IKOFLEX

anthonym3 · Jul 31, 2019

I have an IKOFLEX that serial numbers indicate a 1929 manufacture date. Lens serial number 2020836 TRIOTAR 75mm f 1:3.5 ,shutter 1252028.It has a lever focus. In googling information it is described as an IKOFLEX ll however the date given is 1936 onward.What do I have?

Dan Daniel · Jul 31, 2019

Photos?

How do you get the 1929 date?

According to this site, your lens is from around 1937-
http://motamedi.info/serial.htm

JPD · Jul 31, 2019

The lens was made in 1937, so the camera was probably made the same year. The first Ikoflex came on the market in 1934.

It would be an 851/16 Ik or Lcr depending on the shutter: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Zeiss_Ikon_Ikoflex_II

anthonym3 · Jul 31, 2019

Sorry guys I misread the numbers,however I have another question. Both lenses appear coated,did ZEISS coat lenses back then?

JPD · Jul 31, 2019

anthonym3 said:
Sorry guys I misread the numbers,however I have another question. Both lenses appear coated,did ZEISS coat lenses back then?

No, they weren't coated back then. But after the war it was possible to have old lenses coated. I had a 1938 Rolleicord that had its Triotar lens coated after the war and the camera also had a flash contact installed.

It might also be that the lens has "bloom", caused by oxidation. Can you post pictures of the camera and lenses?

anthonym3 · Jul 31, 2019

Photos

Dan Daniel · Jul 31, 2019

That's bloom, that sort of purplish rainbow oil slick look. Not sure what difference it makes, but I love the look of it. I have a couple of Tessars with that and they are great shooters. I'm not saying the bloom does anything.... well, I have another without any bloom and it shoots fine, also.

Arklatexian · Jul 31, 2019

anthonym3 said:
Photos

It doesn't appear to me that either of the lenses are "coated" though both seem to have the "natural" coating mentioned above. It was this "natural" coating and its advantages, that gave the lens manufacturers the idea of coating, later. Don't try to remove it.........Regards!

JPD · Jul 31, 2019

Yes, that's a very nice bloom. Natural oxidation on the surface of the glass that works like a mild antireflection coating. The Triotar is one of the best three element lenses.

The shutter is a Compur instead of Compur-Rapid, so the camera model is Ikoflex II, 851/16 Ik.

anthonym3 · Jul 31, 2019

Thanks to all. I had never heard of bloom.The iridescence had me baffled,it appeared to be some sort of coating.Is bloom the result of metals in the glass?

JPD · Jul 31, 2019

anthonym3 said:
Is bloom the result of metals in the glass?

It's one of the mysteries that have been discussed, but I have yet to hear the exact chemistry behind the bloom. It must have something to do with the composition of the glass and the atmosphere. I have seen Triotars with bloom but I can't remember seeing a Tessar with it. The Triotars I have with bloom all have very good contrast.

anthonym3 · Jul 31, 2019

I have a ROLLEICORD MODEL I with a triotar,it has the faintest hint of bloom.I bought the IKOFLEX for primarily portraits and perhaps landscapes. I have an IKOFLEX with a coated TESSAR T. Which would be better for either portraits,landscapes or both?

JPD · Jul 31, 2019

Triotar for portraits and Tessar for landscapes or both. The Tessar has little better corner to corner sharpness than the Triotar.

Dan Daniel · Jul 31, 2019

anthonym3 said:
I have a ROLLEICORD MODEL I with a triotar,it has the faintest hint of bloom.I bought the IKOFLEX for primarily portraits and perhaps landscapes. I have an IKOFLEX with a coated TESSAR T. Which would be better for either portraits,landscapes or both?

And wide open or close to it, the Triotar can give some... interesting!! out of focus looks. Do a few tests at different stops to get a feel for it.

itsdoable · Jul 31, 2019

That's bloom...

Although I have heard it used for this, bloom is usually defined as the white milky residue on soda lime glass.

Tarnish is the term that is usually used of natural optical anti-reflective coatings, which is the result of acidic etching (on exposure to the atmosphere), which happens mostly on Flint glass. It resembles metal tarnishing, which is where the term originates.

JPD · Aug 1, 2019

itsdoable said:
Although I have heard it used for this, bloom is usually defined as the white milky residue on soda lime glass.

Tarnish is the term that is usually used of natural optical anti-reflective coatings, which is the result of acidic etching (on exposure to the atmosphere), which happens mostly on Flint glass. It resembles metal tarnishing, which is where the term originates.

Yes, you are correct, but tarnish has a negative ring to it. Bloom just sounds better, since this is desirable on an old lens, and is a good way to describe the rainbow-coloured reflections from the glass. Silver coins can have a similar tarnish, but it's often desirable so it's called toning instead. Tarnish sounds like something you'd want to polish off from silverware and brass.

anthonym3 · Aug 2, 2019

Will a yellow green filter negate the good effect of the bloom?

Marco Gilardetti · Aug 6, 2019

anthonym3 said:
Will a yellow green filter negate the good effect of the bloom?

I'd say no, as the good effects of tarnish are due to cancelling lightwave interference; the visible colour of the tarnish is just a secondary effect of interference and not the reason why it has a good effect on contrast.

Although just on the basis of my personal limited experience, I can however confirm that Tessar lenses tend to get foggy rather than to develop any useful tarnish. This foggy layer was said to be by old fellows a corrosion of the glass itself, which couldn't be cleaned or repaired. I had yet to pass two wonderful Zeiss Ikon Super Ikontas to collectors as they progressively became useless for a photographer.

JPD · Aug 6, 2019

Marco Gilardetti said:
Although just on the basis of my personal limited experience, I can however confirm that Tessar lenses tend to get foggy rather than to develop any useful tarnish. This foggy layer was said to be by old fellows a corrosion of the glass itself, which couldn't be cleaned or repaired. I had yet to pass two wonderful Zeiss Ikon Super Ikontas to collectors as they progressively became useless for a photographer.

I have Tessars with glass that look foggy with the shutter closed. It's hard to see the shutter blades. But when I look through them with the shutter open they look perfectly clear. And I have a Steinheil Unofokal that looks perfectly clear with the shutter closed despite having similar lens elements in the front as the Tessar, and two uncemented elements in the rear (compared to the cemented ones in the Tessar). The Unofokal doesn't seem to be coated and has no "bloom". It's just very clear.

Arklatexian · Aug 6, 2019

anthonym3 said:
I have a ROLLEICORD MODEL I with a triotar,it has the faintest hint of bloom.I bought the IKOFLEX for primarily portraits and perhaps landscapes. I have an IKOFLEX with a coated TESSAR T. Which would be better for either portraits,landscapes or both?

In B&W or color? Many B&W workers prefer an "uncoated" lens for much of their work, including portraits. The "coated lens might be better for color though not necessarily if photographing portraits. The answer? Photograph with both and decide which you prefer, i.e. waste some film. Even at today's prices, film is still cheaper than buying another camera, also at today's prices...............Regards!

IKOFLEX

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency