)and the T-mount 35mm F/3.5 rebranded versions.

 

Ahhh. I see. Now I understand what you're asking me.

 

You weren't asking me if one of my specimens simply HAD the word "Kuribayashi" in the labeling, but rather, you are asking me the PRECISE (all-inclusive and nothing truncated) labeling.

 

Now, I understand you. Thank you for elaborating on your request.

 

In that case, my answer would be that my own copy of a 35mm Kyoei *native* (non-rebranded) variant is labeled precisely with the characters: "Kuribayashi C.C. Petri" around the front element.

 

Here is a photo of it. I decided to take it out (although I would have rather left it alone).

[igoriginal]

P.S. On a general note. I do not appreciate extensive editing of the posts after they were added to the discussion thread.

 

Apologies, if this is an annoyance. But, it cannot always be helped, in the times that I am typing from the tiny keys of a "smartphone" from work, and wish to make corrections, or typo edits, or otherwise.

 

When in front of a full-sized keyboard and monitor, then this is no longer an issue for me.

 

Thanks.

[Alex H]

Is my English that bad??? Shall I write in Ukrainian?

 

When it comes to editing posts, correcting types is now what I meant. I meant extensive editing, e. g. removing complete sentences and large parts of the text.

[igoriginal]

There is a very specific reason it is important for some people to distinguish between these lenses (labelled Kyoei W. Acall, Kuribayashi Petri, Kuribayashi Petri Orikkor and Petri)and the T-mount 35mm F/3.5 rebranded versions.

 

By the way: You should be aware that not all re-badged versions were re-tooled to the T-mount configuration. I have re-badged versions that are built PRECISELY like my Kuribayashi C.C. Petri specimen, right down to the ring designs and the permanent M42 / screw mount. In fact, if not looking at their branding around the front element, they are exactly identical in every way. Even the simple golden coating.

[igoriginal]

Is my English that bad??? Shall I write in Ukrainian?

 

When it comes to editing posts, correcting types is now what I meant. I meant extensive editing, e. g. removing complete sentences and large parts of the text.

 

If one feels that they left some crucial or additional information out and thus need to add it in, then why is this an issue?

 

My phone cannot handle large paragraphs and divisions, unlike a full computer browser. Which means that sometimes I need to come back and add back paragraphs, one at a time, until I can complete my intended post.

 

Is this a crime? Or some form of infringement of policy on UVP? If so, then please let me know, and I will wait until I am home to make a one-time-only post without having to go back and make edits.

 

Otherwise, with all due respect, why is there an "edit" function to begin with?

[Andrea B.]

...the Edit Function is there for you and everyone else TO BE VERY CAREFUL WITH.....

It is there for correct of typos or small errors only.

 

It is best to simply cross out sentences or paragraphs about which one has had second thoughts

and then provide your new thoughts.

 

Whenever there are any constant rewrites of history or large-scale trashing of posts via the Edit Function,

then edit privleges will be rescinded.

I'm not saying that's happened currently, I'm just sayin'.

[igoriginal]

I see. Well, that makes sense, now that you explained it to me.

 

I wasn't aware of the "cross-out" feature. Honestly. That's a new concept to me to use such a function. I will definitely consider using it, now, where it would be deemed appropriate. I appreciate you taking the time to give me a useful suggestion, Andrea. Thank you.

[JCDowdy]

Hmmm. Maybe we can author this book together? As "co-authors?"

 

Just a thought. :-)

 

(After all, you have the testing know-how and competence ... and I have the "collector's bug" and an "obsessive-compulsive" book-keeping nature to want to catalog and file everything to every fine detail. Thus, together, we can pool our strengths, since we regionally live close to each other.)

 

Iggy,

I will be happy to collaborate to the extent I am able!

[enricosavazzi]

[...]

Thus, it seems that both types of cosmetic approaches were instituted; Some of the chrome / silver stripes in a "Zebra" cosmetic design were actually highly-polished bare metal, while some others were actually painted on top of the existing black primer with a shiny chrome / silver second coating. Both examples seem to exist.

[...]

It might be even more complicated than that. There might be at least three alternative industrial processes involved:

1) Mask off the parts that must be bare metal, spray-paint or anodize everything except the masked portions, strip off the mask. A variant could be using a clear lacquer on the "bare metal" portions that prevents blackening and acts as mask. The clear lacquer does not need to be stripped off afterwards.

2) Spray-paint or anodize everything black, spin the part while holding a brush/pad/sponge dipped in silver paint steady near the part (only the portions at highest distance from spinning axis get painted).

3) Spray paint or anodize everything black, spin the part in a lathe to machine off (or grind away) the black paint and a little of the metal on the portions at highest distance from the spinning axis.

[Andrea B.]

Enrico, I have a question for you about the UV-Rodagon. I found a nice large diameter helicoid as you mentioned in which to place the UV-Rodagon. But I am having trouble figuring out what size ring to use inside the helicoid for seating the UV-Rodagon.

Thank you in advance for any advice you can offer.

[enricosavazzi]

Hi Andrea,

 

I can show you three possible solutions:

Leftmost is a giant helicoid with an M 65 front mount. An M39 ring is epoxied at the bottom of the mount. The rear mount is M42 with M42 to Nikon F adapter. This helicoid is so wide (85 mm OD) that it is impossible to mount on most or all Nikon DSLRs. It does leave plenty of space around the lens to see its aperture scale.

Center is a helicoid with M52 front mount, modified the same way. This is just wide enough to admit the barrel of the UV Rodagon, but it is practically impossible to see the aperture scale.

Right is an M42 to M42 helicoid with a non-standard M42 to Micro 4/3 adapter from eBay (much shorter than normal). An M42 to M39 adapter sits inside the front mount and does not increase the length of the helicoid. Infinity focus possible, everything is in sight, but of course you can only use it on a Micro 4/3 camera.

 

Edit: For what concerns the ring to place inside the helicoid, size is not extremely critical. It has to be large enough that it does not fall through the bottom flange, and small enough to pass through the threaded mount and interior sleeve visible from the front of the helicoid. If it is just right to pass through the front mount it does help, because in this way it is easy to center on the bottom of the front sleeve before epoxying it in place.

[Andrea B.]

Enrico, thank you so much for this nice presentation of the possibilities for my UV-Rodagon.

 

I have gotten the 52mm helicoid (center in your photos). I'm not so worried about the inability to view the aperture scale because it is easy enough to mark the endpoints of f/5.6 and f/32. Indeed I had already done so during one attempt to block the exterior UV-Rodagon aperture window and found that

 

Now I'm trying to locate a good M39 ring.

I tried a spare M42-outer/M39-inner ring (not a step ring), but it perches somewhat precariously on the flange of the front sleeve and seemed like it would be difficult to glue in place. So I'm going to look for an M39 with a slightly larger outer diameter. There must be one somewhere. "-)

[enricosavazzi]

You have to look for a locking ring/flange used to mount M39 lenses on an enlarger board. Look for example at eBay item n.371134371972 (I don't know if this one would fit without some filing, but it might be a bit too large, better for a wider helicoid).

 

Item n. 371136367917 might suit yours. It might actually be identical to the one I used.

[JCDowdy]

The Disk Type M39 to M42 adapters might be worth a look, 300703301427 & 300369210837

These might be to wide, the flange diameter on mine is ~55mm.

Tell me the inside diameter of the helicoid where you will place the adapter, I have a couple of enlarger board locking rings I will never use.

Edit- inside diameter of the flange of the front sleeve

 

I did not say clearly what I was thinking, obviously the ID of a 52mm helicoid is 52mm if it is cylindrical down to the baffle. You said an "M42-outer/M39-inner ring...perches somewhat precariously on the flange" so I assume the M39 diameter of the lens may slip through. If the lens threads will pass insidt the hole in the baffle a thin lens board retaining ring of less than 52mm outside diameter could lock it from the opposite side of the baffle. The baffle in effect becomes a lens board, no epoxy required.

 

This of course would require disassembly of the helicoid but everyone of mine needing cleaning anyway. The locking ring would prevent the helicoid from closing down fully as it would be pinched between the baffle and the inside of the rear. However the net FFD should be the same since the lens would be deeper inside the helicoid by the same distance.

 

[Timber]

Back to the original topic :D The seller didn't contacted me for a while (I paid instantly) so I contacted him and cancelled the sale, and got refunded. But the good news is... I've got this instead: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/271607540046