Archives of an email list on the history of binoculars. http://home.europa.com/~telscope/listp150.txt home page: http://home.europa.com/~telscope/binotele.htm Lists 151-200 ==================================================== Binocular List #151: 26 January 2001 ===================================================== Subject: Buying binoculars in Europe From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@___ne.de After some research I just ordered a brand new Docter 7x40 B/GA from a small Bavarian dealer. He offered a nice discount to get rid of his stock and I absolutely could not resist. I understand this is the demilitarised version of the Zeiss/Jena EDF 7x40 (roof prism) which again is the successor of the DF 7x40 (porro prism). Neither Docter nor Zeiss/Jena claimed to have put phase corrected roof prisms in their 7x40 B/GA or EDF 7x40. I however assume that later, EDF roof prism, should be better in this case. And comments on other lists were very positive. I phoned Docter in Eisfeld and the confirmed that they still make them! Soon they will even offer a 10x42 version. Docter binos are not present in many German shops and even their website is miserable. Camera shops typically have Leica and cheap Japanese stuff. Opticians have Zeiss, Steiner and cheap Japanese stuff with German brand names. The EDF 7x40 is quite common on ebay, but I find the final prices a little bit steep, given the fact that you may get heavily used military surplus without warranty. And I am not that keen on reticles, laser filters or radioactive illumination. Briefly I considered a Steiner 7x50, but I have difficulties to track down the different quality levels of coating and sealing, in particular for used gear and with different names for US and German markets. From the subjective built quality I consider them as the binocular equivalent to "Swatch" wrist wratches, excellent performance and value for money if brand new, but sort of unrepairable. Furthermore I thought about the Romanian IOR binos. I hoever could not locate an importer for Germany. US mailorder firms offer them for very decent prices, but with shipping to Germany and VAT it would not have been worth the hassle. Next month I will make a business trip to Bucharest and see whether I can locate them over there. Hans-Peter ========================================= Subject: Eyeball testing From: Arnold Cohen RE: "organoleptic" testing of binoculars-"eyeballing brightness" I think caution may be necessary when trying to compare two binoculars by looking down the barrel of one with one eye and the other with the other. As you know there is often considerable difference in refraction between eyes and there maybe differences in brightness as well. There are often subtle differences in the lenses of the eye - early cataracts, subtle changes in color probably due to UV exposure etc. When I have tried this or even checked one side of a binocular with the other a consistent perceived difference in brightness is noted but persists even with the glass turned over 180degrees!! Some sets of eyes are better that others but at least switching eyes back and forth may be a good idea. Arnie =================================== Subject: Japanese design twin telescope From: DaveTrott@___m As detailed in the Binocular list #148: 05 January 2001, many years ago Tatsuro Matsumoto suggested an innovative way to make a two-reflection right angle binocular telescope. Tatsuro Matsumoto calls it the Erecting Mirror System. The effect is nearly identical to having two giant telescopes with giant Amici diagonals with a built-in offset which delivers the images to the interpupillary separation of a human being. The idea is very attractive because you get a correct image at a right angle with only two reflections. All of these characteristics might be desirable for astronomical observations. Working from his original idea, I constructed a pair of these last year. Joe Castoro has been experimenting with them as well. Interested readers can have a look at my admitedly primitive version at http://hometown.aol.com/davetrott/page1.htm and to see the well-engineered versions at Tatsuro Matsumoto's page: http://www.page.sannet.ne.jp/mazmoto/index-e.htm. Joe Castoro's page is at http://www.binoscope.com/ Dave Trott ===== Congratulations, Dave. A very fine project. Matsumoto's S & T article used a slightly different system than shown on his web site. They both use two mirrors, and I suppose you could say that just the spacing of the mirrors changed. Dave points out that these systems are similar to an Amici prism, using mirrors instead of internal glass surfaces; and the new Matsumoto system moves the mirrors apart. ============ Dave's web page includes links to two amateur built binocular telescopes, using the system shown by Frank Szepanski in ATM Journal #14 (1999) pages 44-47. I don't know if they devised it on their own, it is a very unusual system, and there is no note about the designer on their sites. http://www.mindspring.com/~santiago41/astro1004.htm http://kw.rasc.ca/bts/bts.html ================================================== Subject: German optical designs from WWII From: Peter Abrahams Portland Oregon has a very good public library, the Multnomah County Library; where I found: Gimbel, John. Science, Technology, and Reparations: exploitation and plunder in postwar Germany. Stanford: Stanford U. Press, 1990. This book describes the systematic exportation of German technology set up after WWII as part of Allied reparations against Germany. The technology behind German military and non military production was obviously highly advanced in many cases. To recover some of the financial expenses of the war, a very large U.S. government program was set up. Privately owned American corporations were allowed to gain access to all facilities, records and patents; of many or all German companies (not limited to war related industry), along with universities and museums. This was known as the Field Information Agency, Technical (FIAT), part of the Office of Technical Services (OTS). The well known 'Project Paperclip', which brought German rocket scientists to the U.S. and started the American space program, was but a small part of the larger program. In addition, the British, French, Russian, and other Allied governments enacted their own "substantial postwar scientific and technical exploitation" (p. xi) of Germany, not detailed in this book. Gimbel was a translator for the postwar U.S. military government in Germany, and does not seem to be of the opinion that the extent of the FIAT program was justified. He repeatedly notes that the exportation of industrial secrets made it more difficult for Germany to resume a peacetime economy and thus establish a stable democracy. FIAT was paid for by U.S. taxpayers, and any benefits were reaped by U.S. industry; making it a domestic subsidy program (following the war itself, in which a massive amount of tax dollars went to industry) . The policies & duration of Allied occupation delayed the time when Germans could pay cash for food imports, rather than rely on foreign aid. These exports of technical knowledge were a 'creeping' or 'hidden' reparation, not counted in the balance book of war reparations. The program went far beyond industries that contributed to the war effort, for example the famous inventor & manufacturer of teddy bears, Steiff of Giengen, was investigated by two representatives of British competitors in the toy industry; who were quite thorough in taking samples, measuring & sketching, and inquiring into special procedures and machinery that had been secret (p165). Gimbel quotes extensively from correspondence between German industrialists and various bureaucrats, and naturally the businessmen were concerned & indignant about their secrets being shared. I do not share Gimbel's obvious indignation, but clearly this was government sponsored industrial espionage and there are two sides to this issue. I found this book to be quite interesting, but unfortunately, it has very little about optical technology. Among the German firms investigated were Zeiss, Leitz, Rodenstock, Steinheil, and other optical businesses. At Leitz in Wetzlar, 198,000 pages were 'selected for the microfilm project' (p63). C.A. Steinheil Soehne in Munich was investigated by two Americans. G. Rodenstock, Munich, was visited by U.S., British, and Czech experts; and apparently the Czech (representing a just- socialized competitor) was especially qualified & thorough, spending a week studying, photographing, and copying (p163). An employee of American Optical Company, G. E. Guellich, investigated Zeiss and Leitz in 1945 when he was an Allied consultant. He later asked to inspect microfilm related to his work, and received 140,000 frames, which he figured would take 6,000 hours to review; a task that was never undertaken. This was a very large program, which collected about 5,000 reels of microfilm, recording about 5,000,000 pages (p70). At the Berlin patent office, 1,018,000 pages were selected for microfilming, with a staff of 70 people, using 17 miles of microfilm (p63). Between 01 July 1946, and 30 June 1947, there were 4,994 investigators in 2,922 field trips to Germany (History of FIAT). Most were from the U.S., Great Britain, and France, with others from many different countries. The investigators were only the central personnel in the program, they were accompanied by military escorts & assisted by German employees; in May 1946 for example, 600 Germans were microfilming records for 100 U.S. investigators. The program had been functioning before July 1946, but no figures are available from that time (p79). The orignal plan for the program was to issue an index and make the records available to the general public, but the program was shut down before completion, and the 'compendium' was never issued; with the result that well connected industries and individuals received 'private access' to the documents. Before the microfilm was shipped to Washington D.C., it was abstracted & indexed; then in the U.S. it went through security clearance and then to the Dept. of Commerce for distribution. The OTS published a 'Bibliography of Scientific and Industrial Research Reports' every week. The program appears to have been terminated 30 June 1948 by the Dept. of Commerce. Given the size of the operation, the lack of an index, and Guellich's experience with his mass of microfilm, it seems obvious that there is a very large amount of documentation related to optical instruments that has never been inspected. Presumably, copies of these remain in Germany, where they might have received some use and be known to historians. However, there's no doubt that a gold mine awaits the person who finds where these records are kept & spends the months it would take to dig through them. I did not find in this book a clear indication of where the microfilms are currently stored. The references in the bibliography are in rather cryptic form, for example: OMGUS Historical Office, 'History of Field Information Agency, Technical (FIAT), Period 01 July 1946 - 30 June 1947', MS in RG 319, CMH, Historical Manuscripts File, NA. This is apparently in the U.S. National Archives. But the repository for the microfilms is described only as the 'Department of Commerce' (not a big help), which makes them available to those who can identify what they wish to view & who pay for reproduction. (In the 1970s, records of synthetic fuel programs were utilized.) I hope that the combined efforts of readers of the binocular list can result in more of these documents (those related to binoculars) becoming public. ============================================== ================================================== Binocular List #152: 27 January 2001 ===================================================== Subject: Zeiss and other Prismatic Telescopic Sights From: SCSambrook@___m I wonder if anyone on the list is familiar with prismatic telescopic rifle sights as made before 1914 ? I have only once handled such a Zeiss sight, made circa 1902, I think, and it looked far to flat in the body to use porro-prisms. Has anyone any idea about what sort of prism system Zeiss used for it ? In some ways it looks very much like half a Turita ... but that was the Moeller prism design, was it not? Am I correct in thinking that having acquired Moeller, Zeiss claimed that they had had a similar prism design all along ? Maybe there's a connection. Goerz also made a prismatic sight, but I've never handled one. Indeed, the only illustrations of such a sight I've found is a reproduction from an old gunmaker's catalogue. Has anyone out there any knowledge of it ? Prismatic rifle 'scopes did not seem to find favour, did they ? The Warner & Swasey 'Musket Sight' was hardly a success either, and although Bausch & Lomb were developing a prism sight around 1911, I've never seen any reference to its having been marketed. I know these aren't binoculars, but they do represent one area of prismatic instrument application which seems to have been a blind-alley. Best wishes Stephen Sambrook --------- From: Peter Abrahams > Zeiss sight, made circa 1902,.... what sort of prism system Zeiss used for it ? Seeger's red book, p57, he notes an early Zeiss 'sighting telescope' with a Sprenger Leman prism. >a Turita.....uses a variation of the Moeller prism, a roof prism with a small prism cemented to it, but the roof on an adjacent surface. >having acquired Moeller, Zeiss claimed that they had had a similar prism design all along ? Yes, but they were lacking credibility in these issues. >The Warner & Swasey 'Musket Sight' was hardly a success either http://www.m-s-co.com/sso/articles/article11.html has a good amount on the deficiences of the W-S model >Prismatic rifle 'scopes did not seem to find favour, did they ? Just possibly the combination of low power & long eye relief would require a much larger prism, very difficult to make in a roof, but I can't be sure of this. =========================================== Subject: German records From: The whereabouts of the microfilms in Germany is not that secret. There are several large archives in Germany, that holds such microfilms. Bundesarchiv to name one...try out a search on the name Bundesarchiv.de it is even after american standards fairly large...understatement of the day. Its the national german archive. They speak english as well...BUT, and this is a big But...they are not well funded, so copies can be made...at a price pr. page, which makes it an expensive place to ask. straight from the microfilms...but they have only sporadic indexes...the material is too old, and resourses are used on more important work. We have some reels here in Denmark too....it seems the US offered all western states a chance of acquiring relevant reels, but here, they are still under restrictions...somebodys granddad might be mentioned, so we have to wait until 2030, I think. ( or go to Washington, and yes, danish historians do that..easier than accessing the copy reels here in Denmark, cute huh?) Another archive would be Militärarchiv in Freiburg, but as I recall it, they are more into personalia, especially SS unit members. I went into the archives years back, on a search for danish companies delivering war material for the german army, little came from this, but the material is there, only there has been some kind of editing to prevent the most uninteresting reels to fill the availble space. And simple factory visit reports are likely to have been discarded. Apart from that, it is well known that the US army had tech rescue teams just behind the boys in the line, to prevent the fighting soldiers from smashing important new technical equipment out of ignorance. This was indeed an exploitation of german industry, and it took almost 10 years before novel german items appeared on the world market. All their R&D had been removed to the states. One item...Transistor radios ...very novel in 1947....wasn´t they?..american and all,...well, the Wehrmacht had transistors! made at philips in Holland, but it took two years to read all the papers and set up facilities to make them..therefore the transistor was born in 1947, not 45. A tip before I completely forget this is about binos...In Virginia the US still holds a lot of inventory taken from german factories, (last thing, I have heard, it is still there) The US tech teams simply swiped the tables in RD in german factories and put it in crates for later evaluation...wonder if the crate with Zeiss RD is still there? One example here is the restoration of the german rifle Gerät 06(H) or StG45. This was recently rebuild from Virginia parts for the national german army museum. It was one of the production models and you probably all know the rifle that came from it..the HK G3 used by Iranian and iraqian forces even today. The mauser RD team went to spain in 46, with the blueprint and refined the rifle, later to return to HK Germany and make it there. Any books on the US technical teams???..I, for one, is on my way to my local library within 5 minutes...thanks to Peter for the tip of that book. I could suggest the book by R.V. Jones on british technical efforts during ww2, mostly on radio and radars, but not restricted to this. Tip: A basic knowledge on radio waves and antennas are recommended. cannot recall the title. He is commenting several times on german RD efforts...like after the evaluation of a german ground radar. They stole a german Würzburg radar, AND the crew...talk about Commando raids. Any Hollywood guys looking for a new movie script??...This has it all...including the cliffhanging german luftwaffe soldier, trying to stay out of sight. Several techies went in with the commandos to disassemble the radar. ======================================================== Subject: Wartime From: Peter Abrahams I found a paragraph related to my post of last list on exporting German technology post WWII. Aalders, Gerard and Cees Wiebes. The Art of Cloaking Ownership: the secret collaboration and protection of the German war industry by the neutrals, the case of Sweden. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Univ. Press, 1996. Most of this book was not of interest to me; but on page 20, they discuss German patents registered in Sweden in 1944-5. Sweden became an 'asylum' for German companies trying to protect intellectual property, and was regarded as a safe haven. In 1944, there were 6,000 patents registered in Sweden by German companies (in 1938, there were 1,618 Swedish patents, and in 1944 the total was 10,671). In the spring of 1945, an unspecified number of patents were registered, described as 'a positive explosion', many from I.G. Farben. Zeiss-Ikon is also named as a registrar. ------------- Also found another book, part of a multi-volume history of WWII from the U.S. Army: Thomson, Harry and Lida Mayo. The Ordnance Department: Procurement and Supply. Washington: Office of the Chief of Military History, Dept. of the Army, 1960. (p96- 7). (page 95): The Army's Ordnance purchases of optical fire control instruments from 1940 to 1945 totaled over $1,000,000,000. Industry was not enthusiastic about producing the more complex instruments, which were small-run and high-risk; and they had to be persuaded to manufacture them. (page 96): The major products were binoculars & telescopes, range finders & height finders, and directors. "the quality of American fire control materiel came in for a good deal of criticism from British forces in North Africa....that was soon echoed by U.S. troops who landed in North Africa in November 1942." "Early in 1941, to meet an urgent requirement for 350,000 binoculars, Ordnance took the unusual step of standardizing for military use a commercial design of the Bausch and Lomb Optical Company. This design closely approximated the old World War I binocular, known as type EE, that was still standard. Other commercial models were also standardized and produced in quantity for shipment to Allies. But this policy soon proved to be a costly mistake. Designed for normal civilian use, the commercial binoculars failed to stand up under combat service where they were subjected to rough handling, submersion in water, and exposure to extremes of temperature. Using them was, in the words of one field commander, "like looking through two dirty milk bottles." ....a new military model was adopted early in 1943.......When the Bausch and Lomb binocular was adopted in 1941, it was understood that the Bausch and Lomb company could not be counted on for large-scale production of binoculars because its resources were needed for more critical precision optical instruments. Ordnance therefore turned to the Nash-Kelvinator Company, and the Mansfield Ohio works of the Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company. Neither firm had any experience in making optical instruments, nor any facilities for manufacture of optical elements, but plant surveys had convinced Ordnance that the two concerns could readily adapt their equipment and buildings to binocular production. Optical elements -- lenses, prisms, windows, reticles, and other parts made of optical glass -- were to be procured from optical glass manufacturers and turned over to Nash-Kelvinator and Westinghouse as government free issue materials. Production was slow to start. "We were told by old line binocular manufacturers," Westinghouse later reported, "that they questioned if we would ever be able to produce satisfactory binoculars, let alone produce them in the quantities called for under our contract." But by the first anniversary of Pearl Harbor the two contractors were producing at the rate of 8,000 binoculars each, per month. During 1943, the peak year for production, 245,672 were turned out, including both old and new models." (page 98): "The competition for optics (lenses & prisms) almost resolved itself into a 'free for all' between the Army, Navy, and Air Corps, with the British Purchasing Commission interfering with all three. Because of the shortage of optical elements, and the instrument makers' lack of experience in procuring them, Ordnance decided to procure optical elements from qualified producers and turn them over to instrument manufacturers as government free issue material. One of the most successful procurements under this policy flowed from a contract with the Optical Research Company of Long Island City. This concern produced most of the optical elements for the binoculars made by the Nash-Kelvinator Company and the Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company. As requirements for optical elements mounted after Pearl Harbor and it became necessary to bring many small manufacturers into production, Frankford Arsenal and the New York Ordnance District arranged with the Mergenthaler- Linotype Company to attempt an unusual experiment. Mergenthaler set up the U.S. Optical Supply Corporation, with an office in New York City, to provide central control of numerous contracts with small producers. Its officers were also officers of Mergenthaler, the parent company, and received no compensation for their services. Operating on a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with the government, the company placed subcontracts with many small producers, helped them get into production, provided storage space for optical pressings, and eventually delivered some $4 million of material......The Fire Control Sub-Office encouraged the optical glass industry by arranging government financing of plant expansion and administering an optical machinery pool which procured some 1,000 machines for use by optical glass producers. It arranged for Corning Glass Works to build a government-owned, contractor-operated plant at Parkersburg, W. Va., and to operate a glass depot there. In October 1943, when the coating of optics to improve the performance of instruments under poor lighting conditions was made mandatory, the Fire Control Sub-Office supervised the procurement of equipment and provided technical instruction to contractors on this difficult project. ===================================================== Subject: Romanian IOR From: Fan Tao Regarding the Romanian IOR military style binoculars, they have excellent build quality, similar to the Zeiss Jena 7x40DF(NVA). However, in a direct comparison of the IOR 7x40 vs. the Zeiss Jena DF, I prefer the Zeiss. The field of view and eye relief are about the same (about 60 degrees apparent and 20mm). The image through the IOR is nocticeably yellow whereas the Zeiss is close to neutral. Furthermore, the IOR has (to me) annoying field curvature, that is, the edge of field needs to be refocused to make it clear. The Zeiss also has some field curvature and astigmatism on the field edge but it does not seem as bad. The IOR 10x50 is similar in performance to the IOR 7x40 (plus it is very heavy to hand hold). I do not mean to make the IOR's sound bad, other than the problems mentioned, they are very fine binoculars. Fan Tao ==================================================== ===================================================== Binocular List #153: 02 / 02 / 01 ===================================== Subject: Canadian binoculars From: Peter Abrahams I put together as much as I could find on Canadian binoculars: REL and ELCAN http://home.europa.com/~telscope/canada.txt Thanks to Steve Harris, Deutsche Optik, and others, for contributing text. We need more information on this subject. ====================================== Subject: Docter / IOR From: Thomas Press Regarding the recent Binocular List references to the Docter (aka Zeiss/Jena) EDF 7 x 40 and IOR 7 x 40 BGA, I have owned both and found the IOR (at least in my samples) to be the far superior glass, with a wonderfully open and crisp view, and superb build quality. As best as I can tell, the EDF, as a roof prism binocular, is probably better able to hold its collimation in the face of rough treatment, but the view through the EDF was noticeably less sharp, with a much narrower field of view and considerably less depth of field. Both glasses have a yellow tint, although the EDF tint is dramatically more pronounced. Over time, I found the EDF yellow images increasingly annoying, and useful only for moonlight use. Hopefully, Docter Optik has also made some progress on the quality control front as, in my experience, many of the late 80's Zeiss Jena binoculars, both roof and porro, were pretty shoddily built. Regards, Tom ======== Here is the internet link for IOR: http://www.starnets.ro/ior/iore.htm Fan Tao ================================================= Subject: Repair From: gene harryman I have followed the discussion on binocular repair with some interest as I also have had problems in the past with reliable repairs. I have used five services in the past. I used the first four based on their supposed reputation. One was a binocular mfg., one an importer, one was an old reputable "they do it all themselves" firm, and the fourth was a reputable dealer that did some and farmed some. I can honestly say that the results in all four cases were poor to lousy. I could have done a better job myself (and that ain't saying much!), but some of the glass was German, and I thought I would spring to have it done expertly. Boy!, was I disappointed. Therefore, I have come to value personal recommendations, one of which I took, and I would like to share the results with those who are looking for a first class repair service. I had a pair of 1943 B&L Mark 28's rebuilt from the ground up, including re-covering, a pair of DF 7x40's re-collimated, and the lens re-cemented, cleaned and collimated on a pair of Tower 7x50 w/B&L body from the 50’s. The results in each case were first rate, and it didn’t take 3 months to get them back, either. Collimation was perfect – you can look for long periods without any strain, which is what in the end matters. The mechanical work was also flawless, and I am quite picky on this. The work was done by Suddarth Optical Repair, and I would have no reservations giving the highest recommendation for them. They can be reached at binofixer@___ink.net. Gene Harryman ==================================================== Subject: Review on Docter 7x40 B/GA From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@___ne.de I just picked up my new Docter 7x40 B/GA from the post office. It comes in plain black, without reticle and IR detector, is labeled "Docter Optic", "Made in Germany", with serial no. 3090220. The packaging and the warranty card is all "Docter", but the manual is labeled "aus Jena" and "Jenoptik" with the old DDR postal address. Even the German is genuine DDR speak. I have no clue whether the binocular is from limited "new old" stock, made from a limited stock of parts or still made new from scratch. In the first place I was delighted by the excellent, but crude built quality. Very obviously it was "constructed" at a time when "designers" were supposed to work in the fashion industry of the decadent West and were not allowed to fiddle with technical products, even less with military equipment. The modular, removeable rubber armour is a brilliant idea. I saw Zeiss B/GAs with little cracks and no way to cheaply replace the galvanised rubber armour. It feels nicer than the plastic on modern binoculars. At the second look I discovered the most comfortable eye relieve I ever saw on a bincular (>20mm, according to specs). I don't have to press the binocular against my glasses to get it right. The rubber, bellows style eye cups fold down flatter and easier than those on the Zeiss Classics or Steiners. Pop up or srew eye cups are state of the art now. But for use without spectacles the bellows adapts better to face contours, you can adjust the ocular-eye distance and there is no stiff plastic tube sticking in your eye. Of course quickly folding and unfolding (for use with and without spectacles) is not possible and in the long range may fatigue the rubber (spares DM 22/pair). With rolled down rubber eye cups, the rain guard fits too tight. To get it on and off you have adjust the inter-pupil distance. The third look revealed a destinct yellow cast which is enhancing contrast and vision at dawn, but of course could be disconcerting for watching nature, birds etc.. Most probably your brain's own viewing "software" will recalculate the colour data and you won't notice it after some time. But if you put down the binocular the process of adaptation will start again. I didn't use the binocular long enough during daylight for a final evaluation. However, at the moment I simply have no adequate binocular for comparison. I own a Leica 8x20 (latest, with phase correction coatings) and a Steiner 6x30 (> 15 years, with not so great anti-glare coating and contrast, but very good eye relief for the cheap price I paid). I would like to compare it with the Zeiss 7x42 B/GA with latest T*/P* coating. It has 150 metres nominal field of view, but I wonder how much is left when used with spectacles. I saw other Docters on sale: e.g. 8x56 BG/A Nobilem, 8x50 BG/A Nobilem, 15x50 B/GA Nobilem. The collector virus has bitten me and I am tempted to buy the 8x50. I saw a very positve review on the 8x56, putting it almost in the same class as the Zeiss Dialyt. But it is heavy and at my age (36 at the moment, but growing) I may not take full advantage of a 7mm exit pupil. Any clues on the 8x50 which isn't anymore in Docter's current sales brochure (field of view, weight, size in comparison to the still listed 7x50 and 10x50)? Docter's current Noblems have a "rounded" design which I however find ugly. I would prefer the "classic" look as shown at the bottom of this site: "http://www.globalxs.nl/home/r/roskam/". But I don't know whether the cosmetic "modernisation" came along with improved optical performance or weather resistance. Hans-Peter ======= I agree that the very heavy models by Zeiss & Leitz are uncomfortable. The 7 mm exit pupil might not be any problem -- you can measure your pupils with a ruler & mirror in an almost-dark room. Also, most people find that an exit pupil that is oversize is very comfortable to use, so even if you lose some light, there is a benefit. Docter roof prism binoculars with the eyecups cut diagonally to a V shape are beyond ugly, they are about the ugliest binocular I've seen. Furthermore, when I used them, the eyecups fit tightly and so blocked all the stray light, but the eye lens was continually fogging. --Peter Here is the information found on the web page noted above, 'roskam' DOCTER/WETZLAR-JENA DOCTER produced aspherical elements for Leica and Angenieux lenses. DOCTER is the present owner of the former ZEISS/Jena division of binoculars. The CLASSIC line 7x50, 8x30, 10x50 The NOBILEM line 7x50, 8x50, 10x50, 12x60, 15x60 8x56 nighthunter ROOF-PRISM 8x32, 8x32 aspherical, 10x40,10x40 aspherical, 7x40 glass COMPACT 8x22, 8x22 aspherical, 10x25 and 10x25 aspherical. TURMON mono 8x21. http://www.globalxs.nl/home/r/roskam/ ================================================== I received the following email, which is not related to binoculars but is quite interesting. --Peter Subject: Research on Oculus Co. 02 Feb 2001 From: Bruce Bolinger As part of the work that I am doing on my family history, I am trying to document the role of my great uncle, Arthur Schrynemakers, in the Resistance in Belgium in WWII. He was a Dutch national living in Brussels. During 1943-44 he hid 10 people in his home, seven Jews; an American flier, Thomas Applewhite, who had been shot down over the Netherlands; and, later, a Belgian Intelligence officer and his wife who were on the run from the Gestapo. Through the National Archives and the Air Forces Escape and Evasion Society I was able to locate the Applewhite. He is still living, and has been very helpful in providing information. One of the many things that he told me was that there had been a young Belgian engineer who was part of forced labor at an optical lens factory in Germany. By pretending to be pro-Nazi, he persuaded the Germans to let him return to Brussels on compassionate leave. While there he told his father of the importance of bombing the factory—it was making lenses for periscopes for tanks and submarines. The man’s father relayed the information to Schrynemakers. Since it was time for Applewhite to be taken to Gibraltar, Schrynemakers gave him the information on the factory, which Applewhite passed on to Allied Military Intelligence officers during his debriefing in Gibraltar in January 1944. Before he left Gibraltar for London, he was told that the factory had been successfully bombed by the RAF. (Part of the information he provided included the best time to bomb—between shifts—to minimize casualties among the forced labor.) Applewhite understood the name of the company whose factory was to be bombed to be “Loculous Optical Co.” So far I have been unable to locate any such company. I am beginning to think that it may have been “Oculus”, a logical name for a optical lens company. If spoken by a French-speaking person I believe it might become “l’Oculus”. Since Applewhite did not speak French, I can see how there easily could have been a misunderstanding on his part. While searching the Internet for “Oculus”, I came across a Web site for an OCULUS Optikgeräte GmbH in Dutenhofen, near Wetzlar, in Germany that makes optometric equipment. Its Web site (http://www.oculus.de/english/firma.html) mentions that it was established in Berlin in 1895 and moved to Dutenhofen in 1947. I wonder if this could be what Applewhite was referring to. I came across your list “Code Letters for Name of Manufacturer from WWII German Optical Products” which includes the listing “ddv OCULUS (optometrist equipment, possibly gunsights) BERLIN GERMANY”. All this information, particularly the reference to gunsights, would seem to connect OCULUS, formerly of Berlin, now of Dutenhofen to the “Loculous” company that was bombed based on information relayed by Schrynemakers to Applewhite. I have sent an e-mail to OCULUS asking to be put in touch with anyone in the company familiar with its history. (I didn't go into the detail that I have in this message to you.) I would greatly appreciate any information that you could provide me on OCULUS and any leads that I should pursue that would help me in my research. Sincerely, Bruce Bolinger Nevada City, CA Bolinger@___et =============================================== ===================================================== Binocular List #154: 09 February 2001. ===================================================== Subject: Re: Docter From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@___ne.de Yesterday I could not resist to peep through a Zeiss 7x42 B/GA T*P* at a local shop. The field of view is indeed a tad wider than on the Docter 7x40, with spectacles, almost as if there is no binocular in front of your face! In the short time I however wasn't able to make out a clear winner in optical performance. It was late afternoon and hazy. So the yellow tinted Docter seemed to have better contrast than the Zeiss which was just a little bit on the blue side. I almost believe the ugliness of the latest Docter Nobilems and aspherical roofs was required by Zeiss/Oberkochem:-) But the 7x50 Nobilems on Mr. Roskam's site, the ones with the shiny, ribbed rubber armour, are, well, classic design. Zeiss/Jena had to comply with centrally administrated production plans under adverse conditions. So product quality was a problem, a little bit less for those batches to be sold to the West for hard currency (labeled "Jenoptem"), a little but more for those to be delivered to the comrades trading in Ladas (labeled "Zeiss/Jena"). On the other hand there were clear priorites for the military, in terms of quantity of resources allocated and quality. When I was in the West-German military in the mid 1980s, we had 8x30 Hensolds from the 1960s, absolutely useless for people with spectacles and nothing near the Zeiss/Jena 7x40. According to the "History" on www.docter-germany.com, the Zeiss/Jena binocular plant at Eisfeld, with some 1000 employees in the 1980s. went down twice: for the first time in the early 1990s, after Germany's re-unification, for the second time in 1997. The company went bancrupt and then was reinstated again, under a new umbrella (Analytic Jena GmbH), but at a very low profile with less than 90 employees left. The 8x50 B/GA is not in Docter's current brochure (received last week), leaving a gap between 7x50 and 10x50. Of course there is new old stock with some dealers. Any known reason for this: quality problems, poor optical performance, to expensive to make or just running out of old parts? Response off list is welcome. Would be quicker. Hans-Peter ==================================================== Subject: Re: Zeiss Jena Nobilems From: Fan Tao I don't know if Docter has changed the optical design of the Nobilem binoculars, but my 8x50 Nobilems (SN 7372777) must have been made around the time Zeiss Jena became Docter (1991). They are marked Zeiss Jena but the box and user brochure have Docter-Optic labels stuck on them. The apparent field of view is about 56 degrees and the eye relief is around 17mm, just enough to use with my glasses (but more would be nice). The field is nearly sharp to the edge and the image doesn't have an annoying yellow cast. I like the one piece body design but not the focus knob, which is too hard to reach due its small diameter and location on the center of the bridge. I much prefer the large focus wheel near the eyepiece as found on the Nobilem Super, which, by the way, is also more compact and easier to handle. The regular 7x50, 8x50, and 10x50 Nobilems have very long bodies in comparison and are all pretty much the same size and weight. I haven't seen the 8x56 Nobilem but it has a smaller field of view (52 degrees). I was able to look through a Nobilem 10x50 at Stephan Rohan's and was impressed by its very wide field (73 degree apparent) and fairly well corrected image. I am sorry now that I didn't pick up a pair back when Deutsche Optik was clearing them out. Fan Tao =============================================== Subject: Re: Olympus From: Fan Tao Review of Olympus 8x25 WideView Olympus has a line of WideView or "Wide PC" compact reverse porro binoculars featuring a wide field of view. I picked up a 8x25 model, there are also 10x25 and 8-15x25 (zoom) models. The 8x25 has a street price of about $120. The body is made of silver plastic with gray rubber grips, much like you would find on a camcorder. The focus knob is large and easy to use and moves the objectives to focus. I was able to focus down to less than 10 feet. The field of view is 9 degrees (72 apparent), fully illuminated, and with the sliding eyecups down I was just able to make out the field edge with glasses on (the eyerelief is rated at 12mm and the eyecups are soft so they don't scratch your glasses). With such a wide field of view, I was not surprised that the field is quite blurry towards the edge. However, I was able to get the edge quite sharp by refocusing several diopters. This to me indicates that a curved field is the major culprit. The WideViews are advertised to have aspheric eyepieces, and the designers must have corrected for astigmatism but ended up with major field curvature. Also, the field curvature in my sample is not symmetrical. That is, the field edge is more sharply in focus in some directions than in others. I have also seen this anomaly in a pair of Docter 8x32 Aspheres, (not as ugly to my eyes as to Peter's) and can only attribute it to an imperfectly made aspheric surface. ==================================================== Subject: Baker Eyeshields From: Fan Tao I was able to complete my collection of Burris Fullfields with a 7x35 (no longer produced) from eBay. A previous owner was serious enough to glue down the rubber eyecups and add a Baker eyeshield. I was wondering about the history of the Baker eyeshield. It is listed on Baker Marine's website, does anyone know if they are responsible for the name? The Bausch & Lomb 7x50 Mark 41 is of course famous for having a rubber eyeshield on it. Is that its first application? Fan Tao === From: Peter Abrahams Is the eyeshield on their website very similar to the Mk 41? I don't have one to compare. I wouldn't think that just because the model on their web site is a 'Baker eyeshield', that the WWII model is a 'Baker'. Was it referred to as Baker back then? http://www.bakermarineusa.com/group2binoc.htm#eyeshield http://www.bakermarineusa.com/faceshield.htm === From: Fan Tao My Mk41 is missing the rubber eyeshield but comparing the pictures of it in Seeger's book with the ones on my Burris, they are certainly not identical. I had thought that "Baker" was a generic term for rubber eyeshields and did not know if it was a manufacturer's name. I have no idea what they called them in WWII, I was wondering that myself. Fan ======================================================== Subject: Repair From: SmashMN@___m Second the reccommendation on Cory Suddarth at Suddarth Optical. I have sent him three or four glasses in the last few months for c&c and some cosmetic touchups, and have found him fast, responsible and highly competent. Marc Norman ======= Subject: Repair There are a 6 or 7 repairmen and restorers on this list. I haven't listed them all, I think they can list themselves & that way I won't make any mistakes or list someone who'd rather keep things quiet. So, if you accept repair work, let us know. Deutsche Optik has a list of repairmen on their web site; slightly out of date but useful. http://www.deutscheoptik.com/repair_services.htm Baker Marine Instruments, Brian Osterberg, 2425 Shelter Island Drive, San Diego, Ca 92106, Phone: 619-222-8096, Fax: 222-9713, Email: bmi-r@___l.net Koehler Instrument, Herb Koehler, 630 East Rockland Rd., Libertyville, IL 60048, Phone/Fax 1-847-362-7757 Mirakel Optical Company, Dan Robino, 331 Masion Street, West Coxsackie, NY 12192, Phone: 1-888-647-2535 A & B Optical Repairs. 