Zeiss Doppel-Amatar on the auction site

[JPD]

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.

 

[jon koss]

Hi JPD - Did you end up purchasing the camera? Looked like a beauty, although I must confess I was not familiar with either lens.

J

 

[JPD]

Hi JPD - Did you end up purchasing the camera? Looked like a beauty, although I must confess I was not familiar with either lens.

No I already have a Doppel-Amatar. It was Zeiss answer to Goerz Dagor in the 1910's and quite rare. The ICA Maximar is of a similar design, and the 9 cm focal lenght can be used for 6x9 or as a short lens for 9x12. Both lenses are uncoated but since they only have four glass to air surfaces they give good contrast and can also be used for colour.

The Amatar has been discussed here, and I thought that maybe someone here was interested. If I wanted it I would have kept silent.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

 

[JPD]

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.

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.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Miscaptioned, as I said. http://books.google.com/books?id=OJ...=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=goerz patent&f=false

 

[Mark Crabtree]

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?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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 Amatar is a reverse Dagor. So is an Angulon. Von Hoegh first showed his design for the Dagor to Zeiss. They sent him packing, and he not only sold it to Goerz, but was hired as their lens designer. Zeiss tried to beat Goerz to the patent, but Goerz secured priority.

The only connection I have with E. v. H. is that I use Dagor lenses, I like to know about things I have and use. The original US patent is easily searchable. And, it's fun. I can tell whippersnappers that I'm 147 years old.

 

[JPD]

Since I don't want to take the cemented elements of my Amatar apart I have sent an email to Zeiss. They have forwarded it to their museum in Jena. Hopefully they can settle the question and send me a scan of the design.

I have a Steinheil Orthostigmat and an Opt.-Werke Rüdersdorf Iricentor, and they should be reverse Dagors.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

 

[JPD]

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.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

The Ross lenses were made under license, and marked "Goerz Patent"
The Vade Mecum is kind of iffy sometimes, and dead wrong sometimes. I've looked at a seemingly reliable reference on the Amatar that gives the reverse Dagor description, when I find an online reference to that I"ll post it here.
The original U. S. patent , interestingly, covers both constructions, (#528155 IIRC). It states that it is immaterial which construction is used, and that both constructions may be used in a complete objective!
I'll be very interested to see the reply from Zeiss.

 

[JPD]

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.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

Thank you. I'd searched for online versions of a brochure listing the Amatar, with no luck. It's nice to have the info from an (almost) unimpeachable source.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The US patent for the Dagor. http://ip.com/patent/US528155

 

[JPD]

Thank you.

Can this be the patent for the Amatar? http://ip.com/patent/US886416

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Thank you.

Can this be the patent for the Amatar? http://ip.com/patent/US886416

The cutaway from the Zeiss brochure shows a central positive element that is plano-convex, while the Zeiss patent shows a double convex central element that is closer to the Goerz patent, but with thicker front elements. Curiouser and curiouser! They're both similar but not identical to the reverse Dagor construction.

 

[jon koss]

Silly question just occurred to me - do you suppose the 90 actually mounts on the body?? Or is it just an unrelated lens.

J

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.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Silly question just occurred to me - do you suppose the 90 actually mounts on the body?? Or is it just an unrelated lens.

J

The listing says:

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

Did you read the listing? The lenses mount on the front standard, not on the body.

 

[jon koss]

Sorry, my use of the term body was meant to encompass the front standard, the handle, the bellows and everything else that makes up what we might normally call the camera. I guess I should have asked if the 90mm mounts on this camera, or is it just an unrelated additional lens.

J

The listing says:
Did you read the listing? The lenses mount on the front standard, not on the body.

 

[Dan Fromm]

This http://www.cameramanuals.org/pdf_files/ica_cameras.pdf gives the very strong impression that the lens will mount.

This http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/zeiss/zeiss.htm casts doubt on the seller's claim that the 90 is for the Maximar.