1936-37 Rolleicord Triotar Coated!?

[Nitroplait]

I just received an old Rolleicord Ia Mod. 1 from 1936-7. All as expected except the taking lens a CZ Triotar 4.5 is coated, both front and rear element of the front group.

I realise that this must have been a later upgrade because not even my then state-of-the-art 1937 Rolleiflex Automat v.1 w. a CZ Tessar 3.5 is coated.

Yet it seems a bit excessive to spend money to have such a relatively modest lens coated, can't have been cheap.
Does anyone here know if the Triotar 4.5 was ever sold coated from the factory?
I can see that from 1939 the Triotar 3.5 started shipping, and I would imagine that this would be the obvious candidate for coating when that became a standard feature.
Any thoughts?

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

There's coatings and there's coatings. You can get an AR coating on your drinking glasses if you use off-brand detergent in the dishwasher.

Early AR coatings were aqueous dip coatings. They rub off easily and were only used on internal lens surfaces.

 

[flavio81]

There's coatings and there's coatings. You can get an AR coating on your drinking glasses if you use off-brand detergent in the dishwasher.

Early AR coatings were aqueous dip coatings. They rub off easily and were only used on internal lens surfaces.

Care to elaborate? I have some uncoated lenses that would improve with any AR coating, no matter if its done using a detergent...!

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Everything you never wanted to know: https://brinkerlab.unm.edu/assets/p...cations/dip-coating-brinkerdipcoating2013.pdf

Google to your heart's content. Getting it to work well as a DIY process might be tough.

 

[flavio81]

Everything you never wanted to know: https://brinkerlab.unm.edu/assets/p...cations/dip-coating-brinkerdipcoating2013.pdf

Google to your heart's content. Getting it to work well as a DIY process might be tough.

Wow, thanks!!

 

[JPD]

I just received an old Rolleicord Ia Mod. 1 from 1936-7. All as expected except the taking lens a CZ Triotar 4.5 is coated, both front and rear element of the front group.

I realise that this must have been a later upgrade because not even my then state-of-the-art 1937 Rolleiflex Automat v.1 w. a CZ Tessar 3.5 is coated.

Yet it seems a bit excessive to spend money to have such a relatively modest lens coated, can't have been cheap.
Does anyone here know if the Triotar 4.5 was ever sold coated from the factory?

No, they weren't coated at the factory, but a few owners had the lenses coated after the war and it was probably not done by Zeiss. I once had a Rolleicord II from 1938 with a coated 3,5 Triotar and it also had a PC flash contact added. This was probably done in the early 1950's.

I can see that from 1939 the Triotar 3.5 started shipping, and I would imagine that this would be the obvious candidate for coating when that became a standard feature.
Any thoughts?

The 3,5 Triotar came on the market much earlier than that. In fact, the 3,8 Triotar on the second model of Rolleicord from 1934 was actually a 3,5 that was aperture limited due to the size of the shutter that at the time didn't make it possible. That was changed with the Rolleicord II from 1936, that got the full 3,5 Triotar. The factory coated 3,5 Triotars were made in East Germany by Carl Zeiss Jena after the war and can be found on the last Rolleicrd II models. These lenses have a serial number above 3 million.

The Rolleicord Ia, type 3, with 4,5 Triotar was made until 1949 and these lenses were never coated to my knowledge. I think the 4,5 Triotar on the post 1945 cameras were all made before the war.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Wow, thanks!!

Yeah, well, that paper is all about current techniques and maybe not the best source for information on 'cheap and cheerful' methods.

 

[Helge]

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/vard-opticoat-what-is-it.176521/#post-2299578

Might this be the something like what the Vard Opticoat was?

 

[flavio81]

Yeah, well, that paper is all about current techniques and maybe not the best source for information on 'cheap and cheerful' methods.

Yes, i see... But very interesting to see the theory behind. Sadly i'm not a PhD in rheology.... lol

 

[AgX]

Early AR coatings were aqueous dip coatings. They rub off easily and were only used on internal lens surfaces.

Various manners of AR coating were applied in Germany at least during WWII, including the method of today.

 

[Nitroplait]

No, they weren't coated at the factory, but a few owners had the lenses coated after the war and it was probably not done by Zeiss. I once had a Rolleicord II from 1938 with a coated 3,5 Triotar and it also had a PC flash contact added. This was probably done in the early 1950's.


The 3,5 Triotar came on the market much earlier than that. In fact, the 3,8 Triotar on the second model of Rolleicord from 1934 was actually a 3,5 that was aperture limited due to the size of the shutter that at the time didn't make it possible. That was changed with the Rolleicord II from 1936, that got the full 3,5 Triotar. The factory coated 3,5 Triotars were made in East Germany by Carl Zeiss Jena after the war and can be found on the last Rolleicrd II models. These lenses have a serial number above 3 million.

The Rolleicord Ia, type 3, with 4,5 Triotar was made until 1949 and these lenses were never coated to my knowledge. I think the 4,5 Triotar on the post 1945 cameras were all made before the war.