10475 Glenellen Ave, San Diego, CA 92126, Phone: 1-858- 693-4016, Email: Binorepair@___com Mountain Optics, Dan Baldwin, 30 Bass Lake Court, Kalispell, MT 59901, Phone: 1- 877-756-2466 Fax: 406-756-8880, Email: mtnoptic@___a.com Oceanview Instruments, Bill Hartong, 2523 West Pacific Coast Hwy., Newport Beach, Ca 92663, Phone: 949-646-3275, Fax: 949-646-3276 Osborn Optical Systems, Earl Osborn, 3507 221st Avenue SE, Issaquah, Wa 98029, Phone: 425-369-6085, Fax: 425-369-6077, Email: optical-repair@___.net , rangefinders, riflescopes, telescopes Strain Night Vision, Mark Strain, 2147 Torrance St., Simi Valley, Ca 93065, Phone: 1-805-527-2917 ================================================ From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@___ne.de Subject: Re: Zeiss Jena Nobilems The current nobilems are pictured here: http://www.pmcammo.com/menu2.html http://www.waffenmarkt.ch/seiten/dofeno.htm But I also found this: http://www.scopecity.com/Products/binoculr/doc/nobil.htm Overall size and location/dimension of the focussing knob are the same, respectively, but the weight is less. And I like the tradional design. I found no reference to a "Super-Nobilem". Hans-Peter ============================================= Subject: Docter / Zeiss From: "Bill Cook" >>>Regarding the recent Binocular List references to the Docter (aka Zeiss/Jena)<<< When my mother was trying to teach me about cheaters, she said, "Billy, sometimes there is as much in keeping score as there is in playing the game." Docter Optik has done well with some Zeiss oriented nomenclature; and they DID purchase a great deal of Jena stuff some time back. However, Docter and Zeiss are no more related than Ford and Chevy. Just a thought, Bill Cook, Opticalman Chief, USNR-Ret. ================================================ Subject: Opticalmen of the U.S. Navy and other navies From: Peter Abrahams Part of the history of the binocular concerns the U.S. Navy Opticalman rating, now 'disestablished' (Navy phrase for killed off), but at one time the Navy's repair personnel for optical instruments. Many of the Navy's bases and major ships had binocular repair facilities. I do not know of a history of this rating, but I'd like to begin one by gathering information, especially on the schools & training facilities used to prepare the OMs. There is a group of ex-OMs, the OM/IM Association: http://omim.base.org/ Of course, the binocular repair corps of other U.S. military services, and of the militaries of other countries, are of equal interest. Some of the patches on the uniforms of OMs are shown at: http://home.europa.com/~telscope/ompatch.jpg 136 kb Left to right: --WWII era OM chief. --1980s dress uniform? (What's the proper name for this patch?) --Chief Petty Officer Opticalman, khaki bullion used until 1975, made by Gemsco in 1960s, .999 silver, replaced by silver thread in the early 1980s. Then we have this patch, which I was told was a US Navy rating from the late 1860s. I am not at all convinced that is accurate, but have no evidence on the question: http://home.europa.com/~telscope/usnrate.jpg =============================================== Subject: Re: Docter 7x40 From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@___ne.de Regarding my yellow tinted 7x40, Docter confirmed that about until 1993 yellow tinted prisms were used, for the originally intended military use to enhance contrast. Current production 7x40s, looking at civilian users and most probably after the stock of yellow tinted prisms had been exhausted, have conventional, clear prisms (without phase correcting coatings). At a shop I compared my newly acquired 7x40 with a current Zeiss 7x42 B/GA T*P*, both handheld, at a hazy, late afternoon and looking down a street in town. The Zeiss had a noticeably wider field of view, but, at least under these conditions, could not resolve more details. And I must confess the yellow tint was sort of comfortable in that situation. Or do I try to justify my purchase ex-post? At home I repeated the comparison, but this time at a clear early afternoon, resting the binos on a solid tripod and looking at traffic signs with small print at about 200m distance. I couldn't take home the Zeiss, so I used my Leica 8x20 BCA (current, with phase correcting coatings) as the reference. I doubt that there is trade-off between size of objectives and resolution, but I stand corrected. At least it was bright daylight, Docter and Leica looked equally bright. Despite the handicap in power, 7x versus 8x, I again found that the Docter is at least not inferior. In addition the lack of flare in the 7x40 is remarkable. Hans-Peter ==================================================== Subject: Canadian binoculars From: Clive.Law@___maeci.gc.ca BOP - explained: As part of a Canadian Army standardisation programme for all manufacturers and makes/marks of No. 2 binoculars, Beaconing Optical & Precision Materials of Ganby, QC (BOP) was approached to modify three (3) binoculars, Prismatic, No 2 Mk 2, manufactured by Universal Camera (USA). These were serial numbers 11510, 14451 and 12721. The modifiations included work on; Axles, Hinges, Prism mounting plate, and; Fixing (cementing) the Prism. My documents show that the work was done for a cost of $280.00 "however the price for a quantity job will be considerably reduced". This implies that a wide-ranging programme was contemplated. My copy of the original drawing clearly shows the BOP/Canada truncated oval logo. You wrote "The rest of the markings are rather plain-jane. " C.G.B. 37 MA --- 6X30 ---70094-C on one side and Graticule 5 Mils Apart --- R.E.L./Canada 1945 on the other. The case is also marked with Z.L & T Ltd. 1943 along with the number 2103. The military stock number is F1-001765 with the description of Binocular, M12 (Canadian) 6X30." The "CGB37MA" is the Canadian Ordnance Catalog number (pre-NSN)and identifies them as "Binocular, prismatic, C No. 2 Mk. 2C with a Chinese pattern Mil scale*, separate eyepiece, manufactured by Research Enterprises Ltd., The "MA" means that it was issued without a case while a "GA" suffix would indicate issue with a case (this obviously became confusing when cases were added/lost, etc. so the suffix was later omitted.) This pattern of binocular was later modified by changing the graticule to a mil and range scale** and the model was then known as the "Binocular, prismatic, No 2 Cdn Mk 2/5". Obviously 6x30 is the power, 70094C is the serial number, R.E.L. is self-explanatory as is the date of manufacture. The case was manufactured by Zephyr Loom & Textile in 1943 The number refers to the binocular which should be mated to it. Your line "Binocular M12" should read "Binocular Mk2) * C Mil identifies the the graticule as consisting of 9 vertical lines measured in mils, no degrees. ** Mil & Range scale graticule has both a scaled horizontal grid and a scaled vertical grid Best wishes, Clive (Clive is not on the list but responded to some questions.) ==================================================== ===================================================== Binocular List #155: 12 February 2001 ===================================================== Subject: GA and MA Canadian suffixes From: SCSambrook@___m Whilst I can't be sure about GA and MA suffixes on Canadian binoculars, my understanding of their meaning on British-made instruments is that they signify the nature of the design drawings relative to the particular pattern. For example: Army optical instruments were all identified as Optical Stores ( OS ) and given a 'Number' designation. Binoculars in general service in WW2 were designated Number 2 ( 6x 30) and Number 5 (7x 50). These designations are always written in Arabic numbers. Variations were allocated ' Mark ' numbers, usually written in Roman numerals, but later in the war sometimes given in Arabic numerals. Binocs being overhauled and refinished might be seen with later-style mark numbers in place of their original markings. OS 108 MA appearing on a Kershaw-made Binocular No.2 Mk II would stand for Optical Store : Drawing number 108 showing the main arrangement of the design. OS 419 MA appearing on a Ross-made Binocular No.5 Mk V would stand for Optical Store : Drawing number 419 showing the main arrangement of the design. OS 735 GA appearing on a Ross-made Binocular No. 5 Mk IV (sic) which had been overhauled and re-marked would indicate a later drawing showing the general arrangement of some subsequently revised aspects of the earlier model - possibly relating to something so minor as the way markings were to be applied after re- finishing.. Gun sights, rangefinders and telescopic rifle sights also show similar OS numbers and suffixes, but not normally on optical items made specifically for the Air Ministry ( i.e Royal Air Force) or the Admiralty (i.e. Royal Navy). The former would carry an ' AM ' type number, and the latter an ' AP ' (for Admiralty Pattern) designation. British-made glasses for the War Office (i.e the Army) had to conform precisely to an optical specification, but less closely as to the mechanical arrangements. Drawings showing how the instrument should generally be constructed were provided, and contractors left to finalise their own detailed arrangements. Efforts were made to achieve some interchageability of mechanical components, but this seems to have been only partly successful. I can't be sure if the same applied to Canadian-made glasses, and I admit never having previously heard of the two designations refering to the presence or absence of carrying cases. However, I welcome any corrections if I am in error. Cheers Stephen ============================================ Subject: Mk 41 Eyeshield vs Baker Eyeshield From: "Oy Shalom" B&L MK 41 Eyeshield vs. Baker Eyeshield Let there be no confusion on the Baker Eyeshield, it resembles nothing of the B&L Mk. 41 Eyeshield. The Baker Eyeshield is a copy, based on the Barr & Stroud Ltd. Eyeshield, that went to the 80 cm & 100cm Rangefinders. This Eyeshield was to fit the Rangefinder, Left Eye: Read, Range Scale, Right Eye: Dialed in Range. These were "original issue" with all B&S Rangefinders. Note that few remained with the Barr & Stroud Rangefinder as they were subject to harden and breakdown from ozone, sun and petro- based oils. The Zeiss Rangefinder, 80 cm and 100 cm's had a similar Rubber arrangement, but nowhere near as functional or versatile as the Barr & Stroud Design. Naturally, Baker probably through Naval Contracts, picked up on this by adapting it to binoculars and re-entering it into production. A "bang-up" idea on their part, And to be congratulated for doing so. The B&L Mk 41, is based on a one piece, approximately 3/8" thick rubber hood, forming a "C" configuration. This was secured with screws to each prism Cover Plate. If the Baker will fit the Mk.41, even with a little help, although not "historically correct." It would be a much better arrangement and "Field Modification" than the Original Mk 41 design, that really sucked ...in the body contortions one would have make, to view with it in place. The Mk. 41 Rubber Eyeshield Hood, design engineering must have been done and submitted on a Friday or Monday, I have seen very few foreheads that it could fit and accommodate the user for any serious and long term observation. Long Term defined here, is over five minutes. ================================================ Subject: Rockwood's binocular telescopic spectroscope, 1878 From: Peter Abrahams There is a web site at the University of Michigan called the 'Making of America', where they have electronic versions of 8,500 books and 50,000 journal titles. http://moa.umdl.umich.edu/ I searched it for 'binocular' and 'binoculars', and found some good material on binocular microscopes, nothing on binoculars, but a very interesting note on a binocular telescopic spectroscope, used by C.G Rockwood at the solar eclipse of 1878 to view the spectral lines of the chromosphere. This was described by C.A. Young in 'The Recent Solar Eclipse', found in 'The Princeton Review' vol. 2 (1878), p881: "Professor Rockwood had an instrument devised expressly for the purpose, consisting of a binocular telescope with a pair of large prisms before the object glasses: with this the bright lines of the chromosphere were beautifully shown at the beginning and end of totality. -- the H lines among others, and a red line very near B, which is rarely seen; but nothing like a coronal ring could be made out with certainty. A trace of a green ring was suspected at one time, but it was not distinct enough to admit of satisfactory observation." The NY Times, in an article quoted below, described it as follows: "The other is a binocular telescope, with a pair of 30 degree prisms long enough to cover both object glasses." ====================================================== Subject: Edmund quitting consumer optics, company history Feb. 2001. Edmund Scientific Corp. of Barrington, New Jersey....after serving the amateur community for nearly a half century, the company's long involvement in consumer telescopes has come to an end. On February 1st the parent company, Edmund Optics, announced that Edmund Scientific has been sold to Science Kit & Boreal Laboratories, which supplies materials and equipment to science teachers throughout the United States. "Science Kit will continue to offer the entire Edmund Scientific product line for at least a year," says Nicole Edmund, vice president for marketing at Edmund Optics, including the 4-inch Astroscan 2001 telescope. "We'll continue to manufacture Astroscan mirrors here in Barrington." Headquartered in Tonawanda, New York, Science Kit hopes to use the Edmund line as a springboard into the consumer retail market. Norman W. Edmund, an amateur photographer, began selling war-surplus optics in 1942 and eventually turned Edmund Scientific into a large mail-order retailer. His son, Robert, took over the business in the early 1970s and attempted to become a major player in the amateur-telescope market. "We started manufacturing optics in 1976," he said during a recent interview for Photonics Spectra magazine, "because we couldn't find anyone to make the parabolic mirrors for us." But consumer sales lagged behind expectations, and the company redirected its energies toward manufacturing industrial optics. By the late 1990s virtually all of its telescopes and astronomical products, like eyepieces and mirror-making kits, had been dropped from its popular consumer catalog. (Sky & Telescope news bulletin) =============================================== Subject: Binocular Repair Add to the list of repairmen: Jim Rose jkrvanc@___m 360-882-1853 (Vancouver, Washington) Specializes in US Navy & other military binoculars, will also work on civilian & German (WWII & prior), and Japanese WWII glass. A few years ago, Jim retired as civilian supervisor for the Navy's Long Beach optical repair shop. ========================================================== Subject: OM schools From: Peter Abrahams During a phone conversation with Jim Rose, I took the following notes -- there could possibly be some transcription errors: The OM rate for opticalmen started in 1947. During WWII, instrumentmen (IM rate) repaired typewriters, etc. & optics. There were three classes of schools for OMs: A school: basic, binoculars, alidades, sextants, machinist skills. Great Lakes main school, smaller school in Pensacola Florida, later the Great Lakes school was moved to Florida. B school: rangefinders. Located at the Naval Gun Factory in Washington DC, closed in the early 1960s. Students had to be ranked 2nd class or higher. C school: periscopes. Located at New Groton Conn, where the Kollmorgen factory that made USN periscopes was sited. Students had to be ranked 2nd or 1st class. There was also training at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, on general optics for rangefinder operators; 100 operators for 4 battleships were trained. The U.S. Army optical repair school at Aberdeen would sometimes train repairmen for the Marines, who used tanks & field artillery, not utilized by the Navy. ========================================================= Subject: FDR signed letter to binocular donor From: "Launie, Kenneth J" This may be of interest to someone on the Binocular List, as it illustrates how SOME of the binoculars used by the military were acquired during WW1 (plus it includes a W&S manual as well). --Ken FDR WWI Letter. Navy Department - December 28, 1917. "Dear Sir, Your prompt and patriotic response to the NAVY's call for binoculars, telescopes, and spy-glasses, is most appreciated. The glasses will be very useful in the prosecution of Naval Operations until victory is won. At the termination of the war, if possible, every effort will be made to return them to you, when it is hoped that you will feel compensated for any evidence of wear, by the knowledge that you have supplied "Eyes for the NAVY" during a very trying period. On behalf of the NAVY, I wish to thank you most heartily. Very respectfully, [signed] Franklin D. Roosevelt Assistant Secretary of the Navy." The letter is accompanied by a brochure for Warner and Swasey Prism Field Glass. ---------- A couple of weeks ago, this same seller had another FDR signed acknowledgement for a donated binocular, this one part of a collection of papers on the binocular in question (an uninteresting Galilean field glass), with a $3,000. minimum for the auction -- it didn't sell. FDR signatures from when he was Secretary of the Navy are supposed to be very scarce. I'd have thought that the Secretary of the Navy, during a World War, would be too busy to sign courtesy letters. --Peter --------- F D Roosevelt Letter and WWI Binoculars A typed letter, on printed letterhead "Navy Department, Assistant Secretary's Office, Washington" dated "March 20, 1918", hand signed in dark ink at the bottom: "F D Roosevelt". In response to the war effort, Navy Department's "Bureau of Supplies and Accounts", Roosevelt had written: "Your prompt and patriotic response to the NAVY's call for binoculars, telescopes, and spy-glasses, is most appreciated. The glasses will be very useful in the prosecution of Naval Operations until victory is won. At the termination of the war, if possible, every effort will be made to return them to you, when it is hoped that you will feel compensated for any evidence of wear, by the knowledge that you have supplied "Eyes for the NAVY" during a very trying period. On behalf of the NAVY, I wish to thank you most heartily" Binoculars marked "Joseph Bliss & Co., New York" A typed letter "Captain, E. Mc Caulny, Jr., "U.S.S. George Washington", dated "October 20, 1919" addressed to the Manager of the donor's (binocular's) estate reads: I am returning under separate cover the binoculars which you so kindly loaned to the U.S. Navy during its emergency. These glasses have been in constant use on the ship's bridge since their receipt, during which time events have transpired which add to their value historically. They were in use on the evening of July 1, 1918, when the U.S.S. Covington was torpedoed, sinking the following day off Brest, France. This vessel was flagship of the convoy of which the Covington was a part. The President and party have made two passages on board the George Washington and the glasses are still in service at the conclusion of the voyage of the King and Queen of Belgium to The United States. This vessel has been chosen to carry most of the distinguished officials and delegations to and from Europe. With the assurance that the binoculars were urgently needed and used to great advantage, and thanking you for their use, both during the war and since the signing of the armistice, I am, with appreciation.." ================================================ ===================================================== Binocular List #156: 19 February 2001 ==================================================== Subject: Visit to the I.O.R. factory shop in Bucharest, Romania From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@___ne.de This afternoon I visited the I.O.R. factory shop, located opposite the National Stadium in Bucharest (Str. Bucovina 4), to to look through their 8x30 and 7x40 binoculars. Their asking prices were USD218 and USD224, inclusive of 19% VAT which you may (or maybe not) get reimbursed at the airport, when leaving the country. Initially my interest was with the 8x30 which is, as I now do believe, a rubber armoured and water proofed version of the Zeiss/Jena Deltrentis. At least for me and on the sample I checked the eye relief was useless. Although I made clear that I have strong astigmatism (-5.25 cylindrical diopters), I want and need to use it with spectacles, the one English speaking employee did not stop trying. So I switched to the 7x40 which appears to be the sibling of the Carl Zeiss Jena DF 7x40 (the porro prismed predecessor of the EDF 7x40, mind the extra “E”). The spec sheet claimed 8° field of view (compared to some 7.5° for my Docter 7x40), but not for me. Although much better in this respect than the 8x30, with spectacles I could not see the full field of view with the black bordering mask. Moreover, I could not get the rubber eye cups to stay fold down and even then the glass of my spectacles rested on a sharp metal rim. For proper use with spectacles I would have to trim the eye cups with scissors. At least the sample in the show room had developed cracks, from folding/unfolding. But the overall image quality was excellent, pretty much in the same league as my Docter 7x40. A yellow tint was there, but less than on my pre-1993 Docter. I however had no chance to test suppression of flare, e.g. with some bright lights inside or outside the field of view. I also cannot comment on off-centre image quality, because the fov limitation with spectacles was too disturbing. The optics appeared flawless, but the exterior finish showed some “room for improvements”, e.g. few, little pieces of grid in the black paint finish, wrinkles and other imperfections in the rubber armour. Like on the Zeiss/Jena and Docter 7x40s the rubber armour is not glued or vulcanised on the metal, but is just fixed with clamps and pins. Back home in Germany, DM500 (USD230) could buy me a genuine Carl Zeiss Jena DF 7x40 in excellent condition and with all these military gimmicks to play with (rangefinder reticle, electric illumination for this, infrared detector). For DM600 (USD280) I could get the EDF. I was tempted to take home the 7x40, but as a collectible and toy I would prefer the Carl Zeiss Jena DF 7x40, as a user the Docter 7x40. Even with 19% VAT deducted and smuggled home, the I.O.R. 7x40 is a tad to expensive for an East-Block curiosity with design and quality quirks. And from outside Romania their factory warranty would be pretty much useless, not speaking of non-warranty repairs. The 8x30 is absolutely non-competitive for the asking price. Putting on oculars with better eye relief, if possible, would require some major surgery, and a substantial increase in cost of course. The 7x40, on the other hand, at least has some potential for improvements at moderate or no extra cost. After all, I.O.R.’s marketing activities are even below Docter’s. Apparently there is only that one factory shop in town. And I certainly do not understand their pricing strategy, 8x30 versus 7x40 and Bucharest factory shop versus US mail order dealers. But I understand why there is no official import to Germany. I would have liked to give a more positve comment and sypathise with the difficult economic condition of I.O.R., but facts are there. Hans-Peter, now web-mailing from Bucharest, Romania ======================================= Subject: USN OMs From: "Bill Cook" The first designation for Navy OMs was 'artificer.' Regards, William J. Cook, Opticalman Chief USNR-Ret. ======================================= Subject: Correction to your list item re Kollmorgen plant at New Groton. From: "Richard Martin" There is a Groton Ct. where the Electric Boat Company is located (and presumably where the Kollmorgan plant was also - do not remember that) and a New London CT. across the Thames river from the EB and also extending upstream where the USN Submarine Base was located on the opposite river side from the Coast Guard academy. The base Engineering & Repair Dept. had a Navy Optical & Periscope shop which I recollect from 40 years ago was called shop 66. Maybe some of your OM's retired can confirm that number. Dick Martin ======================================== Subject: Baker Eye shields From: "Richard Martin" These are perfect fit for the B&L Mark 91 Target Bearing Transmitter pressure proof, fixed bridge mounted binoculars used for surface torpedo firing on WWII Fleet type submarines. In fact they have the same appearance as original equipment. No difference at all from the pair that I have. Regards Dick ===================================================== ===================================================== Binocular List #157: 28 Feb. 2001 ====================================== Subject: Nobilem From: Thomas Press tpress@___le.edu Apropos of the recent flurry of Binocular List interest in East Bloc binoculars, I noticed a recent eBay listing for an 8 x 50 Zeiss Jena Nobilem Super (purportedly much different from later Nobilems, Octarems etc) which failed to meet the reserve dispite nosebleed bidding levels. I wonder if any of the readers of the List know anything about the binocular, what makes it special and whether it really is worth the expected reserve price (approx. $1000 is my guess). Regards, Tom =============================================== Subject: Nobilem Spezial From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@___ne.de I indeed purchased the 8x50 B/GA, but it is of course the regular Nobilem from the early 1990s with the ribbed rubber armour. The dimensions and weight are similar to the Docter Classics, but the oculars are good for use with spectacles. Possibly this is the only difference to the Classic line, but very important to me and certainly worth a higher price. I find the image quality very good. Contrast and antiglare coating are not quite up to the level of my Docter 7x40, but compete very well with my Leica 8x20 BCA. 122m field of view at 1000m is not great, but seems to be in line with current, even much more expensive 8x50 glasses. Apparently 50mm objectives are generally optimised for 10x power. By choosing lower power you get a larger exit pupil, but you don’t gain much field of view. I was very much surprised how the wider spacing of the objectives is actually enhancing the three-dimensional view. The body is wider (200mm), but not heavier (1070g) than the slim 8x50 roof prisms from Leica or Swarovski which however have internal focus and claim full water pressure proofing. I also find the wider porro prism body offers a nice grip. Now I am curious how the Docter would hold up against the Leica 8x50. If I had had the choice I would have preferred a 10x50 or even 12x50, but for the moment it was a good chance to buy a new quality binocular in that range, with classic features (porro prisms, ribbed rubber armour, centre focus) and for an attractive price. The very same dealer also had a Docter 8x30 Classic which is the most classic binocular of all. The eye cups on the Docter fold down, but I believe not enough for actual use with spectacles. And I don’t want to put together collectibles for display, only. Even then it should be Zeiss/Jena and not Docter. Sadly there is no 8x30 Nobilem with proper B oculars for use with spectacles. 8x30 is such a popular size. But Docter’s 8x32 and 10x42 roof prism binoculars, with or without aspherical lenses, for their asking price are not really competitive with corresponding Leicas made in Portugal. Hans-Peter ====================================================== Subject: Manual for Zeiss rangefinder From: "jean-laurent" Please ,maybe someone could help me to find a copy of the handbook concerning the use of the OEM-2 Zeiss military rangefinder ? It is a rangefinder used by the ex ddr army, made in the seventies, base 52 cm, magnification of 14 . All informations about this optic are welcome. thanks jl Pernice ============================================= Subject: teletur 8x From: rcbibbo this zeiss glass has a very unusal conection on the objectives. have you seen anything like this? i showed this to helmut mollar. it has not been mickey moused. it's original. the top screw doesnt do anything. might be screw for attaching a bracket to objective lenseses. this is 8x not 6x. if you need more pics or info let me know. thanks bob bibb http://home.europa.com/~telscope/bnc.jpg 22 kb http://home.europa.com/~telscope/bnd.jpg 20 kb ============================================ Subject: Tasco 7 x 35 From: Dick Recently, I acquired a Tasco 7x35 with 12.5 degree field of view, a uniquely good design compared with the mass of second-rate stuff that has those same general specifications. Because the eyelenses showed surface deterioration caused by exposure to the elements and to the eye and its lashes, it seemed desirable to repolish those exterior flat surfaces. Steve Stayton was kind enough to do the disassembly, which allowed us a chance to study the optical design in broad strokes. The eyepiece configuration, from the field stop, consists of two positive singlets, a doublet with the flint facing the eye, and a plano convex lens with the flat side facing the eye. Measurement of the spacers suggest that this Tasco design is IDENTICAL to the Sans & Streiffe Model #999, older version. The Tasco frame is stamped B160/E32, while the S&S is stamped B52/E32. Note that another copy of the S&S 999 had identical stampings to the earlier version, but was a completely different and inferior optical design. The same may apply to other versions of the Tasco, so buyers are cautioned that identical stampings are no assurance that the preferred version is in hand. Regards, Dick Buchroeder ============================================ Subject: German patent numbers From: Peter Abrahams German patent numbers: Year, Patent-Number 1877, 1-3000 1878, 3001-5000 1879, 5001-8500 1880, 8501-12000 1881, 12001-16550 1882, 16551-20450 1883, 20451-25400 1884, 25401-30000 1885, 30001-34100 1886, 34101-38000 1887, 38001-41900 1888, 41901-45650 1889, 45651-50100 1890, 50101-55050 1891, 55051-60450 1892, 60451-66400 1893, 66401-72650 1894, 72651-78900 1895, 78901-84750 1896, 84751-90050 1897, 90051-95550 1898, 95551-100850 1899, 100851-107550 1900, 107551-116550 1901, 116551-126750 1902, 126751-137900 1903, 137901-147200 1904, 147201-157600 1905, 157601-166800 1906, 166801-180000 1907, 180001-193700 1908, 193701-205450 1909, 205451-217500 1910, 217501-229650 1911, 229651-242250 1912, 242251-255200 1913, 255201-268800 1914, 268801-281500 1915, 281501-289550 1916, 289551-295850 1917, 295851--302850 1918, 302851-310000 1919, 310001-317800 1920, 317801-331100 1921, 331101-346500 1922, 346501-366200 1923, 366201-387500 1924, 387501-407750 1925, 407751-423350 1926, 423351-439050 1927, 439051-454200 1928, 454201-470000 1929, 470001-488500 1930, 488501-516550 1931, 516551-541000 1932, 541001-567400 1933, 567401-590400 1934, 590401-607550 1935, 607551-623700 1936, 623701-640400 1937, 640401-654900 1938, 654901-669650 1939, 669651-687300 1940, 687301-700850 1941, 700851-715350 1942, 715351-729850 German patents start in the year 1877. The table gives the relation between patent number and year of notification until 1942. Thereafter there is obviously no simple association until approximately 1970. "Gebrauchsmuster" = registered trade mark, which has a much lower level than a patent. D.R. or D.R.P. (Deutsches Reichs-Patent) and D.R.G.M. (Deutsches Reichs- Gebrauchsmuster) stopped being issued at the end of World War II. After 1970, the first two numbers of the "Gebrauchsmuster" correspond to the year of notification. In the case of patents, you have to add 50 to the first two numbers of the patent to get the year: 33 14 234 means 1983. Werner H. Rudowski, Bochum, Germany From: The Journal of the Oughtred Society, vol. 2, no. 2, Oct. 1993, page 13. ----------- German Patent office (info@___-und-markenamt.de)in Munich have full descriptions of the "Deutsches Reich Gebrauchsmuster" (German Empire Utility Model). ======================== Subject: British patents From: Peter Abrahams Can anyone provide a more complete list than this, or clarify the meaning of 'Registration Number'? British Patent Office Registration Numbers and Dates Rd No 1 from JANUARY 1884 Rd No 19754 from JANUARY 1885 Rd No 40480 from JANUARY 1886 Rd No 64520 from JANUARY 1887 Rd No 90483 from JANUARY 1888 Rd No 116648 from JANUARY 1889 Rd No 141273 from JANUARY 1890 Rd No 163767 from JANUARY 1891 Rd No 185713 from JANUARY 1892 Rd No 205240 from JANUARY 1893 Rd No 224720 from JANUARY 1894 Rd No 246975 from JANUARY 1895 Rd No 268392 from JANUARY 1896 Rd No 291241 from JANUARY 1897 Rd No 311658 from JANUARY 1898 Rd No 331707 from JANUARY 1899 Rd No 351202 from JANUARY 1900 Rd No 368154 from JANUARY 1901 Rd No 385500* from JANUARY 1902 Rd No 402500* from JANUARY 1903 Rd No 420000* from JANUARY 1904 Rd No 447000* from JANUARY 1905 Rd No 471000* from JANUARY 1906 Rd No 484000* from JANUARY 1907 Rd No 519500* from JANUARY 1908 Rd No 550000* from JANUARY 1909 *approximate numbers ========================================================== ================================================ Binocular List #158: 01 March 2001. ==================================== Subjekt: Teletur 8 X From: l.helling@___ne.de (Helling) My Zeiss Fernrohrlupe (binocular-magnifier) 6X15 has a screw like the Teletur 8X at your list # 157. At my scan you can see how this binoculars were used as a "binokulare Fernrohrlupe". It is from the book: Dr. P. Hatschek, Optik für Praktiker, 1948. Much regards Lothar Helling http://home.europa.com/~telscope/b-lupe.jpg 66 kb ============= Subject: Zeiss Teletur From: "BINOCS" The Zeiss Teletur that Bob Bibb asked about is genuine Zeiss article. The special machined rings on the objective lens accepted a pair of close-up lenses. This allowed the binocular to be used in the field for close observation. In addition, a separate stand was available to mount the binocular as a field microscope, thus the special chrome knob at the ocular end of the instrument. I have attached a picture of the Teletur with the close-up lens in place. There is also a good picture of this in the Zeiss 1920/21 catalog on page 42. The one question that I cannot answer pertains to the 8X marking. The Teletur was a 6X glass and I cannot find anything in my literature that describes an 8X Teletur. You can also look on page 47 of the 1923 catalog for an expanded explanation of both close-up and microscope attachment lenses. Zeiss also makes reference to a flyer titled "Med. 3" for further applications of this type. It is quite possible that the specialty department of Zeiss modified a Teletur to provide 8X since the higher magnification would result in a much higher microscope power from the same set of attachment lenses. The protrusion at the objective end of Bob's glass would indicate that the glass was designed to fit into a specific mount of some kind and thus was probably intended to be used as a field or clinical microscope of higher power. Regards, Jack http://home.europa.com/~telscope/teletur.jpg ============================================== Subject: Parts From: SrsIII353@___m with regard to the m3 parts; i. miller in philly and mirakel in ny both used to have extensive stocks of spares for most us military binos. you might give them a call. =================================================== Subject: Nobilem Spezial From: SrsIII353@___m with regard to mr. press' questions about the nobilem spezial and super recently listed on ebay; those were my listings. the 12x50 spezial was sold having met reserve while the 8x50b super is still available. the difference between the super and spezial series with the later nobilems is considerable. they use a totally different design using much larger prisms, wideangle eyepieces, and an old style zeiss prism mounting system nothing like the cemented prisms used on the doctor and pre-doctor (czj) nobilems. zeiss made these in very limited numbers until the late 1980's when they discontinued production due to high cost of manufacture. at that point they renamed their octarem and dodecarem models as nobilems. i know this as at the time i owned a small company by the name of europtic which imported czj binoculars into the us under the aus jena name. the super and spezial series are very uncommon and almost never seen which is what accounts for the prices they bring. the 12x is perhaps the best high power hand held glass czj ever made. the body design is similar to the west zeiss products of the late 50's and 1960's except that the super and spezial bodies are larger to accomodate the bigger prisms. hope this helps. srsbino--steve stimson. ============== Subject: Zeiss Jena 8X50 B Super and 12X50 B Spezial From: "Steve Harris" I was offered approximately a dozen of each of these models by a German military surplus dealer in 1993. At the time, the dealer claimed that he could not give them away in Germany due to the poor reputation of Zeiss Jena products. The German retail was approx. $310 US for the 8X50 B Super and $350 for the 12X50 B Spezial. Specs provided to me indicate a FOV for the Super of 140m at 1000m and the Spezial with 95m at 1000m. Unfortunately, my offer for the lot was a bit low, and did not win the glasses. I must say it is rather interesting to see how the perceived value of these binoculars has increased over time. They both are rather nice binoculars for daily use and make very infrequent appearances on Ebay. The big oculars and reasonable eye relief on the Super make for a much more friendly glass to use over the 1957-69 Oberkochen 8X50 with its poor eye relief, small oculars, and 130m FOV. Certainly in defense of the West German design, if you can tolerate the poor eye relief and small oculars of 1957-69 Oberkochen series, take a look at the 10X50. It has a big 130m FOV (~74 AFOV) and is extremely compact due to its tele-objective construction. On a buying trip in England in 1996, I noticed a large number of the Jena binocs in the markets for rock bottom prices. One infamous binocular dealer operating on Portobello Road was somewhat swamped with Jena production binoculars that he could not sell. I was able to pick up a really nice pair of used Super's for around 100 pounds or $160 US. At the time, this dealer was also complaining of poor craftsmanship problems associated with the Zeiss Jena binoculars made in the 1980's. While the Jena factory may have had some brief quality control problems, I am more inclined to think that this was largely an incorrectly percieved image problem associated with East German products in general, especially after the reunification. The pair of Super's that I had were very well constructed and of high quality. Maybe someone on the list can elaborate on actual or perceived quality control problem that the Jena factory had in the 1980's. Regards, Steve Harris =============== Subject: 8x50 Nobilem Super From: Fan Tao The reason that the Zeiss Jena 8x50 Nobilem Super is priced so high is its rarity. In the U.S. at least, very few were imported, according to the U.S. agent I spoke to. They may have been more available in Europe, but I remember Terry Vacani saying that they also didn't sell well there. I believe that they were a premium product that Zeiss Jena only produced for a short time due to their high cost and poor sales. As for whether they are worth it, they are similar in performance to the highly regarded regular Nobilem series with the advantages of wider field (about 64 degrees apparent vs. 59 degrees) and a more compact size. The eye relief is not specified but I would estimate it at around 17mm (I would prefer a few more mm). Around $1000 may be a lot of money, but modern 8x50 binoculars from Zeiss, Leica, and Swarovksi are in the same price range and in my opinion, have not improved much in the last 20 years. In fact today's 8x50 glasses from these sources have an apparent field of view of 60 degrees or less and no better edge correction. In summary, if you wouldn't mind paying $1000 for a modern set of binoculars, or if you're interested in a collectible model, you won't be disappointed with the Nobilem Super. Otherwise, don't bother, you probably wouldn't find them anything special. Fan Tao ============================================= Subject: The List From: Peter Abrahams We now have 103 members. Keep the emails coming in. I can put out more frequent lists if desired; I've tried to balance frequency of issue with a 'critical mass' of content. I know a lot of you have questions & observations, so why not take a moment to put them out to the world? The archives of this list have become a significant resource on the web -- many times, when I search the web for the answer to some question on binocular history, the archives will appear as a 'hit'. There will be 4 or 5 list members at a meeting of amateur telescope makers in Bellingham, Washington, March 31-April 1. http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~skywise/optics.html There will be a half dozen or more of us at a meeting in L.A. on May 28. Why not use the list to see if there's any other binocular collectors in your area? We can always use introductions. ================================================ ===================================================== Binocular List #159: 09 March 2001 ================================================== Subject: Zeiss Notarems From: SrsIII353@___m with regard to the quality problems of czj during the 1980's--overall the binoculars were of outstanding optical quality but of moderate mechanical quality except for the nobilem super and spezial series. the jenoptems only real problem was their prism mounting system which was pretty cheap even in the military version of the deltrintis. the 7x40, on the other hand, was built like a tank. the notarems were nice little glasses except for problems now and then with the internal focussing system-- optically they were very nice especially the edge performance. cosmetically the jenoptems--8x30, 7x50, and 10x50--could look pretty plain compared to western products. the enamel was pretty thin and rough on the metal parts. there were also products made for the east german navy which we never had access to or even were allowed to see in their product literature. we always wondered if they were still making any of the large glasses other than the 20/40x80 for the ddr navy. steve stimson. ============================================ Subject: Tests online From: Fan Tao There is now a review of the new Swift 8.5x44 Audubons at the BVD website: http://betterviewdesired.com/ This is one of the few high quality truly wide angle binoculars left in production. It looks like they have basically the same optics as the old Audubons with improved ergonomics and waterproofing. It's disappointing that the eye relief has not been improved, despite Swift's claims. Also, there is a test report of German and Austrian 8x50 & 8x56 binoculars at this web site: http://www.triebel.de/optik/fernglastest_8x56.htm It looks like it was excerpted from a German hunting magazine. For those of you who do not read German, you can use an online translator such as: http://www.systransoft.com/ Fan Tao ====================================== From: Thomas Press Thanks to Fan Tao and others for de-mystifying the Zeiss Jena 8 x 50 Nobilem Super. It's a shame the binocular has become so pricey to casual collectors as the appearance is certainly unusual - sort of a cross between the Bausch & Lomb unibody and the traditional Zeiss style body. I would be curious to know how the prism mounting is accomplished, and to what extent it differs from either the traditional B&L and Zeiss approaches. My own experience with postwar Zeiss Jena binoculars may be atypical, but is does give me some empathy with others skeptical of Zeiss Jena quality control. For example, the left telescope focus of my 10 x 40 Notarem failed 2 months after purchase, the right diopter ring refused to stay put on my 7 x 50 Binoctem, and my 8 x 30 Deltrintem seriously lost collimation after the most trivial of bumps in the field. All were new when purchased and all were interesting glasses. Had quality been better, I might have held on to some or all, but I actually enjoy using my binoculars, and these were simply too problematical. Regards, Tom ========================================== Subject: List archives From: "Robert B. Ariail" I am sure this is an 'old school quirk' coming out of me, but I for one prefer hard copy books, manuals, phamplets, etc. to disjointed e-mail for reference purposes. While I realize that there are those among you capable of loging data effectively on the computer for speedy reference; I like it all in front of me whereby several pages can be compared at once, immediate access is available from a shelf, etc. Has their been any consideration given to a hardcopy version to the Binocular List? By this, I do not mean a 'published book' as such. Rather a plastic or soft cover with quality photocopies or the like. These could be sold to list members and probably many others outside of the List purely on the basis of the sheer volume of data and expertise available in hand in a volume. A really fancy inclusion to a hardcopy volume would be a basic index which shouldn't be too difficult to prepare. Supplemental volumes could be issued every two to three years depending upon how many list were issued over a specific period. I am nearly certain this idea will meet with much resistance, but it doesn't hurt to give it a bit of thought. My premise is that a hard copy version would be quicker, easier, more effective and more often used that the process of pulling up individual lists in search of information remembered but not found. If there are List members who have solved the problem of quick and easy access to specific material within the lists on line, I would - for one - like to hear more about it. --Bob Ariail ------- From: Peter Abrahams >prefer hard copy books, manuals, phamplets, etc. to disjointed e-mail for reference purposes.< Sometimes it can be faster to find things on paper, certainly when there are many pages of images it's much easier to have them on paper. >consideration given to a hardcopy version to the Binocular List?< I have a printout of all lists. It is moderately small font, single spaced, narrow margins -- and over 300 pages. Given the disjointed nature of a discussion list, where topics are not sequentially ordered, it is really rather difficult to find material in it. If it were re-arranged by subject, a printout would be very useful indeed. >a basic index which shouldn't be too difficult to prepare.< That is the idea behind the 'subject:' headings I put on each email. However, I disagree that an index to a printed version would be easy to prepare, given that it has to point to a page. > I am nearly certain this idea will meet with much resistance< No resistance, it's an excellent idea & that's why I've written all those subject: headings, and why I've formatted the archives to be printable (many list members will note I've truncated long signatures & removed double spacing). >problem of quick and easy access to specific material within the lists on line< To get them 'off-line', download the large text files (archives) & save them. Open them in a word processor & search for the terms you need. In general.....the archives are there for the world to use, and I'm interested in any ideas to make them more useable. Peter ============================= Subject: Binocular Gregorian telescope circa 1765 I posted three images of a very beautiful binocular, made in the Gregorian telescope configuration, by James Short, circa 1765. According to Short scholar Rolf Willach, "As much as we know that is the only surviving binocular telescope from James Short, and possibly in general the only existing binocular reflecting telescope [of this great age]. One of the tubes is numbered 275/1307, the other 276/1308, the focal length of both mirrors is 9.5 inches and it was made appr. in 1765 and very probably on a special order." http://home.europa.com/~telscope/short1j.jpg 158kb http://home.europa.com/~telscope/short2j.jpg 136kb http://home.europa.com/~telscope/short3j.jpg 215kb (These images also appear in the new issue of the Journal of the Antique Telescope Society http://www.iRhino.com/oldscope/ The article on Short does not appear on the web site.) ==================================== ===================================================== Binocular List #160: 16 March 2001 ================================================== Subject: Hensoldt Pentaprism 4x18 Binocular From: Jack Kelley I just finished cleaning the Hensoldt Pentaprism 4x18 binoc. According to Seeger, this piece dates from about 1899-1900. The binocular has wide spaced objective lenses for enhanced stereo effect and was thus in violation of the Zeiss patent. Hensoldt felt that by using the pentaprism design they could avoid patent infringement but Zeiss challenged them and the model was quickly discontinued. My example is serial number 36. The glass is typically well made in the manner of the Zeiss glasses from this era. The pentaprism is mounted in a brass saddle which in turn is held in the binocular housing by a retaining ring threaded to the bottom of the saddle. The binocular is center focus which has to make it one of the earliest German center focus models. The body appears to be cast aluminum with brass hinge assembly, cover plates and ocular bridge. The ocular is a typical Kellner design. One face of the pentaprism is silvered. I have attached photos of the binoc and prism assembly along with a sketch of the prism depicting the light path. Regards, Jack Binocular: http://home.europa.com/~telscope/lugstr~1.jpg 30 kb Disassembled: http://home.europa.com/~telscope/disass~1.jpg 29 kb Diagram of optical layout: http://home.europa.com/~telscope/prismd~1.jpg 17 kb Prism with saddle & retainer: http://home.europa.com/~telscope/prismw~1.jpg 17 kb ======================================= Subject: Unidentified French twin telescope From: "Jack Kelly" Help needed identifying a typical twin erecting telescope made of aluminum,approximately 12X28. The only markings are: 'Bateman' The two circles represent the top of the eyecups with the typical lettering found engraved thereon. The R with triangle logo was found under the center bridge. The "French Made" marking is on one of the eyepiece tubes. http://home.europa.com/~telscope/unknow~1.jpg 23 kb http://home.europa.com/~telscope/unknow~2.jpg 27 kb ======================================= Subject: Tolerances for matching magnification From: Peter Abrahams Amateur made twin Newtonian telescopes are becoming more popular. One problem in fabricating these is grinding two mirrors to the same focal length. I wrote the following text to answer a question about just how exact the match needed to be. The difference in field isn't critical, but the difference in magnification between the two images is important. You can't merge two images into a binocular view if one of them is slightly larger, and tolerances for this are very tight (and can't be fixed by shifting the mirror in the tube). If one mirror is 64 inches and the other 63, using two 14mm eyepieces, you'd get 128x & 126x. There are standards for this, discussed on p740-1 of George Smith and David Atchison. The Eye and Visual Optical Instruments. Cambridge: C.U.P., 1997. 