Hi JPD - Did you end up purchasing the camera? Looked like a beauty, although I must confess I was not familiar with either lens.
The Amatar was a reverse Dagor. Since the Amatar construction is covered in the Goerz patent, anyone who wished to make it without paying royalties had to wait for the patent to expire. The miscaptioned diagram in the above post is that of a Dagor, not an Amatar.
Miscaptioned, as I said. http://books.google.com/books?id=OJ...=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=goerz patent&f=false
I see the reverse Dagor design in the Kingslake book you linked, but didn't find a mention of the Amatar there; is there one? I couldn't find much of anything in my books about it; Henney and Dudley mention the lens, but don't reference a diagram of it.
I'm curious how you know the design? And I wonder how old that Zeiss book is that had the illustration. Zeiss was said to have tried (unsuccessfully) to patent a lens virtually identical to the Dagor, maybe they used an illustration of the original intended design.
BTW, any connection with von Hoegh, or maybe just an admirer?
The illustration is from the Carl Zeiss booklet "Photographic Lenses and how they are made" together with illustrations of the Tessar, Double-Protar, Planar, Tele-Tessar.
http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/zeiss_10.html
It's possible that they made a mistake, even though I doubt it. I can hear with Zeiss.
If you read that booklet, you will see that it was published by Zeiss' agent in NYC, not Zeiss themselves.
Yes, but I wonder where they got the illustrations from if not from Zeiss? In "A lens collectors' vade mecum" the illustration of the Amatar looks exactly like in the booklet. The rear group is slightly thinner than the front group. The Dagor is more symmetrical.
It's possible that you're right and that the Vade mecum used the same source for the illustration as the booklet. The Vade mecum states that Ross also made a Dagor type of lens, and that some of them were marked "Goerz", so they must have had licence to use the design. I hope to hear from the Zeiss museum in Jena tomorrow or next week.
I got a reply from the helpful Wolfgang Wimmer at the Zeiss Museum in Jena. He sent me a PDF-scan from an original Zeiss brochure, and yes, it's a "reverse Dagor"!
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7215/6960102488_fa40b20b26_z.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7083/6960102560_086000fc4e_b.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7139/6960102652_d76db15385_b.jpg
Apparently, the american Zeiss agent and the Vade Mecum were wrong.
There's a camera with the rare Carl Zeiss Jena Doppel-Amatar 6.8/135 mm on that auction site, item nr 130677974196 It also includes the similar six element ICA Maximar lens 6.8/90 mm.
I only post this because the Amatar has been up for discussion a couple of times, and they are quite rare. I have no connection with the seller in Germany.
Silly question just occurred to me - do you suppose the 90 actually mounts on the body?? Or is it just an unrelated lens.
J
CA Ideal 626 + Carl Zeiss Jena Dr. Rudolph Doppel Amatar 135mm F/6.8 and ICA Maximar 90mm F/6.8 both in Compound shutter
The ICA Ideal were the highest level of ICA cameras, except the Juwel. It is a 9x12cm large format folding camera with interchangeable lenses.
This camera come with the great Dr. Rudolph computed Doppel Amatar 135mm and a really rare original ICA Maximar 90mm lens, both mounted in a Compur dial set shutter
The listing says:
Did you read the listing? The lenses mount on the front standard, not on the body.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?