Thanks JPD!
I don't know where I had my head yesterday.
I must have been so blinded by the coating that I misread not only serial number but also that the lens in question was in fact a 7,5cm 1:3.5.
The serial number read from the taking lens, when read correctly, makes it a Rolleicord II model 1 from 1936-37 according to Rolleiclub.
This one also has added flash sync which would indicate a similar upgrade as the one you mention. I have enclosed a photo, and would be interested to know if the way the flash sync is implemented was similar to yours?
This copy has a taking lens in very good condition, given its age, and a working shutter, but the focusing lens is close to useless from fogging - and the mirror is also damaged from age. The camera came with worn finder attachment - a wireframe not shown here, which indicate that a previous owner may have used the camera with that instead.

 

[JPD]

Yes, that's the first Rolleicord II. That doesn't look like a PC contact, so I guess the modification was made before the PC connector became standard. It was certainly cheaper to "modernize" the camera with AR coating and flash sync than buying a new Rollei. My Rolleicord II, type 3, had a PC contact on the front plate, not on the shutter itself, and an accessory shoe on the side.

I have one of the same model as yours, but without any modifications:

https://live.staticflickr.com/4106/4971557849_84b164bc92.jpg

 

[Nitroplait]

Yes, that's the first Rolleicord II. That doesn't look like a PC contact, so I guess the modification was made before the PC connector became standard. It was certainly cheaper to "modernize" the camera with AR coating and flash sync than buying a new Rollei. My Rolleicord II, type 3, had a PC contact on the front plate, not on the shutter itself, and an accessory shoe on the side.

I have one of the same model as yours, but without any modifications:

https://live.staticflickr.com/4106/4971557849_84b164bc92.jpg

Yes, that is how mine would have looked when new - yours is beautiful.
Mine does however have a faded brown background on both name plate and the plate around the focusing know, not faded by age but by design - I think.

 

[Ian Grant]

I have a 1940 Daagor, Goerz AM Opt, that was coated after the war for the original owner, it's not like the softer and easily damaged early Kodak blooming. I've seen a 1938 T coated CZJ 150mm Tessar and the coatings were excellent identical to my 1953/4 CZJ 150mm Tessar.

As Ag has said coatings were used during WWII often for military optics. T., T & H (Cooke) were quite advanced in their coatings but they were deemed a military secret.

Ian

 

[Nitroplait]

I have a 1940 Daagor, Goerz AM Opt, that was coated after the war for the original owner, it's not like the softer and easily damaged early Kodak blooming. I've seen a 1938 T coated CZJ 150mm Tessar and the coatings were excellent identical to my 1953/4 CZJ 150mm Tessar.

As Ag has said coatings were used during WWII often for military optics. T., T & H (Cooke) were quite advanced in their coatings but they were deemed a military secret.

Ian

I find it fascinating that objects such as these were perceived so valuable at the time, and owners found it worthwhile making costly upgrades. Today, in most cases, we would just dump or sell our used stuff and move on to the next new thing.
I am currently eyeballing a Leica II once modified from a Leica I where basically everything was replaced during the modification.
A few nickel knobs and the serial number may be all that is left from the original Leica I -even the housing of the lens and the shutter was replaced, and yet someone found it worthwhile to upgrade to a camera which basically just added a coupled rangefinder.
I'm thinking; why not just sell the old one and buy a new?

 

[Helge]

I find it fascinating that objects such as these were perceived so valuable at the time, and owners found it worthwhile making costly upgrades. Today, in most cases, we would just dump or sell our used stuff and move on to the next new thing.
I am currently eyeballing a Leica II once modified from a Leica I where basically everything was replaced during the modification.
A few nickel knobs and the serial number may be all that is left from the original Leica I -even the housing of the lens and the shutter was replaced, and yet someone found it worthwhile to upgrade to a camera which basically just added a coupled rangefinder.
I'm thinking; why not just sell the old one and buy a new?

Labour up to sixties and seventies was still much cheaper than materials and brand.
A good repairman could easily get the parts and do the work for less than what the factory assembled, shipped and Leica/Rollei branded camera would cost.
I bet there was even signs for coating programs in store windows in the forties and fifties, where shops would routinely ship disassembled elements or whole cameras off to coating services.
Doing something cheap, it is always paramount to have big turnover.
Today having lenses coated is an arm and a leg.
Back then, it might have been the equivalent of a few hundred dollars.

 

[AgX]

I bet there was even signs for coating programs in store windows in the forties and fifties, where shops would routinely ship disassembled elements of whole cameras off to coating services.

Interesting thought, but so far I have not seen any hint in this direction concerning Europe. However there are fellows here much more into old magazines. Maybe they can shed light on the existance of such offers.

 

[Ian Grant]

I find it fascinating that objects such as these were perceived so valuable at the time, and owners found it worthwhile making costly upgrades. Today, in most cases, we would just dump or sell our used stuff and move on to the next new thing.
I am currently eyeballing a Leica II once modified from a Leica I where basically everything was replaced during the modification.
A few nickel knobs and the serial number may be all that is left from the original Leica I -even the housing of the lens and the shutter was replaced, and yet someone found it worthwhile to upgrade to a camera which basically just added a coupled rangefinder.
I'm thinking; why not just sell the old one and buy a new?

I suspect that after WWII the units who'd coated military optics during the war had excess capacity after all many camera plants such as Agfa Ansc;s at Bingham had been turned over to war production and it would have been a while before camera production resumed. it would have been the same with lens manufacturers. So it may not have been particularly expensive to have a lens coated.

Ian

 

[AgX]

Yes, but with your infinite knowledge of magazines, have you ever come aross a respective ad (aimed at consumer or at mechanics) offering coating, or an article hinting at such service ?

 

[gone]

I wonder if that may actually be "blooming" on the taking lens? I've had more than a few folders from the 30's, and some of them had that. It acted as a form of coating anyway according to what I've read. This is what gave people the idea of coating the optics in the first place according to some.

All I know is that the Triotar is my very favorite medium format lens. Put a hood on it w/ a yellow filter, load the camera w/ Tri-X, it's a pretty magical thing, especially wide open at close distance and w/ head and shoulder portraits. You can use just the center of the neg to crop it down for almost head shots w/ some pretty neat bokeh. The one below from a 1938 Rolleicord was full frame though.

 

[Ian Grant]

Yes, but with your indefinite knowledge of magazines, have you ever come aross a respective ad (aimed at consumer or at mechanics) offering coating, or an article hinting at such service ?

No, but that's because my "indefinite" knowledge is based on UK sources rather than the US, and none from Germany, and mostly from the yearly BJP Almanacs which precised key information from the weekly BJP magazine and carried a lot of adverts...

In the case of my Dagor the owner was a lecturer at the Clarence white School of Photographt where he was formerly a student. His son told me he'd bought the best US made 10x8 camera then available and the best lens. an Agfa Ansco Commercial View and a Dagor lens, he thought Goerz Am Opt had coated the lens post WWII.

There will be adverts for getting lenses coated in the US post WWII online in US Photography magazines but finding them will be difficult. From memory B&J offered a service but they would just have been acting as agents. I looked at getting a Eurynar lens coated a few years ago and it was remarkably inexpensive for a Dialyte.

There was a UK company who would repolish scratched lenses and re-coat, Balham Optical, Roger Hicks used and recommended themfor the Leitz lenses he scratched but they did a lot of work on high end professional cine lenses and had a sperb reputaion. However aas the industry changed they went under and the recievers didn't return lenses to theor owners,

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

I wonder if that may actually be "blooming" on the taking lens? I've had more than a few folders from the 30's, and some of them had that. It acted as a form of coating anyway according to what I've read. This is what gave people the idea of coating the optics in the first place according to some.

All I know is that the Triotar is my very favorite medium format lens. Put a hood on it w/ a yellow filter, load the camera w/ Tri-X, it's a pretty magical thing, especially wide open at close distance and w/ head and shoulder portraits. You can use just the center of the neg to crop it down for almost head shots w/ some pretty neat bokeh. The one below from a 1938 Rolleicord was full frame though.

If it was natural blooming which i have seen on CZJ lenses it should be visible on the viewing lens as well.

But there's someting that smells fishy here, why the Gold Rim Dagor look to both lenses, I suspect that the lens was coated well after WWII, the whole camera has been timkered with.

Ian

 

[JPD]

Yes, that is how mine would have looked when new - yours is beautiful.
Mine does however have a faded brown background on both name plate and the plate around the focusing know, not faded by age but by design - I think.

It's faded, but the brown colour can be beautiful if it's even. I'm not sure about the process they used, I've read that they are etched, but not if they were anodized as well.

I wonder if that may actually be "blooming" on the taking lens? I've had more than a few folders from the 30's, and some of them had that. It acted as a form of coating anyway according to what I've read. This is what gave people the idea of coating the optics in the first place according to some.

All I know is that the Triotar is my very favorite medium format lens.

"Blooming" is very common on the uncoated Triotar, but it has a rainbow sheen.

The Triotar is indeed a very good triplet, with a character of its own. Longer versions were used as "tele" for small format cameras, and since only the very center of the image circle was used, these lenses vere excellent despite only having three elements. (I don't have any of those, but there are many photos taken with them on Flickr).

 

[Nitroplait]

But there's someting that smells fishy here, why the Gold Rim Dagor look to both lenses, I suspect that the lens was coated well after WWII, the whole camera has been timkered with.

Ian

The gold rim is just brassing. It looks more even in the photo than it does in real life. The added flash sync looks strange though, I have no idea how it would have worked - of course there is the possibility that it served a completely different purpose.

 

[Helge]

The Triotar is indeed a very good triplet, with a character of its own. Longer versions were used as "tele" for small format cameras, and since only the very center of the image circle was used, these lenses vere excellent despite only having three elements. (I don't have any of those, but there are many photos taken with them on Flickr).

I wonder how it holds up to other well known ≈ contemporary triplets, like Novar and Apotar?
And how is it wide open?