816p. One source says magnification differences of less than 0.75% are not clinically significant, between 1% and 3% symptoms appear, between 3% and 5% binocular vision begins to be impaired, and over 5% binocular vision is very poor or absent. US mil standards are 2%. Stereo resolution (perceiving distances) is linearly related to magnification differences. I think these tolerances are a bit loose for our applications. Consider binocular viewing of a globular cluster that fills a wide field eyepiece. If you change the magnification by 2% in the left eyepiece, will you be able to merge the images comfortably? Stars at the edge of the cluster would be moved out about 1/50 of the distance across the field. This could be tested with two barlows. Some people report significant differences between two 'identical' eyepieces; and there certainly are tolerances to how closely the marked focal length matches the true focal length. I have never had any problems with mismatched eyepieces, among the 20 or 30 pairs that I've tried, including pairs where one is made years after the other. But other people do have problems with this. Presumably there's a large degree of individual variation in 'sensitivity'. ======================================= Subject: Geneva Optical From: "Dan Weinstock" Living in Geneva, NY, I have been partial to Geneva Optical Company products. Though not a Zeiss or Leitz, their "Superior" glasses are of decent quality, made with Jena lenses. I have recently found a very lightweight pair of pocket Galilleans marked "Geneva Optical Company" on one of the oculars and "Geneva Special Paris" on the other. Logo of "G" in a 5 point star on the frame. Does anyone have information or catalogs/other documentary materials about the company and their binoculars they'd be willing to share? I'd be interested in seeing a scan of these pocket ones with any info about the specs. Thanks in advance, Dan Weinstock. Geneva, NY weindan@___ter.rr.com ======================================== Subject: Somet Binar From: "jean-laurent" I am looking for information about the "25 x 100 somet binar " binoculars ; i think that you must know these binoculars which are describe like "legendary " by some astronomer's contacts in slovaquie country . could you tell me if this optic has the same look than the 25 x 100 zeiss binoculars ? do you know the name of the manufactuer ? is it "meopta" ? is it "somet"?. someone in slovaquie send me a picture of the 25 x 100 meopta binoculars(i know meopta for photographic devices not for binoculars) ,made for the army and artillery ,which has the exactly same design than the 25x 100 blc (a real identical copy ) thanks for your help, regards, jean-laurent =========================================== ===================================================== Binocular List #161: 27 March 2001 ========================================= Subject: New member's web page From: nekosan@___guild.co.jp (Hayao Tanabe) My web pages: http://www.cameraguild.co.jp/nekosan/ Nippon Kogaku Binocular page: http://www.cameraguild.co.jp/nekosan/binos.htm There's little written document about Japanese optical equipment other than cameras. I have to find out a lot more. Regards Hayao =========================================== Subject: Hensoldt, French twin telescope From: *Fred Watson A couple of comments on Jack's entries: 1. Hensoldt Pentaprism 4x18 Binocular Thanks for putting these photos on the web. This lovely little instrument is identical to one I have except mine has individually-focusing eyepieces. Though I'm sure it must also have been made by Hensoldt, it's engraved with the name and address of the well-known London optical company of W. Watson & Co.Ltd. (A larger model, otherwise identical, is shown on p.17 of my binocular booklet. That engraving came from a 1901 Watson ad.) I'd be interested to know whether anyone has come across a Hensoldt-marked example of these early pentaprism binoculars that isn't centre-focus? I haven't seen one. 2. Unidentified French twin telescope Jack's sketch of the `R-within-the-triangle' is an accurate representation of Emil Busch's trademark. The R stands for Rathenow, the German town where the Busch company had their factory. It contradicts the `French made' inscription, so it's a rather interesting piece. (Usually, French binocular manufacturers were at pains to make their products look like German instruments - sometimes even resorting to false inscriptions. This one seems to have gone the other way!) All the best Fred ================================= Subject: Recovering Binocs From the salvage yard From: gene harryman Re-covering: Executing accurate patterns has always been the hard part. Paper, etc., is thick and hard to work, not to mention the adhesive problem. I have found that Contact Paper, with the new "repositionable" lite tack is very well suited to patterns. It sticks well enough to hold, is flexible enough to fit in tight corners, thin enough to cut easily and accurately with an Exacto, and will still adhere to the new covering to while cutting the new covering. Put a piece of scotch tape diagonally across the corner cuts and they will not tear any further when you remove the Contact paper from the binocs. Hope this is of some help to some. Regards, Gene ================================================= ===================================================== Binocular List #162: 08 April 2000 ================================== Subject: Re-covering binoculars; DDR, IOR From: Arnold Cohen Re: accurate patterns for recovering binocs. After watching a television show on CIA disguise techniques-eg making a templet of a scalp so a wig could be made in the US to be smuggled back in-I adapted the simple technique with very good results. Simply wrap the part in Saran wrap, then use masking tape to wrap/cover the part- when covered to a workable thickness just carefully cut a seam in the mold, remove and flatten out-voila-a perfect pattern! No residual glue on the binoc, no stretching of the pattern with removal etc. The sharp edges of the pattern are determined my the tape. Using an overlapped pattern of smaller strips-tangents to the circle of the margins of the piece gives best results. I have read with great interest the discussions of the DDR and post DDR Zeiss Jena offerings. As I have a number of the glasses in question with some West German and other competitors in the same power and objective size range I'm hoping to do some comparative testing when the snow finally melts from the corners of my yard. I've been very favorably impressed with the Jena glasses-including the controversial Notarems! From an optical standpoint I have also found the Romainian glasses and even inexpensive Russian glasses to be good performers. We'll see if I can objectify that-any Suggestions? Lastly, Valentine in Colorado who imports IOR Romanian binocs told me that the 7x40 uses the same ocular set up as the Jena 7x40 but with a porro prism geometry allowing better performance without the need for phase coatings which the Jena lacks. Is this true? I shall compare the two formally some time. Arnie ====================================== Subject: Found "new" Leitz Trinovid 8x40B From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@___ne.de This Saturday I discovered a "new" Leitz Trinovid 8x40B in a local shop. It is unused, absolutely mint, new old stock from the mid 1980s, before "Leitz" became "Leica Camera". I just wonder how this binocular would perform in comparison to current models or if it is a collectors' item. The shop is asking the list price, but the one from the 1980s. Hans-Peter ================================== Subject: Circ-N mark From: Peter Abrahams On an email list devoted to sextants (sextants@___roups.com), which is a very good list, the question arose as to the meaning and dating of the common U.S. Navy acceptance mark of a hand engraved O with a smaller N through it. This mark was referred to as the circ-N mark on the sextants list. My understanding is that this was an acceptance mark given to an instrument that passed inspection. This mark is found on binoculars, sextants, and other instruments (what other instruments?). It is found on binoculars made by the US Naval Gun Factory, and on civilian instruments that were used by the Navy. Regarding dating, there are many USN instruments from the 1800s that have engraved serial numbers but not this mark. It is known to have been used in the WWI program that borrowed instruments from civilians for the duration of the war, returning them with a $1. rental fee or paying out $1. if the instrument was destroyed. It has been found on WWII sextants, and was used for some time after WWII, but it might not have been an 'inspection passed' mark all that time -- it might just be a serial number. If any list readers have an earlier or later binocular with this mark, please let us know. Was the mark used by BUORD? From the sextants list: "I suspect that it really was the mark of the Bureau of Navigation (BUNAV). When the Bureau of Ships (BUSHIPS) was formed in 1940 through the shotgun wedding of the Bureaus of Engineering (BUENG) and of Construction and Repair (BUC&R), it also took over responsibility for the matériel functions of BUNAV (which thereupon morphed into the Bureau of Personnel, BUPERS). My guess is that the N in circ-N stood for BUNAV, not Navy. Letter-in-circle marks were used by the Navy in lots of contexts (and still are). I suspect that they all come from the same time as the origins of the circle-C (copyright) and circle-R (registered trademark) marks." ======================================= ===================================================== Binocular List #163: 10 April 2001 ================================================= Subject: Translation of Koehler Some time ago, I posted an English translation of Horst Koehler (Zeiss Oberkochen), 'A New Telescope Eyepiece with Extremely Large Field of View'. I now have posted a schematic image of the eyepiece and the lens 'prescription': Diagram & Prescription for Koehler's eyepiece --140kb http://home.europa.com/~telscope/koehler.jpg The translation: http://www.europa.com/~telscope/trkohler.txt --Peter ======================================================= Subject: Twin telescope sold by Queen, Philadelphia. From: Peter Abrahams I purchased an amazing binocular; 50mm objectives, French made, marked only with two styles of stars, sold by Queen, Philadephia. It is unusual because of the physical dimensions, 26 inches closed, 35 inches fully extended. The objectives are slotted & in a cell with a retaining wire, to prevent rotation of the doublet -- this is the first time I've seen this in a binocular, which are usually too low power for this refinement to be appropriate. These are about 25 power or less, which makes me wonder why they made them so long. http://home.europa.com/~telscope/twintel1.jpg 51kb http://home.europa.com/~telscope/twintel2.jpg 57kb Objective cell: http://home.europa.com/~telscope/twintlcl.jpg 54kb Eyepiece: http://home.europa.com/~telscope/twintlep.jpg 25kb Marks: http://home.europa.com/~telscope/twintlmk.jpg 27kb =============================================== Subject: Leitz 8x40 From: HOldenburg@___m >This Saturday I discovered a "new" Leitz Trinovid 8x40B in a local shop. The "old" 8x40 are good, but not excellent by today's standards. They don't have phase-coated roof prisms, and the difference is very much noticeable - resolution of fine structures isn't quite as good as in more modern high-quality binoculars, and the contrast is somewhat lower. In my field (bird-watching) I wouldn't use non- phase-coated roofs anymore. That said, the old style Leicas were excellent binoculars in their time. The mechanical quality, especially the focussing, were far superior to most modern designs. Hermann ================================================ Subject: Re: Re-covering binoculars; DDR, IOR From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@___ne.de There is a German website http://home.nexgo.de/thuernagel/katalog.htm with descriptions, pictures and a comparative review of the DF 7x40 (1st version, porro) and the EDF 7x40 (2nd version, roof). It is said the EDF has a narrower field of view, a stronger yellow tint, but better contrast and flare control. I still wonder why the East German military went for technically more demanding roof prism binoculars. Regarding phase correcting coating one Zeiss expert suspected "that the technology slipped across the border to Eisfeld in the middle 1980's, about the time the EDF was introduced." However, Docter's current sales brochure does not mention p-coatings on the current 7x40. I explicitly asked Docter whether the current 7x40 B/GA has p-coatings and the yellow tint. "No", and the yellow tinted prisms were abandoned around 1993, most probably after the old stock was exhausted. It is a matter of specualtion whether Zeiss Jena has "stolen" p-coatings from their Western sister company and of course they would remain silent of that today. A DF 7x40 from that auction site is on the way to me. So soon I can compare that one with my Docter 7x40 B/GA (which has the yellow tint and, maybe, p-coating :-). I also believe the IOR 7x40 are optically identical to the Zeiss/Jena DF 7x40. Since the DFs are easily available second hand here, there isn't really a point to go after the IORs. Hans-Peter ================================================ Subject: "N" inside Circle, = Inspected and Serialed Numbered by the US NAVAL OBSERVATORY From: "Oy Shalom" Letter "N" inside, the letter "O". Or as you say "Circle" with "N". Simply refers to the fact that the unit/drawing patterns were,Inspected by the United States Naval Observatory. Many such early items will be found engraved by hand and then followed by the Serial Number assigned by the Naval Observatory. The Letter "N" inside the Letter "O" and the following Serial Number, is the Naval Observatory's System of Property Serial Numbers. Binoculars, Instruments,Barometers that were inspected by the NO. They started this practice sometime before 1900. ============================================== Subject: IOR, Trinovid From: "Thomas Press" Some thoughts on two queries raised in the attached Binocular List: first, Arnie questions whether the prism configuration of the IOR Romanian 7 x 40 obviates the need for phase coating as used in the Zeiss Jena 7 x 40 cousin. Since both glasses are porros relying on refraction rather than reflection for their erecting systems, neither should need phase coating. Nonetheless, the Docter sales brochures for the 8 x 50 Nobilem porros recite that the Nobilem's prisms are phase coated! I assumed when I first read that description that either something got lost in the German to English translation or the ad copy writer didn't know what he was talking about. Maybe there is something to it after all. The second query relates to the performance against current production glasses of a new old stock Leitz 8 x 40 Trinovid. My guess here based on familiarity with a number of well cared for Trinovids of the same era is that the absence of phase coating on the Leitz version makes a significant difference as compared to current Leica Trinovids. Additionally, I suspect that modern multicoating will further enhance contrast and one has to wonder whether Leica abandoned the unorthodox Leitz roof prism configuration for a more conventional Schmidt approach in order to improve performance. The Leitz versions also were notable for poor close focusing capabilities and relatively narrow fields of view. Still, a new old stock Leitz Trinovid would make a great collector's piece. Regards, Tom ================================================ Subject: Circ-N mark From: "jdorris" Reference the U.S. Navy property mark article in the #162 List. I have tried to find the origin of the Navy mark without success so I followed your advice of "The history is in the instrument". I have made a record of most every example of the mark that I could find. In Jan '01 there was a telescope on ebay that had the Navy mark and also a presentation date engraved. While I know that you must be careful about inscriptions on an instrument - hope springs eternal (I know - all that proves is that there is one born every minute). The ebay description was as follows: "This is a super and unique item and one that a little research effort could prove to be very important. It is a brass telescope presented by "W.J.Jrl. to D.W.C. Dec. 25th, 1858". Closed it is 20.25" long and extended it is nearly 35" long!! Also engraved on it is "U.S. Navy, 30423". The lenses in this are still good although I did not get it to focus very well. I did not try either as I don`t know what I`m doing and don`t want it mess it up. The brass has a nice patina to it and this is a wonderful research project for someone. Someone gave old "DWC" a nice Christmas present 142 years ago!!" The bid was $191 and the reserve was not met. There was five hours to go in the auction so I do not know if the telescope was sold. The scope appears to be period (1858) with the single draw and with the tapered eye cup and the slide cover. While the narrative description does not state it, when you look at the picture, between the U.S. Navy and the 30423, is our circ- N mark (I like that designator so thanks to the sextant folks). Originally I believed that the mark originated at the Naval Gun Factory Optical Shop and the older examples were, as you stated, from the instruments loaned to the Navy during WWI. However now I don't know how early the Navy was using the mark. I guess it is always possible that the telescope was also loaned to the Navy and was used during WWI but that does not seem to be realistic (therefore it probably is). Hopefully there are even earlier and better examples out there. V/R John --------- 1. John sent an image; this mark looks more like an O with an R -- which I believe I've seen before -- what does it mean? 2. "The history is in the instrument" is paraphrased from Hans Seeger, not me. 3. I asked John if he wanted to introduce himself to the list. Hopefully others will follow suit. --Peter --------- From: "Dorris, John J61MA" First, I must apologize to Herr Doctor Seeger for the misattribution of his statement. However in my defense whenever I cannot remember who is responsible for something then my default position is Peter Abrahams. I do have an even deeper regret in that I lived in Wiesbaden for two years and did not know that Dr. Seeger also lived there. I now have two of his books (autographed) and use them constantly. No, I am not shy however there is an old saying that "It is hard to soar with the eagles when you are being held down by turkeys" and that is the way I feel when reading the Binocular List. There is so much expertise on the list that I am afraid that my comments would lower the bar or even worse take the place of something important. However at the risk of doing exactly that my background and interests are as follows. Retired from the USAF and have worked in NYC, Philadelphia, and D.C and multiple other locations worldwide in defense related jobs. Currently residing in Norfolk, VA and working for Old Dominion University as an engineering advisor to the U.S. Joint Forces Command. Absolutely no background in an optics related profession other than a user with an unmitigated interest in historical physics. If anyone needs anything (that I can legally do) from the worlds largest Naval Base please let me know. My interest in Victorian field glasses is mostly historical and if I cannot explain it to my wife or my best friend then I am afraid that I am not going to be able to explain it in this email. My best effort is that it is in the genes and leave it at that. I became hooked on the sport when I bought a Lemaire Galilean glass marked U.S. Army Signal Corps and could not find a single reference to it in any publication (nor could the Army Signal Corps Museum!). There is a great deal of information about microscopes, telescopes, Porro glasses, and astronomy available but almost nothing published about this poor stepchild of an instrument. The world's largest single depository of information that is available to the public is probably Peter's Home Page. When you consider that Kings, Presidents, Dictators, Generals, heroes and villains of every description have been repeatedly photographed holding and using these instruments and yet there is so little documentation on the subject then the contradiction becomes evident. I now have about 300 typed pages of notes mainly keyed to 19th century Galilean field glasses, their makers, retailers, and the transformation to the Zeiss / Abbe Porro glasses of the 1890's. I also have about 600 MB of photos of these glasses thanks to ebay. Some of the sources in my notes are impeachable and others would not be accepted in a casual conversation with a stranger in a bar but if I read it then it is recorded. As a parting shot I must disagree with Dr. Watson in his reply to Jack Kelly regarding the trademark on Jack's binocular telescopes. I think that Emil Busch A.G. would have rather had their collective arms cut off than stamp made in France on their product. It is my opinion that the trademark is a French "knock-off" in an effort to resemble the Busch Rathenow mark such as the rustlers did in the old West by changing or modifying the original brand on cattle. My (maybe fractured) logic for this can wait for another occasion. Now that I have probably insulted, offended or challenged four of the most knowledgeable people on this subject (and that I truly admire) I am very respectively, John Dorris ==================================================== ===================================================== Binocular List #164: 13 April 2001 ================================================= Subject: Re: Leitz 8x40B and now CZJ 12x50B From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@___ne.de I didn't wait for the answers and purchased the Trinovid. Unfortunately, box, papers and accessories got lost, but the price was attractive. Yes, close focusing is poor (5m to 6m or so), fov is not great (128m at 1000m), resolution and contrast are tad lower than current offerings. The later however is only noticeably when using a steady support and when explcitily looking fot it. Colour saturation is great and I wouldn't that coatings are inferior. But there are other aspects than image quality. What I liked about it is compactness, light weight and a tactile feel that very much resembles the Leica M cameras. In comparison Leica's current 8x32 appears heavier and bulkier. In addition I found a Carl Zeiss Jena 12x50B in a local advertising paper, again new, unused, but with box, papers and accessories, including the leather (?) case. "Regular" CZJ 7x50 and the 10x50 are very easily available second hand, the 12x50 and 15x50 less, the "B" versions much less. After the Nobilem Spezial/Super were dicontinued, I believe CZJ combined the binoctem, dekarem and dodekarem body, objektives and prism with the "B" okulars with collapsible rubber eye cups from the Spezial/Super. And the focussing wheel was located in between the prisms. I have seen 12x50Bs labled "Dodekarem" and "Nobilem". These models later were offered under the "Docter" label. The operating manual that came with my own Docter 8x50 B/GA is still labeled "aus Jena" and "Jenoptik GmbH", but has a "Docter" sticker glued over the company adress. The table with technical data shows six "Nobilem" models, with and without rubber armour: 7x50 B (/GA), 8x50 B (/GA), 8x56 B, 10x50 B (/GA), 15x60 B. The published field of view on all models is however a tad wider, the weight noticeably less than for the current "Nobilem" models. And there is no water proofing. Compare www.docter-germany.com, but be patient when downloding the nobilem.pdf file. Last year a German hunting magazine published a review of 8x56 binoculars. http://www.wildundhund.de/artikelbeitrag/artikelbeitrag_2724.html The Docter Nobilem was rated to be practically on par with Zeiss and Swarovski costing USD500 more, with the best mesured resolution. But the Docter lost in the field of bulk and weight (1.5kg!). Regarding the CZJ 7x40, there were 2 (two) versions which both are shown on www.DeutscheOptik.com, with however sort of stiff asking prices. Docter still makes the roof prsim 7x40 B/GA, now with clear prisms. Hans-Peter ====================================================== Subject: USNGF binoculars From: Peter Abrahams The U.S. Naval Gun Factory optical shop in Washington, D.C. manufactured & repaired telescopic gun sights, and was established 1917 from the existing Optical Repair Shop. The USNGF Annex in Rochester, N.Y. was formed during WWI, when the Crown Optical plant in Rochester was commandeered, in an attempt to ensure quality and increase production. The Annex manufactured binoculars in large quantity, closed immediately after WWI, replaced by a temporary glass molding facility, and the Annex equipment was moved to a new shop at the NGF. There are reports that the Gundlach plant in Rochester was also used as part of the Annex. The role of exports to the U.K. is uncertain, though Crown 6 x 30s were exported. Binoculars produced at the Annex, based on surviving examples so marked, were: --3 x 50 Galilean, amber filters in swivel mounts inside the eyecups. --6 x 30 models were made in massive quantities, and were also used by the U.S. Army, examples marked U.S. Army Signal Corps are not scarce. The standard USNGF 6 x 30 is identical to Crown Optical 6 x 30s, which are distinctively heavy, and both carry 5 digit serial numbers in tiny digits on the rear hinge lug, by the objective. (One example of a Crown 6 x 30 is hand engraved U.S. Navy A-6, a mysterious inscription.) For Mark & Mod designations, see chart below. The 6 x 30 Mark XI is a later model, introduced in the late 1920s, waterproof, with an aluminum upper prism housing cover with sloped cutaway outer edge, 7 screws attaching the flat lower cover, and large rubber eyecups. One example is marked: 6 x 30, Mark XI No. 31, US Navy Bur of Ord, NGF, 1927. --10 x 40 Mark XII resembles the 6 x 30, with 7 screws through the bottom housing cover, waterproofed, and a sloped shoulder like the Mk XI. One example is marked: Mark XII No. 9, US Naval Bureau Ordnance, NGF 1931; and another example reads Mark XII No. 89. Note that the 1944 Schedule of binoculars copied below describes the Mark XII as a 10 x 45. --10 x 45 binoculars were made by the NGF in 4 or 5 styles, some experimental. One model used the Crown 6 x 30 body with 45 mm objectives (and possibly redesigned eyepieces), one example is marked Bureau of Navigation. Another 10 x 45 resembles the old B & L 10 x 45, with widely spaced objectives, and distinctive upper prism housing covers in a teardrop shape. Two examples are marked Bureau of Navigation, and one has the acceptance mark (NO) 6323. Another is marked 10 x 45 Mk VI Bureau of Ordnance. --The Mk 37 is a 9 x 63, modified at the NGF from a standard 7 x 50. --The Mk 1-1 is a pier mounted giant binocular, probably 20 x 120, with 45 degree offset eyepieces using rhomboid prisms. One example is marked Bureau of Ships, and has a stamped acceptance mark (not engraved, and assuming it is an acceptance mark), of a large N with an O around it, followed by 232. ------- SCHEDULE OF BINOCULARS, NAVY DEPARTMENT, BUREAU OF SHIPS, FILE NUMBER S2407 - 533074. 8|2|44. MK | MOD | GENERAL ARRANGEMENT | CONTRACTOR | MAGNIFICATION | APERTURE | FIELD (DEGREES) | EYE RELIEF, MM | TRANSMISSION % | BUREAU | STATUS (1944) | REMARKS 6 | 0 | 68816-O | N.G.F. | 10| 45 | 4.2 | ---- | ---- | ORD. | OBS. | 6 | 1 | 68826-O | N.G.F. | 10| 45 | 4.2 | ---- | ---- | SHIPS | OBS. | 6 | 2 | 68839-O | N.G.F. | 10| 45 | 4.2 | ---- | ---- | SHIPS | OBS. | 6 | 4 | 68816-O | N.G.F. | 10| 45 | 4.2 | ---- | ---- | SHIPS | OBS. | 7 | - | 56588-O | N.G.F. | 6 | 30 | --- | ---- | ---- | ORD. | OBS. | 7 | 0 | 66673-O | N.G.F. | 6 | 30 | 8 | ---- | ---- | ORD. | OBS. | 7 | 1 | 66674-O | N.G.F. | 6 | 30 | 8 | ---- | ---- | ORD. | OBS. | 7 | 2 | 66675-O | N.G.F. | 6 | 30 | 8 | ---- | ---- | ARMY | ----- | 9 | - | 66686-O | N.G.F. | 3 | 50 | --- | ---- | ---- | SHIPS | OBS. | GALILEAN 10| - | 119666-O | N.G.F. | 4 | -- | 10 | 22 | ---- | AERO. | OBS. | 11| 0 | 119683-O | N.G.F. | 6 | 30 |8d40'| 15 | ---- | ORD. | OBS. | WATERPROOF 11| 1 | 119683-O | N.G.F. | 6 | 30 |8d40'| 15 | ---- | ORD. | OBS. | WATERPROOF 11|2-3| 141890-O | N.G.F. | 6 | 30 |8d40'| 15 | ---- | ORD. | OBS. | WATERPROOF 12| 0 | 132869-O | N.G.F. | 10| 45 |5d12'| 14 | ---- | ORD. | OBS. | WATERPROOF 12| 1 | 132869-O | N.G.F. | 10| 45 |5d12'| 14 | ---- | ORD. | OBS. | WATERPROOF 12| 2 | 132869-O | N.G.F. | 10| 45 |5d12'| 14 | ---- | ORD. | OBS. | WATERPROOF 14| - | -------- | N.G.F. | 6 | 30 |8d40'| 15 | ---- | AERO | OBS. | MK 11 WITHOUT MIL SCALE 15| - | 153551-O | N.G.F. | 7 | 50 |7d 2'| 14 | ---- | ORD. |EXPMTL.| BAKELITE 17| - | -------- | N.G.F. | 4 | 25 | --- | ---- | ---- | ORD. |EXPMTL.| 25| - | -------- | N.G.F. | 10| 70 | --- | ---- | ---- | ORD. |EXPMTL.| ONLY 2 MADE 25| 1 | 244100-O | N.G.F. | 10| 70 |5d10'| 13.5 | 79.6 | ORD. |EXPMTL.| ALTERED MK 13; SUPERSEDED BY MK 37 37| 0 | 254211-O | N.G.F. | 9 | 63 |5d42'| 13.5 | 78.4 | ORD. | CURR. | MK 13 MODIFIED OBJECTIVE References: Crowell, Benedict. America's Munitions 1917-1918. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1919. (p577-9) (Navy Department, U.S.A.) Annual Reports of the Navy Department for the fiscal year 1919. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1920. (Department of the Navy, Bureau of Ordnance) Navy Ordnance Activities: World War 1917-1918. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1920. ========= I took the above text & added some other notes from the list, and posted it as a new page: .US Navy Binoculars: Naval Gun Factory, Offset Wedge, Mk 42, OM Schools http://www.europa.com/~telscope/milusn.txt ================================================ Subject: Mark on 5x40x10 degree glass From: "Frederick Schwartzman" The accompanying message from nekosan is self-explanatory and finally settes one of my long standing queries. On the other hand, I cannot imagine that Toshiba made exactly the same glass as Nippon Kogaku, particularly since this was an uncommon glass at best. I wonder if the optics were made by Nippon Kogaku and possibly the body made by Toshiba or perhaps Toshiba assembled parts made by others which were the same parts used by Nippon Kogaku, kind of like perhaps Haywood used B&L lenses as probably Westinghouse did. The mark on my 5x40 is one circle inside another circle with what looks like a propeller blade on each side coming from the inside circle through the outside circle with the point extending slightly outside the outside circle. Toshiba is not listed in the J codes, although it is possible that an affiliate of Toshiba with a different name may be on the list. I am also soliciting information from the list recipients. All the best, Fred ----- Original Message ----- From: nekogahora >>I found the mark you mentioned.... it's the mark Toshiba used in the WWII era. Official history of Toshiba can be read at: http://www.toshiba.co.jp/worldwide/about/history.html They are basically electric company, but in the war time they could have manufactured optical instruments. Hayao =============================================== http://www.toweropticalco.com/binocular.html Tower Optical Binocular Viewer Installation sites include the world famous Empire State Building Observatory and the Statue of Liberty. The viewer is equipped with a Bushnell 9X binocular. The magnification is 9 times that seen by the unaided eye. A wide field of view (382 feet at 1,000 yards) provides easy location of objects. =============================================== ================================================ Binocular List #165: 28 April 2001 ===================================================== Subject: Photos posted From: "Kevin Kuhne" I found a photo of a 4 meter Zeiss naval rangefinder with two 25X100, (cast body model), aiming binoculars attached to it. I'm not sure if anyone else has found this photo but would be surprised if they have not. This is the first photo that I have seen with a 25X100 used with a rangefinder. Only the front portion of the binoculars can be seen. Regards, Kevin. http://home.europa.com/~telscope/zs25x100.gif 129kb (Kevin also sent a photo of Admiral Nimitz sighting along a captured Japanese binocular) http://home.europa.com/~telscope/nimtz120.gif 99kb =============================================== Subject: 7 x 40 test From: Arnold Cohen We finally had a nice day and a clear night in Spokane so an informal test of 7x40 binoculars could be undertaken. I looked at an IOR 7x40 full mil spec with IR detector and reticle made in 1997, another without mil features from 1996, a 7x40 DF refurbished and bought from Deutsche Optik #23445466 III-82 (?1982), a Russian 7x30 mil spec binoc, new stock, an EDF 7x40 from Deutshe Optik under their label and a EDF 7x40 new in original wrappers East German mil #H066439, and for fun an older Swarovski 7x42 Habicht porro and an old (but lightly coated, ? age) Hensoldt 7x42 Dialyt. Testing was done in full light of approx 1pm, and after nightfall for stars and limited indirect light. A formal mil spec chart for resolving power at 75 feet was used. They were all excellent glasses but some of the results were surprising and some observations pertinent to questions raised on the list. First the Romanians-the 1996 glass had a definite yellow tint to the prisms, the coatings were blue, resolution was excellent 5-6 on the B-2 scale, field 8.3 degrees published, edge to edge sharpness so so, with about 25% rim, close focus 14 feet, the best daytime but in deep shadow performance and the best nitetime, indirect light performance-literally lit up the target!(1996 better than 1997); the mil spec Romanian had distinctly less yellow tint-thus the change was somewhere between 1996- 97. Edge sharpness was better, maybe 10%-both are sturdy, heavy but nice sized glasses-military rather than elegant in appearance. The mechanics of both were excellent-smooth, not sloppy, collimation perfect etc. Both showed no coma abberation to a bright star. The oculars are of interest-the adjustment in and out doesn't turn the ocular lens but the ocular does move in and out. The 7x40 DF is a similar glass to the Romanian-resolution is better at an easy 6, no tint, blue coatings, edge to edge loss of 25%, close focus of 15 feet, 8.3 degree field published, no coma. Nightime performance equal to the mil spec Romanian. The ocular lenses do turn with focus and move up and down-thus the ocular construction must differ from the Romanian, the glass is slightly heavier and looks bulkier-less so when side to side, mechanics excellent. Next up the two EDFs. The mil spec glass had a slightly yellow tint, the coastings were an amber color-similar to Zeiss Jena Notarems from c. 1990. Resolution 5, perfect edge to edge sharpness, close focus of 17 feet, field of 7.5 degrees, I didnt try out the infrared detector or use the reticle, no coma, very good nite performance, but not as good as the DF! Mechanics perfect. The Deutsche Optik 7x40 was without tint, resolution 5-6, perfect edge to edge, blue coatings, focus to 16 ft., despite the sl better "measured" resolution, I was struck that subtle differences in texture(eg a shake roof, grass, distant pine trees) were more apparent in the mil spec glass-?phase coatings???. No coma, nite performance about same as mil., mechanics excellent. The real sleeper of the bunch was the Russian 7x30. Great resolution of an easy 6-no eye strain to get there, no tint, blue coatings, 27 ft close focus, perfect edge to edge sharpness (many other Russ glasses have excellent resolution and sharpness but trail off to the edges), no coma and excellent nite performance-as good as the EDF but with smaller objectives! Also unlike other Russ glasses mechanics perfect-no coma. 8.5 degree field! The oculars deserve mention-the ocular lens neither turns nor moves with focus-must use the field lens or other internal lens, the "B" feature is answered with screw in and out eye cups-all the other Bs use fold down rubber. Considering this can be found on ebay for $89.00 it is certainly the best buy. The civilian glasses were somewhat disappointing. Firstly, their 7x seem less! I've been told that mil spec determinations of magnification are different that commercial (info from Val at IOR) and a mil 7x may = a 7.5-8. Don't know if true but seems so. The Swarovski had resolution of 4-5, no tint, deep blue coatings, great close focus of 11ft., this was a used glass but mechanics were fine, no B feature, no coma but nite performance weaker than any mil glass tested, 25% edge loss-but light and easy to use with the cf, 6.4 degree field. The old Hensoldt resolved at 4-5, no tint, pale blue coatings, 14ft close focus, no "B" feature, no coma, and nite performance about the same as Swarovski, despite the apparent paucity of coatings. The mil glasses are all billed as water resitant, the Germans Nitrogen purged, the Russians sometimes claim it? I can't comment on the utility of the B feature as my 51 year old eyes just use reading glasses, but informally all seemed fine-I know some of the members found the Romanians wanting. If anyone has suggestions for better or other informal comparisons please let me know. Lastly, despite the simple measurements, the subjective pleasure of looking through comparative glasses should be considered-albeit, by definition, this will vary with the observer. I've prattled on enough. Arnie ===================================================== Subject: Repair From: Dennis Bohrer If you want to add my name to the repairmen list go ahead. Just make the provision that right now it's a side business and I can't make close time commitments as I have the full time job at the University. I should have my binocular collimator finished by summer. Basically I do complete microscope repair and restoration. I've been doing microscope and optical work for a little over 20 years. I've done repainting and some lacquer work though I'm not a master of lacquer, yet. I done a lot of porror prism glasses, some roof prisims, three pairs of flak binos, spotting scopes, rifle scopes, replace wire cross hairs, nitrogen purge, a couple of sextants, a few survey instruments, compasses of various types, mechanical instruments of all types. No clocks or cameras. I like US military glasses of WW II vintage. I'll trade for my work if someone has something that interests me. I think I'm a good detailer and I have a good since of historical value. All that depends on the customer. I guarentee my work. If not satisfied, no charge. I don't like salt water corroded items and often turn them down. Not worth the grief! Dennis Bohrer, Bellingham, Washington ================================================== Subject: Development of binocular eyepieces From: Peter Abrahams The biggest improvements that have been made to binoculars have been in eyepieces. A history of binocular eyepieces would include the many of the most important aspects of binocular history; and would also include many of the most significant improvements to eyepieces in general. In answer to a question, I looked through my papers & books to see if there was any sketch of this history -- Galileans including triplets; earliest Kellners & others; first wide angle including Erfles; field flatteners; modern improvements. I was not surprised when I didn't find this in a convenient form. It looks like it will be accomplished by using diagrams from patents, catalogs, Seeger's books, etc.; laying out the diagrams in chronological order, and describing any development that can be seen. However, it won't be simple -- even the types of eyepieces can be muddled: when you start adding extra lenses to an Erfle, when does it stop being an Erfle? Were some of the first wide angle eyepieces, such as the Goerz 8 x 56 Marine Nachtglas, really a Kellner? And some modern complex eyepieces defy categorization, and you're left with just the diagram. Any assistance or bits of information on this subject will be appreciated. -- Peter ================================================= Subject: Meeting May 28 in LA It is about time to get those airline tickets for our annual meeting. There will be displays, presentations, use of some of the finest old binoculars, and if anyone has anything to sell there will be a swap meet. This is in Duarte, east of Pasadena. The lineup of committed & almost committed include: Steve Rohan, Peter Abrahams, Fan Tao, Frank Doherty, Jack Kelly, Loren Busch. That weekend, the Riverside Telescope Maker's Conference will be held at Big Bear Lake, about 100 miles east; this is an excellent event if you like new, old, and home-made telescopes. ================================================ Subject: Binocular history on-line From: Peter Abrahams To research what little information there is about binoculars on the WWW, we use search engines. There are also search engines that index only the 'newsgroups', which are on line discussion groups on every imaginable topic. http://www.dejanews.com/home_ps.shtml I searched this site for 'history of binoculars', and received a few thousand matches; most of which were from newsgroups that discuss the Titanic!!! There have been endless discussions on whether the look outs had binoculars, or should have had them, etc. Most of them are completely uninformed, such as, 'it was too dark that night, binoculars wouldn't have done any good'. I then searched for history not titanic, and received about 1000 matches, most of which were pretty worthless, but there were a few that were interesting (and two that were more amusing than informative, which I'll put first): ------------ .....astronauts went back to the Moon, found binoculars from a previous mission, brought them home, and found bacteria that had quite nicely survived ON THE MOON!). -------------- 17 Jun 1999 Hitler's Binoculars Sold at Auction "LONDON (AP) -- An anonymous bidder paid more than $44,800 for a pair of binoculars Thursday that once belonged to Adolf Hitler. The rare, prismatic binoculars, designed by German Carl Zeiss, had been recovered from the Nazi leader's yacht, The Grille, after World War II. The binoculars feature a distinctive Kriegsmarine emblem..." http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-Hitler-Binoculars.html (you need to register to use the NY Times.) ---------------------------- document summary in Northern Light's Special Collection. press the "Purchase Summary" button . Title: The Use of Binoculars in the Search for Submarines at Sea. Source: Center for Naval Analyses Arlington Va Operations Evaluation Group. 10/13/1959 Price: $1.00 Document Size: Very Short (149 words) --------------- http://www.tamron.co.jp/english/profile/history.htm Tamrom History. November 1950: Taisei Optical Equipment Manufacturing is established in Urawa (Company Adviser, Fujio Watanabe) Processing of cameras and binocular lenses commences -------------- Subject: Re: Allied - Axis "co-operation?"; Newsgroups: soc.history.war.world-war- ii; From: Adrian Whichello (adrianw@___s.ee.usyd.edu.au); Date: 1997/09/10 Have just read (in Hartcup, "The War of Invention", p182) that during the First World War, "the demands for field glasses had become so pressing that the War Office was compelled to open secret negotiations with the German government for the supply of optical instruments through a Swiss intermediary. In return the Germans would be supplied with rubber, stocks of which had run low because of the Allied blockade. As a result, some 20,000 German binoculars for infantry officers and up to 12,000 non- prismatic binoculars for NCOs were despatched to the British during August 1915." From: Simon Orchard (simon.o@___.net); Date: 1997/09/14 Out of interest, we in the British Army still use binoculars from WWII most of which are still stamped 1944. In adition there are still various items left in use dating from the war, two which spring to mind are the 'Machette' and the'Millbank bag' waterpurifing bag both for use in the jungle. Strange to think these items might have been used in the jungles of Burma all those years ago only to be cleaned, handed in to stores then re-issued to successive generations of soldiers. ----------------------- Subject: Re: Re-Spies in the Civil War; Newsgroups: soc.history.war.us-civil-war; From: Robert Allen (rwillisa@___t); Date: 2000/04/21 > Should a woman, Mrs Surratt, have been hanged for her part in the conspiracy to kill Lincoln?< Mary Surratt was convicted and hanged for treason largely because it was discovered that she had delivered a pair of binoculars for John Wilkes Booth to a tavern she rented out in Surrattsville, Maryland. While there, she also told the men running the tavern, as per Booth's instructions, to "get out the shooting irons" because the boys would be by that night to pick them up. Booth had earlier left some rifles at the tavern. Was this really enough evidence to convict her of treason? Probably not, but this issue is still debated by members of the Surratt Society, Clinton, Maryland. ---------------- Subject: Re: WWII Tanks; Newsgroups: soc.history.war.world-war-ii; From: Tomlinson3 (tomlinson3@___m); Date: 1996/08/20 Two important factors govern accurate tank gunnery: equipment and training....German tankers had the optics necessary to allow first-round hits. Range-finding binoculars were standard for all tank commanders: the rabbit-ear type were hard mounted to the vehicle, although they were not always used, especially when things were hot and heavy. German main gun optics contained references for estimating range to target, the lateral speed of a target, and appropriate lead indicators for firing upon the moving target. In addition, the wide angle telescopic site was mated to a mechanical firing computer which super-elevated the gun according to manually input information on target range and ammunition type, there was also a scale graduated in standard mils for use with range tables for special and limited production ammo.....German crews EXPECTED first round hits at 1800 to 2000 meters, although they were trained to engage targets at 3000 meters with the Kwk 40 and larger AT rifles. The western allies by necessity of equipment deficiencies created a tank gunnery drill that depended on trial and error beyond 500 meters. British crews in the desert discovered that the range tables supplied with all Six-Pounder sights contained a gross mathematical error, to the tune of some 300 meters of error at ranges of 1000 meters, at which distance German crews were hitting with first shots an alarming (from the British perspective) percentage of the time. Shermans lacked a firing computer, relying on a multi-lined scale contained within a sight of abysmal field of view which lacked any lateral lead marks whatever....British crews in all tanks, from the Sherman Firefly to the Valentine, considered their first shot in an engagement to be without purpose but for ranging, and revealing their positions to the Germans. ---------------- Subject: Nikon has been Mitsubishi Company Since July 25, 1917; Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm; From: naoki@___t (naoki@___t); 1998/02/01 1. I believe Nikon has been Mitsubishi Company Since July 25, 1917 from the date of its corporate charter filing. 2. However, I believe Mitsubishi Stock Holding Company (A stock holding company was not illegal until the end of WWII), bought one or more eye glasses factories to start with. 3. This was a part of Japan's national security political agenda. Optics technology was considered to be national security sensitive advanced technology. 4. Actually it was proven by then. May 27, 1905, Japan's Navy won the battle of Japan's Sea against Russian Navy to a big surprise of the world as Russia was considered to be a super power and Japan was nothing. The reason of this were basically three advanced technology Japan's Navy had.... (1) Top Secret Shimose Gun Powder. A very nasty stuff. (2) Bar and Straud 4 and 1/2 Feet Type FA2 Range Finders (Made in the U.K. made by the Bar & Straud Co.). This is basically a HUGE Leica range finder used with canons (guns). This was innovated by Bar & Straud in 1888 and very high tech oriented Japan Navy immediately ordered. The first one was installed on Japan's battle ship 1894. The production serial number 4. The world forth installation of this stuff. By the time May 27, 1905 came, Japan's every single battle ship was installed with this, actually per every single canon! Yes, they bought this stuff A LOT. Plus of course lots of training done. On the other hand, Russia had the same range finder but (2) finders per battle ship. Not enough at all. The trained operators were instantly killed by Japan's fires since we targeted them precisely. No backup operators. No enough training. Russians were so angry, they threw away the invaluable optics into the sea. (3) Carl Zeiss binoculars imported by Konica. Many people on Japan's Navy had those. Why? Those days, after you shot canon balls, you had to check how far you missed by binoculars. True story. Anyway, GOOD binoculars were VERY important to have. Anyway, so, Mitsubishi bought some eye glasses companies, to aquire this military important technology domestically. This is precisely why Nikon still is one of the 4 (was that 3?) companies in Japan who can make optical glass substrate by themselves. (Hoya/Tokina is the biggest in Japan. Minolta also has a glass factory under Rokko mountain, thus their lenses are called Rokkor.) During the WWII, Nikon's products are almost sololey military use. By the end of WWII, their production force was almost totally ruined. Not just their facotries in what Japanese called then "Manchuria" which is Northeast of mainland China where Japanese invaded and colonized, but their production facilities in Japan, too were largely destoroyed. (It is true that their Ooimachi main facotry was so strongly built and bounced back every single bomb and survived. But that was a building. Not production force. The building is, I belive is using to produce F5 these days. The same building. But it is NOT painted in camoflouge color any more.) So, after the WWII, Nikon was virtually bunkrupted company. No consumer product line. No demand for military stuff (Thanks Buddha.) They laid off most of employees and decided to design and produce consumer cameras since before WWII, they had history to produce Nikkor lenses for Canon cameras. In order not to destory Canon's customer base, Nikon made all dials to the oppsitte of those on Canon cameras (shutter dial, apaerture dial, etc.) The idea was that in this way, Canon users could not get used to use Nikon cameras. (Now we do not see this ides with F5 which is very similar to Canon EOS- 1N.) But until LIFE magazine photographers stopped over Japan to find that Nikkor lenses were better than Leica then to be interested in even Nikon camera bodies, I believe Nikon was virtually bunkrupt. When LIFE magazine photographer came to Japan, I believe all Nikon had was several lenses in stock and that was it. No mass production or anything. Naoki ======================================================= ======================================================= Binocular List #166: 01 May 2001 ================================================ Subject: Docter 7x40 B/GA versus CZJ EDF 7x40, and new 10x42 B/GA From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@___ne.de Some time ago I purchased a new-old-stock Docter 7x40 B/GA (civilian version, without reticle, but with yellow tinted prisms, #3090220) and I was quite impressed. According to info from Docter since 1992 they use clear prisms. And no phase coatings. Last week I received another "NVA" binocular I won on that aucition site. Expecting to get a DF (porro prism) I however got an EDF (roof prism, with reticle and yellow tint, #G059866). The item description was a little bit unclear, however clear enough to expect a binocular rather than a beer mug with East German Army insignia. I asked whether it is a 7x40 binocular, but not for DF or EDF. After all the price was :> rather than only :-). The coating on the Docter's front lenses has a blue cast, compared to a golden cast on the EDF. The okulars on both sample have the same golden cast. When looking through the EDF the first time, my initial impression was that resolution is indeed a tad better than with the Docter. I am not sure whether my eyes got fooled, whether these are just sample variations or whether there is indeed a technical reason. Perhaps coatings, perhaps sub-spec parts assembled after 1989. Docter has discontinued the 8x42 and 10x40 aspherical and non-aspherical binoculars (the ones based on the CZJ Notarem line), now focussing mainly on their larger porros (7x50, 10x50, 8x56, 15x60). The latest news is that the 7x40 now is renamed "Safari" and has a big sister, the 10x42 "Safari": 100m fov @___ 1090g weight, 176mm length, nitrogene purged and 0.1 bar water proof, but without phase correcting coatings. Possibly the individually focussed eyepieces are not ideal for a 10x power bino (near point 9.7m). I find the mechanical eyepiece design on the IOR 7x40 a weak point. The rubber cones do not fold down well and on older samples the helicals wear out. And I could not use the nominally wider field with my spectacles on. The russian 7x30 may perform well, optically, but for the mean 30mm objectives they are very heavy. Hans-Peter ============================================ Subject: 7 x 30s From: l.helling@___ne.de (Helling) At list # 165 Arnold Cohen reports about his 7X40 test. Some remarks to the Russian 7X30: I bought my 7X30 binoculars 5...6 years ago at German fleemarkets from Polish dealers which bought them in Russia. I agree absolutly with Hans Seeger and Arnold Cohen about the excellent quality. Since several years I can not find this binoculars any more, neither at German fleemarkets nor at ebay. Very often I see a binocular which looks very similar to the old 7X30. But the optical quality is much poorer. I imagined also the weight is lower. It seems they used less glas inside. You can not screw in and out the eye cups. These are made of soft rubber without a metal core. You can see on the first view (also at ebay) if a 7X30 is from the good old quality or of the new junk: At the old ones the diameter of the rubber-coated eye cups is 5 mm less than the metal part of the oculars where the eye cup can be screwed in. This diameter step is easy to see. At the new ones there is NOT this diameter step! May be this information can preserve somebody from a mistake... (Sorry for my terrible English.), Best regards from Germany, Lothar Helling ========================================= Subject: EMS, Somet-Binar From: Fan Tao The review of the Binoscope/EMS system on cloudynights.com http://www.cloudynights.com/breviews/binoscope.htm has a link to a very nicely done web site on someone's 10 inch binoculars using EMS: http://homepage2.nifty.com/bigbino/index-e.htm Also, Jean-Laurent asked a while back about the Somet-Binar 25x100. There was an article in the July 1992 Sky & Telescope about comet hunting using these binoculars in Czechoslovakia. The article has a picture and with the description, they do sound like exact copies of the Zeiss 25x100 of WWII, though it is not clear who manufactured them. If anyone wants a scan of the article, I will be glad to e- mail a copy. Regards, Fan Tao fantao@___et.att.net ================================================ Subject: Test report of 20x110 Russian binocular From: Fan Tao The Russian 20x110's optical performance is similar to the German blc 25x100 from WWII. With an enormous apparent field of view of 100 degrees, there are, not surprisingly, large amounts of distortion and astigmatism towards the edge. I would estimate the field of view where the image is very sharp (pinpoint stars) to be about 60 degrees, which is comparable to the best normal binoculars. The eye relief is adequate but not generous - usable without glasses but probably not ideal if you require glasses. The binoculars come with rubber eyecups but I don't use them and I believe that the person I bought them from machined the eyepiece rims for better eye relief. I have heard from others that there is a nocticeable amount of chromatic aberration, again, not suprising with short focal ratio achromatic objectives of over 4 inches. I have not noticed any objectionable color because I don't use these binoculars to view the moon, planets or bright stars (where an apo refractor would be more appropriate). They are excellent for scanning the Milky Way and other star fields. If you are planning to use these binoculars during the day, be aware that there is a yellowish tint to the view, which seems to be common with military optics. I don't notice this at night. Mechanically, the Russian 20x110 is very similar to the 10x80 20 degree model built for the German Kriegsmarine in WWII (the cradle and mount seem to be a direct copy). It is built like a tank, very heavy and sealed against the elements. I can't really find much fault with the mechanics, other than the weight. I have the optional pier (mounted to a wooden platform I made) which is very sturdy and has a nice telescoping mechanism to set a comfortable height for viewing. I can't imagine using these binoculars with an ordinary tripod. You'll need something that can support 50 pounds or more. --Fan Tao ==================================================== Subject: Optical Munitions in the Great War From: SCSambrook@___m >(in Hartcup, "The War of Invention", p182) that during the First World War, > some 20,000 German binoculars for infantry officers and up to 12,000 non-prismatic > binoculars for NCOs were despatched to the British during August 1915." The item from Adrian Whichello, which I see is now some years old, might bear some expansion. Guy Hartcup's The War of Invention is an interesting work, and I would not presume to make any criticism of it. However, the section which Adrian cites might perhaps re-considered. Hartcup refers to a regularly-quoted account of the British attempts to procure additional supplies of binoculars and sighting telescopes during 1915. The origin of this comes from the Official History of the Ministry of Munitions, which is itself a little reticent as to details of the proposed trade with Germany. I do not think that Guy Hartcup is justified in his assertion that the Germans actually supplied some 32,000 instruments in 1915 - the account in the Official History makes it clear that the Germans said that they would be able to do so, not that they actually did. I do not discount that the British government might have made such purchases from Germany between 1915 and 1918, but at present hard evidence to establish this is simply not available. Import statistics certainly do show quantities of glass coming from German ports of origin, but not necessarily of complete instruments. If anyone knows anything else on this subject, I would be very interested to hear from him, or her. Cheers Stephen ======================================== Subject: Resolution tests From: "Charles M. Barringer" >>A formal mil spec chart for resolving power at 75 feet was used<< Many thanks for the exhaustive "informal" 7x40 test reported in list #165. I recently acquired a civilian EDF 7x40 ("aus Jena, 4x40BGA", #6068639) in black and green rubber armoring, without reticle. Before trying to test and report observations about them, I was wondering if Arnie could share some of the specifics of the mil spec resolution chart so that some degree of objectivity could be maintained between Spokane and Philadelphia suburbs conditions. First reactions are that they show a very distinct yellow cast of the image, and that they would probably survive being dropped over a 100" cliff better than most other binos I'm familiar with. Has anyone on the list tried to compensate the yellowness with CC filters, as used in photographic applications, or contrast modification filters as used with B&W multicontrast paper in the (old-style, wet) darkroom? I imagine this wouldn't be too difficult but don't have the calibrated range of filters to try the idea out. Charlie Barringer ------------ From: Peter Abrahams Re: colored filters; they have their uses in telescope viewing and yes you could compensate for the yellow with blue but you'd definitely degrade contrast, which is already lowered by the yellow & which is equally important as resolution in achieving a sharp image. Film contrast is easily enhanced after exposure. So, I'd be interested in hearing any positive reports but am skeptical. Resolution: There are a few varieties of resolution chart but they mostly use the USAF target (US Air Force, I'd guess the same chart is used world wide & not always called USAF), which displays many sets of 3 horizontal bars & 3 vertical bars =|| , of progressively finer dimensions, black on white or white on black. However you view them, there is a set that is too fine to resolve, the bars blend into a gray, and you can describe resolution in lines per millimeter (though it is not a quantitative test). Then you have to figure out a way to describe res away from the center of the field -- "half way to edge"?? Edmund sells a poster version of this that includes colored bars for testing chromatic aberration. However, I'm unsure if comparing resolution between users provides useful information: --There is no set definition for acceptable blur. --Like all viewing, experience is a factor. --Contrast (meaning low scattered light, high transmission, and other factors) affects this measure and considerably complicates the matter. Lenses can have the same resolution limits but different contrast performance. Lenses can have better resolution of high contrast features than low contrast features, and vice versa. The USAF charts are very high contrast, though there's low contrast models as well. But mostly: --There is very large variation in the resolution of the human eye. This is not the same as near or far sightedness or astigmatism, which are correctable with spectacles. Some or most of the difference is spherical aberration of the eye. I am an experienced user but have fairly poor resolution, and I have found that my judgement of the resolving power of a binocular is not worth much. There is no doubt that the finest lines I can resolve are not as small as the lines that other people can see. One solution, that I explained in an earlier list, is to use an auxiliary scope; this is a small, very high quality telescope that you put behind the eyepiece, so it magnifies the image. You can clearly see differences between cheap & quality binoculars. However, this setup is very difficult to use: you need a very steady support for binocular & aux scope; the aux scope needs to be precisely aligned at the exit pupil; and contrast is greatly lowered. So, I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from developing a standard, but it is a project that should be started knowing that results are going to be questionable - though maybe useful as a comparison. To begin a standardization: You could probably photocopy a res target; the finer lines wouldn't apply to a binocular anyway. Then set it at say 20 feet, or at the near focus of the binocular that has the farthest near focus. Then determine which is the finest set of lines you can resolve (this would require clarification: showing the first signs of blurring? probably would be best to say, the smallest set you can tell is 3 lines & not a grey smudge.) Then maybe complicate things by describing off axis performance. It doesn't take very long to do, but you'd need to explain it very clearly. ============================== Subject: Resolution tests From: "Charles M. Barringer" For those who read French the monthly magazine "Chasseur d'Images" occasionally does comparative bino and spotting scope tests, escaping the subjective pitfalls by having a large number of staffers participate. I think I have copies around somewhere and could forward, but the articles themselves are far too long to envisage translating for others. (I can recommend a language learning course, though.) Are there other publications which perform this service as well? Sounds like we have the perfect forum for judging image degradation before and after inclusion of cc filters in the lightpath. I'll make an effort to locate some unused ones (thanks to the decreasing popularity of wet darkrooms, that should be doable) and check out my own idea with a report to the list. I have used the Edmund target (mounted on some gator board, with a stick-on ruler for easy calculation of actual magnification) for photo lens resolution, and see no reason it couldn't work with binos as well, with the reservations stated. What about degrees of field? Is this based on the number of meters of field visible, related to distance via trigonometric calculations, or is there an easier way (maybe just different, but not easier) to check the manufacturer's figures? Edmund, incidentally, just closed its retail store doors here in New Jersey (1/2 mile from my house) but will be maintaining their catalog and industrial business, I understand, from a new base in New York State. Their GOOB sale was great fun, and my garage now harbors even more useless treasures than before. Is this the right forum for questions about military rangefinder operation and maintenance/repair? I've got some doozies. to be continued. Charlie ====================================== Subject: Re: resolution tests From: Arnold Cohen The resolution chart was from the back of Seyfrieds' book-mounted and used as directed in the text. As a former denizen of Philadelphia (did my residency at the Hosp of the Univ of PA) I look foward to comparitive studies from my old stomping grounds. As to interobserver variation you are exactly correct-I'm slightly farsighted, not enough to correct, just enough to enjoy minor "eagle eyes"-great for these tests and at the pistol range but it drives my optometrist crazy when I don't want her to "fix" it when she does my reading glasses! As for the articles-je peux les lire tre bien! Arnie ==================================== ======================================================= Binocular List #167: 11 May 2001 ==================================================== Subject: Meeting May 28 in LA It seems likely that Terry Vacani and Steve Stayton will be joining the rest of us: Steve Rohan, Peter Abrahams, Fan Tao, Frank Doherty, Jack Kelly, Loren Busch. It will be a very informal event, and will include displays, a presentation sketching the development of eyepieces, use of some of the finest old binoculars, swap meet?, and mostly just visiting. This is in Duarte, east of Pasadena, beginning at noon or early afternoon on May 28. ==================================================== Subject: Texts on German binoculars Some time ago, Hans Seeger gave me permission to post the translation of a portion of his book on military binoculars. At earlier LA binocular meetings, I've given talks on German 8 x 60s and 7 x 50s, based on his text. I've now added a text on German 6 x 30s, consisting of excerpts from the book, and posted the three files at the web site, as part of the section on Seeger's book. http://home.europa.com/~telscope/6x30.txt http://home.europa.com/~telscope/7x50.txt http://home.europa.com/~telscope/8x60.txt =================================================== Subject: Fujii Brothers binoculars From: Peter Abrahams The first Japanese prism binoculars were made by Fujii Brothers. This important company is very little known today. Any further information would be greatly appreciated. ------- http://photojpn.org/HIST/1646.html 1908: FUJII Ryuzo establishes the Fujii Lens Seizosho factory. Ryuzo was a Mechanical Engineering major at the Tokyo Institute of Technology and became a naval engineer. He was sent to Europe for three years to study optical design and lens manufacturing in Europe (mainly Germany). He returned to Japan in 1901 and quit the navy in 1908 to start his company. His younger brother Kozo joined the company after quitting his job at the Aichi Cement Company. They studied the production of prisms and lenses in a rented dirt-floored entrance hall of a house. In March 1909, they moved to a new factory in Shiba, Tokyo and equipped it with the latest lens manufacturing equipment from Germany. It became Japan's first modern lens factory. In 1917, the company was consolidated into Nippon Kogaku Kogyo K.K., forerunner of Nikon. -------- http://www.cameraguild.co.jp/nekosan/binos.htm Early Nippon Kogaku and Pre-Nippon Kogaku Binoculars Dr.Ryuzo Fujii was an officer in Japanese Imperial Army and studied optics and other precision mechanics in Germany. He felt the need for domestic military optical manufacturing in the war with Russia. He then retired Army to found the Fujii Bros. Optical Mfg. with his brother Mitsuzo. They manufactured binoculars and other military and civil optical instrument and later became engineeringly the main body of the Nippon Kogaku founded in 1917 with other two companies. In 1921, Nippon Kogaku hired Dr.Acht and other eight German engineers to improve their engineering skill. Their first work included the thorough redesigning of the binoculars. ---------- Baird, The Japanese Camera, shows a "Victor" 8X20 in 1911 and then in 1913 two prism binocs, "Nihon-go" models 6X24 and 8X24. But then the Cameraguild.co.jp website shows a Fujii Bros. Victor No. 5, X6 so the early model history is sketchy at this time. --Steve Stayton ==================================================== ======================================================= Binocular List #168: 20 May 2001 ================================================== Subject: Patents From: Peter Abrahams I will be in L.A. from 22 May to 29 May. At the meeting at Steve Rohan's on 28 May, I'll be giving a simple overview of the development of binocular eyepieces. This is an example of a very important subject related to binoculars, that is difficult to assemble in a coherent manner. I find some information & diagrams in Seeger's books, and in optics books, but nothing like an overall perspective of the past 100 years of developments. In these difficult situations, where there is little reference material, I find my collection of patents to be very useful. You can't rely on a patent to be totally accurate, as they often were purposefully inaccurate to disguise trade secrets. But there are many binocular patents that show the design of the eyepiece, and are the only available record of this information. I use the US Patent Office web site, search by number -- this lets you get a printout of the entire patent if you know the number: http://164.195.100.11/netahtml/srchnum.htm The USPTO site also lets you search by inventor & type of invention, but only back to 1976. It would be very useful to be able to search for 'binocular' patents in earlier years, or to search for patents by Abbe or others. I know that there are businesses that search for this type of data. If any list members have access to these databases, it would be very helpful if they could forward a list of binocular patents before 1976 (I know this might be a fairly large file). Thanks, Peter ===================== Subject: Elgeet Stabilized 7 x 50 Binoculars From: "Jack Kelly" Here are a few photos of the Elgeet No 16 Stabilized binoculars. http://home.europa.com/~telscope/elgeet1.jpg 93k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/elgeet2.jpg 76k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/elgeet3.jpg 97k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/elgeet4.jpg 81k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/elgeet5.jpg 73k The stabilization mechanism is quite basic, using a gimbal assembly that moves in both the horizontal and vertical axis. The theory here appears to be that the movement of the gimbal will negate any movements by the user. I cannot confirm the effectiveness yet because the gimbal has some drag and will need a little cleaning. The interesting design incorporates 2 mirrors on each side which direct the beam into the long face of a standard 90 degree prism and then into the short face of two more prisms and on into the ocular. This is a little hard to describe so I have included a rough sketch of the light path. My sketch is a little misleading because the prisms are actually arrange at right angles to the mirrors. The glasses are 7x50's, very well made and appear to have been designed for a military application. My guess is that the proposal was rejected and Elgeet attempted to produce a commercial version. Elgeet was quite well known in the 1950's as a maker of movie camera lenses. Maybe some of our ex-military list members might know something about this one. Regards, Jack ===== From: "Steve Stayton" Very curious design. Would only appear to work with the binocular in a horizontal plane if I understand the gimbal configuration. Will be interested to see how well it works. Steve ===== The Elgeet Optical Company was founded by three young men who had been boyhood friends: Mortimer A. London, then a lens inspector at Kodak, with David L. Goldstein and Peter Terbuska of Ilex. (The firm's name is an acronym of L, G. and T). In 1946 they began by leasing some machine tools to make lens-polishing machinery, and with this they set up shop in an Atlantic Avenue loft, where they did all their own lens manufacture, packaging, and selling. By 1952 the firm had grown sufficiently to enable them to purchase a former clothing plant at 838 Smith Street. At that time Goldstein was president, Terbuska was secretary, and London treasurer. The company prospered and with nearly 300 employees they manufactured thousands of lenses for small movie cameras and many other applications. London left in 1960, and in 1962 the firm acquired ownership of the ancient establishment of Steinheil in Munich, but they soon sold this, I believe to Lear Siegler. In 1964 there were difficulties at stock-holder's meetings, and the firm was reorganized with Alfred Watson as president. Two years later the assets of the company were acquired by MATI (Management and Technology Inc.), who acquired Turner Bellows at the same time. MATI survived only until 1969, when they disappeared. Goldstein purchased the remaining assets of the former Gundlach Manufacturing Company in Fairport and reorganized it under the name "Dynamic Optics Incorporated," but this also ceased operations in 1972. (From: A History of The Rochester, NY Camera and Lens Companies, by Rudolf Kingslake, available on line) ====================================== Subject: Aitchison Sirdar 8x From: "Jack Kelly" I have enclosed a few photos of the Sirdar binocular showing the internal workings. http://home.europa.com/~telscope/sirdar1.jpg 35k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/sirdar2.jpg 63k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/sirdar3.jpg 101k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/sirdar4.jpg 65k As you know, this was a very early glass and one of the few that incorporated an iris diaphragm to regulate the amount of light entering the glass. This was thought to reduce eyestrain and glare on bright days. There are a few interesting points to make. 1. The prism assembly is rather crudely done. Evidence of hand filing and a rough cut base plate are clear. It makes you appreciate the amount of hand work that went into this glass in contrast to the precision of the contemporary Zeiss Feldstechers. 2. You cannot see it in the photos but there are 2 gear assemblies in the body. One drives the focus mechanism and the second controls the diaphragm. The smaller of the two knobs visible in the photo is the diaphragm control knob. 3. The entire manufacturing process for this glass was quite costly. The body is cast aluminum. The prism assembly mounts on this body and is then protected by a leather covered brass sleeve. Regards, Jack ======================================== ======================================================= Binocular List #169: 31 May 2001. ================================================ Subject: cleaning of optics From: "Uli Mayer" As a novice in the universe of binos I hesitate to pass on any recommendations on how to clean optics. However, since I haven't found the following method mentioned in your forum, you might be interested in what Dr. Pabst of Leitz laboratories once proposed. The knack is peanuts - the indigestable ones, made of styrofoam! They are highly lipophilic and therefore quite useful to get rid off the greasy residue frequently left over after cleaning lenses with alcohol etc., and they will not scratch surfaces. To make this advice a bit more authorative, here is what I found cited in an article by Peter Kocksholt in "Refraktor- Selbstbau",edited by Günter D. Roth, Verlag UNI-Druck, Munich 1990: "Dr. H. Pabst vom Laboratorium für Angewandte Mikroskopie der Ernst Leitz Gmbh., Wetzlar, schreibt zu diesem Thema in Leitz-Mitteilungen Wissenschaft. u. Technik. Bd.VI, Nr.2 vom August 1973 folgendes: 'Die rückstandsfreie Reinigung von kleinen, insbesondere konvexen und konkaven versenkten Linsenflächen wie den Frontlinsen von mittleren und starken Objektiven, bereitet oft Schwierigkeiten. "Bei stärkerer Verschmutzung ist eine Reinigung mit einem weichen Leinenlappen oder Leder, gegebenenfalls unter Zuhilfenahme von Wasser oder Xylol als Lösungsmittel, grundsätzlich notwendig. Eine Restschicht von fettigen Verunreinigungen, die an Interferenzfarben zu erkennen ist, kann man auch mit Linsenpapier, Baumwolllappen und Waschleder meist nicht beseitigen.Eine neue Methode bringt hier einen entscheidenden Forschritt: 'Man nehme ein Stück Polystyrol-Schaum ( Styropor, Poresta, Styrofoam), vorzugsweise von der kleinperligen, für Verpackungsformteile verwendeten Sorte, drücke eine vorstehende Stelle aus einer frischen Bruchfläche auf die Linsenoberfläche und drehe das Styroporstück möglichst koaxial mit der Linsenachse. Hierdurch wird eine vollständige Beseitigung der Restverschmutzung erreicht, was durch eine absolut schlierenfreie Linsenoberfläche erkennbar wird. Etwa haften gebliebene Styroporteilchen können abgeblasen werden. 'Strikt zu beachten ist, dass zur Vorreinigung verwendetes Xylol erst vollständig abgedunstet sein muß, damit das Styropor nicht auf- oder angelöst wird. 'Die geschilderte Methode ist schnell, mühlos, schonend und sehr wirkungsvoll. Sie hat folgende Vorteile: 1.Durch die hohe Elastizität legt sich das Material der ganzen Linsenoberfläche an und drückt sich auch in die Kehle der Linsenfassung. Durch die Drehung des Styropors um die verlängerte Linsenachse , die durch das satte Anliegen an Linse und Fassung gewährleistet wird, ist sichergestellt, dass Schmutz aus der Fassungskehle nicht wieder über die Linsenfläche gewischt wird. 2.Da das Material aus flüssigem Ausgangsstoff hergestellt wird, ist gewährleistet, dass keine kratzenden Fremdpartikel eingeschlossen sind. Durch die jeweils frische Bruchfläche ist absolute Sauberkeit, im Gegensatz zu Lappen oder Leder, gegeben. 3. Aufgrund seines chemischen Aufbaus (polymerisisiertes Styrol) ist das Material lipophil und nimmt deshalb fettige Beläge besonders gut auf.' " I hope, you don't mind that I did not translate these lines. But from those fundamental articles and excerpts of German optical literature which I find on your website I am pretty sure that your German must be much better than my English. Uli Mayer ---- Thank you for providing this text. For the translations on the web site, I hired a translator & edited her text. My abilities in German are quite limited. Furthermore, some of my newer correspondents assume I know everything I write -- far from it; I have a poor memory -- but a knack for organizing text. It is quite common for me to have a question, search the web, and find the answer on my own web page, in one of my essays, completely forgotten. Although I'm only 46 now, it is clear that the next decades will be an ongoing experiment on the question: can you counteract increasing senility with increasing organization?? -Peter =========================================== Subject: binoculars on the web: Iranian binoculars: IOI (Isfahan Optics Industry) http://www.ioico.com/ioi_binoculars.htm These appear to be well made: 40 x 150, 1.5 degree FOV; 20 x 120, 3 degree FOV; 20 x 80, 3 degree FOV. ---------------- Brazilian binoculars http://www.dfv.com.br/Ingles/binoculo.htm These are Galileans masquerading as prismatic binoculars. "D.F. VASCONCELLOS’ binoculars....They are made in 4 colors, one for each gang member!" http://www.dfv.com.br/Ingles/historia_3.htm Mr. Décio Fernandes de Vasconcellos, a graduated topographer, self-taught in physics and mathematics, founded the company ' D.F.VASCONCELLOS S.A Óptica e Mecânica de Alta Precisão' in April, 1941, in the city of Sao Paulo (SP), & began its activities with the manufacturing of DEPRESSION TELEMETERS for Artillery for Coast Defense, ordered by the Brazilian Army. During its first 10 years of activity, the company dedicated itself exclusively to the manufacturing of military instruments such as: telemeters, prismatic binoculars, goniometers, compasses, binocular periscopic telescopes, stereoscopes, mortar collimators and telescopes for observation. Starting in 1951, the company entered the civillian market, manufacturing prismatic binoculars and some models of magnifying glasses and telemagnifying glasses. --------------- Two pages of the history of binoculars, from Zeiss http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A100537AB9/allBySubject/A2BF6295570EB66EC12569DE004D05A1 http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A100537AB9/allBySubject/AAAE635B4EC6FB43C12569E0003BFD78 A page on Ignazio Porro, from Zeiss: http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A100537AB9/allBySubject/AA3AECF295184783C12569E0003D8225 ================================= Subject: Deltrintem From: "Greg Wirtz" Last year I purchased a CZJ 8x30 Deltrintem through an eBay auction. The seller stated that it was unused, unsold, old stock from a London shop. It appears to have been manufactured in the 1980s, judging from the cardboard box (marked as multicoated), plastic (or rubber) neck strap, style of leather case, and the typical markings on the eye-side prism cover plates. The odd thing about it is its serial number, which is in the usual place for a Deltrintem and is "DX04451". The number is etched into the hinge plate on the front, but it is not in the typical white lettering and it is smaller than is typical. Shouldn't it have a number something like 5xxxxxx or 6xxxxxx if it were made during the 1980s. Does anyone know why it has an atypical number or whether this serial number indicates anything unusual about this particular example? Sincerely, Greg Wirtz ================================== From: SCSambrook@___m 1: Does anyone on the List have an interest in telescopic sights ? Not current ones, but older ones - pre 1939. If so I'd be interested to get in touch. 2: I've just been loaned a Japanese prismatic telescope which I don't think was ever on sale here in the U.K. It's marked with a trade-mark of a circle superimposed on a triangle, the circle enclosing the letters A O C. This looks like the old Asahi Optical mark which appeared on Pentax cameras. There are no "J" markings, but next to the single word "Japan" is the letter K in what is either a letter O or a circle. The scope is made from light alloy, has a rotating hemispherical turret carrying 15x, 25x and 35x eyepieces, and has a 50mm objective. The prism housing is cylindrical, and the objective tube tapers out to a parallel section at its front. Overall length is 12 inches. It is coated, either deep blue or purple (don't laugh, I'm colourblind). It's not easy to form any real idea of its performance, as it's well-endowed with mist and fungus internally, but it seems to be only so-so. Does anyone know the date of this ? Very few Japanese optics were imported into the UK much before 1960, and I don't remember ever seeing this one. Cheers Stephen ===================================== Subject: Crown / USNGF binoculars From: SCSambrook@___m I have almost enough material now to produce a piece on Crown binoculars and the British Government, but I would be pleased if I could get a few more serials relating to production after the British/Russian orders finished. Do you have any idea if Crown actually made any binoculars before 1916? The records I've found here suggest that Crown was able to supply a sample glass almost immediately on being approached by the Purchasing Commission, which tends to suggest that they already some involvement with binoculars. I know that 'real' binocular enthusiasts probably don't have anything like Crown binoculars from World War 1, but I need as many serial numbers as possible to finish off my project on the British Government's dealings with Crown in 1916 and 1917.If anyone owns either a Crown or US Naval Gun Factory 6x 30 Military Stereo, I wonder if they would be so kind as to let me know its number/s. As far as I can see, they all have a Crown factory number marked on one of the lower bridges (sometimes badly struck in a very small font). In addition, some Crown marked ones have a US Navy number hand engraved, usually on one of the bottom cover plates. The US Naval Gun Factory ones have an 'EE' number on the top plate, but also the bridge-marked number as well. I guess that the USNGF ones might carry UN Navy serials in lieu of 'EE' numbers, but I haven't come across one yet. Also: 1: Is there any record of how far B & L binocular serial numbers had progressed by 1914 or 1915 ? 2: Does anyone know if their war-time 6x 30 'Military Stereo' model differed from the 1912 model 'Prism Stereo' and Great War 'EE' models ? They all look very similar ... if not identical. --Stephen ---------------- From: Peter Abrahams I have nothing on early B & L serial numbers -- I very much wish these details were known. All I have on Crown is this: The Crown Optical Company-- This company was founded in 1906 by A. H. Hatmaker, president, and A. E. May secretary-treasurer, to manufacture lenses. They first occupied a building at 484 Clinton Avenue South, and moved to 65 Atlantic Avenue in 1909, to 299 State Street in 1912, and finally to 203 State Street in 1917. They disappeared in 1919 at the close of World War I. I own two relevant binoculars: Crown Optical Co. Military Stereo 6 x 30. 37711. (U.S. Navy - A6 -10743) USNGF Optical Annex. Bureau of Navigation. 6 x 30. 44422 (U.S. Navy 14820) ================================== Subject: RE: WWII Sard 6x42 Binoculars From: Norman.Paradis@___edu I have just purchased a second Sard 6x42 Binocular and am intrigued to find that the surface of the housings are different. My old pair had a relatively smooth surface with swirls. The new instrument has a rough grid-like pattern. Were these two variants produced by the Square Department Company? Norman Paradis, MD ----------- From: Peter Abrahams The 6 x 42 that I own is covered with a cloth that is impressed with a leather texture, 'pebbled'. At Steve Rohans, I inspected a Sard 6 x 42 in the mounting that was used on airplanes, for hands free use. The binocular was adapted for the frame by removing the center axis pin and separating the two halves, each mounted in a mechanism for interpupillary adjustment, within the frame. To remove the binocular & use it hand held, you would need the axis pin and other parts. Since very few of these survive in their mounts, and they are not too scarce otherwise, I'd think that the mounted application was quite unusual during the war. I had thought that the mount was standard for the Sard. --Peter ==================================== Subject: Japanese binoculars From: Peter Abrahams I visited David Bushnell last week. He gave me some papers, the best of which was: 'The List of Binocular Makers' 1959. Japan Binoculars Export Promotion Co. 203 makers (mostly producing parts), with address, phone, & representative. I scanned & posted it to : http://home.europa.com/~telscope/j-list.txt ================================= Subject: Meeting in L.A. From: Peter Abrahams A half dozen interested parties attended the meeting at Steve Rohans. In addition to our host, Peter Abrahams & Jack Kelly traveled from Portland; Loren Busch from Seattle; Fan Tao from the S.F. area; Frank Doherty from San Diego, and Steve Stayton from Tucson. There were two presentations: Peter Abrahams gave a talk on the development of eyepieces, which was discursive & not terribly informative. The development of eyepieces is the major factor in the improvements to binoculars over these 100 years but to detail the progress is quite difficult. Drawings from patents are not always accurate, but they help, as do the experiences of those who restore binoculars. All, or almost all, of the earliest binoculars used Kellner eyepieces. Most of the important steps did not occur at a known time & place -- for example, the single most important improvement, the introduction of the Erfle, cannot yet be assigned a definite time (though future studies will reveal this information). Aspheric surfaces in eyepieces are an important innovation that cannot yet be dated. The 'modern eyepiece' with a forward negative element ('integral barlow') is also undated. Lens coating is an exception -- a major improvement that can be dated. The talk at this meeting was a broad overview & provided very little information, but gave a perspective of where future work needs to be done. Steve Stayton gave a talk on a paper from the U.S. Navy during WWII: Bureau of Naval Personnel Training. Lookout Manual for Officers, Supervisors, and Shore based Instructors. NAVPERS 16198. August 1945. (89p) This book provides the clearest account of how the U.S. Navy used the standard binoculars, and the importance of providing a crew with optical tools to allow them to survive. We also discussed the recent issue of 'Zeiss Historica', which has a long & excellent article by Bill Reid on Zeiss London & Ross binoculars, a biography of Carl Paul Goerz, an article on H. Hensoldt Company, and the news that list member Larry Gubas is now President of Zeiss Historica Society. There is a beginning of a web site at Dues are $35 in the U.S. and $45 elsewhere. The next meeting of binocular history enthusiasts will be held in July 2002 in Portland, Oregon / Vancouver, Washington, at the time of the very large 'Antique Expo'. --Peter ================================= ======================================================= Binocular List #170: 05 June 2001 ================================================= Subject: U.S. Patent for a binocular Schmidt Cassegrain telescope At the USPTO web site for searching by number: http://164.195.100.11/netahtml/srchnum.htm Enter 2,413,286 You'll find a two page patent dated Dec. 1947, by William Buchele of Toledo, Ohio, for a hand held binocular Schmidt Cassegrain. Buchele was an amateur telescope maker, who made a 20" reflector described in Scientific American in 1939, then in WWII made 7500 roof prisms for the war effort, and later became Modern Optical Co. =================================================== Subject: Replies From: Arnold Cohen Some comments: SARD-my 6x42 has a pebbled leather/vinyl covering in black. However, 2 7x50 SARDs have a rough black lacquer on steel-a surface very commonly used on steel instruments, control panels etc. in the 30's thru 50's. Not as rough as the German rough paint on 08 fieldglasses. Crown-I have a Crown Optical/Rochester NY 6x30 Military Stereo glass with amber filters built into the eyepeices-roll in an out with little discs on lateral aspect of the eyepieces. On the objective end it is marked on one side US Navy and and the other 7908 with a small circle with an N in it-with the tails of the N extending beyond the circle superiorly and inferiorly. It has a brown, coarse pebbled leather covering. It is similar to a Talbot Reel and Mfc. Co. K.C.Mo. Military Stereo 6x30 no. 180855 serial E (not EE) Signal Corps USA but the Talbot has simple eyecups, sans filters. The only Prism Stereo labled glasses I have are cental focus and presumably civilian glasses. The label Victory Stereo was also used between the wars by B+L-mine are are CF. I do have a B+L Military Stereo 6x30 with no serial no. and locking mechanism on the front of the hinge that is broad arrow marked, as is its case. Like other military glasses is just says Bausch and Lomb Optical without the two concentric circles containing the triange with cut off angles and the name B+L seen on civilian glasses. USN Gun Factory-just came across an interesting glass-a 10x45 USNGF optic shop annex Bureau of Ordinance glass No. 630 with coated optics!! Clearly a rework during the war-it has the coated optics decal covering the 10x45-it is early as it warns about cleaning, it has nml eyepieces, rather than the built in amber filters seen on most of these and is shiny black pebbled and the metal is all black, no brass rings etc. as often seen in this model. The sytrofoam peanuts dissolve in most organic solvents-even are used as basis for homemade napalm!! Only danger is if any residual solvent is on lens-could streak and dissolve peanut. Struggling thru the German text I was struck that German would be the only language that one would read such a detailed and technical discussion of such a topic as using packing peanuts to clean glass!! Lastly, check some CZJ glasses of the 70's-80's-no DX codes, just the usual. Don't know if any of this info helps the questioners-but there it is for what its worth. Arnie ================================================= Subject: Cleaning optics From: Just one comment on the styropor cleaning tip: Please remember to try the pellets you want to use, on an old "to be thrown away" lens first...Some producents may not deliver styropor that is quite clean from dust (after all, this IS a cheap material), and beware...some higher quality foam pellets may have additives, that shouldn´t be put on lenses...they can be blown up with different gases, or the styropor may have been blended with other types of plastics...or just colours... So: Test it, before you use it for serious work...and remember to let the cleaning liquids dry out completely, before using the styropor... Regards. Michael Simonsen ------- From: gene harryman Re: the article on cleaning lenses. Besides the standard blue cleaner from Edmunds, I have found two other excellent cleaners that leave no residue at all. One is from American Science and Surplus and is called "Rexton Optyl 7" (very inexpensive) and the surprise of the bunch, especially for carrying around in the field, are little single use wipes called "See Clear". I get them at Costco. They work extremely well and leave no residue as do some others I have tried. ============================================ Subject: Zeiss Historica From: Peter Abrahams List of articles on binoculars in the periodical _Zeiss Historica_: Beez, H. Jena's Optical Museum. Zeiss Historica, Fall 1995. Brown, J. A Multipurpose Monocular (8 x 30 B). Zeiss Historica, Spring 1995. Brown, J. Turmon Monoculars. Zeiss Historica, Fall 1989. Gould, J. Turn-Of-The-Century Zeiss Binoculars in England. Zeiss Historica, Fall 1986. Grossman, N. German Optical Codes. Zeiss Historica, Spring 1982. Grossman, N. New Light on German Optical Codes. Zeiss Historica, Fall 1983. Grossman, N. Postwar Hand-Held Binoculars from Jena. Zeiss Historica, Spring 1993. Grossman, N. Prime Quality Symbols. Zeiss Historica, Spring 1988. Grossman, N. Products from Zeiss Vienna. Zeiss Historica, Fall 1985. Grossman, N. Revisiting Hensoldt. Zeiss Historica, Spring 1993. Grossman, N. WWII German Manufacturers' Codes. Zeiss Historica, Fall 1990. Grossman, N. Zeiss / Bausch & Lomb Chronology. Zeiss Historica, Spring 1987. Grossman, N. Zeiss Four Meter Stereo Rangefinder. Zeiss Historica, Spring 1987. Grossman, N. Zeiss Galilean Field Glasses. Zeiss Historica, Fall 1985. Grossman, N. Zeiss Rangefinders for the Czar's Army. Zeiss Historica, Fall 1984. Gubas, L. Alexander Smakula. Zeiss Historica, Fall 1999. Gubas, L. Book Review - German Militarv Optical Technology by Hans Seeger. Zeiss Historica, Spring 1998. Gubas, L. Carl Paul Goerz. Zeiss Historica, Spring 2001. Gubas, L. Heinrich Valentin Erfle. Zeiss Historica, Spring 2000. Gubas, L. Hensoldt but not Hensoldt (Hans Hensoldt). Zeiss Historica, Spring 2001. Gubas, L. Hensoldt in Wetzlar. Zeiss Historica, Fall 1997. Gubas, L. More on Zeiss Binoculars. Zeiss Historica, Fall 1991. Gubas, L. A New Zeiss Binocular. Zeiss Historica, Spring 1998. Gubas, L. The Oberkochen Optical Museum. Zeiss Historica, Fall 1998. Gubas, L. A Short History of Zeiss Binoculars. Zeiss Historica, Spring 1990. Husid, M. Cold Weather Symbols - More Evidence. Zeiss Historica, Spring 1992. Kelly, J. Moller and Zeiss Compact Binoculars. Zeiss Historica, Spring 1999. Kelly, J. Zeiss and the Teleater. Zeiss Historica, Fall 1998. Kelly, J. Zeiss Serial Number Sequence. Zeiss Historica, Spring 2000. Neupert, P. Zeiss / Bausch & Lomb Binoculars. Zeiss Historica, Fall 1987. Paca, F. Hensoldt 7 x 56 Military Binoculars. Zeiss Historica, Fall 1999. Pfeiffer, W. The Oberkochen Optical Museum. Zeiss Historica, Spring 1983. Reid, W. Battling Binoculars (Comparisons with British models). Zeiss Historica, Fall 1995. Reid, W. Zeiss and Ross, London and Mill Hill. Zeiss Historica, Spring 2001. Surnont, A. A Zeiss Folding Stereo Telescope. Zeiss Historica, Fall 1995. Watson, F. Zeiss Binoculars' London Debut. Zeiss Historica, Fall 1999. Zartarian, E. Carl Zeiss Jena Binoculars. Zeiss Historica, Fall 1983. Zartarian, E. Carl Zeiss Jena Binoculars of WW II. Zeiss Historica, Fall 1990. Zartarian, E. More on Carl Zeiss Jena Binoculars. Zeiss Historica, Fall 1988. Zeiss Oberkochen. 100 Years of Carl Zeiss Binoculars. Zeiss Historica, Fall 1994. ================================================= Subject: Article on U.S. Army binoculars from 1944. All about Binoculars, by Albert G. Ingalls. Scientific American, August, 1944 OFTEN THIS department is asked for instructions for making a binocular. No such thing exists; nor would the job be very simple on a single instrument. Quite the contrary. The optics would be those of two refracting telescopes of short focal ratio; plus two Porro prism systems which erect the image, shorten the tube and, by increasing objective separation, enhance the stereoscopic effect (the dear public largely thinks they are put there to magnify); plus a mounting. In time and money, too, the job would far out cost a purchased instrument, and thus it is practically impracticable. That is just why some enterprising, nose-thumbing amateur will ultimately make a binocular. While the following résumé of recent improvements in U. S. Army binoculars, which was obtained from Frankford Arsenal, Army Ordnance Department, gives no how-to-make-it instructions, its background data should interest all readers. THE EMERGENCY precipitated by the impending World War II presented the United States Army Ordnance Department with the problem of immediate procurement of a large quantity o binoculars. Because of the urgency for setting up production it was necessary to select the most adaptable mode for which tooling existed and to produce approximately 350,000 instruments as quickly as possible. The model selected was the 6 X 30 commercial binocular being manufactured by the Bausch and Lomb Optical Company with whom an initial order for 20,000 binoculars was placed. This binocular was given the official nomenclature "Binocular, M3," indicating Standard Army Issue model No. 3 in the "M" series of binoculars. The 6 X 30 denotes six power magnification and 30mm objective diameter. The only change necessary in the commercial model was the incorporation of a military reticle. The reticle shown below is a glass disk, both surfaces of which are polished parallel to within two minutes of arc. On one surface lines and figures, presenting a graduated scale, are etched and filled with an opaque material to make them visible. The crossline pattern and the dimensions of the reticle are determined by the type of binocular in which the element is to be used. The element is usually made of baryta light flint or spectacle crown glass. The function of the reticle is to place the crossline pattern in the same focal plane as the real image formed by the objective so that the distance between two points or objects in the field of observation may be calculated. Since it was apparent, even prior to placing the initial order, that the resources of the experienced Bausch and Lomb Optical Company would be necessary for the production of more critical precision optical instruments than binoculars, arrangements to set up separate facilities to produce binoculars, solely and on a large scale, were inaugurated. Nash-Kelvinator, Ranco Division, and Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company were selected on the basis of Industrial Service surveys indicating their ability to utilize their existing equipment. As neither Nash-Kelvinator nor Westinghouse had previous experience in making military optical instruments or the facilities for the manufacture of the optical elements, the Ordnance Department instituted an elaborate program for procurement of the essential optics to be furnished to the two companies for assembly with the mechanical elements into complete binoculars. Optical elements included in the binocular are Porro prisms spherical lenses, cemented doublets- that is, a crown and a flint lens cemented together-and a reticle. The complete assembly is shown below. Fortunately, binocular optics do not require the extreme accuracy of optics such as Amici prisms and other special elements used in higher powered instruments. Despite the fact that optics were being manufactured by approximately 50 different companies, surprisingly little difficulty through rejections and disputes between the optics processors and the instrument assemblers was experienced. This may be attributed largely to an efficient inspecting system. Inspectors especially trained at Frankford Arsenal for inspection of fire control instruments were sent out to each one of the 13 ordnance districts in the United States. Since inspection of an optical surface cannot be measured with a graduated instrument, but must be based on the judgement of an inspector, occasional controversy arose regarding acceptability. In such case, a standardization meeting was held, whereupon master inspectors from Frankford Arsenal rendered final decision. Today's Army operates in the humid moisture-laden climate of the South Seas, in the icy climates of Greenland and Alaska, and in the African desert where night temperatures are below zero in sharp contrast to the extreme heat of the day. Binoculars used in World War II are subjected to terrific vibration and shock in transport and in action and often are completely immersed during military surf landings. From the viewpoint of World War II, Binocular M3 is a superlative instrument However, after a quantity of the M3 binoculars were issued and in use many difficulties due to the nature of military operations of World War II were reported. As a result of these reports, a concentrated study of the most minute details of Binocular M3 was conducted, which eventually resulted in the development of Binocular M13. The first problem to be considered in the development of the M13 from the basic M3 was that of waterproofing the instrument to withstand submersion. This was accomplished by redesigning the cover plates to provide for the use of a synthetic rubber gasket and a greater number of fastening screws. In addition, a new military wax, capable of withstanding extreme high and low temperatures, for sealing the objective lens and objective assembly was developed by the Ordnance Laboratory. This compound, Specification FXS, replaces Navy Black Sealing Compound No. 3A. It resists cracking at -50 degrees F. and has a melting point of 210 degrees F., as against 150 degrees F. for No. 3A compound. The formula includes a fungicide to repel molds and insects. Shock and vibration tests revealed that severe shock caused shifting of the original prism mounting, affecting the optical alinement of the instrument. Experimentation with methods of mounting prisms resulted in the use of a dental cement. This cement is a blend of cupric oxide powder, phosphoric acid, and zinc chloride in solution. The ingredients are mixed in the ratio of three parts of powder to one part of liquid. Additional tests proved that prisms mounted with this agent were locked firmly against all shock remained free of strain, and could be removed readily for cleaning. Another very serious problem, applicable to all telescopes, was the formation of moisture on the optical elements within the finished instrument. In any binocular, moisture may eventually enter and condense on the optics, because no instrument with an adjustable threaded eyepiece movement can be sealed perfectly. Such formation is most objectionable on tee graduated reticle, upon which the most trifling speck is visible and distracts the user. A plane high in the sky first appears as a tiny pinpoint which looms very like a fleck of dust under magnification of the binocular eyepiece. Experience gained in packaging complicated items for export, using dehydrating agents, was utilized in solving this problem. A special cartridge, shown in the small illustration, containing a small amount of silica gel, was placed within the body of each binocular. The instruments so treated were tested by subjection to most adverse conditions of humidity and rapid changes in temperature, which proved that the desiccant eliminated formation of moisture on the optics over an extended period of time. A means of making the binocular more usable under conditions of fading light was undertaken. American binoculars effective an hour later in the evening than those of the enemy would be of great advantage to American soldiers. Therefore, a development of the optical industry-coating optical surfaces with a magnesium fluoride film to reduce loss of light by reflection-had been under study by the Army and Navy for some time. By exerting the full power of research of the Army, Navy, and associated commercial facilities toward perfection of magnesium fluoride and other coating techniques, coatings were produced to withstand cleaning and all field conditions. The magnesium fluoride coating is applied to the optical surfaces at high temperature under a high vacuum, the fluoride becoming a part of the glass surface. This coating reduces light reflection and permits a greater amount of light to pass through the optical system, enabling the use of the binocular at dusk, when light is fading. After the time and money spent in producing a fine binocular, an improvement in the export method was incorporated as further insurance that the binocular will reach the ultimate user in factory-new condition. The binocular is placed in its special leather carrying case and sealed, together with five ounces of silica gel, in a moisture-vaporproof bag and cushioned in a corrugated carton. Twenty-four such cartons are then packed in a steel-strapped wooden box having a submersion-proof bag lining. This new M13 binocular is now mass production. Thousands of them are being shipped every month to American fighting men overseas to aid them in seeing the enemy before the enemy sees them. Of course, the Ordnance Department is never satisfied with the degree of perfection of the fighting equipment of our Army. Even now additional improvements to assure that the American binocular is the best the world are in progress. ===================================================== ======================================================= Binocular List #171: 11 June 2001. ============================================== Subject: 25 x 100 From: "optical-repair" (Earl Osborn has been importing 25 - 40 x 100 binoculars, and I recently heard that he had a new model, 25 x 100 with 45 degree offset eyepieces. These are multi- coated semi-apochromatic triplet objectives; 5 element Erfle eyepieces with 67 degree apparent field; 14mm eye relief; IPD 58 - 82mm; BAK 4 prisms; weighing 28 pounds. I wrote to ask about these new models. --Peter) > I've been waiting to hear something about your 25 x 100 with 45 degree > offset eyepieces -- I was told you were making the offset prisms yourself We did the initial design sets. All of the current work is being done overseas at the factory. We make sure that they are ready for use by the customer, and remove the reticle for civilian use. Also -- The contract work we were doing up here is completed. We will be returning to Arizona in the middle of July and will be building a much larger shop. Take it easy, and write anytime, Earl (Captain's in Seattle and Lynnwood have the new Osborn 25x100 binoculars on display.) ========================================== ======================================== Subject: Zeiss Historica From: Dohertyfe@___m Any possibility of developing a compendium of binocular articles from Zeiss Historica. They could be reproduced and made available for a cost. Perhaps they could be acquired from Zeiss Historica. Regards Frank ------- Not a bad idea; though it would be a fair amount of work, and given that the bulk of the organization is camera collectors, it might not happen for a while. But these expressions of interest will certainly be noted by Zeiss Historica. --Peter ==================================== Subject: Introduction From: Leong J Tsang My reason for joining this list, is to learn more about the German binocular industry. As a little kid, my uncle introduced me to photography and birwdwatching. His cameras used all German optics to assure a sharp image. His binocular was a 7 X 50 Zeiss Jena that impressed me so much, that upon my first high paying job, I bought my Rolleiflex and eventually Hasselblad for their German optics. I eventually bought a total of 4 Zeiss Jena binoculars. I currently have a Zeiss Jena 8 X 30 Deltrinem , Jenoptik 8 X 30 W , and two Zeiss Jena 7 X 40 DF purchased from Deutsche Optik. I used these binoculars when I go hiking, traveling, and when I go on into the ocean fishing. Presently I am searching out a good 10 X 50, most probably a reliable military surplus piece. I am looking at the Romanian IOR 10 X 50 B/GA and either one of these other binoculars: Zeiss Jena 10 X 50 or Hensoldt 10 X 50. Any input on any of these binoculars that I mentioned? I am particularly interested in the IOR due to their claims of either being on par or exceeding the Zeiss Jena version. Any writeup or information on either the mentioned 10 X 50s, or any other manufacturer would be greatly appreciated. Evan Dong == There's a fair amount of discussion on the IOR binoculars in recent lists. --Peter ========================================== Subject: Peanuts From: "geneharryman" Just a short note on "peanuts". I have been told by the dog's vet not to let dogs near the "peanuts" (they will chew and eat them) because all are not made of plastic. He says that some are actually made from corn, and have been sprayed with insecticide for storage purposes before mfg. Putting cleaning solvents (or even water) on this type may release the insecticide and contaminate the user. I have not seen this information elsewhere, but given the source, I would give it some measure of consideration. But why go to the trouble of using "peanuts" when optical quality cleaning cloths are available from Edmunds at $15 for a pkg of 350? Regards, Gene =========================================== Subject: Roof Prism Gang During the Second World War, amateur telescope makers in the United States produced roof prisms for military use. Albert Ingalls, then an editor at Scientific American magazine, was the major organizer of the group. These are very difficult optics to make using amateur equipment, and the story of how this group, perhaps 40 people, were recruited, trained, and supported, is a fascinating sidelight of history. Records and information are not easy to obtain, and there does not seem to be anything on the WWW on this topic. In an attempt to attract more attention to these workers, several articles from 1940s issues of Scientific American were scanned, rewritten, and posted at this site. Hopefully, this will bring in enough input to allow a proper history to be written. http://home.europa.com/~telscope/rfprmgng.txt And thanks to Cynthia Repinsky for providing the first, longer article. ============================================ Subject: Mirror erecting system designed by Russell Porter From: Peter Abrahams In the November 1947 Scientific American is an article on a binocular erecting system designed by Russell Porter, using 4 mirrors on each side. The mirrors are at odd angles, as described below. http://home.europa.com/~telscope/prtrprsm.jpg 25 kb Erecting Images with Porro Prisms, an Amateur Telescope, by Albert G. Ingalls. Telescoptics. Scientific American, November, 1947 RUSSELL PORTER, at last getting some earned rest at 75, has become a TN again and sends the fraternity the following, via this department. "The accompanying drawings (Figure 1) show an attempt to erect the image of an objective by means of mirrors instead of the two Porro prisms almost universally used today in binoculars. The four mirrors a, b, c, and d, are flat and aluminized. The axial paths of the objectives, o, are shown dash-dotted in all four views, and the marginal lines of the cone from objective to its focus are full lines. "Mirror a receives the incoming light and reflects it upward at 45 degrees (the normal to its surface being at 22-1/2 degrees to the axial ray). Mirrors b and c are really parts of surfaces at right angles to each other, their intersections being parallel to the incoming and outgoing axial rays. I have shown b and c as elliptical in outline only to show more clearly the areas cut by the narrowing cone of light. Finally, the cone goes from c to d and thence to the focus. The normal to d is also at 22-1/2 degrees to the axial ray. "By referring to the plan view one may see that the light path from b to c is not at right angles to the main axial rays, but makes an angle of 45 degrees to them. "I have made two or three of these telescopes-one a binocular-and find that they perform very well. The light loss through reflection is comparable to the reflecting and absorption losses in Porro prisms. Unquestionably, their manufacture and adjustments are more complicated than when Porros are used. But the light paths being entirely through air (they cross each other several times on their way to the focus) render the telescope extremely short. For example, in the one shown in the diagrams, where the focal length of the objective is about 8", the length of the housing comes out only 3", hence it is very compact. "I do not know whether this method has been tried out before. I worked this out myself some ten years ago." ================================================= ======================================================= Binocular List #172: 16 June 2001. ============================================== Subject: A very odd sounding German binocular From: Peter Abrahams A note from a military report on German optical technology during WWII mentions a giant reflecting binocular, using mirrors for the objectives: two, eight inch Newtonian telescopes? Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency, Wash. D.C. German Vacuum Evaporation Methods of Producing First Surface Mirrors, Semi-Transparent Mirrors and Non- Reflecting Films. London: British Intelligence Objectives Sub-Committee, H.M. Stationery Office. 22 September 1945. "The Heraeus Company, Hanau, Germany.....Uses of the Aluminum-Quartz Surfaced Mirrors....as objectives in a pair of 40 x 200 reflecting binoculars used with a late model German searchlight." ============================================ Subject: Polishing lenses From: rcbibbo I'm still looking for someone that polishes lenses -- like 20x120, do you know of anyone? thanks, Bob Bibb --------- I don't know of someone, but one of the repairmen or restorers on the list might know. Proper polishing means fabricating a pitch lap for each lens, which is not difficult -- but with a variety of lenses, it becomes time consuming. A separate lap is necessary because the profile of the polisher must match the profile of the lens to a high degree of precision -- if you take a flat lap & try to roll it across the lens surface as you're polishing, you are almost certainly going to change the profile of the lens. The same is true for a stock set of laps of different curvatures; they need to exactly match the lens profile. Polishing aspheric surfaces is one of the few chores that I think might be beyond the skills of the best of us. To fabricate an aspheric surface, elaborate mechanical linkages (or modern variations thereof) are built. It might be that a very minor haze on a lens could be 'polished' out with rouge on a rag, but a very light touch is needed -- if you unevenly remove a layer of glass equal to less than a wavelength of light in thickness, it can change the optical performance of the instrument, and any random change will be for the worse. --Peter ============================================ Subject: List printouts From: Deutsche Optik In extending the suggestion of a bundled group of Zeiss Historica articles, I might suggest you consider the same: bundling your newsletters (for a fee), then mailing quarterly supplements. Frankly, it would be much quicker and easier for me (and maybe others) to spend a little money and have all of your background info at my fingertips rather than print them all myself or rush to the 'Net whenever I wanted to check on something. It's a service I would certainly pay for ... and would even willing to bundle and sell copies of same through our catalogue. Please consider and let me know. A last note: we recently picked up a heretofore unknown Technican Manual (TM9- 575) entitled "Auxiliary Sighting and Fire Control Equipment" which we will reprint and offer in a future catalogue. It includes just about everything we've ever offered, and your readers might want to keep their eyes out for it. Hope all is well. s/ Mike ------------ From: Peter Abrahams Regarding a paper copy of the lists: If you download the 'archive' files, and print them with small fonts & narrow margins, they are well over 300 pages. I can understand why everyone doesn't want to print them. However, printing and mail order selling of the archives is about the last thing I want to spend my time on. If someone wants to sell paper copies, and are unable to print them, they can contact me & I'll print it out, and any marketing of this resource wouldn't violate any of my principles. Since the internet archives are far more public than any printed list, I don't think it would violate anyone's privacy concerns. However, remember that the archives are completely unorganized & un-indexed. It would take a long while to find the subject you're interested in. With the electronic files, you can easily search them; and re-organize them according to your interests. Selling a copy of the archives would be like taking Seeger's book, cutting out each paragraph, shuffling & repasting them in random order -- and then offering them for sale. Mike's offering of binoculars reminds me that some of the other businessmen on this list have been reluctant to use it to let us know about their goods & services. I don't want to start posting entire catalogs, but short notices are very welcome. --Peter ======================================= Subject: Comparison of East- and West-German From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@___ne.de An interesting paper, at the end however a little bit too much of statistics: 'Did Socialism Fail To Innovate? A Natural Experiment of the Two Zeiss Companies.' by Bruce Kogut, Professor, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania http://cbi.gsia.cmu.edu/newweb/1998WorkingPapers/Kogut/kogut.htm ---------- One of the Zeiss enthusiasts on this list notes that this paper has a few factual errors. --Peter ======================================== Subject: Replies From: Arnold Cohen Firstly, I'd be very interested in purchasing one of Stephans' books on binoculars. Second, the story of the amateur lens grinders once again highlights one of the most interesting aspects of US mobilization in WW2. The remarkable ability to use almost everyones' talents for the war effort. As a very minor history buff, these allusions appear throughout the story of WW2. It would be an interesting compendium/thesis for an historian. A classic example was told to me by my father- in-law, who flew P-38s in Europe. In CA the first step in aerial gunnery was on the trap and skeet ranges of the airbase and private clubs with State and National champions teaching the principles of hitting a moving target. The legendary stories of farmboys who knew tractors and city kids who raced hotrods working on vehicles in the battlefield, far from motorpools and army mechanics are well known. This is in marked distinction to the German and Russian armies where such vehicles were usually abandoned. Back to optics-Third, IOR 10x50. Great optics, heavy, bullet proof, IF porro prism glass-mil spec, not cosmetically elegant and with the infamous tinted prism!! I really like it and use it frequently. If the group can stand it, I was thinking at comparing some 10x50s and later some 8x30 as I did the 7x40s sometime soon. Arnie ======================================== Subject: 25 x 100 review From: Fan Tao I just got one of the Chinese made 25x100 binoculars with 45 degree angled eyepieces. The binoculars came in a nice plastic hard case filled with foam (similar to a Pelican case). For a price of around $1500 you also get a very sturdy wooden tripod. Also included is a mount that attaches the binoculars to the tripod. The mount is nicely made, though with mine the fit to the tripod was too tight and I had to use some sandpaper on it to make it fit. On the mount are knobs to tighten the tripod connection and to tighten the altitude, plus a fine altitude adjustment. Unfortunately, the mount only allows the altitude to reach approximately 50 degrees, a serious deficiency. Also, I found the mount to be slightly insufficient for the weight of the binoculars as it was difficult to maintain the altitude when pointing at a high angle. The binoculars themselves are finished in an attractive silver, much like Miyauchi binoculars, but I found the finish to be a bit slippery to hold. A handle like on the Miyauchis would be nice. The overall shape and size of the binoculars is reminiscent of the blc 25x100 (though the sunshade is not detachable). Overall, I was pleasantly surprised at the quality of the fit and finish on the binoculars. As for the optics, they are said to be multicoated but to my eyes the coatings did not appear to be as high a quality as one finds on say, a pair of high end Nikons. The eyepieces, which are supposed to be Erfles, are very large and provide an apparent field of view of about 65 degrees. The eye relief is about 15mm, comfortable with the naked eye but just barely usable with glasses (note that if you have a large amount of nearsightedness, 5 diopters or more, you may not be able to achieve focus at infinity with the naked eye, as is the case with many binoculars). Thin rubber eyecups are provided but I found them uncomfortable so I folded them down. The IP distance is easy to adjust with both eyepieces moving in an interlocked fashion. I was relieved to find that both eyepieces focused stars down to pinpoints and appeared to be in collimation. The objectives appear to be mounted in eccentric cells that are adjustable for collimation. Stars appeared sharp across about 50 degrees of the apparent FOV, becoming astigmatic at the edges as is characteristic of wide angle Erfle eyepieces. To my eyes spherical abberation of the exit pupil did not seem to be a problem as it was easy to place the eyes without causing blackouts. I did not see any serious color either, though there were not any bright objects visible from my back yard. I did aim at a street light and did not find any serious ghosting, though there was some scattered glare (I only saw a couple of baffles looking down the objective tube). Overall, I was very satisfied with the optics and the quality of these binoculars. Earl Osborn is to be commended for helping to get such a reasonably priced set of giant binoculars on the market. I would have expected something like this to sell for twice the price. You can see pictures of the 25x100 binoculars along with a review on the bigbinoculars.com site, where they also sell them with a mount that is supposed to fix the problems with the altitude adjustment. Fan Tao ======================================================= ======================================================= Binocular List #173: 01 July 2001 ============================================ Subject: Reflecting binocular From: hans.t.seeger@___ne.de (Seeger) One of these mirror telescopes has survived. It is a monocular 40 x 200, marked cxn, s/n 14434. This Busch (Rathenow) instrument is displayed in the Museum Roethenbach, near Nuremberg (Germany). The address of the museum: Museum für historische Wehrtechnik e. V., Heinrich-Diehl-Strasse, D-90552 Roethenbach/Peg. You need an appointment to enter the museum, contact Dr. Leisse for further details: Dr. Bernd Leisse, Georg-Eberleinstr. 26, D-90404 Nuernberg. Tel + Fax: +911 - 36 25 75. With my best regards, yours, Hans >> Binocular List #172: Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency "The Heraeus Company, Hanau, Germany.....Uses of the Aluminum-Quartz Surfaced Mirrors....as objectives in a pair of 40 x 200 reflecting binoculars used with a late model German searchlight."<< ============================================== Subject: Re: Polishing Big Eye Lenses From: "William Cook" One need not have a separate lap for each lens. You can simply make one for the positive lenses and one for the negative lenses. HOWEVER!!!!!!!! Most of the folks who think their lenses simply need polishing are wrong. Polishing will remove the remainder of old coatings very nicely and get them ready to be recoated. But, it has been my experience that some people think that polishing will remove scratches. That is not going to happen. If the scratch is large enough to see without serious scrutiny, one would grow old trying to get it out with conventional polishing techniques. Also, it would be less expensive to get a new lens (at least the crown) than to have new cast iron tools generated. Sorry to always be a stick in the mud. William J. Cook, Opticalman Chief, USNR-Ret. ============================================ Subject: Unmarked Russian (?) 7x40 binoculars From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@___ne.de Today I received a "new" 7x40 binocular in unused condition, complete with Russian manual, warranty card (on extremely cheap paper), but no reference to a manufacturer except an ID No.: 99300 00397 90-610 7x40 From the "warranty card" I conclude it was manufactured in 1990. Since I haven't seen any Russian 7x40s and the one in hand looks like the IOR I handled a few months ago at the IOR factory store, I believe it is from a batch made for the Russian military rather than being made in Russia. The same binocular was recently offered on that auction site: http://cgi.ebay.com/aw- cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1158833404 (and went for a generous price, IMHO). Cosmetically it looks shabby and cheap in every respect, no comparison to the East-German 7x40s. The covers for oculars and objectives are made of cheap hard plastic, but inside they are hiding accessory amber filters. My sample has a distinct yellow tint and a rangefinder reticle. Optically it is good, but not excellent, certainly with less contrast. From outside the oculars and objectives seem to be uncoated, at least on the outer surfaces. In fact, if I would use the supplied cleaning rag, any coating would be destroyed after a while. The rubber eye cups do not fold down well, so I am looking for a way to remove them (without destruction) and to make my own eye glass protectors. The nominal eye relief is generous. But in practice it is only just sufficient, because the ocular lenses are recessed (almost 1cm). However: My overall impression is "positively interesting" and certainly good value for money, but at least my sample does not deserve the usually euphoric rating of IOR binos. Hans-Peter =========================================== Subject: Unusual Sard 6 x 42 From: rcbibbo I picked up an unusal glass. 6x42 sard. but completely different. diopter scales - all brass no threading on eye pieces for eye cups. no strap lugs. no model writing on lower right side. arge ears on both front and back, for some kind of mount. body is entirely different as viewed from bottom. prototype maybe ? maybe somebody on the list knows something about them. thanks bob bibb -------- I have not seen or heard of a Sard like these. There are tabs projecting from the body, seemingly for mounting in a different stand than usual. http://home.europa.com/~telscope/sard6xa.jpg 118 kb http://home.europa.com/~telscope/sard6xb.jpg 114 kb http://home.europa.com/~telscope/sard6xc.jpg 117 kb ================================================ Subject: Replies Jim Rose telephoned to discuss list #172. Regarding objectives for 20 x 120 binoculars, Jim's son-in-law at Atlas Instrument in Chambersberg, Penn. has good replacement objectives for sale; you can reach Jim at jkrvanc@___m Deutsche Optik was selling Mark 16 telescopes from WWII. Jim recalls that the original eyepieces with these were 13x, 21x (both good), 25x and 32 x (both useless small Kellners). In the late 1960s, the Long Beach Naval Shipyard overhauled hundreds of these and changed the eyepieces to modern Kellners. ========================================= Subject: Coatings used on German WWII binoculars Dick Buchroeder purchased a cxn (Busch) 10 x 80 with unusual orange lens coatings. An image is posted at: http://home.europa.com/~telscope/10x80c~1.jpg 66 kb There seems to have been a multi-coating process used on some German WWII optics. A single layer of anti-reflection coating on a lens can be optimized for only one wavelength of light, and to maximize light transmission over the whole spectrum of visual light, several layers of different thicknesses must be applied. My only contribution to this discussion is to cite Zeiss Historica vol. 11 #2, 1989, p4-6, 'The Development of Lens Coating' by Jan Bisschops. He writes on page 6, 'It was not until 1943 that Schott could manage to vaporize a three-layer coating on a lens.' Apparently the WWII developments are noted in: Dieter Krause, ed. Thin Films on Glass. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1997. An edited version of a series of emails from Dick & Steve Rohan is below. Any further information is solicited. It would be a significant contribution to the history of optics if we could document the first multi-coatings on lenses. ---- (cxn 10 x 80) They are AR coated. My big complaint with the flaks was that they have wall to wall ghosts due to their lack of coatings, so I bought them based solely on that factor. Well, to my surprise, they are not only coated, but they appear to be MULTICOATED, on every surface, except one prism. I can see from the screws inside the housings that these have been apart before, because those screws are not blackened. Any knowledge of anyone who has gone to the trouble to totally disassemble a pair of binocs like this and then had the elements multicoated? The view through the CXN 10x80 is somewhat 'grayish', indicating the lens surfaces had deteriorated with age, as is typical of all old military binocs that I've ever used. All surfaces, prisms included, have been be multicoated (except the left-side prism, that looks to be MgF coated) with that slightly reddish-brown cast that was common with the commercial 'Zeiss Jena' binoculars. The ghosts have been drastically reduced in brightness. (Dick) ---- About the 10x80 Busch binos, I have seen several examples that have the reddish- gold colored coatings. The binos don't seem to be in a particular serial range, but actually seem to have been coated as they were brought in for service sometime during WW II. Only cxn models have been found with this type of coating. Terry Vacani has found some bmj coded binos with a similar colored coating and of course many 7x50 blc u-boat binos have been found with that tint to the coating. I do not believe that these were coated post WW II, but I don't know for sure. In comparing the color of the lens coating on your cxn and the one I have, I would say they are the same or at least very close in hue. It is interesting that the two are only about 500 apart in serial number. Maybe it was a special lot that was coated for some particular purpose? (Steve Rohan) ---- The serial numbers on your CXN were 99055 38408. The serials on my CXN are 101445 38964. The last character of 38964 is an imperfect '4' or an imperfect 'delta'. ...The idea that the cxn coatings may be original is intriguing. If they are, they must be incredibly durable since they're the only thing that looks fresh, clean and unworn on my CXN 10x80. But I doubt very much that this particular pair has original coatings, because they are simply too clean and free from wear and tear, although the paint job indicates heavy usage of the binoculars. Emailed images to Angus Macleod, expert, and he thinks they are contemporary multicoats. Also showed them personally to David Lunt (Coronado solar filters), and he says they look like erratically applied MCs. That's consistent with somebody handing original elements to a coater, and having them done as a favor. Whatever, they coatings do a splendid job of defeating ghost images, much better than any MgF coatings would do. (Dick) ---- The golden red coating -- (in the) 10x80 and the 7x50 uboat -- the color is very similar in each binos lenses. My cxn coated binocular....I am sure that mine has the "original" coating. It is the golden color, much like the blc uboat binos that have the golden orange hard coating. Terry Vacani has seen these cxn coated binoculars in England and in Belgium so they must have been either done during WW II or shortly after the war ended. (Steve ) =========================================== Subject: Introduction From: "Rafael Chamón Cobos" My name is Rafael Chamon from Madrid, Spain, and I have passion for binoculars. I discovered your 'Binocular List' in the Web and got very interested. It is a great idea to put all this comments on binoculars together. I contacted Hermann Oldenburg, who answered me with information about the newsgroups. He also gave me your e-mail address and so I am writing you. I must apologize for my rustic english, but I would like very much to contact the binocular people. My interest in binoculars is centered on optics and constructive aspects. I have only a general knowledge on optics (my studium is telecommunication enginery), I know practically nothing about lens design, nor about adjusting and testing optical systems. So my technical level is far below of the comments I read in the binocular list. However I would like to offer you a procedure to check binoculars. This contains nothing new, it has only the value of a compiled check list. A) - PROCEDURE TO CHECK BINOCULARS WIHTOUT SPECIAL EQUIPMENT. 1. Check that the general look is OK, according to your exigences: no scratches on lenses or body, no impacts, simmetry. 2. Check the mechanics: smoothness of fucusing system and interpupillary adjust. 3. Check that internal lenses and prims are clean and free of dust or particles (use backlight on the tubes to inspectionate this). 4. Check the prisms size and quality by examining the exit pupil (round and fully bright) 5. Check that the entire field of view is visible comfortably (enough eye relief) 6. Check collimation. For this, set the eyepieces distance most accordingly to your interpupillary distance, then look through the binoculars at a very distant point (for instance, a detail of a mountain) and slowly move the binocular away from your eyes about 50 - 60 cm (your arms lentgh) while you keep your eyes quiet. You must see a single exit pupil containing a single image of the mountain detail. 7. Check the sharpness by looking at small details like tree leaves, herbs, birds, letters on signals, distant faces, etc. 8. Check the chromatic aberration by looking at high contrasted black and white patterns (in full sun light). 9. Check the astigmatism by seeing if the borders of the field are sharp enough. 10. Check the image contrast (no internal reflexions) by looking at dark objects or surfaces having backlights or clear zones in their neighborhood. Check also that the exit pupil is not surrounded by light zones. 11. Check color cast. For this, invert the binocular, put the oculars close to a white paper sheet and examine the entry pupil from a distance. You can then compare the color of the entry pupil with the color of the paper. --Rafael ============================================== Binocular List #174: 15 July 2001 ============================================== Subject: Exit Pupils From: SCSambrook@___m Exit Pupils and Lens-erecting Telescopes: It has been my understanding that dividing the free-aperture diameter of the object lens by the diameter of the exit pupil gives the magnification of a telescope. It certainly seems to do so for my prismatic instruments, and also for MOST of my telescopic sights. The latter are all lens-erecting types. For example, my Dr Walter Gerard Model C 'scope (which is not marked with its power) has an actual og aperture of 24mm, the exit pupil is 6mm, so the power is 4x. I know that's correct, because a pre-1914 list confirms it, and the image is the same size as a known 4x 'scope. OK, so far. The same works for all my others, with two exceptions. I have a Winchester 2.75x 15, and a Nickel 2.5x 15. Both of these have exit pupils which measure around 3mm. Neither scope is more than its rated power on comparison with other known scopes. The Nickel, which is quite clean, is also much dimmer than my 2.5x 19 Ajack, even in good light. It is even dimmer than a Japanese plastic 4x 20 mucho-cheapo scope which I have. So, what is the explanation ? Why does the og:ep rule seemingly not apply ? Apologies for my ignorance of optics, but having looked in my various books on telescopes, most of which explain how these things work, I'm still without an answer. Cheers Stephen --------- The rule 'exit pupil = aperture of objective divided by magnification' applies to telescopes, but there are exceptions. Aperture stops & field stops can reduce exit pupil without changing magnification. Lens erecting systems use a stop to islolate the 'reversed rays', and no doubt that can effect exit pupil if not properly designed. Also, it is tricky to use the formula for a galilean -- the exit pupil is buried & not readily measurable. (Someone please correct me here if I'm mistaken, as 'galilean exit pupil' is one of the great mysteries of optics to me.) But you can't directly apply exit pupil to brightness; there are many other factors that change image brightness. With a lens erecting system like a spotting scope, there can be 7 lenses & 14 glass / air surfaces (more or less), so if coatings are substandard or lacking, brightness is greatly effected. Stray light from improper bafffling effects brightness. Your eye's pupil diameter effects the perception of brightness. --Peter ============================================= Subject: Navy 7x50 binocular eyecups From: "Preston Cook" I noticed this discussion item in one of the previous postings. It appears to me that the USN Spencer Mark XXX 7x50 uses the same eyecup as the US M17 7x50. This might be a little easier to identify through parts sellers. Here is a thought for another discussion, perhaps a topic where one of the ex- Navy optical specialists could provide some information. --Do the Spencer Waterproof Mark 30 binocular eyecups fit any other US military binocular models besides the M17? --What is the actual thread mount size and thickness of the eyecup mounting ring on various Marks of US Navy 7x50 binoculars, and what eyecups are interchangeable? --And what do you have to do to a Mark 21 to convert it to use a standard eyecup (I guess there must be some adapter ring to do this)? Preston Cook diesel@___p.net ========================================= Subject: Asahi From: "Preston Cook" I would like to get in contact with anyone who is interested in the products of Asahi Kogaku Kogyo Co. Ltd. (Asahi Optical Co. Ltd. / Pentax Corporation) that were built in the prewar, wartime, and Made In Occupied Japan (MIOJ) era. I am particularly interested in developing more accurate information on the following. --1. Prewar and wartime markings and logos used by Asahi. Trying to determine for certain if they used a stylized Mt. Fuji logo on binoculars in the 1940s. --2. The adoption of the AOCo prism logo and its application to MIOJ era (1946- 1952) binocular production. This seems to have begun in 1946 or 1947 and I am trying to pin this down precisely. --3. Production of the 7x50 "Jupiter" binoculars and their sale under other brand names than Asahi. This binocular seems to have been based on the Japanese military design. I suspect that some other "unknown manufacturer" 7x50s from the MIOJ era were also made by Asahi. --4. Production of the 6x15 "Jupiter Jr." binoculars (early models just named "Jupiter") and the rebrands that were produced. These include Bushnell, Swift, Ensign Jr., Heiland Pentax, Honeywell Pentax and possibly others. --5. Production of the 6x25 "Broadfield" binoculars sold through Bushnell and a few others. These include Bushnell, Heiland Pentax, Honeywell Pentax, and possibly others. --6. Asahi's relationship with Bushnell, Swift, Yoshida & Co., Luxor, Mark Cross, and other retailers. Asahi custom labeled various products for these distributors. --7. The little known Asahi "ASA" Microscope product line. These appear to have been produced in the 1930s and 1940s. I have seen Model B and Model K microscopes. There may be others. I have sent Asahi Optical a series of pictures of a mystery Japanese Military binocular markings. Will advise if anything interesting develops from that. Preston Cook diesel@___p.net ======================================= Subject: Make a fool of me ...... From: "geneharryman" From the "For What It's Worth" Dept. I have a mid 90's production pair of the Russian BPC 7x30's from KOMZ., but after reading Arnie's and Lothar's write up of the older models, I thought I would like to see what they were like in comparison to the newer ones. So I bought a pair from Binocularsmart.com and they were shipped from Kazan O.K. No problem there. However, before I ordered them I asked about the eyecups and the lenses to be sure I was getting what I expected, based on Arnie's and Lothar's write ups. the reply I received was: " The tint on the lenses is clear, the blinkers are screwed in to the ocular barrels. ( They are made of soft leather and the rifling is right on the rubber, they are relatively wonky and after some period of exploitation are sometimes get lost ). Actually, we have some special option: a little of special military clue putten inside when screwing them up, but that would be extra, and currently the clue is out of stock on the plant." What I received was production from 2000 with yellow tint glass and thin rubber fold-down eyecups. I won't go into the explanation I received when I complained. Regards, Gene ============================================== Subject: 7 x 35s From: Fan Tao 7x35 Extra Wide Angle Binocular Shootout After recently acquiring a Swift Holiday 7x35 Mark II, I decided to compare all the decent quality extra wide angle 7x35 binoculars I had in my possession. To be included in this group a binocular had to have a field of view of 11 degrees or more (somewhat arbitrary on my part) and fully illuminated exit pupils indicating the use of high index prisms. These all happened to be vintage Japanese models made in the 1960's and 70's. I list the models below with the J-B manufacturer code, specified real field of view in degrees (or estimated from the specified FOV in feet at a distance of 1000 yards divided by 52.5), measured eye relief in mm, and my comments. Ghosting was observed by reflections from lens surfaces from a bright object, and flare by light scattered and leaked from an off axis bright object. All models happened to have shielding on the prisms, which I believe helps with reducing scattered light. Note that the designs of some models have changed over the years, so these results may not match those for a particular unit you find. This is known to be true in particular for the S&S 999 and Swift Holiday. --1. Jason Venture 4000, J-B22, 12 degrees, 11mm ER. This model is very similar in styling to the Bushnell Custom series, with hard retractable eyecups. Unfortunately I did not have a Bushnell Rangemaster to compare. There was some slight ghosting and a small amount of glare. This model exhibited some spherical abberation of the exit pupil so that there were dark shadows when the eyes were not centered, but it was not severe and barely noticeable at night. A decent model apart from the SA of the EP. --2. Sans & Streiffe #999 Commander, J-B52, 12.5 degrees, 11mm ER. Very slight ghosting (the best of the lot) and some flare. Comfortable to use without glasses, despite plastic eyecups that extend about 5mm from the eyelens (they can be removed). --3. Sears #6287, J-B146, 12.5 degrees, 8mm ER. Moderate ghosting and flare. Despite retractable eyecups, short eye relief makes for uncomfortable viewing compared to the others, otherwise a nice wide image. --4. Swift Holiday Mark II, J-B56, 11.4 degrees, 12mm ER. The same manufacturer as many other models from Swift (such as the 8.5x44 Audubon) and Celestron (Nova series and 9.5x44ED). Note that there were other versions of the Holiday Mark II with FOV's of 11 degrees and 12 degrees. Some ghosting and very slight flare (best of lot). Slotted prisms may have helped to reduce scattered light. Rubber eyecups that I found uncomfortable but can be folded down, the only one of the lot usable with glasses, though it is then difficult to see the entire FOV. It is fortunate that it was usable with glasses because it was the only one that did not reach focus at infinity with my nearsighted eyes (probably due to the close focus for the birding market) Nice glass but I preferred the wider FOV of the S&S. --5. Tasco #110, J-B160, 12.5 degrees, 10mm ER. Nearly identical in appearance and performance to the Sears #6287, with a bit more eye relief. Brightest ghost images of the lot, a bit of flare. Metal retractable eyecups hard to use. Moderately pleasing wide image. Overall, I prefer the S&S #999 with its wide FOV and decent eye relief. If I had to use glasses, I would go for the Swift Holiday Mark II. Note that the images of all the models tested were very similar, with large amounts of astigmatism towards the edge of the very wide field. In my opinion any of them would be worth checking out if you are a wide angle binocular enthusiast. Fan Tao =================================================== ==================================================== Binocular List #175: 27 July 2001 =================================================== Subject: Holiday Mark II 7x35 Swift From: Dick Hi Fan, Thanks for your review of the various 7x35's on the bino list today. I have a Swift Holiday Mark II that is, in my opinion, one of the very few good Swift binoculars ever made (with the possible exception of certain models of their 20x80's, which unfortunately have mutated in design over the years). Nearly every Swift bino I've owned or looked thru has been crappy, some more so than others. At least one was unbelievably bad, with prisms so badly made that the images were severely rotated relative to one another! And, yes, it had slotted prisms. Their slotted prisms are mainly a gimmick to pretend that they have a better design. Indeed, the slots even in WW2 military glasses have only token value; slightly, but not much better than no slots at all. My Holiday Mark II has no J-B markings on it. It is marked with only white and red (no blue); field marked in red 578'. In white, marked Model 766, No. 321044. Pupils are round, but no printed claim of BAK4. It has amber-colored MgF coatings (which were fashionable in the 60's as a means for making the images 'whiter', by transmitting more blue than red). My limited experience with Swifts that have blue writing on them is that the 10x50 Newport Mark II I bought from an eBay seller in England had squarish pupils. The Mark II name and model number, alas, is no guarantee of consistency or quality. Regards, Dick Buchroeder =================================== Subject: Eyecups From: "B. Beacom" Although the diameter and threads for the M-15 and M-17 are identical to the Spencer, the shape is not. The original eyecup on the M-15 and M-17 is flared like the early B&L. You also encounter flared rubber eyecups like on the MK-21 Sard. The only difference that I have found in the M-15A-1's and M-17 A-1's are standardization due to a different Diopter nut. This diopter nut will accept the regular Bausch and Lomb eyecup, in all three configurations, early flared. grooved for polarizing filter, and late rounded top which was used on the post war B&L 7X50 commercials. To change the early Sard Mk-21 or M-15 and 17, to accept the standard eyecups you must take off the present nut that accepts the dial in filters, and replace with the later diopter nut. I have these Diopter nuts available new at $3.00 each. Hope this helps. Binocular Bill Beacom ====================================== Subject: Galilean From: Fred Watson You're quite right, the Galilean has a virtual exit pupil. All that means is that it can't be projected onto a screen like a keplerian exit pupil (Ramsden disk). The light looks as though it's coming from an exit pupil buried between the objective and eyepiece lenses. Hence the big disadvantage of the Galilean - you can't make your eye pupil coincide with the exit pupil so your eye doesn't intercept all the light coming through the objective as it does with a Keplerian. Cheers, Fred Assoc. Prof. Fred Watson, Astronomer-in-Charge, Anglo-Australian Observatory, Coonabarabran, Australia ============================== Subject: Japanese glasses From: "Rafael Chamón Cobos" I have a Pentax Marine 8x30 BIF, 8,5 degrees, which has a plastic 'B' body and individual focusing system. It is rather solid and water resistent. The sharpness is very good in the center, yet it noticeably falls towards the edges. I have seen other glass of identical look but marked with the brand 'Wiking'. Does anybody know if this model Pentax Marine 8x30 BIF has been really made by Pentax? Now I have switched to Nikon: I have a Nikon 7x50 CF HP 7,1 degrees (Zeiss style). I found it as a rest in a shop of Madrid, quite cheap, and I immediately bought it. It was an old model in that time, since it did not appear in the catalog. It is a very good piece, but it weights 1 Kg. I would like to know if it is optically equal to the Nikon 7x50 IF HP WP. Do you now something about this model? I also would like to know the types of eyepieces (Kellner, Orthoscopic, Erfle, ...?) Nikon uses in their different models of binoculars. Is it published? Many thanks Rafael -------------- If you can find a tiny 'JB' mark on the Pentax, compare the number with the list of JB numbers on my web site; that might tell you if it was made by Pentax. I don't believe the Nikon HP in a center focus was imported to the US; I certainly haven't seen one. Anyone who can help us with Nikon eyepiece designs will be greatly appreciated! --Peter ============================== Subject: Russian 20 x 110 From: Monica Body I've come across a Russian 20x110 ship's binoculars here in Victoria(just like current ebay item#1446928825),and I'm looking for some advice from the collective wisdom of the List members on: 1.quality of the optics of this make 2.any potential flaws I should look for 3.its approx. value,and will it likely hold it as an investment 4.would my money be better spent on something of historical value like a WW2 German piece,or having my WW2 Nikko 20x120's lenses coated ? Thanks! Tom Body, Sidney,BC. Canada --------- I believe these are quite high quality but am not certain. I believe Deutsche Optik sold them, you could check their on line catalog for current value if they still have them. If they're the very short focus objectives, look for color fringes around objects. If your goal is a fine instrument for viewing, these might be the one. As an investment, I wouldn't think they'd be as good, though I don't pretend expertise here. --Peter ==================================== Subject: Introduction From: Kenny2@___m Hello everyone , I am Ken Jones aged 49 from Lancashire U.K , delighted to have discovered this site. I have recently become re-interested in a favourite old pastime of mine , i.e middle to long -range terrestrial observation through binoculars and scopes. When I was around 14 years old I happened to spend one afternoon looking through a pair of old German 15 x 50 ( or 60 ) binoculars that belonged to the father of a school friend and the experience was so thrilling that I became "hooked" for life . I do not own any "quality " optics as yet but am considering doing so in the future having recently been fortunate enough to have tried out one or two "superior " binoculars by Leica and Swarovski ( I simply couldn't believe the difference in quality between these and my existing collection --and indeed find it hard to believe that ANY brand could be any BETTER than these two-- maybe I've just led too sheltered a life!) In the meantime I am compromising with a combination of rather tired Japanese Telstar 10x50 binoculars bought for me in 1965 , very recently acquired Praktica 12 x25 compacts ( BAK4 prisms and Fully Multi -Coated for £34 new ) and an even more recent creation , a 36 x 50 spotting scope that I have thrown together using parts from my daughter's discarded "toy refractor " and a pair of unusable old 10x50s I acquired for £5 from a car -boot ( garage ) sale . At least with this collection of optical instruments I have few worries about burglery , extra insurance or accidental damage ! Obviously I have never read any books about binoculars ( I have never managed to find one ! ) , neither was I great at physics at school , so the very limited "technical " knowledge I do have has been very recently acquired via what has become compulsive surfing of the w.w.w . Two of the very first interesting articles I came across totally by chance a couple of months ago were written , quite separately and co-incidentally , by Peter Abrahams and by William J. Cook , neither of whom until that time I had heard of . I must have re- read those two articles at least twenty times . I treat them as if they are "holy scriptures " . So it was again by pure chance that last evening whilst searching for information on 15x80 binoculars I was directed to this superb web -site which I spent a couple of hours totally engrossed in whilst it became apparant that not only was the very same Peter Abrahams the creator and owner of , but the same W.J. Cook was a regular subscriber to ! The individual and combined knowledge of these two men and many other members of this "group " truly astounds me and I consider it a real privilege to be able to study the opinions and share the knowledge of such great minds . I hope that in some small way I can contribute to this excellent site , even though so far in my life I have been more interested in what I see THROUGH optical instruments than what is inside them or who made them , where and why etc . Clearly I have much to learn ! Hoping to further "correspond" soon. Regards to all , Ken . -------------------- You'd be surprised how this is a 'level playing field'. Since there is so little written about binoculars, we're all learning. Speaking for myself; I only remember a few stray facts, and I 'know' almost nothing of the data on my page. I am good at assembling texts, but poor at remembering it. I believe that everyone here truly enjoys using these instruments as much as they like talking about the history. However, a book or web site about people's views of birds, stars, mountains, etc. -- is pretty boring! If I'm going to write anything, it's going to be history, mechanics, optics, technology, and the contributions of people -- not how many pinfeathers I can see on some nutfinch! --Peter ============================================= ======================================================= Binocular List #176: 03 August 2001 =================================================== Subject: Triple Tested From: "Preston Cook" Many Japanese binoculars built during the 1950s by a variety of manufacturers use the phrase "Triple Tested" as part of the prism cover lettering. I would suspect this phrase relates to some specific Japanese Telescope Inspection Institute (JTII) evaluation process. Does anyone have a more detailed explanation of what the "triple test" was? Thanks Preston Cook ----------- As far as I know, Bushnell was the first company to use 'Triple Tested'. According to David Bushnell, it meant: tested at the factory, tested by Bushnell retail in the US, and tested by the buyer. They did have a testing setup in Pasadena, and a certain number of instruments were checked. But in our conversation, Bushnell regarded the term more as an advertising expression than a certificate. --Peter =================================================== Subject: Mazda trench binos From: "Frederick Schwartzman" The attached e-mail from my friend Hayao in Tokyo sheds additional light on optical manufactoring of binoculars by Toshiba and its predecessors. Fred From: Hayao I have found a pair of Mazda (Tokyo Electric) made type 93 artillery binoculars. These were made before they merged with Shibaura Works and became Toshiba. http://www.cameraguild.co.jp/nekosan/ ======================================================= =================================================== Binocular List #177: 13 August 2001. =================================================== Subject: Question regarding CZJ Jenoptem Binoculars and 10 x 50 Dekarem binocular From: Leong J Tsang Can anyone shed a light on the CZJ Jenoptem line of binoculars? Are these the updted center focus versions of the older IF binoculars such as Binoctar, Deltrinus, and Dekaris? I am looking to buy a 7 X 50 Jenoptem and a 10 X50 Dekrem, and figure that someone can give me a clue if these binoculars are as good as the IF versions and what is the optical difference of this line... Evan Dong ======================================================= Subject: U.S. Air Force 1.2 meter twin telescopes At the Air Force Maui Optical Station http://ulua.mhpcc.af.mil/ In their image gallery http://ulua.mhpcc.af.mil/AMOS/gallery.html Is a shot of a twin telescope, Air Force style: http://ulua.mhpcc.af.mil/AMOS/Photos/1.2b.jpg These are Tinsley cassegrains, used for space surveillance. No word on why they are using a pair. =================================================== Subject: a mount for big binoculars Larry from Universal. Finally developed a mount for the Fujinon 150's. Check it out at http://www.gis.net/~astronut/page26.html astronut@___t ================================ From: Fan Tao Subject: M-19 field flattener When taking apart and cleaning at set of M-19's (American Military 7x50 produced by Bell & Howell in the 1960's and 70's) I noticed that the reticle element is actually a plano-concave negative lens. In fact, it appears to be a field flattener. There is an identical lens in the other half without the reticle etching. I decided to take out the negative lens in one half and compare the two sides. There is no question that the side with the lens has a flatter field with an image in focus practically to the edge. In contrast, the side without the lens had a soft edge similar to most 7x50's. The negative lens seems to have little effect on magnification, which seems to be the case since it is so close to the focal plane. There is a small amount of astigmatism present at the field edge, so images are not perfectly sharp across the field, but it is about as good as I've seen. Does anyone know the first use of a field flattener lens in a binocular? The M-19 was originally designed 1959-1960 by Farrand. I believe that P.R. Yoder and A.W. Tronnier (known for designing binoculars such as the wide angle WWII 105mm models by Schneider) were involved in the design. Nowadays, field flatteners are common in high-end binoculars from Canon, Fujinon, and I believe Nikon, models known for having sharp edge definition, but their use seems to be unknown in European models. That is one of my pet peeves about modern binoculars from the likes of Leica and Zeiss - their edges are out of focus! --Fan Tao ---------------------------------- From: Peter Abrahams >>Does anyone know the first use of a field flattener lens in a binocular? No, and I won't be able to find it very quickly, but field flatteners for photographic lenses date at least to Charles Piazzi Smyth, circa 1870. Just when the idea migrated to eyepieces is a very interesting subject that I've been looking into with no solid results, but probably H. Dennis Taylor in the 1920s is one benchmark; this was for a binocular but it was never produced beyond a prototype by Cooke of York, England. >>P.R. Yoder and A.W. Tronnier (designed the wide angle WWII 105mm models by Schneider) Fan replied to me, referring to Yoder, P.R. Two New Lightweight Military Binoculars. Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. 50, no. 5, May 1960, pp491-493. Yoder shows the eyepiece with a plano-concave reticle, but does not describe it in the text. Tronnier's work at Schneider is noted in Kuhne's chapter in Seeger, _Militaerische_. >>field flatteners ......use seems to be unknown in European models I don't think that's right but I can't cite an example. --Peter ================================================= From: Fan Tao Subject: Bushnell Customs About Bushnell Custom binoculars made around the 1960's. I have two models, the 7x35 and the 7x50. They both have very good performance, though only a modest AFOV of around 55 degrees. My particular specimens don't seem to have any J-B codes but both have an apparent logo of "BOL" inside a four sided diamond. Interestingly, it looks like Fuji Photo Optical made some Bushnell Customs, such as seen on eBay # 1177123759, evidenced by the distinctive "FPO" logo and the J-B8 code. The two types appear to be physically similar except that the Fuji model seems to have metal eyecups while the ones on my models look like plastic. I'm guessing that the Fuji model is an earlier one. I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who can shed more light on this, including what "BOL" stands for. --Fan Tao ----------------------- From: Peter Abrahams >but both have an apparent logo of "BOL" From talk with David: "The mark BOL on a binocular was for one factory, but I can't remember which. BT was Tamron. BK was Kowa. I forget what Fuji was. Some models did not have marks. The manufacturers put the mark on them, at our request." >I'm guessing that the Fuji model is an earlier one. For most other models, yes Fuji is the earlier maker. --Peter --------- If the trademarks were consistent, that would mean that the "O" in BOL is the first letter of the manufacturer. Any ideas? Olympus? --Fan Tao ==================================================== =================================================== Binocular List #178: 16 August 2001 =================================================== Subject: Jenoptem binoculars From: SCSambrook@___m The Jenoptem family was sold in the UK from the late 1960s to the early 1990s, and were always marketed as lower-priced alternatives to the traditional name Zeiss glasses (Binoctem, Deltrintem, Dekarem). Sales were typically in the ratio of some ten Jenoptems for every 'name' model - there was a very large difference in price, and very little difference in apparent performance. UK price for the popular 8x 30 in the 1980s was equivalent to 55 Dollars US, with a real leather case. At the same time, a West German 8x 30 Dialyt was getting on for 250 Dollars. The UK importers either would not or could not explain the differences betwen the two families - even the packaging and cases were identical in style. There were stories of them being made in Japan, or of the optical sets being made in Japan, or the prisms, or they were made from Japanese glass ... you can choose whichever sounds the most likely ! There was a third family of East German Zeiss glasses marked 'Werra' which may simply have been an earlier branding of the Jenoptems. They came in 7x 50, 8x 30 and 10x 50, and were only on sale for a year or two. 'Werra' was the name of a family of East German 35mm range/viewfinder cameras which were always known as 'Zeiss' in the UK. I think that was simply a marketing ploy rather than actual manufacture by Zeiss. Coatings changed in colour, the 8x models were badged 'MC' meaning multi-layer coating. All of the Jenoptems have the characteristic 'sandy' image colour so far as I know. All these 'families' have the same fields of view. The last years of Jenoptem production saw quality standards varying a good deal, and it would be prudent to 'try before you buy' - particularly as they sometimes fetch relatively high prices.. Not much technical info here, but I hope it helps. Stephen ==================================================== Subject: Swedish binoculars History of Sciences Collections, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, has an 8 x 24 prism binocular by G. Rose, Stockholm, circa 1920, body of cast aluminum, IF, clamping screw for IPD. First prism binocular made in Sweden, series of 1300 made for army shortly after 1920. (reference: Sciences Collections of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm. Stockholm: Stiftelsen Observatoriekullen, 1991.) ----- Also seen are 6x30 binoculars labeled "Preisler/Malmo" from Sweden. ===== From: Sven Nyman In our literature we can find that the firm Rose build 1300 pieces of 8 X 24 prism binocular to the swedish army during the early 1920. Under the second world war the company AGA-Baltic (same as the lighthouses, cinema machines, kitchen stoves, acetylen manufacturer) build binoculars for army-navy. Also the firm NIFE-Junger (same as the NIckel FErro accumulator manufacturer)build binoculars for army-navy. We have NIFE-binocs in our collection and i think that i´ve seen a swedish brand(AGA or NIFE) ,copy of the zeiss 7x50 UDF( Unterwasser ZielfernrOhr for U-boat) in a antiqueshop window for a couple of years ago. But not complete sure!! Concerning Preisler Malmö we know that they supplied shipbuilders with profesional binoculars during the past. If they build it themselves we dont know now. Preisler is still there and working with optics and so. I shall call them to se what to find out. I will tell you that my 78 year old father is the collector and the "researcher" on binoculars. I doing the work on the net and encourage him to buy more old binoculars! best regards sven & bjorn nyman falkenberg ( west coast)sweden. ================================================= Subject: Field flattening optics From: "randle dewees" 13 Aug 2001 Field flattening optics are negative elements place relatively close to an otherwise well corrected focal plane to counteract the positive field curvature. Simple objectives and eyepieces both possess positive field curvature which, in combination, creates images which have only small areas that can be sharply focused at a time. Modern designs balance field curvature, along with other aberrations, with elements not restrictively identified as field flatteners. Randy ============================================= Subject: Bushnell From: "geneharryman" I have several Bushnell (zeiss body) MIOJ with the FPO stamp on them, so it would appear that Fuji Photo made early ones for David. Best Regards, Gene ================================================= Subject: bushnell From: rcbibbo I've got a bushnell 7x50 waterproof binocular.field of view 394 ft at 1000 yds. its bright yellow rubber covered. bushnell said they were made in 1994, and sold for $315.00 so far nothing unusal! but on the end of the hinge, it says made in USA. the man at bushnell didn't know anything about it. i thought they were all made in japan! the serial no. is #3962. any idea who made them? thanks bob bibb --------- The only binocular I'm aware of that would have marked 'Made in USA' on that binocular at that time is 'Navy One'; and I'm not sure just what kind of company they were. Leupold seems very unlikely to have been the maker. --Peter =================================================== Subject: Image reversing single prism From: "Rafael Chamón Cobos" Best thanks to Peter for his reply in the Binocular List #175 to my question about manufacturer of my Pentax 8x30. In fact I found the reference JB2 on the glass. After consulting your Web page I realized that manufacturer is Katsuma Kogaku Kikai Co.Ltd.(!). Some time ago I proposed a new image reversing system consisting in a single prism. The form of this prism is essentially similar to a dove prism with a roof instead of the long reflecting face. The light enters the prism at the incoming face in an oblique angle of 45 degrees, like in the dove prism. Then it is refracted towards the roof, where it is reflected towards the exit face. Finally it gets out the prism in an oblique angle of 45 degrees, again like in the dove prism, and so restoring the entry direction. The internal reflexions in the roof produce the two necessary inversions to get the fully reversed image. I sent the description to Peter and I put it also in the web site http://rchamon.iies.es. Peter replied and warned that such a prism would work in paralell light but not in a converging light cone, where refraction from the slanting surfaces would be unequal on either side. I have investigated the effect of such prism on a converging rays beam, and I finally came to the conclusion that such a prism is not valid for its use with binoculars. Peter were right from first moment: this prism only works with paralell rays and not with converging rays. I came to this conclusion after analysing the behaviour of the prism by means of a Visual Basic application I developed, that simulates the progress of light rays through the prism. The rays calculation is based on the optical laws of refraction and reflection, so that the results is reliable. You can find this application in the above mentioned web site. In this application a section of the prism is represented together with 5 incident rays. You can change the prism position and size, and also the direction of the incident rays. By means of the button 'Trace Rays' the refracted rays are shown. With the CheckBox 'Bind Rays' the incident rays can be set to converge in a point (focus of an objective) and this point can be moved along a vertical line (focal plane). So it is possible to check if the prism keeps the rays converging on a point and how the focal plane is modified by the prism. RESULTS According to the simulation the rays do not converge in a single point but they rather go together in a way similar to the case of coma aberration, even on the optical axis. The focal plane is also strong modified since it is not longer perpendicular to the axis but paralell to the prism exit face. Therefore I conclude that this type of reversing prism is not valid for binoculars. You can also try other Visual Basic application in the above mentioned web site, called 'Trioptic', wich simulates the effect of a trioptic with 2 plane interfaces. This application allows to investigate the effect of the spherical aberration introduced by a thick glass plate placed behind an objective (a pair of porro prisms act as a thick glass plate aside their reversing effect). I hope that these two applications can give some fun to our optical friends, and I would appreciate any comment on this prism type and on these two applications. All the best. Rafael =============================================== =================================================== Binocular List #179: 24 August 2001 =================================================== Subject: Made in U.S.A. mark From: "Loren A. Busch" During the last few years various lots of Fujinon 7x50 AR's and Swift 7x50 Seahawks have arrived at dealers marked "Made in USA" or "Made in Japan". Close examination (without taking them apart) showed no differences. These being, at least mechanically, the same glass (difference in coatings and different material in the rubber or plastic outer cover only) I have always assumed that they came from the same production line. I was never able to find a J code on them. I came to the conclusion (and can't remember exactly why) that the "Made in USA" versions were coming from the assembly plant in California (San Dimas??), I believe run by the Kamakura family (??). I'm wide open to corrections or additions to this, I could be completely wrong. ==================== Subject: Made in USA mark From: Binofixer@___m The Navy one is a Steiner product. The yellow skinned Bushnell marked Made in U.S.A. is identical to the Fujinon AR series marked made in U.S.A. also. These are binos that are shipped over as components, then assembled in Japanese plants, by Japanese employees, on U.S. Soil. The Southern California plant is Kama-Tec, run by a man named Toshi. As for the Steiner product, I'm not privy to anything that they do, but would assume the same assembly senario as the Kama-Tec line. One would assume the optics are Euro, but who knows? They too may be from the East? Cory Suddarth Suddarth Optical Repair ====================================== Subject: Dekarem From: Arnold Cohen Stimulated by the last Lists I examined my Dekarem made sometime after 1978 and a Jenoptem 10x50-the later having partial rubber armour in the style of some WWII era glasses and made probably in the mid 80's. They appear identical in every way except for the markings-the coatings and optical performance also are indistinguishable. The only other 10x50 Zeiss glasses I could compare were WWII era glasses, uncoated and well worn albeit with excellent optical performance, not truly comparable. Thus, I suspect the answer to the query is that the Dekar/Dekarems were made over a protracted time and thus age of the specific glass is key; the Jenoptems were of a limited and modern period but one marked by variation in quality control toward the end of production. The Bushnells marked USA are interesting-a firm in CA milspecs commercial glasses for the military-Fujinon and Bushnell glasses the most commonly used for the Navy-could this be the source?-the name of the firm escapes me. LASTLY, could someone help me ID a glass? An ebay aution of a collection of old binocs included two junk glasses and a hidden prize-a Kern Aarau 8x30 Alpin Stereo CF porro binoc in pristine, new condition #40134. It appears to be yet another incarnation of the classic Zeiss 8x30-but it is uncoated-its condition made me think at least post war, however. Did Kern continue to make uncoated glasses after the War? Was this just an economy version-the strap is plastic and the leather hard case may not be original??OR is this pre-war and remarkably well preserved?? The optical performance is outstanding. Thanks, Arnie ------------ Kern is very little documented; all I have on them from old lists is: Kern merged into Leica in 1988 Fan Tao fantao@___et.att.net From Seeger 'Feldstecher': ....the well known Swiss company Kern, Aarau, founded in 1819. Kern among other things made the optics for the Alpa cameras. ========================================= Subject: Werra From: Marc James Small >>'Werra' was the name of a family of East German 35mm range/viewfinder cameras which were always known as 'Zeiss' in the UK. I think that was simply a marketing ploy rather than actual manufacture by Zeiss.<< The Werra cameras were assuredly manufactured by Carl Zeiss Jena, almost the only cameras of which this was true and most unlike the later "Jenaflex", that rebadged Practica. The Werra cameras were made at the Eisfeld plant which was, from 1942 until 1991, the binocular works for Carl Zeiss Jena and which then became the Docter binocular factory. The lenses, of course, were made at Jena. Best, Marc ================================================ Subject: Foton From: Bill Barton Has anyone else used the Russian Foton roof prism's binoculars? I have picked up a set of the 7 x 35's and must say they have been very pleasant to use. Now I also must say I have only owned a set of older Pentax 7 x 50's from the early 60's that my father picked up in the US Air Force px when we lived in Turkey and some late model Minox 10 x 25's that I got on a close out....Any thoughts or ideas... Thanks wbill ================================================ Subject: Swedish binoculars From: "Sven-Olof" Regarding Rose, Uppsala. Yesterday i walked in 7 hours on a large antique market with almost 600 tables. I came home with a couple of 6 binoculars and 1 instrument for geo-measurements (i cant not find the word ). One of them was dirty and today after my fathers cleaning the name Rose Uppsala apeard. The number is 1063 (of the 1300) There is also a single stilistic crown with the army own serialnumber and also a large roman 1. Funny, it was just a couple of days ago i send the first mail to you. A question. What is the price level at antiquemarkets in USA for quality old prismatic binoculars and older gallileian? What is the pricelevels att antiquedealers? The geo-instrument i found in the antiquemarket is another Swedish brand i forgot in the last mail. The company LYTH, Stockholm has made optics too for ships and geomeasurements. Funny. The instrument has been in for maintenance at Preisler Malmoe during the sixties. I´l be back regds sven -------- >>An old Zeiss 8x60 binocular that was sold to the Swedish military has a "Triple Crown" stamp on it. Do you know what that signifies, and what years it would imply on the binoculars?<< The crown is the swedish goverments insignia. Later times there is three crowns.We have three crowns today too. We have a single crown NIFE in our collection from 1942. And we also have the triple crown large NIFE binocular (as deutsche optik coastal observation). But we also has swedish military binoculars without any crowns. Sweden has had the signum since 1364. The three crowns symbolices three kings. The signum has not anything to do just with the present monarch king. How long the the defence and war organisations has had the signs on the equipment is unsure for me now but i shall check it up better. What i can say is during the sixties and seventies the three crowns became more pure and simple. In our old binoculars from the twenties and so, the single crown is more stilistic. I shall contact the swedish defence museum to se what they have. regards sven olof ============================ Subject: Cleaning binoculars From: "Rolf Penzias" Reading through some more of the Binocular List, I came across the use of "Armor All" for cleaning binocular exteriors, and I thought this item might be of interest. I have used a special wax called Renaissance® Wax on firearms and leather. I can only say that it is outstanding; and as claimed "a little goes a (very) long way". For cleaning off grime or dust accumilation a small stiff brush (like a new toothbrush) might be useful. It buffs to a satin sheen. This is the cheapest supplier (USA) I have found on the web so far; http://shop.woodcraft.com (Click on the "Complete Catalogue", then "Finishing", Then "Waxes") While the 220 ml/7.75 oz at $18.99 (+ shipping) is probably the most likely choice for some people, but there is a large can (2.5 liter) available for those that might use it in greater amounts and would be more economical, which sells for around $130.00. http://www.restorationproduct.com/renwaxinfo.html ....a semi-synthetic micro-crystalline fossil-origin wax entirely free of, damaging acids. It remains chemically neutral and is therefore completely safe, even on vulnerable surfaces. Lift oil, dirt and the murky accretions of other polishes. The surface detail remains crystal clear through unlimited applications of this translucent wax; removes previous wax build-up; reveals fine detail & wood grain; non-staining, non-abrasive. Prior to 1950, the only polishes available were based on beeswax and carnuba wax. Unfortunately, these natural, saponifiable products would cause damage when acids arose spontaneously through oxidation or hydrolysis. The Manufacturer: Picreator Enterprises Ltd., 44 Park View Gardens, London NW42PN Phone: 020 8202 8972 USA: Cutlery Specialties, 22 Morris Ln., Great Neck, NY 11024 800/229-5530 The Gemmary, P.O. Box 2560, Fallbrook, CA 92088 Phone: (760) 728-3321 Highland Hardware, 1045 N. Highland Ave. NE, Atlanta, GA 30306 Phone: (800) 241-6748 Hope this is useful, Regards, Rolf ============================================ ============================================ Binocular List #180: 31 August 2001. =================================================== Subject: Cases From: "Rolf Penzias" My own interest in binoculars (and other optical instruments) is of a general and practical nature; hunting, climbing, hiking etc., and some professional application in the private security industry. Strictly a layman in the science and technical aspects of optics, I am familiar with some of the very basic terminology only. I am also interested in the historical aspects - particularly from the military perspective (perhaps in part as a result of my own military service). Another link here for those in need of good cases for storing, transporting binoculars or any other items for that matter of high value. Pelican (brand) cases are made of extremely tough resin, are air/water-tight (O-ring sealed), foam-lined (pre-cut squares can be removed to fit your item) and have an air pressure release valve for cases that wind up at very high altitudes (like an unpressurized aircraft cargo hold). I have three Pelican cases (Plus one sold under the Browning name) and they are VERY tough indeed. http://www.cases4less.com has the lowest prices I have seen for these cases anywhere (Click on the double red/yellow pelicans at top left of page). Do be careful to note the inside dimensions of the case(s) when matching to an item(s)- allowing at least say 2 inches of foam to pad the item, more for heavy items. For optics without lens covers and shallow lens placement, adding a plastic (or material of choice) card/sheet cut to size might be wise to prevent the foam from contacting glass. This vendor also sells replacement O-rings, foam, etc, as well as Pelican Desiccant (Silica Gel) units for the cases. =================================== Subject: KOMZ From: Arnold Cohen Re:foton binoculars - these are made by the KOMZ factory- Kazan Optical Mechanical Factory-this company has roots to the early days of binocular manufacture-was moved to Kazan to escape the reach of the Nazi war machine and used primarily Zeiss based designs and equipment-was a primary provider to the USSR military and became a major optical research company with academic ties to the local university-it continues to be an active area of optical research-for example they were recently working on coatings which would passively act like night vision image intensifiers do now!! It is interesting as the coatings of Russian glasses are frequently a point of criticism-as opposed the the usual high quality of the lenses. With the difficult times in Russia production has been up and down. They make the very fine 7x30 military glass, a fine 10x40 of similar design, and somewhat simpler but very good quality 12 and 15x Binocs. Their 8x30 is another zeiss deltrentis/deltrentem look alike. The Foton series is comprised of a 5x, and 7x35 and a 10x40 roof prism glass. They use a lightweight (?Mg alloy) body, true internal focus with R eye dioptic adjustment from a center wheel coaxial with the main focus wheel. They claim some new type of roof prism system-but have have no details. They are multicoated-??fully? I have, in moments of madness, acquired many KOMZ glasses (they make monoculars of the 8,12,15 porro glasses as well). They have all been very good to excellent-the 7x30 mil spec is outstanding, the 10x40 not quite as good, but just barely, the 8x30s are optically very comparable to the zeiss but the mechanics are off a bit, the 12 and 15 were very good. The Fotons are outstanding glasses for the money - they are optically similar to older Leitz roofs and the mechanics is excellent-I've not tried the 5x. The 7x35 has an 8.5 degree field, a max resolution of 6seconds of angle and weighs 720grams, it claims a temp use range of -30 to +45 degrees C. The 10x has a 6 degree field and 5.5 seconds of arc and the literature claims a wt of 620 grams? Perhaps because of their quality to cost ratio my friends have purchased most of these from my collection - of all, the 7x35 Foton is probably the best all around "user" glass from the Eastern Bloc I've played with. The plant claims the Fotons are made in small lots of no more than 500 and are all hand fitted etc. by opticians. KOMZ has a very good new website in English - search under KOMZ or Russian optical industry. The dimensions of some of their binocs are different from that in their printed literature and seem more correct. Therefore, some of the weights I quoted were probably wrong. Sorry, just read them off their package inserts! Arnie ================================= Subject: Kern 8x30 Alpin Stereo From: "Frederick Schwartzman" I have the same glass serial number 69723 with coated lenses. The glass is marked "AR" which probably means anti reflection. It is different from classic Zeiss 8x30 because the CF focusing knob is located between the objectives. Anyway, Kern has a long time representative in the United States, Heitz Service Corporation, at 34-11 62nd Street, Woodside, New York, 11377, telephone number (718) 565-0004, fax number (718) 565-2582. Regards, Fred ==================================== Subject: Hans Hensoldt binoculars: From: SCSambrook@___m I have been loaned an 8x 30 porro-prism centre focus binocular marked 'Dr Hans Hensoldt KG Wetzlar' over a large 'W' on the left hand top cover plate, and '8 x 30' on the right hand top cover plate. The lower hinge-cover plate has the number '640725' and 'Germany', and the focus wheel has '+' and '-' values. The legend 'Made in GErmany' appears also on the left top plate. The objectives have no provision for eccentric adjustment, and the outer surfaces do not appear to be coated. The eyepiece lenses measure only 10mm across. Field of view, by comparison with other known glasses, is no more than 120/1000. I've seen Hans Hensoldt roof-prism glasses illustrated, but not previously a porro-prism type. Is anyone familiar with such glasses ? Performance is impaired by fungus growth, but seems less than spectacular. The overall feel and appearance of the glass suggests that it was a budget price production, but perhaps I am being unkind to it. --Stephen ------------ H. Hensoldt made quality binoculars, very possibly made mid-line binoculars, and also imported Japanese binoculars (someone correct me if I'm wrong). They are a very interesting company, owned by the brother to the owner of Moritz Hensoldt binoculars, and we are beginning to find some new information about them. Stay tuned. ---Peter ================================= From: Vision problems & reports of binocular problems From: Peter Abrahams Several list members have heard from a binocular user who reports unusual collimation problems when using several different binoculars; for example, the horizon appears tilted on one side. The conclusion, independently arrived at by several people, was that the user had a vision problem. This brings up an interesting point about binocular use. There are various types of vision defects that involve the coordination of the images between the two eyes; I won't embarrass myself by using technical terms, but 'wall eye' and 'cross eye' are two extreme cases. There are other cases that are so mild that they are not a functional problem. But presumably, when a view is magnified when using a binocular, some of these mild conditions are magnified to the point of visibility. Thus, a user who doesn't think they have a vision problem, observes a problem in the image through a binocular, and brings them in for repair. Is there a name for a vision condition where one eye's image is slightly rotated compared to the other? Most all of the repair & restoration people that I know have never met a customer with a binocular, complaining that it has a problem, when in fact the instrument is perfect. (Small joke there). Those who have had to spend their time acting as counselor / optometrist / psychologist, might have some relevant experiences to share. ---Peter ==================================================== =================================================== Binocular List #181: 05 September 2001. =================================================== Subject: New book 'A Guide to Handheld Military Binoculars', by Steve Rohan, is now available from Deutsche Optik (on web), or directly from the author. This edition of about 200 is in a leatherette binding, at $80., a limited number remain for sale. Later this year, a mylar covered hardback will be printed & sold for about $60. The current edition, from the author, $80., includes shipping: Steve Rohan, Companion Animal Hospital, 5271 Sereno Drive, Temple City, Ca. 91780. binoptics@___ink.net Steve also notes: I am starting to work on, but no date for finishing has been set, a book on the 8x60 binocular in all its variations. This will be a much smaller edition, of course, than the Binocular Guide, but should be a lot of fun to do. ===================================== Subject: Vision problems & reports of binocular problems We've had some good responses to my post in the last list. I was in error when I said that binoculars can magnify binocular vision problems. I also said that several people had spoken to a person who described a binocular problem known as 'lean', & had concluded that he had vision problems -- but this person had a list of problems, of which I only remembered lean. Thus, I was the only one to extrapolate from lean to a vision problem. --Peter --------------- Subject: LEAN From: "William Cook" The subject of "lean" rarely is discussed in connection with collimation. Wearing my ego on my sleeve...again...most would-be techs haven't a clue what causes it or that it is even a problem. However, lean must be dealt with BEFORE going on to collimation. The horizontal image shift is the result of Porro prisms not being aligned at a 90 degree angle. Regards to all, William J. Cook, Chief Opticalman, USNR-Ret. -------------------- Subject: Vision problems & reports of binocular problems From: "Rafael Chamón Cobos" In my opinion a good binocular would not magnify the refractive problems of the user. On the contrary: according to my experience, a good binocular corrects or softens this type of eye defects, for example the astigmatism (and of course, the short- other long-sighter condition of the user by means of the focusing mechanism). The reason why my astigmatism is softened when I look through my binoculars is unknown to me, but the phenomenon is there. (I have a moderate astigmatism in my left eye). Concerning the image geometry, a glass will introduce some amount of distorsion, so that the horizon appears tilted on both sides when it does not cross the centre of the field. Could not this be a simple explanation of the reported problems? Other user problems of 'eyes collimation' would be probably also not pointed up by the use of binoculars (provided that the instrument is well collimated), since the magnified field appears as a 'natural' view, though several times greater in size (or closer). The affected person will implement the same physiological or phycological corrections as he normally do without the glass. Kind regards Rafael --- Astigmatism can be less visible when using a binocular because the exit pupil of the binocular is usually smaller than your eye's pupil, thus you're only using the central area of your eye. Presumably, you will see less astigmatism on a sunny day than in a dark room. Somewhat similarly, a camera lens is sharper when it is stopped down. --Peter ------------------------------ From: Binofixer@___m Unless the glass has lean, where one or both sides "lean" one way or another due to alignment, I'd say that the person has a high degree of astigmatism in one or both eyes. That could be verified by the persons prescription. Any astig over, say 2.50 diopters and it would be a real chore to enjoy bino's with out corrected vision. Especially if the astig comes in at oblique angles. Just a guess though. Cory ----------------------------------- Subject: Vision problems with binoculars, From: "Steve Stayton" The following comments are from an optical engineering perspective, not from an optometric or ophthalmic expert. If we have any optometrists or ophthalmologists on this list I would welcome comments. If a person has a problem with binocular vision that makes using both eyes difficult it can result in double vision or it can result in a definite strain for the person to fuse the images from both eyes. A well aligned binocular will not magnify the person's vision defects, it will simply present two larger images for the person to view. It is possible for a poorly aligned binocular to add to an individuals problem in fusing the two images if the individual has an existing binocular vision problem and if the binocular alignment error is in a direction that aggravates the individuals problem. So maybe one person would have no apparent difficulty with a marginally misaligned binocular and another would have difficulty with image fusion right away. Rotation of the image relative to the scene in a binocular is an alignment error (called lean in US Navy Opticalman speak) that is usually held to an error of less that 1 degree or better (and within 1 degree of matching between left and right barrels). These are common US mil spec limiting values and it would be typical for a military binocular or good commercial binocular to be aligned much better than this. Image lean error is introduced by errors in prism manufacture or positioning of prisms to each other and not by the lenses in the binocular. Unlike vertical or horizontal alignment errors (dipvergence, divergence, convergence) that can vary greatly with the binocular IPD setting, the image lean error will tend to remain constant for all IPD settings, so that all users of a particular binocular would see the same lean error. The typical observer can fuse images with relative rotations of 2 to 5 degrees without much difficulty for short time periods. The eye muscles actually rotate the eye in a motion called cyclotorsion to partially compensate and the brain does the rest to fuse rotated images. Cyclotorsion is a common visual mechanism when you look at objects close to you that are not perpendicular to your line of sight: point one finger directly away from you and almost in line with your right eye, your left eye sees the finger rotated differently than your right eye but you can fuse the image of the finger by fixing your gaze on it (if you have normal binocular vision). Not that I recommend sloppy alignment of binoculars for image lean because extended viewing of even small misalignments will cause some eyestrain and if you have image lean then the vertical or horizontal alignment for objects out towards the edge of the field can get really bad even if perfect on axis. My main point here is that a good binocular will not magnify a persons image fusion problems but a marginal one might add to those problems. As an aside, if a person wears corrective spectacles then the spectacles will not generally create image rotation even if decentered. Even the sometimes bizarre progressive lenses used in place of bifocals or trifocals would not be expected to produce significant image rotation. But, I would urge serious binocular users to avoid progressive lenses as image quality might suffer depending on where the spectacle lens falls relative to the binocular exit pupil. Steve Stayton ===================================== Subject: Bushnell From: "Steve Stayton" In response to Fan Tao's discussion on various manufacturers of some Bushnell models (List #177): A survey of my Bushnell shelf shows several early models (1950-60s) with the FPO logo (for Fuji Photo Optical, the stylized logo is a lens with Mt.Fuji superimposed). Interestingly, I have two identical 7X35s by Fuji Photo Optical (B&L Zephyr clones) one is marked Bushnell Featherlight and one is marked Fuji Meibo Featherweight, both have the FPO logo engraving on the front hinge cap. Dead nuts identical except markings. This is typical of the Japanese makers in the 50s and 60s (and even to this day) to have different branded names on the exact same model of binocular. On two later model Bushnell Rangemaster 7X35 models (marketed directly with the Custom series of the same vintage and similar in styling) both are marked with the BT engraving on the front hinge cap and one of these (earlier of the two) also has a JB45 marking on the front bridge. JB45 is indicated to be Taisei Kogaku Co. Ltd on the Japan code list (on Peters website). Taisei Kogaku was renamed Tamron Co. Ltd in April 1970. So this binocular confirms that the BT marking on the early Bushnells indicates manufacture by Tamron (as described to Peter Abrahams by David Bushnell). (see http://www.tamron.co.jp/english/p-history.htm for history of Tamron ) My very early Bushnell Rangemaster 7X35 models (of the first type, 525 FOV, introduced 1952 and replaced by second type, 578 FOV, in 1963) sport the FPO logo (lens w/ Mt.Fuji) and no JB code. Another example I have studied has the same markings. This binocular exhibits very high build quality typical of all of the early FPO models that I have seen. Like those of Fan Tao, my three Bushnell Custom models (7X35,9X36,7X50.1960s and 70s vintage) have the BOL in a diamond engraving but no JB or JE markings. It would be most useful to determine what manufacturer is represented by the BOL symbol on these Bushnell models. This may be tough since even David Bushnell did not remember when discussing this with Peter. It is clear, as Fan pointed out, that Fuji P.O. built some of the Custom models and marked them with the usual FPO logo. If BT is Tamron and BK is Kowa then who made the ones marked BOL? Petes suggestion of Olympus seems to fit the letters but as far as I can tell Olympus does not seem to be in the binocular manufacturing business as late as 1974 as they were mainly involved in cameras and microscopes (Guide Book of Japanese Optical Precision Instrument series of books from 1953 to 1974). If anyone has additional information such as further examples of Bushnell Customs or Rangemasters, please share it with the List. Steve Stayton =============================================== =================================================== Binocular List #182: 08 September 2001. =================================================== Subject: lean & the eyes From: Arnold Cohen This discussion of lean and optometric problems has been most timely. I recently reconditioned a junker French binoc from the 1930s-"Stereor 8x30" and wound up with what I know recognise as lean. Most bizarre-the world slanted quite symmetrically at about 15 degrees off the horizontal! I shall check the prism alignment. I also just had my annual visit to the optometrist and she pointed out a slight enophoric strabismus-the tendency to go cross eyed on the R-something I noticed for years when very tired. She indicated that this is made worse by an undercorrected reading lens (not strong enough)as your eye is trying to focus on a near object but can't and tries further to increase ocular convergence to help that out-but since that is not the problem it keeps trying and makes the tendency for double vision worse! Simply correcting the magnification relieves the problem. Thus, it may be that any underlying, even subclinical vision problems could be made worse by minor problems with the binocular. While either alone would be inapparent, the combination could be reinforcing and become evident, perhaps manifest as a combination of the two and thus confusing to both the optical repairman and the optometrist. Just was given a most interesting little French glass-at first it looked like a routine Galilean pocket glass but on taking it down for cleaning it is a French glass-marked Petit ft. Two brass cylinders about 4" long and 3/4" wide with a hinged bridge, black metal draw tubes which are drawn out by pulling in the bridge till it locks making it about 6"long and then may be focused with the central axis wheel which moves it up and down about 1". The objective lens is a single lens but the draw tubes have a compound lens with a very convex objective lens and a nearly plano ocular lens at the ends of a small brass cylinder which screws into the distal end of the draw tube and an identical unit into the proximal end-thus this appears more like a tiny pocket double telescope rather that a simple glass. Contruction looks late 1800s. Does anyone know about this type of glass? I'd estimate 5x magnification. Lastly, the great 8x30 shootout is in progress-should be done this weekend. Arnie -------- >Petit ft.< Petit Fils? = Petit Brothers. I don't have anything on Petit. I wish I did, the name is commonly found. I don't know of a better name for Arnie's glass than 'twin telescope'. Everybody likes them. The biggest example I've seen is 26 inches long, to 35 inches when extended: http://home.europa.com/~telscope/twintel2.jpg See other photos on the web site, under images -- binoculars -- France. They use lens erecting systems, like a spyglass. There are two or three extra lenses in front of the eyepiece, precisely spaced, that flip the image upside down & left to right. The system will work only if the lenses are separated by a precise distance, and there are short lengths of tubing to act as spacers. Frequently, when a user has disassembled these to clean the optics, they do not get everything back together in the correct manner (if a lens is inverted front to back, it won't work either). If you feel obliged to disassemble a twin telescope, lay out all the parts as they emerge from the body, keeping them in order and marking the edge of the lens with an arrow in pencil or felt pen. --Peter ============================== Subject: lean & high standards From: "William Cook" "Not that I recommend sloppy alignment of binoculars for image lean because extended viewing of even small misalignments will cause some eyestrain and..." Boy, I'm glad you went on to say that. Me 'an ole Sudarrrrppphh were beginin' to think that the haze gray canoe club was loosening up its standards. Ain't no way Chief Stagg would have let Cory or me live had we tried to pass off a 'nocklar with 5 degrees of lean. As easy as it is to correct, there is no room for anything but near perfection. Of course, the way things are going in the Navy these days, the last guys to make Chief Opticalman got it for: "Best use of a Fujinon catalog." One thing is for sure. The next time we go to war, it had better be with ourselves - or we better have really good spy satellites - 'cause our binos these days come from everywhere but here. Just a redneck thought, Kindest Regards, Bill C. OMC RET CG and fan of CDs by CCR and PPM but not FDIC INS ==================================== Subject: Vision Problem From: Kenny2@___m I have been following the recent " vision problem " debate with great interest . Although far from being optical engineer or optician myself , I understood the explanations put forward by the various members of this fraternity belonging to the "former " whilst awaiting a response from an expert in the "latter" which I had posted a few days ago , hoping to be able to shed some light on the problem from a different angle ( if you excuse the pun ) ! Co-incidentally , the response from the optician arrived by the same post as your last mail . Whilst the optician had never come across such a problem he was so interested in the query that he consulted various other experts in the field , one of whom , whilst unable to attribute a specific name to the disorder, was quite open to the suggestion that such a condition could arise as a normally unnoticed side effect of another optical disorder and advocated the "user " should undergo eye- tests accordingly forthwith . From my own point of view , being a professional "problem solver " in a different field I would have thought that any possibility of the problem being caused by faulty optics of any kind would have already been eliminated in this case by the trying of various binoculars before it got to this stage of debate . That is to say , O.K maybe the odd pair of binoculars may have tilted prisms etc , but surely not three or four pairs selected at random when offered to this unfortunate customer ? Just my " few cents' worth " Kenny Jones (Industrial Heating Engineer , Rock Guitarist and owner of some very inferior optical devices) ============================ At an Italian museum: Il Museo dell'Occhiale http://www.opti.it/museo/index.html Check out the unusual Galilean binoculars: http://www.opti.it/museo/vista6.html ================================= There's been some discussion of fungus on glass on a telescope email list. Some of the links & text are useful: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/fungus.html fungus ---Alcohols are probably not harmful, but they are ineffective compared to, for example, dilute solutions of ammonia (Windex). Another tip, originally from repairman-lore and most recently passed along by Ed Romney on his web page, is a 50/50 mixture of hydrogen peroxide (from the drugstore) and household ammonia. It is a very effective remover of the "haze" so often mistaken for fungus, and Ed says it also removes fungus. // Romney actually recommends the ammonia-peroxide mixture for haze, which he says most people think is fungus. I've used it on what I believe are atmospheric deposits (tobacco, etc). I'm not sure he distinguishes between haze and fungus, and I don't feel like going to his web site to look right now. I believe you are, as so often, right about this. The ammonia-peroxide mixture is in essence a good glass cleaner, rather than a fungicide. ---I would consider the ammonia in the solution you mentioned to be more beneficial to fungus than harmful. If anything, i believe it is the hydrogen peroxide which is most responsible for killing the fungus. I am surprised to not see a favorite fungus killing formula among painters and gardeners: Mix 1 gallon water with 1 pint Clorox and 2 oz. liquid detergent. This kills fungus and removes it from walls and other areas. I haven't tried it on lenses. I usually just wipe them clean and the fungus does not return. AF. ----soak the parts in bleach or a commercial fungicide like tilex ---Good quality lenses are assembled in 'clean rooms' where the air is micro- filtered. Opening up a lens introduces more fungus spores ---The Best thing to remove any Fungus is THYMOL (crystal form) Put the Thymol Crystals in a Porcalin Dish, in a Box, with the Item to be defungused... It is best if the Box is Airtight... as Thymol is very dangerious to Humans Leave for a few days, or a week.... Fungus Killed..... dont forget to Air the item afterwards. Works well for Albums, Prints, old negs and Slides... Just Remember it is Dangerous. You can get Thymol Crystals from most scientific chemial supply co. ---I sprayed the surface with the product, "Fantastic" waited a few seconds, used an optical tissue and the spots were gone. --- negative ion generator (also known as ionizer) is the only sure fire way to prevent mold http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronfaults.html ===== I have tried, and succeeded, with soaking the glass (not the metal!) in baths of a hydrogen peroxide-household ammonia mixture. Mix just before use, 50/50. This solution is from Ed Romney and is not original with me. I also had good luck with household vinegar. Some claim success with high-intensity UV, a sunlamp I suppose. The ammonia-peroxide mixture is in essence a good glass cleaner, rather than a fungicide. ==== mold growing inside a sealed scope..... washing the optics in alcohol. This will usually leave a residue which can be washed off using Micro glass cleaner (see your local college chem dept.) and rinsed down with pure distilled water, or alternatively, you can use collodion on the mirrors to remove everything. Mold spores will still be around the sides and backs of the mirrors and alcohol should do the trick. The rest of the interior of the scope probably should be washed down with a dilute solution of Chlorox (sodium hypochlorate) to kill all the mold spores and plants hanging around in your tube and then also rinsed thoroughly and dried.I wouldn't use Chlorox on the aluminized optics. Also: a heated storage box. Another idea is to put several silica gel packets in a sealed box to keep the scope dry. You can get large silica gel packets that you can cook in the oven to dry out. They are reuseable many times. (If this cleaning solution contains Potassium Dichromate and Sulfuric acid, it will strip off mag flouride coatings.) ==== Following are posts to a professional microscopists' list: http://www.biotech.ufl.edu/icbr/emcl/db/lenseatingfungi.html Might it not be a devitrification of the glass? I worked several years ago with a student in Art Conservation from the nearby Winterthur museum. Her specialty was lockets which contained pictures behind glass. The glass in these often had the exact problem you describe. Although the stuff on the surface of the glass looked like a growth of some kind, it was actually a gel of glass material in water. She told me this is common knowledge in her field, and is in all the textbooks. One giveaway that this is something done by the glass is that it only happens to flint glass, not to crown. Robert Wieland wieland@___l.edu Electron Microscope Specialist University of Delaware --Devitrification can be identified using SEM (with appropriate precautions to eliminate charging). Sometimes, the devitrified areas grow radially from a point of nucleation. In any case, there is crystallization of the glass that will appear different from organic growth. Devitrification is a very slow process at room temperature which would be a reason to expect to find it only on very old optics. ====== My own thinking on this matter would be to periodically "gas" the sensitive components using formaldehyde gas. For example, remove the optics, place in a zip- lock bag with some formalin (38% formaldehyde) and allow gas to permeate the optics. HOWEVER, we need to have some input from microscope manufacturers since the formaldehyde may affect some components inside the lenses. On the other hand, left alone, the lenses will surely be ruined by the fungi. ===== Parafilm does an amazing job of sealing things up. It took me a long time to figure out that Parafilm wrapped around the lid of any old jar will keep indicator dessicant blue for years. I trust it, now. My camera equipment is in a peanut butter jar with dessicant and Parafilmed. Next, of all the commercial sealable food storage containers out there, I have found Tupperware brand to be the best at sealing out humidity. I have had a couple of hilarious Tupperware parties for scientists where the poor salesperson was bewildered by our refusal to play the games, and our discussion of pathology and oceanography. It's easier to go to the local supermarket for Rubbermaid or equal brand, but they just don't do the job. And something I found out the *hard* way - Drierite (CaSO4) can be corrosive, so we have switched to silica gel. We sometimes put a "head" of N2 gas before sealing things. ======= it is a very common problem for fungi to get into the layers that make up a lens. In my experience it is incurable,(Anyone please correct me if there is now something that I don't know about). In my 25+ years in the humid tropics I never had the fungi problem while other people around me did. I have always attributed this to the fact that I never covered my microscope, prefering to let the air circulate around it. I know that it is considered sacrilage not to cover your microscope but my microscopes have certainly outlasted numerous others and never had the dreaded fungi. ===== The LM maintenance section at our local (latitude 19) University years ago researched that topic. Most of the microscopes are kept in airconditioning and then no precautions are required but for the Coral Sea island research station they enclose a teaspoon of paraformaldehyde powder in a small paper bag within the microscope case. This protects the microscope for a year or two and apparently has no ill effect on lenses and the mechanical parts. Another alternative are the "plug- in and forget" new desiccating cabinets. They keep relative humidity below 20%; a true innovation. ====== --But does anyone know the name of this type of fungus? What type of glass does it grow on and what component of the glass is so attractive to it? Before my business became overwhelmingly active I used to restore old optical systems for historical exhibition. I no longer have time for that now but after years of seeing great optics ruined by this fungus I am glad others have raised this topic. ---One of the fungi that does this is Aureobasidium pullulans, it is also seen often growing on tile grout in bathrooms. My best guess it is using carbon in the coatings or cements, or thin oil films that form from the air. ===== In my past years as a microscope optical engineer, I tend to agree with Russell. The fungi always attacked the soft internal lens coatings, not the hardened coatings of exposed lens. If there is a problem on the outside of the objective, I would first think of scratch damage or similar. Whilst the fungi can be successfully removed from the lens elements, it also means removing the soft coatings which in turn compromise the chromatic correction of the lens. The coating can be re-applied, however it is expensive. It is a popular practice for many manufacturers of sea going binoculars to charge the body with nitrogen and I know that at least one microscope manufacturer did this with special order scopes to countries at risk. Also tried was an additive to the coating material which, again available on special order, seemed to increase the life of the optics. ========================================================= =========================================== Binocular List #183: 26 September 2001. =============================================== Subject: De-assembling a BUSCH 6 x 30 From: "Rafael Chamón Cobos" I have bought an old binocular, marked BUSCH, Nr. 265469, model MILLUX 6x30. This is a nice piece, with IF system and a reticle in the right eyepiece. The external condition is quite good, but the objectives and the prisms have got a haze due to the time, so that the image has a poor contrast. Allthought I have no experience in this matter, I would like to fix the binocular myself. So I have easily removed the objectives (which were simply screwed onto the front plates) and cleaned them myself with a light soapy water. Then I removed the front plates (which were sealed with a black wax) and I carefully took out the front prisms to clean them. But when I tried to do the same procedure at the back side of the binoculars, I stopped because I could not manage to remove the eyepieces. I think I should first loose the eyepieces from the short tubes were they are mounted, and then unscrew the tubes from the back plates. But I do not know how to loose the eyepieces from the tubes. There are three very little screws in the barrel of the eyepiece, that serve to set the index of the focusing mechanism, but not to remove the eyepiece. Perhaps somebody can give me an advice?. I also would like to know what is the function of the eccentric rings that modern binoculars have in the objective mounts. Are they foreseen for alignment of both axes? Or perhaps they serve to center the objectives on the optical axes? What is the reason that old binoculars have got such haze on glass surfaces? I can imagine that it comes from water condensation in wet climates or environments. But perhaps it is due to some chemical reaction with some internal component such as painting lack, oil or something else. Instead trying to seal the binocular body would not be better to allow the air to get in and out through a little hole? If any colleague can send comments I would appreciate them very much. Best regards. Rafael ----------------- The eccentric rings are for collimation, alignment of the right and left optical axes. If you set the binocular on a tripod and view through them while moving the rings, you will see the function. Haze has many causes. Every time you focus an unsealed binocular, air is pumped into & out of the body. Damp air inside the binocular is one cause. Sometimes a lubricant inside the binocular will 'out-gas' when heated. --Peter =============================== Subject: Twin telescope From: Fred Watson Regarding Arnie's enquiry about his miniature French double telescope, these are the instruments that Bill Reid and Hans Seeger refer to as "psylescopes". Both Hans' book and mine have pictures of them - pages 28 and 11 respectively. They were pretty common towards the end of the 19th century. It's interesting that they seem to form a distinctly different taxonomic group from the larger twin telescopes that you describe in your reply to Arnie. The little ones usually came in flat hard leather cases that folded open exactly like a cigar-case. They were mostly made in France, though there are plenty of German-made examples. Bill Reid, who has a large collection of these glasses, is doing some research on their history. I think at one time he attributed the basic design to Emil Busch, but I don't know whether he still does. Cheers for now - all the best. Fred Assoc. Prof. Fred Watson Astronomer-in-Charge Anglo-Australian Observatory ------- These 'twin telescopes' have lens erecting systems in common. I believe Fred is dividing them according to differences in their focusing mechanism and interpupillary adjustments. Some of the larger models use a geared rack & pinion for both functions, like the Goerz Trieder models circa 1910. The smaller models use bending bridges and a focus similar to most modern prism binoculars, with an internal screw (and a sliding tube for greater compactness when carrying). The name 'psylescope' is intriguing. I do not find it, or any word starting with 'psyle', in the Oxford English Dictionary, or in large French, Spanish, Italian, or German dictionaries. It seems to be Greek, but the Greek dictionaries I checked were all printed in Greek, so I couldn't read them. Nor did I find it in an internet search. I tend to think that 'Psylescope' was a name coined by someone in advertising. I phoned Bill Reid, who found a paper listing 'Jumelle Psylescope, patent 1894, 8 power, field 5 and 5/6 degrees', the name illegible but resembling 'Desoille'. Bill also had a copy of 'Der Mechaniker', vol. 5, 1897, listing a Clairmont Telemeter, with the same shape, and with graduations on the barrel, resembling a scale used as a simple rangefinder (if you know the height of an object, you can estimate its distance from its size). He described a similar Krauss Lilliput, and the Jumelles Longvue, in a catalog by the Societe de Lunette. Other models were made in Rathenow, most or all by Busch. Hensoldt made a twin telescope, described on p107 of Seeger, 'Feldstecher'. Bill owns this model, and described its helical focus and triangular case that fits the instrument when folded. Seeger writes: "Fig. 113. 7 x 26, M. Hensoldt & Sons, Wetzlar, 1897. Terrestrial double field glass. The first fieldglass built by Hendsoldt, made for only a few years. Aluminum, leather cover. The double-glass is so far foldable that the halves touch. The fieldglass then fits into the leather case with triangular cross section. 7.2 Hensoldt Binoculars..... The first binocular was built in 1897, a terrestrial model 7 x 25 (see fig. 113,)....The hinges allow the halves to fold close together so that it is quite compact, comparable to today’s pocket binoculars. This small, practical, terrestrial pocket field glass was offered until 1905, and could be considered one of the terminal points of the three or four hundred year history of this field glass principle." ================================================= ======================================================= Binocular List #184: 03 October 2001. ================================================== Subject: Bino Collimation From: "William Cook" Mr. Cobos wrote that he had disassembled his 6x30 and wanted to know what the eccentric rings are for. Oops, that is a question that would have been better asked BEFORE disassembly – especially when followed by such phrases as “fix the binocular myself.” Peter is correct; the eccentrics are for collimation. As a tech, however, I would like to modify has comments just a touch. He wrote: >The eccentric rings are for collimation, alignment of the right and left optical axes.< The eccentric rings on one telescope are to align it to the AXLE. The eccentric rings on the second telescope are used to align it to the first telescope. This way the optical AND mechanical axis are aligned. With this collimation is achieved. I call anything short of this “conditional alignment.” If for example, you have an IPD of 65mm and you are going to be the only person using your binocular, you can simply have it collimated at 65mm and be quite happy. If, however, you hand your bino to a fellow with a 72mm IPD or a child with a 58mm IPD, they may experience double vision. I must admit that sometimes a haphazard “collimation” will provide two fields that the brain can easily fuse without too much eyestrain. However, that is the exception and not the rule, especially in cases when both objectives have been removed at once. And, if there is any lateral motion possible on the prisms shelves, a new dimension of possibilities arise. As far as the haze: More than likely, it is simply the result of years of condensation. However, coatings may be attacked by any number of concentrated gasses in the air in places that sell or work with chemicals and gasses. I have also seen situations where binocular lenses have been coated with tar and nicotine from individuals who feel that their purpose in life is to promote the philosophy that “Cancer cures smoking.” Just a thought. Kindest Regards, William J. Cook, Opticalman Chief, USNR-Ret. Manager, Precision Instruments & Optics, Captain's Nautical Supplies, Seattle Editor / Publisher, Amateur Telescope Making Journal ============================== Subject: Binoculars in history; Surratt trial glasses Instead of talking about the history of binoculars, we can discuss the role that binoculars have taken in historical events. For example, there must be many battles that have been decided because of a binocular. Some time ago on the list, I mentioned the infamous Titanic binoculars that were locked in a cabinet when the iceberg was hit; would the ship have sunk if the watchman had the field glass? This debate rages on, if you ever search the internet 'newgroups' for the topic 'history of binocular', you should instead search for 'binocular NOT Titanic' or you'll get hundreds of messages to Titanic newsgroups, none of which have anything interesting to say. Another binocular that seems to have assumed semi-mythical proportions can be found on the internet by searching for 'Surratt trial glass'. After the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, a field glass became evidence that linked assassin John Wilkes Booth to the John H. Surratt family. The trial & subsequent hanging of the Surratts is believed by conspiracy buffs (and possibly by historians as well) to have been less than fair & judicial. Somehow, these field glasses play a part in the debate, but I am not willing to wade through the mountain of text to learn the specifics. I came upon this debate because of two letters from 1982 that were written to the Smithsonian & to the U.S. Army's Military History Institute. They concern a three power field glass, with a rotating knob at the eyepiece that brings one of three Galilean eyepieces into place, for 'Theater - Field - Marine' use. Apparently the Surratt field glass is thought to be of this type, and the owner of such a glass was told that his example could be, or was in fact, the Surratt glass. (You youngsters out there will note that such blarney did not begin with ebay). The Army reply included a note that General U.S. Grant used such a binocular, which survives with his initials on the case. I also own one of these field glasses, and I'm going out to the garage now to see if the case has 'JHS' on it; and if it doesn't, I'll soon fix that. --Peter =================================== Subject: Psylescope From: "Thomas Antoniades" As the only Greek speaking person (I presume ) I will try to help. The word Psylos (or Psyle in the feminine gender ) means tall or occasionally slim . Thus ,however silly, Psylescope would mean tall binocular . I had a word with Bill Reid today and we agreed that the French word "longvue " mentioned in article was trying to convey the same meaning of height . I am sorry I cannot any more to the discussion and will leave my friend Bill to expand on the subject. Thomas Antoniades --------- I received a photocopy from Bill Reid (which he'd received from Hans Seeger), showing a Jumelle Psylescope, model 1894, Brevete S.G.D.G. (patented). It is a standard lens erecting system 'twin telescope' with widely flared eyecups & IPD adjustment by sliding bars (either internal gear driven or simply held in place by friction). The Psylescope is from a catalog of Army models by Clermont, Paris, founded in 1854, with L. Huet listed just below Clermont. In 1895, Huet succeeded Clermont as owner of the business; and by 1901, Huet was producing prism binoculars. ========================================== Subject: Negretti & Zambra From: Peter Abrahams Negretti & Zambra were a very large retailer of scientific instruments, and at the 1862 International Exhibition, they showed a large Galilean field glass made of aluminum (very expensive at this early date), with optics of rock crystal. These quartz binoculars were in their catalog circa 1878. An illustration from an unlabeled exhibition catalog shows a standard looking, heavily built, large (perhaps 50mm objectives) field glass. The rock crystal optics are claimed to remain 'brilliant in all climates, not efflorescing or becoming dull and cloudy by exposure to the action of the atmosphere, and....not liable to be scratched'. This use of quartz in binocular optics is unique, to my knowledge. To my recollection, the only way to test whether a lens is quartz or glass would be by removing the objective and viewing it between crossed polars. Without knowing how the lens was cut from the crystal, it is difficult to predict what pattern will be seen, but it should be different than a glass lens - which will be essentially transparent, except where stress in the glass becomes visible. Quartz might show a broad cross across the entire lens. It would be very interesting to learn their procedure for computing a doublet of quartz. --Peter ========================================== ======================================================= Binocular List #185: 11 October 2001. ================================ Subject: French industry I found some papers that list French optical manufacturers, from a biannual catalog: L'Industrie Francaise des Instruments de Precision, 1901-1902. Catalogue Publie par le Syndicat des Constructeurs en Instruments d'Optique & de Precision. Paris. --Baille-Lemaire, founded 1847, Paris & Crosne, Jumelles, Longues-vues pour Observatoires, Telemetre, Jumelle compensatrice (contenter les singularites des vues hypermetropes = longsighted), Jumelle a Reticule, Jumelle a Prismes. --Maison Bardou, J. Vial successeur, Paris. Founded 1818 by D.F. Bardou, succeeded by P.G. Bardou and A.D. Bardou. Jumelles, Lunettes. --E. Krauss, Paris, founded 1882. Jumelles galileiques, Jumelles a prismes, Licence de fabrication des stero-jumelles Zeiss-Krauss. --Arthur Levy, successeur to Veissiere, Paris, Jumelles. --L. Lacombe Fils, Paris, Jumelles. --H. Roussel, Paris, Jumelles prismatiques. --Societe des Lunetiers, Paris. (spectacles only??) --A. Tubeuf, Paris, founded by Louis Biennait 1869, succeeded in 1890 by Tubeuf, makes Jumelles only ================================================= Subject: "Favourite " Binoculars From: Kenny2@___m Just a kind of " light -hearted idea " to hopefully liven up the next newsletter and create a little special interest. I would be very interested to hear from as many "members" as possible , each one's own "personal favourite " binocular that they have ever enjoyed looking THROUGH and perhaps also which they have particularly enjoyed just looking AT, with a brief summary as to why they make the choice in the form of a comparative review . I would be especially interested to read opinions of glasses in various classes , v.i.z 6x range 7 x range 8x range 10 x range 15 - 20x range -- over 20x range 40mm 50mm 60-80mm over 80mm Pre WW2 Post WW2 -- current commercials . Regards and Thanks once more , Ken Jones ------------------ There's been scattered discussion on this topic in earlier lists, though mostly as a review of a particular model. I like low power; 6x, and find the steadier views more than compensate for the lower magnification. They also permit viewing from a car or an airplane. The main objection is that wide field, low power eyepieces are much larger than wide field, high power eyepieces, to the extent that I can't get them around my nose. But I don't know of a top quality 6x glass. There's a lot of very fine models, if price is no object. The best from Nikon, Zeiss, Leica, Swarovski, Minox, Fujinon -- are all very good. Personal feelings about weight, eye relief, waterproofing, etc. can differ quite a bit. I get asked regularly, what are the best binoculars for $100. or $200, with some particular aperture. I don't keep up with available models & usually don't have an answer. I own a Canon 8 x 32 WP & I think it is very good for the sub $200. price. --Peter ========================================= Subject: Hot Glass From: "Eastman, Jack F" I was rooting around in the past Bino Lists and stubbed my beak (list #63) about radioactive glass. I thought I or someone referenced the article, below. Actually that is what I was hunting for, but didn't see it in the List. Here's my comment on hot glass 2-1/2 years late for a response to #63! See why I'm king of all procrastinators?! Now if I can find the data we took on that old Erfle. Need to pester Mike Thornton, who did the X-ray measurements... .....In my previous post I referred to the Shutterbug article on radioactive glass. I found a reference to it from another old post. It is below, and the measurements we made on my 7" Ektar. My memory isn't as bad as I thought. However, I haven't located the data for that eyepiece. From Shutterbug magazine, July 1977, HOT GLASS... Apparently there are a number of photo lenses out there with thorium glass. Some of you may remember the Erfle eyepiece with brown glass in it . We had one at Chamberlin until somebody brought a Geiger counter and tested it. It was hot as a $3 pistol. The "centerfold" of the Shutterbug article is the Kodak 7" f/2.5 Ektar. I have one, and I tested it. From the front, sides and at the camera mount it showed gamma radiation about 7 times background. Against the rear element the count was ~50 times background. This is probably not as bad as it sounds unless, as the article says, you have a collection of these things under your bed. I used this lens quite a bit and it didn't seem to expose my film or glow in the dark. Apparently Kodak used thorium 232 as an additive in some of their glasses. Now those types of glass are made with Lanthanum, the LaSF,LaK and LaF glasses are the ones. The article also mentioned the Takumar 50mm f/1.4 as possibly hot... ------ At Steve Rohans, we saw a 1950s? vintage US military binocular, very massive & seemingly explosion proof, with eyepiece lenses that were an odd orange-ish color. He suspected they were of radioactive glass. At the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History, they have a few military binoculars, including a German model I couldn't recognize because it was in a heavy, semi-clear plastic bag; and tagged with the universal 'radioactive hazard' symbol -- probably a bit overcautious. Optical instruments for visual use have been made with glass that is radioactive enough that you wouldn't want to use them for long periods of time. I am not sure what degree of caution is justified; I don't worry much about it, but if the eyepiece lenses are brownish, I would have them measured with a geiger counter before using for more than a moment or two. ---Peter ====================================================== ======================================================= Binocular List #186: 20 October 2001. =========================== Subject: Wray monocular From: Marc James Small I picked up an interesting item on e-Bay which arrived today. It is a Wray PANORA 8x21 folding monocular, s/n 182713 -- and it seems to be an almost-exact copy of the Prewar TURMON. (Wray made many copies of Leitz items from 1946 until 1952 or so, but I have never before seen a Wray copy of a Zeiss product; the UK had a punitive tarriff on German camera and optical gear during this period.) A most fascinating (and quite inexpensive!) footnote to the camera history of that period. Marc msmall@___e.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir! ============================================= Subject: Replies From: Arnold Cohen 1.re: French binoc manufacturers. What happened to them all?? Somewhere in the 50's or 60's they seem to have evaporated. I've tried web searches and one current mil producer of optic equipment turns up and nothing on the classic old companies. I even went to a large camera store in Paris-they sold German and Japanese glasses and the senior salesman knew nothing of the old companies. Any info out there on the fate of companies that made some fine glasses. (my 8x30 comparison exercise included some mil post WWII French binocs that were excellent-I'll get around to writing that up when the snow flies). 2. Best buys under $100-200. Aside from periodic special deals, the Russian stuff is great for the money. Try www.sheldy.ru/english/opt-binocl.htm for summary of many of the available brands. Right now on ebay is a 7x35 for $19! It is optically excellent. 3. 6x binocs. My backyard glass is a post war B+L 6x30 CF. Bright, superb performance, great for short or medium distances. Easy on the eyes. Not many new 6x glasses out there under $4-500. Best bet is a post war German or US glass-with their inherent brightness the older coatings really don't matter that much. As they are not widely popular they are very reasonable. Another choice is a 7x35, my personal favorite. Just about as steady, an American classic! Many more to choose from new. 3b. Favorite binocs. Great question. To the crazed collector (probably anyone reading this)a multifaceted question. Best user for travel, for home,in car, for hiking etc. What expected distances? What goal-birding, butterflying, indoor (museums, shows), general hiking, city use (great for spotting road signs in strange cities in bad traffic to allow for maneuvering), etc. This is distinct from best collector piece which could be rarest, best associated history, odd design, period when made, best performance, favorite type (mini, deck glass etc.) etc. With all of the categories perhaps the most important is "coolest"-very subjective. It would be great for many of us to contemplate and submit our own lists. 4. IOR binocs. I was talking from Val at Valdada in Colorado this week. The yellow tinge of the Russian and Rumanian glasses was due to salts put in glass to make it resistant to radiation exposure!! Later glass intentionally had this left out due to civilian consumer preferences. The 7x40 was a joint design with Rumanian and Zeiss Jena engineers with Russian input as to the optical glass. The eyepieces are more akin to the EDF 7x40 than the DF 7x40. It is really a porro prism contemporary design of the EDF 7x40 not the earlier DF. The Rumanian glass is smaller and lighter and has a wider field than the DF. Val spent this March at the plant in Bucharest. At its peak it had 10,000 workers, now about 1,000. Machinery is mostly Zeiss. Very active design and engineering depts. Major consumner products are rifle scopes, binocs, microsopes, and then sophisticated military and industial optical products. On the binoc side a 10x25 is in final stages of development. Val is very knowledgeable and didn't know about our little group. I'll foward out web site to him. He did comment, as did one of our German contributors, that the company store in Bucharest has nothing in it. Probably is residual from old Communist ideas of marketing!! Arnie ----------- I believe that most French optical companies were casualties of the 2 major wars fought in this century on French soil. Some were appropriated by German companies, some were targets since they were making strategic products, and I've been told a number were Jewish. Whatever the sequence of events, it is quite difficult to obtain information about them. Probably the bureaucracies of the French government, archives, museums, etc., are also a cause of difficulties in research. --Peter ====================================== Subject: Favorite binoculars From: "Big John" To add my small addition to the list of favourite binoculars, I post the following. I have two pairs that I love. 1. A BEH 7x50 U-boat binocular 467137 in perfect condition. Why, because they are a superb binocular and I wonder what has been seen through them. The only thing they lack are the correct prism rubber guards and a decent case. They also smell wonderful. 2. A Monk Optics 7x50 binocular that have the FULL military spec. and I can find not a single fault with in any area. Also they "fit" me perfectly. It is hard to choose between the two. I also have another 35 other binoculars to make comparisons with. Best wishes from the UK and God bless America. John Platt. ============================== Subject: "Favourite" Binoculars From: Lothar Helling (L.Helling@___ne.de) My favourite binocular for daily and daylight use is the 8X20 from Zeiss (West) in the first version (IF, made up from 1969). Because of the IF it is much smaller and lighter than the 8X20 models from now (Zeiss and Leica). The optical quality - contrast and sharpness- is excellent and as good as it is at the new Zeiss and Leica 8X20. Under daylight conditions (!) I can not see differences in sharpness and contrast compared with modern "huge" binoculars from Zeiss and Leica (8X50 etc.). Interested in the history of binocular design I like that old Zeiss specially because it is the prototype of all these pocketsize glasses you can get now from $ 20 up to $ 400. My second favourite is just the opposite: A "Flakglas" 10X80 beh (Leitz) from WW II. It gives a wonderful wide and quiet view (as Hans Seeger would say). Again the history of this binocular is interesting for me as a German citizen (searching bombers in WW II ...). My (little) experience in collecting binoculars is that even very less haze you can often find in older binoculars destroys the contrast which is an assumption for the pleasure which great binoculars can give. Best regards from Germany, Lothar ================================== Subject: Favorites From: Thomas Press I thought the suggestion to offer thoughts on "favorite" binoculars was a great one, and I look forward to reading other responses. With the caveat that this is all subjective, if I had to pick just one currently available binocular, it would probably be the Zeiss 8 x 30 B/GT* Classic. I am always amazed at the view through the Zeiss - to my eyes, remarkably crisp and open, and I regard the notably smaller (and actually pocketable) design as both elegant and inspired. While the birdwatching buffs consider the Zeiss 8 x 30 Classic as now hopelessly outclassed by the Leica 8 x 32 BA/BN and the Nikon 8 x 32 SE (both, particularly the Leica, excellent glasses), the Zeiss Classic is still the binocular I most enjoy using, and the one I grab the most often. Regards, Tom ======================================== Subject: "Favourite " Binoculars From: "Rafael Chamón Cobos" In my case there is no favorite bino, because I love all the binos I have. Each of them has a particular beauty or virtue. I like medium magnify factors like 7x or 8x and high exit pupils (= or > 5mm). I give particular value to the external size, i.e., to the feeling how the bino fits in my hands. For me an intermediate size is best. I do prefer porros rather than roots. My binos are: - Nikon 7 x 50 CF HP: a master piece in classic Zeiss stile, but too heavy to carry in travels (1 Kg) and too big to hold comfortably in my hands. I enjoy just to have it. - Nikon 7 x 35 CF Sporting: medium price bino, with outstanding sharpnes. Very comfortable in my hands. All around bino for everything. It is the bino I most use. - Nikon 8 x 30 E CF WA: another master piece in Zeiss stile. Multicoated, very good sharpnes, high contrast and no color cast. Light in weight. However too small to hold comfortably. I enjoy just to have it. - Pentax 8 x 30 Marine IF: ideal for long distances because no need to re-focus. Greater than a normal porro 8 x 30 and therefore, more confortable for me. If I had to choose, my favorite would be perhaps the Nikon 7 x 50. Best regards. Rafael ====================================== Subject: Favorites From: Peter Abrahams This list is certainly open to discussion of the 'best' binoculars. But, any of you guys who really thrive on these emails should know about the 'other' binocular email list, where there are a dozen or so messages a day, and it is unmoderated so you can see who can spell & who can't. http://groups.yahoo.com/ search for: bino-net Unfortunately, the yahoo groups site is a typical modern web site, with pop up ads, java scripts, and other garbage that take a while to load & interfere with anything else you're trying to do. You have to register & give personal information -- but everyone agrees there has not been any 'spam' from yahoo. There are many very good groups that are housed at yahoo -- if you are interested in old telescopes, search for 'oldscope'. ============================================= ======================================================= Binocular List #187: 25 October 2001. ================================================== Subject: Meopta From: Peter Abrahams Meopta was a Czech manufacturer of cameras: the Mikroma submini, Flexaret, Opema, and others. Located in the city of Prerau, they made optical equipment during WWII as 'Waffenwerke Bruenn AG, Werk Prerau', renamed in 1943 to 'Opticotechna GmbH, Werk Prerau / Protektorat', using the 3 letter code ' dow ' . In 1945, they were renamed Meopta. A very interesting 4 x 15 Meopta binocular sold recently on ebay; the images are still up: http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?MfcISAPICommand=ViewItem&item=1474132824 It comes with four pairs of lenses marked 2x500, 4x250, 6x170, 8x125; to convert it to a binocular microscope. In an earlier list, Jean-Laurent wrote that he'd seen a picture 'of the 25 x 100 Meopta binoculars, made for the army and artillery ,which has the exactly same design than the 25x 100 blc (a real identical copy )' Anyone have anything on Meopta binoculars? --Peter ================================= Subject Favorites From: "randle dewees" I probably have not found my favorite binoculars yet but I do have a couple that seem to be with me for good. The first is a 6/30 porro that Baker Marine imported for years. It was made in Japan and is a chunky and waterproof rubber armored military style unit. The true field is 8.5 degrees so the apparent field is a relatively narrow 51 degrees. Eye relief is about 18mm and the edge of field sharpness ia very good - on axis these are supremely sharp. These are sharp high contrast binoculars and if you like low power binoculars I can recommend picking these up. There is no JB/JE code anywhere. There is a gassing screw on the underneath side of each front hinge lug. Brian Osterberg was pretty tight lipped about the origin of these units when I traded for mine but since he no longers imports them maybe he will fess up to who made them (I'll ask, maybe he will send a little write up about the binos). The housings look identical to a pair of Celestron 8/30 "Waterproof" that I owned for awhile. BTW, those binoculars I can't recommed. My other pair is a Carl Zeiss Jena 10/50B Nobilem. I know many members of this group don't think much of these binoculars, citing variable quality and a fragile nature. From the quality standpoint mine could have been the pair the Zeiss factory built as the retirement gift for the president of the company. This unit is simply perfect in terms of sharpness, internal cleaniness and collimation. I have not bumped or dropped them yet so I've no idea how fragile they are. Sharpness at the edge of the (estimated) 58 degree field of view is good. The view is open, sharp and high contrast. The case is high quality leather and it's an aromatic pleasure opening the case and pulling the binoculars out. I've never regretted acquiring these. Randy Dewees ======================================= Subject: Test - Zeiss Victory 10x40 vs. Leica 10x42 BN From: Barlow Pepin, ad.astra@___n.net ; via "Loren A. Busch" Field Test, October 2001* The Zeiss Victory 10x40 B*T*P* and the Leica Trinovid 10x42 BN I conducted a practical comparison of these two new, highly advanced, waterproof binoculars. First handling revealed that the Zeiss 10x40 Victory is almost a featherweight glass when compared with the Leica 10x42 BN. The difference in the hand and in wearing comfort is immediately noticeable. The user feel of both are superb, but the slightly "grabbier" texture, lighter weight, and broader holding surface on the Zeiss gives an impression of greater security. Both binoculars have broad padded neck straps. Their flexible, strap-mountable, eyepiece rainguards stayed securely in place, both in normal hiking and during removal from their respective black Napa leather protective pouches. Eye relief of the two binoculars is virtually identical in use, although using it with my own spectacles showed the Leica a little easier to adjust interpupillary- wise. Both have secure fully-out position locks on the rubber-covered eyepiece cups, which won't collapse down in use. The Leica clicks to either "fully in" or "fully out" locked positions. The Zeiss twists to lock in the "out" position, and can be adjusted to non-locked intermediate settings by pushing down on the eyecup. Everyone has different eye-relief tolerance and requirements, but both models are up to the challenge of providing a full field of view to glasses wearers with moderate prescriptions. The Zeiss Victory represents an entirely new concept in design and materials. The difference from other current designs is on the order of comparing a B-2 Stealth bomber with a commercial airliner. The shock absorbing, thick waterproof carapace that covers the frame and barrels is made of special gray rubber composite, assembled to the metal casing in sections. The surface is deep matte gray, and utterly non reflective. All the observable metal parts -- including the interior focusing-lens mounts and extendable eyecup barrels -- are apparently special light alloys with matte textured or anodized surfaces. There are no exterior metallic surfaces, other than the identically finished retractable eyecup barrels and the exposed channel between halves when the binocular is folded to adjust diopter. The knife-edge eyepiece mounting rings of black-anodized alloy are so precisely fitted that they seem almost to blend into the glass surface. Judging by overheard opinion, the strongly different appearance and "feel" factor of the Victory model has induced skepticism from some binocular aficionados. At first encounter, this seems to have put some experienced users at a loss to assess the potential performance and durability of the design. The manufacture technique is so modular, in fact, that without removing large sections of the armor there is no obvious way for the optical hobbyist or repairman to adjust or modify any feature of the glass. You can 'thunk' the Victory, focus it in and out, calibrate the concealed diopters setting, swing the barrels back and forth on their hinges, snap the ergonomically-angled locking eyecups in and out to your heart's content...you just won't get the audible or tactile feedback familiar from manipulating other equipment of its type. The Leica BN is identical in external appearance to the company's former BA series, which has been in production for several years. Like the Zeiss, it has a limited, transferable, lifetime warranty. The black, rubber-coated exterior with slotted grip channels has a conventional, conservative look, with very fine surface fit and finish on all parts. It is also available in green armor. All exposed metal is black anodized, with the serial number and maker's name neatly engraved into the black eyecup barrel. The BN tested was produced in Portugal, not in Wetzlar, Germany, site of the main Leitz factory. One odd design note on all Leica "B" series models is the rather delicate barrel-shaped focus adjustment wheel, with black-on- silver markings behind a clear plastic window. Apparently adapted from a SLR camera's exposure-setting dial, it seems out of place in an optical instrument designed for rugged all-weather use. The maker does warn the user not to expose the binocular to immersion with the wheel pulled out to its diopter-setting position. Leica provides unique functionality here, however. Both sides of the binocular can be independently focused when the setting knob is pulled out, something unavailable on any other model in production. I did some practical performance testing. According to the maker's publicity sheets, the Leica BN series was specifically redesigned to provide better close- focusing ability. This has been seen by some users as crucial for birdwatching, and for the increasingly popular pastime of butterfly-viewing. Nonetheless, in close focus measurement, the Victory bettered the BN by about a yard. Image-brightness comparisons served to check out the most salient performance difference claimed between the two models. Zeiss says that their new optical design, which incorporates an Abbe-Koenig prism and a special coating group, gives seven percent greater image brightness. It was determined by direct comparison on both nearby and distant targets that the Victory is indeed brighter. Not only is it brighter than the Leica BN and Swarovski EL, but it also exceeds the equivalent Nikon and Pentax models at hand. The greater image brightness was easily seen when making blink-comparison between the units on an out-of-focus sky background, and then by viewing a matte, off-white foam board target surface placed at a 10-yard distance. In order to do contrast detail comparison, I examined a gray painted, wooden fence surface at 20 yards distance on an overcast day. I did this with the binoculars both handheld and tripod-mounted. In the Zeiss I was able to see and estimate the the varying thickness of the edge of the paint coating where it was broken over rough wood fibers. It was also easy to compare the depths of slight nicks in the surface. The Leica easily picked up clear texture and the sharp transitions between tiny areas of paint and wood, but without revealing the edge thickness of the paint layer. It also gave no clear impression of depth in the same shallow wood nicks. While possibly a side-issue for most 10-power users, the tripod mounting option is another point of comparison. Zeiss incorporates a special tripod- mounting boss on the center shaft, while the Leica can only be practically mounted using a third-party option, such as Nikon's leather and-velcro mounting platform. A simple graphical test was done for image distortion, a common fault of many binoculars with wide angle eyepieces. At the same distance from the edge of field, the Victory exhibits less linear distortion of a gridline pattern (inward bowing or pincushion distortion) than the Leica. It also retains a flat field (with detail in focus) perceptibly a bit farther from the center of the image. After hours of field use under varying light conditions, the only negative visual factor I detected in comparing the Victory with the BN was one of chromatic aberration. The slight violet and orange color banding on contrasty objects viewed at the very edge of the field, although minimal in both binoculars, is slightly broader in the Zeiss. This could be a decisive factor for someone with very high color sensitivity and a habit of viewing at the edge of the field. In this reviewer's estimation, however, the critical user will find that the lighter weight and brighter, less-distorted image of the Zeiss Victory outweighs any other factors. In its class, the Zeiss Victory 10X40 appears to be optically the finest binocular in current production. Barlow Pepin NOTE: The original intent was to compare three glasses; one each from makers Zeiss, Leica, and Swarovski. In the first round of viewing, however, it became immediately obvious that Swarovski's latest offering, the 10x42 EL, has a slight optical problem. When viewing the image of bright, reflected point sources, crossed diffraction spikes were visible diagonally across about 60 percent of the field of view, rotating as the instrument was turned axially. I was bothered by these spider- web-thin diffraction spikes, which are admittedly only visible on very bright objects. The light and contrast loss would only be measurable using very sophisticated equipment. Yet the spikes would distinctly mar any visual comparisons of images with reflective objects such as bright metal or water surfaces in the field of view. Apparently, the Swarovski prism groups just aren't up to the Zeiss or Leica standard. Also, the 10x42 EL sells for hundreds of dollars more than the other two models. For these reasons the Swarovski EL model was left out of this particular round of practical tests. --Barlow Pepin =========================================== Subject: Meetings On the weekend of September 21, 2002, the Antique Telescope Society will be meeting in Ireland, at Birr Castle, Armagh Observatory, and Dunsink Observatory. I will be visiting England before or afterward, and have spoken with Bill Reid about meeting him. It would be excellent if I could meet other interested parties sometime in those weeks, noting that I won't have time to transport myself to very many destinations. As the time gets closer, I would be glad to inform anyone about the ATS meeting. There will be a small, regional meeting of the Antique Telescope Society at Chabot Observatory in Oakland next spring. Chabot owns a Nikko 25 - 80 x 200 binocular, photo at: http://www.europa.com/~telscope/binchabt.gif Jack Kelly & I are continuing to plan a meeting in Portland, Oregon. The date is currently unsure, we hope to fit it in with some visitors from England, but it will be next spring or summer. ==================================== Subject: Introduction From: Albert Viñals Welcome, Gentlemen, let me join your bandwagon of Binoculars "aficionados", "glass hounds" as Peter Abraham seems -appropriately- to term! I am Albert Viñals (the <ñ> character can be changed to if you have problems with your keyboards), from Barcelona, Spain. I know personally some other ones in my country, but they didn't seem having get in touch with you, lets see in the future! After a long career as a Professional Photographer, and being now semi-retired, I kept from one of my occupations, Bird Photography, the love of binoculars and watching birds, of any kind! I have owned a Pentax 12x 50 CFA, optically very good, but mechanically a little wobbly; a Zeiss-Oberkocken 10x 40 B/GA T* Dialyt, mechanically and optically excellent, except for sporting a lot too many color fringes around neutral subjects!. Then, for a change, I got a Zeiss-Oberkocken 30x 60 B/GA T* Mono Spiegelfernrohr, everything excellent, colour perfect, except slightly poor contrast (ah!, mirrors bouncing light to everywhere). Finally, a couple of years ago, a ZEISS 20x 60 Stabilized, an impressive, magnificent, fine piece of equipment, to whom one must be used, but that balances very well in my hands; as you can see, I favour medium to large size instruments, that comes from my photographic vices! But I have never kept the previous ones; I'm not a collector, the oldest binoculars I have used, belonged to my father, a certain PARALUX 8x 30, of unknown vintage; does anyone have any information about this make of glasses? And, by instance, being in accord with what is said in a very interesting concise booklet "BINOCULARS, TELESCOPES & CAMERAS FOR THE BIRDWATCHER", J.J.M. Flegg, BTO Field Guide 14, Sept. 1972, p.3, published in Britain, why we don't drop the terminology "a pair of binoculars"? That is redundant, nearly every one knows that "bino" in Latin means exactly "two", and so the above phrase would mean a couple of instruments, not a single piece of equipment! I don't try to impose anything, just preachery, so any "amusing" or "serious" comments would be interesting to read! --- >Subject: Zeiss ... Dialyt 40x60 scope. From: "Charles M. Barringer" I don't know if we are talking about a similar piece of equipment, but I have owned a Zeiss-Oberkochen Spiegelfernrohr 30x 60 B/GA T* Mono Gregory Type telescope, with 2 aspherical elements, which performed magnificently, color correction perfect, but, alas, no too much contrast (mirrors!). Once I got the idea a pairing it with another equal one, giving birth to a magnificent binocular; simultaneous eyepiece focussing could be mechanically easily achieved, but the diameter of the housing prevented to achieve an enough close eyepiece separation for me, so it failed! "vinals" ---- >>Binocular List #117: 08 July 2000. Subject: 19th century Galilean binoculars. Dwhome001@___m >>I am planning a trip to Paris next summer on other business >> I wonder if anyone on your list might have a contact in Paris. Don Wilson >.....There is an additional factor in this problem; the French government, >which is reputed to be a very difficult bureaucracy, and not sympathetic >to foreigners. --Peter Last week, in the process of searching for technical information en the Web, about my Zeiss 20x 60 S glasses, I got knowledge of this mailing list. It is now 1 1/2 years from the date you posted your request, so I dont know if my comments will be of any use, as you must have been in Paris yet and get around your problems, but just in case, let me tell you that: Mr. Pierre Marly is an optician at 2, av. Mozart, Paris, who had in his back-shop a collection of optical items labelled as a "Musée des Lunettes et Lorgnettes"; it was even made known in French Tourist Guides. From the description of its contents, it seemed to include some very interesting historical optical artifacts, so 3/4 years ago I contacted him, as I was interested to visit it. Unfortunately, he informed me that the whole thing was actually packed in boxes and stored away, as he was no more able to care for visits, and repeatedly asking for help to the French Administration, resulted in no issue until then. Probably, as French people are well known fond of getting cultural things into Public Property and Management, that was the main reason of refusal, as he intended to keep it private! Yes, certainly, the French are VERY BUREACRATIC -not only the Administration-, but they also are usually very sympathetic, and given the Right Frame of Mind, Time, and People, a bit of things can be obtained from them. Get a try, USE FRENCH IF POSSIBLE -very important in that environment-, put patience, and have luck! --Albert Viñals -------------------------- I totally agree, the phrase 'a pair of binoculars' should be eradicated, if not obliterated, from the language. Those things with two tubes that we like so much are 'a binocular'. I don't know Paralux, but it sounds like a Japanese export. I apologize to all for publicly slandering the hospitable & hard working bureaucrats of France. --Peter ========================================================== ======================================================= Binocular List #188: 29 October 2001. ================================================== Subject: Meopta From: "jean-laurent" Concerning the Meopta binoculars you can go on web site and search at "history" then "old products " then " scopes" and you will find some informations about meopta binoculars from the sixties. About the 25x100 model i can tell you that it is not in fact really the same model than the blc 25x100 version (noted in list 187 & previously), the eyes pieces are different and made by Meopta but the body and the objectives seems exactly the same ( maybe made with old zeiss pieces ?). There are 2 versions of this copy of the 25x100 german model , first made by Meopta (there is also a 10x80 version with the same look of the classic 10x80 german flak optic ) the second was made by an another manufacturer of the same country named Somet it is called 25x100 Somet binar (binar for binocular , there is also a 25x100 Somet monocular , called Somet monar ). Another copy was made by Somet it is a 12x60 model which seem almost the same than the Zeiss 12x60 binoculars used in german rangefinder. Actually i think that Meopta share his activity between the construction of enlargers (the Opemus model was very known in France in the seventies) and camera accessories. Somet is specialised in the construction of precision tools . i send you a picture where it is possible to see the 25 x100 Meopta binar and monar an another for the 10x80 model. An another precision, Paralux is, i think, like Perl , products made in Japan and other asian countries . regards from france, jean-laurent 10x80 Meopta http://afnet.uniag.sk/MF/kf/10x80.jpg 25x100 binar & 25x100 monar http://www.inext.cz/hvezdarna.vsetin/images/binary1.jpg another version 25x100 monar + telescope http://sirrah.troja.mff.cuni.cz/~mira/astronomie/Hvezdarna/pristroje.html -------- http://www.meopta.com/history/ Meopta's History - milestones 1933 - Dipl.Ing. Alois Benes established company Optikotechna in Prerov. Dr. Mazurek constructed the first Czechoslovak enlarging lens. 1934-1937 - Optikotechna focused on darkroom equipment (mainly enlargers and lenses). 1937 - Optikotechna built new facilities for production in suburb of Prerov. 1939-1945 - Optikotechna was forced to supply military optical equipment for German army (rangefinders, periscopes, binoculars, riflescopes). Optikotechna was renamed to "Herrmann Goering Optische Verzeuge". 1946 - Optikotechna renamed to Meopta national enterprise. 1947-1970 - Meopta became one of the biggest enlarger manufacturers worldwide and the only cinema projector manufacturer in Central/East Europe. 1953 - The Institute for Research and Development of Optics and Precision Mechanics was established in Prerov. 1971 - There was a rapid increase of military production for Warsaw Pact (up to 75% of total turnover). 1988 - Meopta renewed riflescopes production, decreasing military production. 1990 - Meopta military programme decreased to 0%, Meopta became separate subsidiary join stock companies. 1992 - Meopta is fully privatised and remains the only optical enterprise in Czech Republic. Became a supplier of major optical companies worldwide. ================================= Subject: Marineglas MAD marking From: "Frederick Schwartzman" I am sending to you a picture of a marking on a Marineglas currently on eBay, item number 1025272612. You will note the serial number of 573225 and the crown and initials M.A.D. I have a Marineglas number 582054 with the exact same crown and initials. At first I thought they were the identification of an individual owner, but now seeing the second such marking, it probably represents something else. I asked Hans Seeger but he didn't know and suggested that I ask the binocular list regulars. Do you have any clues? All the best, Fred http://home.europa.com/~telscope/marmad.jpg =============================== Subject: Favourites From: Kenny2@___m Firstly thank you to all who have already posted mail in response to my suggestion of "discussing favourite binoculars " . As I expected , I am finding the various views very interesting ( apologies for the pun ! ) . The most recent offering from Randy Dewees was typical , as were several others recently of the kind of thing I was hoping for . I also thought the "comparison " of Zeiss and Leica 10 x 40 models by Barlow Pepin to be brilliantly comprehensive and well written . A real education in itself . Barlow is the first person I have ever read who actually "criticises " a Swarovski product . Perhaps it is refreshing to learn that even those brilliant Austrian optical engineers are only human after all ! I look forward to reading many more similar "articles ". " French " and " Paralux " A case of " two birds with one stone here " I almost replied to the query a while back re- "French " binoculars. Whilst holidaying on the Spanish island of Ibiza recently I came across the rare commodity of a "decent " optical retail store , situated in a most enviable location right on the seafront with lovely views . The store had a wide range of quality telescopes by top brands and a surprisingly wide range of quality binoculars by Zeiss and Leica etc . In one window was a full range of binoculars by Paralux , a manufacturer which I had hitherto unheard of . This included a 11 x 80 model which the store assistant was only too willing to allow me to test for several minutes from outside the shop . This was a quality instrument , IMHO superior to the Orion 11x80 and I was very tempted to buy it . The price put me off a little however as it converted to £445 ( over 600 dollars ) . When I asked about the origin of " Paralux " the store manager informed me that it is a French manufacturer of very high repute. Cursory searches of the w.w.w. bore this out by simply typing " French Binoculars " into the Google search engine . " Binocular or Binoculars " In response to the most charming Albert Vinal's comments , ( seconded by our most honourable "leader " ) - - a little light - hearted banter seems appropriate ! I disagree most vehemently with the motion that the proper noun for our most beloved items ought to be changed by dropping the "s " . Most importantly , the word "binocular " is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as " adverb - for two eyes " -- hence it's use in the expression " binocular vision " . The plural form is the correct spelling of the noun . I am afaid this is but one of many peculiarities of the English language . Many items of clothing fall into the same category v.i.z. (videlicet ) - shorts , trousers , pants , tights , braces , overalls , dungarees ( to name but a few ) and also many examples of tools or implements spring to mind v.i.z - spectacles , goggles , scissors , tweezers , pliers , hedgecutters , shears, pincers , handcuffs , callipers etc etc . None of the above examples are ever properly referred to in the NOUN form by dropping the "s" , thus in the cases of scissor -jack , spectacle -case or trouser -press , the respective former terms become adjective . Ironically , the English language student has to fathom the equally illogical LACK of "s" when pluralizing such nouns as Sheep , Cod , Plaice , Haddock and Salmon . These things may be illogical and indeed annoying , but that is English language ! I therefore plead with Peter to edit and correct all those (including his good self ) forthwith , who may so much as dare to persist with this misnomer ! LONG -DISTANCE OPTICS In my quest for thirst -quenching knowledge of binoculars I spend hours every week reading reviews of various models . I am almost growing tired of reading about relative pros and cons with exclusive respect to use in either astronomy or birding . I am interested in LONG -DISTANCE terrestrial performance and intend to purchase a "portable " instrument for such use in the near future . I would dearly like to know why it is that many " experts " quote large ( and sometimes otherwise apparantly brilliant ) binoculars as being " not much good for terrestrial use " while at the same time other "experts " describe less than 10 power as being equally poor for long -distance work . I am beginning to wonder whether or not there are such things as "good long - distance binoculars". It would appear that there are currently many excellent "spotting scopes " competing for the rather dubious title of " reference standard " that excel within the power range of 25 to 40 x -- these include various Flourite , ED or HD models by Leica , Zeiss , Swarovski , Pentax , Nikon and Kowa and all retail for less than £1000 . I realise that collimation is a major technical problem with high -power binoculars but fail to understand how this would bump the price for say two identical Optolyth 100mm HD scopes ( each around £1000 ) being linked together to create HD quality binocular -image without the price rising mysteriously to many thousands of pounds ( as with the BIG Fujinons ) I understand that lower priced 25 x 100 models binoculars commercially available from the likes of Miyauchi ,Orion , Parks , Kronos and Oberwerk for around the £1000 mark produce nowhere near the image quality of the aformentioned scopes . Can anyone confirm or deny such claims and indeed point me in the right direction with regard to a potential purchase ( for around £1000 ) that I will not regret ? Any advice would be greatly appreciated . Ken Jones . -------------------- From: Peter Abrahams Re: 'long distance optics', I don't know of any qualities that make an optical instrument particularly good for 'long distance viewing', though I welcome correction here. If you are trying to view birds at a distance, then you need considerable magnification, but not if you're viewing mountains. The worst junk binoculars used to be advertised with banners reading '100 mile binoculars' & such, so I'm a little skeptical when I hear those terms. Re: 'terrestrial use', this must be 'as compared with celestial use'. I expect this reviewer or advertiser was being superficial or concise; or maybe was just not very knowledgeable. But, there are a few optical characteristics that are more desireable or offensive during astronomical use, compared with terrestrial use. But, this topic quickly gets more advanced than I can pretend to be. For example, when viewing stars, it is desireable that they be sharp to the edge of the field - meaning low astigmatism, low coma, low field curvature. When viewing forests or cities, it is important that you can scan across the landscape -- this requires low distortion, since with higher distortion, objects swell & shrink as you scan, which causes very unpleasant sensations. You can't have it all. There are other, similar, considerations with other aberrations. But I have never met a reviewer or an advertiser that would know about these considerations. The Japanese 25 x 100 models that sell here in the US for about $900-1000 have mediocre eyepieces -- not junk, but not great. There are Chinese 25 / 40 x 100 binoculars with triplet objectives that have much better eyepieces. List member Earl Osborne sells them & also sells a model with 45 degree inclined eyepieces. The big Fujinons are probably superior binoculars, but I haven't had them side by side to tell; the Fujis are more weatherproof & very rugged. Miyauchi binoculars are made in different quality grades but are generally are very fine, and very expensive. There are some reasons why binoculars are more expensive than two spotting scopes of similar quality. The bodies, prism mountings, & lens cells have to be machined for adjustability & collimation - I believe it requires very different designs. I can well believe that a $1000. spotting scope, times two = $2000, plus another $500 a tube for complex machining, would make a $3000 binocular. Also, we all know that a binocular is simply more desireable & valuable than two spotting scopes. -------- I have to part ways with my esteemed British colleague on this question of terminology. It is true that 'one goggle' sounds ludicrous, but 'one binocular' is equally silly; 'bi-anything' is a singular word for a dual object -- bicycle, for example. bi: a combining form meaning “twice,” “two,” used in the formation of compound words bin: a combining form meaning “two,” “two at a time,” used in the formation of compound words. I have found that when you have to say 'binoculars' 50 times in a talk or a paper, it sounds ridiculous to repeat 'a pair of binoculars' & of course you can't say 'a binoculars'. The Oxford English Dictionary that is sold in the U.S. is undoubtedly an 'export edition', to include vulgarities and colloquialisms that appeal to the American mentality, but it is usually the best authority. It does not have an entry for 'binoculars', but under 'binocular', it notes 'Now usually plural'. They considerably confuse things by not calling 'binocular' a noun, but rather a 'substantive'. So, I'm not enthused about their authority on this particular word. But, under 'bin-', the OED states: Not found in Latin; it seems to have originated in French with the word 'binocle' (binocular), which was probably formed from Latin 'bini', two together, a pair of. Webster's Unabridged: binocular n. Usually, binoculars. Also called pair of binoculars, prism binoculars. an optical device, providing good depth effect, for use with both eyes, consisting of two small telescopes fitted together side by side, each telescope having two prisms between the eyepiece and objective for erecting the image. However, if any readers are still awake, I will add that neither Ken nor I take this issue very seriously. --Peter ================================ ======================================================= Binocular List #189: 05 November 2001. ================================================== Subject: Bismuth? filled engravings in German binoculars. From: Peter Abrahams Most of us are familiar with old German binoculars with engraved maker & model name, filled with a white substance. I believe this is a bismuth compound, but I am not certain. It is frequently found that the inlaid substance has reacted with the metal body and caused blistering of paint & erosion of the metal. I have not heard of a solution to this problem. Does anyone know how to neutralize this reaction? Can anyone identify this inlay substance, so it can be researched? thanks, Peter ==================================================== Subject: Somet 25 x 100 From: Steve Rohan I would like to add a few words about the Somet built 25x100 binocular discussed on the last Bino List. The 25x100 binocular was developed in the later stages of WW II apparently for use on antiaircraft (Flak) rangefinders. To the best of my knowledge they were used in the same way as the 12x60 binocular and have identical mount fittings interchangable with the 12x60. It is known that the Zeiss Works produced the 20 and 40 by 200 very late in the war for a similar use, but the increased resolution did not warrant the great amount of time and material resources needed to produce the 200 mm binocular so the 25x100 Zeiss designed glass was "the" large aperture German Flak binocular used late in WW II. I know of four different manufacturing variations of the 25x100 produced during WW II. I have seen, but do not have in my collection, the first model, an aluminum cast bodied 25x100 with a blc identification plate. The other models I do have. They are a second variation, a blc made model with a body made of pressed heavy gage sheet metal which has been "clamshelled" then welded together. The third variation is the same as the second, but with rln code. The fourth variation is the same type body with the code flm (Feinapparate-Bau G.m.b.H.,Werk Thurn.) There are two different diameter eyepieces found in these wartime production variations, but as far as I can ascertain without using instrumentation the true f.o.v and the apparent field of view are identical between the two diameter eyepiece types. Now, the Somet 25x100 in my collection and others that have been examined by myself and by Terry Vacani and Alfred Konig all have the code flm impressed into their ventral metal bodies. This code cannot be viewed without scraping off the textured paint. Also, when the top black cap around the eyepieces is removed it can be seen that the projections for the wartime head rest "wings" have been ground off and the ports for the desiccating air ventilation are still present. This is very strong evidence that these binoculars were made from remaining stock of wartime items. Also, manufacture of aspheric eyepiece elements was rarely used by any other optical manufacturers in Europe other than Zeiss during or shortly after WW II. The former flm factory is now located in The Czech Republic, but was part of Germany during WW II. It seems very possible that enterprising people who found these remaining parts decided to make use of them in a commercial way. And it is also known that several Czech astronomers led the world during the late 1940s and early 1950s in the discovery of record numbers of comets and other celestial bodies using the Somet 25x100 binocular. It is my understanding that the Somet model of the 25 by 100mm binocular was sold for a few years after WW II and then the remaining stocks of that binocular were marketed under the name Meopta after the Socialist government nationalized the various Czech optical factories under the common name Meopta. Also, I have believe that the 10x80 mounted binocular produced in Czechoslovakia after WW II is based on the Russian model like the Polish PZO 10x80 which shares very little in the formula of the eyepieces and general body makeup, but does share the same prism and objective size. Yours truly, Steve Rohan ======= Jean-Laurent sent a scan of a paper in Cyrillic about the 25x100 Somet Binar. http://home.europa.com/~telscope/meopta25.jpg 87 kb ========================================= Subject: Twin spotting scopes From: Arnold Cohen RE: Pairing spotting scopes to make a pair of long distance binoculars (yes, binoculars). Recently Deutsche Optik offered just such a product using two Bausch and Lomb spotting scopes and an optical mounting yoke by Manfrotto. I have no ideal how they worked but I doubt they would have offered a "dud." I don't find it in their most recent catalogue, however. As I recall the price was around $1000.00 Arnie ------------ From: "Loren A. Busch" RE: Ken Jones's comments on binoculars and spotting scopes. Kowa does in fact manufacture (or did) a binocular telescope setup using two of their high end 80mm ED spotters. I looked at one on display at RTMC about four years ago. I worked for a Kowa dealer at the time and assumed that I would have little trouble getting a part number and pricing when I got home, but alas, everyone I contacted at Kowa had no information except to try to convice me it hadn't been made by Kowa, even though the dealer that had it assured me that it came from Kowa. Like a dummy, I did not get a part number or the dealers name. I may have a picture if anyone is interested. ------------ I've seen advertisements in Sky & Telescope from 1955, for a 'Twin Balscope 60mm', by F.C. Meichsner of Boston, with turrets holding 3 replaceable eyepieces, sold with 4 eyepieces for 15x, 20x, 30x, and 60x. In the 1990s, Vixen sold a binocular that was two of their 50mm scopes, with 45 degree offset eyepieces. -- Peter =================================== Subject: Bushnell Rangemaster From: "Steve Stayton" There appear to be the four types of Rangemasters, though I continue to compile data on makers and serial numbers & I would appreciate getting info from other owners. I have examples of the four variations: First early model by Fuji Photo Optical. Second oddball model by JB-45 (Tamron), appears to be an interim low volume model with older more typical B&L body style, but later optics (maybe prototype or limited production run, since top flat prism cover plates are totally blank with no markings). Third model by Tamron marked BT and JB-45 (same style body as fourth model except has strap lugs on bodies close to hinge - like 1960's Zeiss West porro models). And fourth model (with strap lugs on top prism cover screws) by Tamron (marked BT but without JB mark). I will put together some pics for a final report sometime. Steve ========================================== Subject: Translation From: Peter Abrahams In the 1980s, a massive set of books (12 volumes, several hundred pages each) on the history of optics was published in Bonn, Germany, written & edited by Emil-Heinz Schmitz. They were 295 Deutsch marks a volume, and the only set I know of is at University of Arizona. A supplement on telescopes included a section on binoculars, 'The Telescope for Both Eyes – for Observation of Earth and Sky', and a section on erecting prisms; together they include pages 175-187. Ilse Roberts recently translated this for me. It has some very interesting details on the binoculars of the early 1800s. Full citation: Emil-Heinz Schmitz. Handbuch zur Geschichte der Optik. Ergaenzungsband. 1, Das Fernrohr. Bonn: J.P. Wayenborgh, 1982. I posted this at: http://home.europa.com/~telscope/trschmtz.txt I have a couple of questions concerning the translation. -- periscopic lenses (perioskopische Linsen) The term 'periscopic' has had many meanings over time, and has been used as a trademark or model name several times. I do not know what it would mean here. The full sentence: "The simple hinge commonly used in dutch binoculars was built in 1758 by the Venetian Domenico Selva. His son Lorenzo Selva (circa 1716-1800), who earlier ground periscopic lenses (perioskopische Linsen) in Venice..." -- right-eyed theatergoers (rechtssichtige Theaterbesucher) This refers to users of binoculars. I'm not sure what this would mean, since these models did not have any diopter adjustment for one eye. "All these binoculars were mainly for right-eyed theatergoers (rechtssichtige Theaterbesucher)" --What was the Lemiere mechanism, where turning one tube would also move the other? From Schmitz: 'In Paris, France, the optician J. Ph. Lemiere received a patent for the simultaneous focusing of both oculars. His binocular realized the central focusing screw, commonly used today, and his original invention, the linkage between tubes across the bridge, so that as one is screwed in or out, the other tube moves in tandem. (A. Koenig, Fernrohre und Entfernungsmesser.)' ------------- This joins the other translations from German that I have posted on my web page. If anyone is aware of another significant German text on the history of the binocular, please let me know, as there might be an opportunity for further translations. --Peter =============================================== Subject: Zeiss Victory From: "Charles M. Barringer" Thanks to Mr. Pepin for the comparative Zeiss vs. Leica 10x40 field test article. I have no basis of comparison, and admit to being biased toward Zeiss in general (although my favorite "daily driver" for many years was a Trinovid 8x32B until it was ripped off) but will echo his enthusiasm for the Victory series. I have the least pretentious of the set, the 8x40, and it is really a pleasure to use under all circumstances. And it may be that I'm just hanging out with the wrong crowd, but the dropping jaws and comments of casual users when they take a look through these (or any other good binocular) is always a pleasure to observe. But then have you noticed how many people of otherwise good education and general savvy, carry and use absolute dross when it comes to binoculars? ================== Subject: Swedish binoculars From: Forslund@___ne.de (Forslund) To binocular list # 178 from 14 Aug 2001 The UDF seen in Stockholm by Sven Nyman. I believe it was an original Zeiss UDF, used in the swedish navy. I also saw it in the shop about 5 years ago and I am positive of the text "7X50" and the three swedish crowns. I belive it had no AGA or NIFE signs on it, but there could have been blc and UDF marks, which at that time where unfamiliar to me (before I read Hans' book). The asking price was SEK 15000 and I am sad to say it was in no original condition (paint removed and brass pollished). To binocular list # 188 29 Okt. 2001 Marineglas MAD. It is not a swedish or even scandinavian crown. Looks more like eastern Europe to me. On the discussion of big "long range" binoculars. I bought a Fujinon (Meijbou?) 15X80 6 months ago from an militaria dealer in Germany. It is in as new condition and I am very pleased with its perfomance. I also happen to know the origin of these binoculars. They were bought around 1984 and used for aiming a now abandoned laser range-finder in the swedish coastal artillery ( 2 binoculars/ device). They spent most of their time in their heavy duty transportation boxes and I think they are good value for approx. DM 1800 ( less than $900). Polarizing filters and graticule illumination were included with my binoculars, but only a solide mount and no tripod. I believe Mr Thaeter, Hohwacht, Germany (+49 4381 8624), had 7 pieces and still has a few left. Best Regards Robert Forslund ====================================================== Subject: Nikon Sporter From: Peter Abrahams I haven't inspected these yet; price is about $150. at discounters: Nikon Sporter I Series Binoculars 8x36DCF HP/10x36DCF HP released in Spring 2001 Nikon's SPORTER I (One) 8x36DCF HP / 10x36DCF HP. Roof Prism. Center focus. Water resistant. Multilayer coated lenses. Turn-and-slide rubber eyecup facilitates easy positioning of eyes at the correct eyepoint. Close focusing distance of 3 m. Rubber armouring. SPORTER I 8x36DCF HP. Angular Field of View (Real / degree) 7.0. (Apparent / degree) 56.0. Field of View at 1,000m (m) 122. Eye Relief (mm) 20.5 or 16.1 (?). Close Focusing Distance (m) 3.0. SPORTER I 10x36DCF HP. Angular Field of View (Real / degree) 5.6. (Apparent / degree) 56.0. Field of View at 1,000m (m) 98. Eye Relief (mm) 20.5 or 16.1 (?). Close Focusing Distance (m) 3.0. =================================== ======================================================= Binocular List #190: 11/11/01 ================================================== Subject: Russian Text From: Peter Abrahams I noticed the 'Great Soviet Encyclopedia', 1973, in a library, and found 'binoculars'. The writer described 'Plasticity...the intensification of the stereoscopic effect'. I always liked this description, found in early literature, for enhanced depth, but I wasn't aware of its use into the 1970s. This article describes the most common prism binocular as a 'Malofeev-Porro' prism. I can't find 'Malofeev' anywhere -- does anyone know who he was? -- Peter ================================================= From: hans.t.seeger@___ne.de (Seeger) A very short addition to your List No 189: The meaning of 'rechtssichtig' (Schmitz, Handbuch der Optik) is apparently 'with normal sight' or 'normal eyes'. Regards Hans -------- And thanks to Rolf Penzias, Lother Helling, & Michael Simonsen for the same information. --Peter "these binoculars were mainly for right-eyed theatergoers (rechtssichtige Theaterbesucher)" ==================================== Subject: M.A.D. Crown From: I have been busy, so it is only now, I get around to having a look at the MAD marked binocular at eBay item no 1025272612. If I check the large crown closely, I note that the upper "arms" of the crown looks as if they were hand engraved. The crown is definitely not swedish, it is a german imperial crown. Only I have never seen such a crown made so crudely. I have a hunch that I have seen the AD on some leatherware before, but I cannot recall at the moment, where. I have looked into some references, and MAD might be Marine Artillerie Depot. This depot of artillery and mines was situated in Cuxhafen. I could suggest two references for imperial german markings: 1. World of Lugers, by Sam Costanzo. 1977. It does contain a large collection of markings taken from Luger pistols used all over the world. These markings are often the same as used on other military gear, like binos. The collection is impressive, but the interpretation is faulty, when it is best. If you can, then try and borrow a copy somewhere. Its probably out of print now. 2. Hans Reckendorf: Die Handwaffen der königlich Preussischen und der Kaiserlichen Marine. Published by the author privately in 1983. Impressive book, if you are into imperial german handguns, and german navy history. Loaded with information, but alas, next to nothing about binos. But to check dates and possible markings, and short forms of military markings....very good. But it is in german, and even for me, who reads german, its uphill to read this book. Michael Simonsen, Denmark =============================== Subject: Questions from Schmitz From: l.helling@___ne.de (Helling) As a German citizen maybe I can give you some helpful directions for your translation questions of the book "Emil-Heinz Schmitz, Handbuch zur Geschichte der Optik". 1. rechtssichtige Theaterbesucher. Recht(s) has a double meaning: a. right (e.g. my right foot) b. correct (e.g. that is right) For "rechtssichtige Theaterbesucher" there is only one translation which makes sense: theatergoers with correct eyes, eyes which do not have to be corrected with glasses. This people look right. Theater binoculars without diopter adjustment would fit for all people with right eyes and for usual theater distances. Why is (also in English ?) the right side the correct side? A philosophical and philological question ... 2. Lemiere mechanism Can be seen in : Riekher, Rolf. Fernrohre und ihre Meister (Telescopes and their masters). 2. edition, 1990. In the 2. edition a new chapter is added: Die Handfernrohre nach 1800. (The hand telescopes after 1800). It contains small monoculars (e.g. different prism telescopes from Ignazio Porro) and different typical types of binoculars. 3. periskopische Linsen See scan periscopic lens.jpg. Fig. 365 shows Steinheils Periskop, patented in 1865. Source: Müller-Pouillets. A huge book (1189 pages) from the good old times when also German science had been at the peak... It´s about general optics. Only very less about binoculars. You could get the book (edition from 1926) at www.zvab.com. Mueller-Pouillets Lehrbuch der Physik und Meteorologie. ed. Leop. Pfaundler. Vol. 2, Optik, by Otto Lummer. Braunschweig, 1909. Best regards from Germany Lothar ---------- >Why is (also in English ?) the right side the correct side? A philosophical and philological question ... It is even worse in English, not only does right = correct, good, best and left = stranded, left behind; but right = dextral = skillful, clever; & left = sinister = evil!! Most people are right-handed; but I believe that almost all people are right- eyed; and tend to use their right eye to view through a monocular. Part of Riekher's chapter on Handfernrohre can be found, translated to English, on my site. It describes the Lemiere mechanism, but I still cannot understand how the motion was transferred from one tube to the other, and the image doesn't help me. Here is the section on Lemiere: For an original solution for binocular Dutch field glasses, the Parisian optician Jacques-Philippe Lemiere received a protection right on April 28 1825. For his 'Seitentriebglas' (Sidescrewglass, fig. 12.1), Lemiere had put into one of the housings a steep inner screw thread, with several gears where the ocular movement could be adjusted. The right hand barrel was connected with the left by two bridges, and the right hand ocular connected to the left with one bridge. Lemiere's 'Sidescrewglasses', though elegant and dainty, were not satisfactory from a manufacturing standpoint. Only the repositioning of the steep thread, from one of the barrels to a central placement, led to the form which has proven to be effective for opera glasses and field glasses (see color plate VI.) Periskop: Lothar sent a drawing of a photographic lens, one of the many meanings of this word. --Peter ==================================== Subject: Japanese binoculars From: Peter Abrahams There are 25 new files on the web site. They are from a biannual book published in Japan from the mid 1950s into the 1970s (if anyone knows if they were published later, please let me know). These books were not received by libraries and are quite difficult to find, so I am lucky & grateful that David Bushnell made them available to me. Japan Optical and Precision Instruments Manufacturers' Association. Guide Book of Japanese Optical and Precision Instruments. 1953, 68pp. 1957/58, 137pp. 1959/60, 138pp. 1961/62, 160pp. 1964-65, 176pp. 1966-1967, 196pp. 1973-1974, 212pp. Only a few pages in each volume are about binoculars. I scanned & posted some pages from these books. Some are about inspection & markings. Most are lists of trademarks found on Japanese instruments. We commonly get questions about what a trademark means, so these are good to have. File names begin with year. Files 'tm': Pages showing trademarks for Japanese optical companies. Files 'JTII': Pages listing the Japan Telescopes Inspection Institute, with photos of inspection procedures. File 'LJ': Page describing the LJ mark on instruments. http://home.europa.com/~telscope/57tm1.jpg 66k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/57tm2.jpg 65k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/57tm3.jpg 64k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/57tm4.jpg 54k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/59tm1.jpg 70k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/59tm2.jpg 53k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/59tm3.jpg 70k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/59tm4.jpg 63k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/61jtii.jpg 93k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/61tm1.jpg 54k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/61tm2.jpg 60k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/61tm3.jpg 51k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/61tm4.jpg 28k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/64jtii.jpg 92k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/64tm1.jpg 46k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/64tm2.jpg 63k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/64tm3.jpg 44k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/66jtii.jpg 68k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/66ljmk.jpg 111k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/66tm1.jpg 53k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/66tm2.jpg 47k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/66tm3.jpg 64k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/66tm4.jpg 51k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/73jtii.jpg 62k http://home.europa.com/~telscope/73tmjtma.jpg 117k =============================== ======================================================= Binocular List #191: 15 November 2001. =================================== From: Arthur Tenenholtz Subject: Re: binoculars Thank you for including me on the mailing list of your newsletter. I have a small collection of binoculars, a dozen, plus two, yet to be received. Until Labor Day, I had only four. I am trying to have a range of sizes and manufacturers, from 6x24 to 8x30, and B&L to Zeiss, including Leitz, Universal Camera, Goerz, Huet and Nash-Kelvinator. I think my "best" glass is a B&L Buships 7x50, 1943, which someone sold me, in the box, seventeen years, ago. On E-bay, I have seen some gross misrepresentation, which your web site helpfully revealed. I also found your posted description of the M13 useful in deciding to buy one. Right handedness and rightness is a cultural and linguistic prejudice that has existed for millennia. In Latin, dexter [right] and sinister [left] has lead to some biased language. The French for left, gauche, is again a pejorative word in English. I suppose the right handed majority has never felt comfortable with the left handed minority. Yours truly, Arthur Tenenholtz ==================================== Subject: Images of binocular markings From: Recently, I have had the pleasure of a visit by Mr Rohan here in Copenhagen. On that occasion, we discussed scandinavian markings on binoculars. Now I have had time to take a few close ups of some markings. If anyone are interested, they can take a peek here. But first, yet another imperial german binocular marking. Seen on a Voigtländer 6x30: http://www.geocities.com/mikedenmark/germanoptic/gallery/GermVoigtlander.jpg The crown is like on the MAD marked bino, only better done. And here are the other pics. First an old galilean Voigtländer, used by the danish army: http://www.geocities.com/mikedenmark/germanoptic/gallery/DKVoigtlander.jpg and a closeup of the marking: http://www.geocities.com/mikedenmark/germanoptic/gallery/DK-old-mark.jpg Next a Zeiss Silvamar from the danish army: Prismekikkert Zeiss 6x Model 1938. HV means Hærens Vaabenarsenal. http://www.geocities.com/mikedenmark/germanoptic/gallery/DKsilvamar.jpg http://www.geocities.com/mikedenmark/germanoptic/gallery/DKsilvamarking.jpg A danish Krause 7x50 post war, model 1950. FKF means Forsvarets Krigsmateriel Forvaltning. (means army use) http://www.geocities.com/mikedenmark/germanoptic/gallery/DKKrause7x50.jpg http://www.geocities.com/mikedenmark/germanoptic/gallery/DK7x50krause.jpg A swedish Silvamar Model 1942. http://www.geocities.com/mikedenmark/germanoptic/gallery/Swedsilvamar.jpg and the bag for it: http://www.geocities.com/mikedenmark/germanoptic/gallery/swedholster.jpg Yet another swedish binocular, an OLA bino, made by NIFE, but here for the crown: http://www.geocities.com/mikedenmark/germanoptic/gallery/swedola8x50.jpg and the last one: An italian 7x50 used by Sweden. I don´t know what the Övs means: (could be swedish for Colonel, or more likely Commanding officer.) http://www.geocities.com/mikedenmark/germanoptic/gallery/Swed7x50mar2.jpg http://www.geocities.com/mikedenmark/germanoptic/gallery/SwedLugenico7x50.jpg http://www.geocities.com/mikedenmark/germanoptic/gallery/Swed7x50mar1.jpg take some time to check, but have fun. Michael Simonsen. Copenhagen, Denmark ====================================== =========================== Binocular List #192: 29 November 2001. ====================================== Subject: Zeiss 18 x 80 From: Forslund@___ne.de (Forslund) Can anyone help me with the exact location (photograph ?) of the serial No.of a Zeiss 18X80 with 20 degree inclined oculars. The plate beside the right ocular is missing, but Hans Seeger says that you also should find the number underneath the body of the binoculars. I don't want to remove more paint as I have to, so any information is welcome. Best regards Robert Forslund ====================================== Subject: Reticles, etc. Arthur Tenenholtz tenenholtz@___bal.com I would be pleased if someone could 1. Explain the markings on the reticle of the US Army M13. 2. Give me a guide to using degree markings on an 8 or a 6 power binocular. 3. Give me a guide for using the mil marikings on a French 8 power binocular. I recall enough geometry to know that something that subtends 2 degrees is half the distance of the same size object that subtends 1 degree. However, I do not know the standard for any of my glasses. In the case of the M13, there seems to be a horizontal degree scale, a vertical scale which is not linear and some additional markings using some standard size and distances. The British markings are cleary stated as degrees. I imagine that the French markings are mils. Were these markings supposed to used for infantry ranging and artillery deflection? I would imagine that the scales would be on limited use for artillery ranging. Yours truly, Arthur Tenenholtz ------------------- Although many of us would prefer a binocular without a reticle, the intended use of most military binoculars involved the reticle, and they are clues to dating and purpose of the instrument. Larry Tieger has been interested in reticles for many years, and like me, he has had a hard time finding specific data on particular reticles. I don't have answers to Arthur's questions but hopefully someone else can help us. --Peter ========================================= Subject: italian or german bino? From: "jean-laurent" a curious" hybrid " binocular seen last week in an antique shop of Roma... The size 120cm for the length , almost 110 mm for the objectives .The eyes pieces are 3 revolving oculars and made by italian manufacturers of camera Rectaflex . (the eyes pieces seems like objectives of camera and not like classic eyes pieces of binoculars ..) the name Rectaflex is writen on the eyes pieces with also the "logo" of Rectaflex industry. (i have an another information , i have seen today in a web site of history of Rectaflex manufacturer that it was made for army a curious camera with 3 revolving objectives named "Rectaflex Rotor " with almost the same design than the 3 eyes pieces of the binocular seen in Rome.) the objectives are made by Voiglander and Sohn - can be read around the lens on the brass cell, and in the body of the optic you can read the name of an another manufacturer Reinfelder & Hertel . If any body have some ideas concerning these binoculars please let me know. regards jean-laurent ======================================================== ======================================================== Binocular List #193: 04 December 2001. ============================================== Subject: Reticles From: "Steve Stayton" Re: Arthur Tenenholtz question on M3 Reticle in List #192: The reticle pattern used on the US Army M3, M13, and the M13AI binocular consists of two parts: a horizontal scale graduated in mils and a vertical range elevation angle scale for infantry rifle aiming. The horizontal scale is graduated in 10 mil intervals from 0 to 50 mils on both sides of center (marked 1,2,3,4,5 for 10 to 50 mils)(ref: US Army TM9-500). These are angles measured from the center mark in units of so called gunner's mils or artillery mils. Gunner's mils are defined as 6400 mils per 360 degree circle so that there are 17.8 mils per degree of angle. So the 50 mil mark (marked 5 on the M3 reticle) represents 2.81 degrees. Gunner's mils are defined to be almost equal to one milliradian of angle. This is useful in the field because an object 1 yard in length at 1000 yards range subtends 1 milliradian or very close to 1 gunner mil in angle. Or an object of 6 yards size at 6000 yards range subtends the same 1 mil angle (or a 6 meter object at 6000 meters). The angle in mils is the ratio equal to 1000 X length divided by distance for whatever units you choose. The reticle also has two sets of short gradations above the horizontal mil scale each of these short lines is spaced 5 mils apart vertically. How does this help the infantryman? If you know the enemy tank you are viewing is say 10 meters in length and it appears 10 mils wide in your M13AI binocular you know you are in trouble because it is only 1000 meters away (1 Kilometer or 1 "click" in contemporary military jargon) and can easily blow your brains out. If it appears only around 1 mil wide on your M13 reticle then you are glad to know it is around 10 KM or 10 "clicks" away. The second part of the M3/M13 reticle is the vertical scale with numbers 5,10,15,20 spaced unequally with 20 at the bottom and a tick mark for zero at the top. This is a rifle aiming point scale based on a range reticle developed by Capt. H.E. Eames, 28th Infantry, sometime before WWI. It was first used on the Bausch & Lomb 6X30 military binocular in 1915 (maybe sooner). The scale is graduated in hundreds of yards of range and shows the elevation angle drop of a rifle round for the range indicated. This reticle allows the observer to find a convenient rifle aiming point above or below the target if the range is known. This is used by sighting the target of interest and placing it on the reticle mark representing its known range. Then a good rifle sighting target is chosen along the vertical scale, say a prominent rock feature above the target. If the target is at 900 yards (9 on the reticle) and the chosen sighting point (rock feature) is on the 500 yard mark on the reticle (5 on the reticle) then the rifle sight elevation adjustment is set for 500 yards and the rifle is sighted on the rock feature in order to hit the target actually at 900 yards. This allows the infantryman using his 6X30 binocular to pick a clearly visible fixed rifle sighting point in the landscape and still hit a target that may be hiding in a trench or behind foliage. It must have worked since they kept it on through WWII and beyond (or is the Army just slow to change?). (ref: Bausch & Lomb reprint of Eames article from "Infantry Journal" July-August 1915.) Comments from experienced military men about the usefulness of various binocular reticles would be appreciated! For other reticles: marked in degrees of angle, not too useful for artillery unless you have your trig tables or calculator handy. Reticles marked in angle units (degrees or mils) can be used without regard for the binocular magnification as the angles are measured in "object space" (from binocular to object). I have read that "French mils" and "Navy mils" are actually milliradian units (6283 milliradians per 360 degrees) and not gunners mils (6400 per 360deg). Milliradians are more convenient but the difference is only 1.9 percent. Steve Stayton Tucson ====================================== Subject: USA Military Reticles From: William A Franko From FM 6-30 (Field Manual 6-30... Tactics,Techniques and procedures for OBSERVED FIRE.....Headquarters, Dept of the Army, 16 July 1991) Measuring from a Reference Point Using a reference point with knmwn direction, the observer can measure horizontal angular deviations and apply them to the reference direction. Angular deviations may be measured with binoculars. In measuring with binoculars, angular deviation is determined to the nearest 1 mil. The horizontal scale of the binocular reticle pattern is divided into increments of 10 mils on both the M17 and M19 binoculars. The vertical scale on the right of the M17 is not used by the FO in determining data for target location. The scale is used primarily by the infantry for sighting direct fire weapons. The vertical scales on the left and in the center of the m17 lens are divided into increments of 5 mils and are used in height-of-burst adjustments. NOTE: Direction increases to the right and decreases to the left. To determine the directionto another point or target, apply the number of mils measured right or left of the reference point known direction by use or the RALS rule(right, add;left subtract) For example, the azimuth to the reference point is 2,100mils. The target is 40 mils to the left of the reference point. The direction to the target is 2,060 mil(2,100-40) The vertical scale in the center of the M19 lens is divided into increments of 10 mils and is used in height-of-burst adjustments. I am looking for a prism cluster for a M19 binocular for the right eye. QUESTION.....How do you describe the right or left tube of a binocular, from the objective or eyepeice? In TM9-1580, Ordnance Maintenance Binoculars and BC telescopes, February 1953 edition, on page 112, fig. 58, shows stagger due to improperly matched objective cell, -- they call the right side from the objective end -- the right objective side is called right telescope. Bill Franko --------- My 1945 edition of TM9-1580 has fig. 58 on another page – it shows an M9. I haven’t noticed a manual that uses ‘right side’ & ‘left side’ as viewed from the objective end. --Peter ================================ Subject: Reticles From: "geneharryman" Just some speculation regarding the article on reticules on the last list: I had read somewhere that the divisions on the Russian reticules were equivalent to the length of a German Leopard tank at some specific distance ( or fraction, or multiple thereof). Perhaps the answer to the question of calibration lies with the time period and country of mfg, who the enemy was, and what main targets were. Ease of use would have been a primary concern. When you are in a moving tank and being shot at, you don't want to have to take out a calculator and spend 60 seconds calculating the range for your return fire. At least I wouldn't. When did reticles first appear? Regards, Gene ============================== Subject: ÖVS From: Forslund@___ne.de (Forslund) To binocular list #191 15. November 2001: Michael Simonsen over San Giorgio 7X50 with swedish markings. - ÖVS. means: Örlogsvarvet Stockholm - The Navy Base in Stockholm. Regards Robert Forslund ======================================= Updated, selected web links: Check out the recent progress on Milne’s 20 inch binocular telescope: http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Cafe/7068/bino.html List of manufacturers, with links http://acecam.com/cr10ndex.html D.O.’s bulletin board is another place to ask questions, buy & sell, etc.; see the main page for sales: http://www.deutscheoptik.com/bullitin.htm BVD now has a sponsor & so doesn’t request donations. http://betterviewdesired.com/index.html Binoculars & astronomy: http://www.pacificsites.com/~brooke/Bino.shtml List member Dave Trott’s binocular Newtonian telescopes: http://hometown.aol.com/davetrott/page4.htm The Nikon Historical Society site has an index to their Journal, which has had some articles on binoculars: http://www.nikonhs.org/ The OM / IM Association, for Navy personnel & others: http://omim.pair.com/ Optics for Birding Q & A: http://optics4birding.com/optics/faq.htm Zeiss Historica, click on the image of binoculars: http://www.zeisshistorica.org/#GOT =================================== ======================================================== Binocular List #194: 10 December 2001. ============================ Subject: Mil configurations From: Thomas Press Any idea why the U.S. armed services never really utilized either the 7 x 35 or 8 x 30 configurations? As best as I can tell, the 6 x 30 was the glass of choice for armies on both sides, with the 7 x 50 following in popularity (particularly for the Navy). Ironically, the 8 x 30 Zeiss Deltrintem and Deltrintis models were hugely successfull pre-war designs, as was the Bausch & Lomb 7 x 35, although I've seen relatively few wartime examples of either configuration. Best regards, Tom --------- The US Army used a few 7x35 Bushnell Rangemasters in Vietnam. The 7x50 was selected after extensive tests, as a compromise of magnification, field, exit pupil, and handling characteristics. The 6x30 might have been chosen likewise, or for some inscrutable military reason, or for no reason at all. --Peter =========================== Subject: Re: Clusters From: "William Cook" >I am looking for a prism cluster for a M19 binocular for the right eye. >QUESTION.....How do you describe the right or left tube of a binocular, from the objective or eyepeice?< Just say right or left telescope. As for finding a prism cluster. . . lot’s of luck. Unless, you are speaking to a group like this, you are apt to get some opto-twidget who, when they hear the word “cluster,” thinks of grapes. In times past, I have had to tell more than one parts supplier what a cluster was. Wouldn’t it be great if people in the optics business could speak optics? Just a thought. William J. Cook, Opticalman Chief, USNR-Ret. Manager, Precision Instruments & Optics, Captain's Nautical Supplies, Seattle www.baywatchscope.com ==================================== Subject: Reticles From: Arthur Tenenholtz I must be unusual in that I rather like reticles in my binoculars. In any case, I thank Steve Stayton for his clear explanation of the the reticle in my M13. The Eames scale had completely baffled several high school mathematics teachers. They had even less small arms training than I got in the Navy. I quickly got the hang of the mil scales in three of my binoculars, but I ran into trouble with the reticles marked in degrees. I could not find any trig tables! It seems everyboy uses a calculator. One of the same math teachers had to instruct me in the rather illogical method of using one for such problems. It was easy to use decimal fractions, instead of minutes of arc, but I could not undersand why I had to punch tan, after I entered the angle, rather than before. I then typed a little table to use when sighting typical "targets," like a 1.75 meter man, and a five meter automobile. The table is in the case with my rather peculiar 8x Goerz Army-Trieder, which has a reticle and a hand engraved and punched explanation of its "graticle." Arthur Tenenholtz ================================= Subject: Use of Vertical Reticle in 6x30 Binocular From: "Gordon M. Jackson, Jr." I've no reason to question Steve Stayton's analysis of the nature of the horizontal and vertical reticle scales in U.S. 6x30 binoculars. However, Steve expounds a theory that the vertical scale is a tool for establishing an elevated aiming point for riflemen firing at a target beyond point- blank range. This theory presupposes that the sights of typical U.S. military rifles align at a fixed angle to the bore (i.e., are fixed in elevation). In fact, both of the rifles issued to American troops in WW1, the U.S. Rifle Model 1903 ("Springfield") and the U.S. Rifle Model 1917 ("Enfield"), are equipped with "ladder-style" rear sights adjustable for ranges up to 2,700 yards (Model 1903). So, once the range of a visible target is known to a rifleman, he can elevate or lower his rear sight accordingly. Perhaps the vertical reticle scale has some application to "indirect fire" by machine guns, mortars, or artillery upon targets below the line of sight. There, I believe that target location data including azimuth, relative elevation, and range are integrated with "firing tables" based upon such trajectory factors as air temperature, kind & quantity of propellant, and mass & shape of projectile. Bear in mind, too, that an individual rifleman is unlikely to have access to a binocular and that elevated aiming points would be unavailable in flat terrain. Yours truly, GORDON JACKSON ======================================== Subject: Reprint Looks like Deutsche Optik is selling photocopies, comb bound, of U.S. Defense Supply Agency. Military Standardization Handbook: Optical Design: MIL- HDBK-141, Oct. 5, 1962. This is the 500 page US mil handbook of optics. It is essential for those interested in military applied optics -- not essential for those just interested in binoculars. But it is very hard to find in original form & this seems like a great deal. ======================================= Can anyone tell us more about this? Helga Beez, with Hans Seeger, wrote an excellent overview of binoculars at the Museum. The Carl Zeiss Jena Foundation has reduced its support for the Optisches Museum at Jena, and that our member Helga Beez was made redundant. On behalf of the Commission, he has written to the various authorities and to the regional press to express the concern of the scientific instrument community over these events. He did not receive any replies From: Minutes of the 20th Plenary Session of the Scientific Instrument Commission http://www.sic.iuhps.org/conf2001/se_mins.htm =========================================== There's some new additions to the 'BigBino' page http://homepage2.nifty.com/bigbino/index-e.htm 3 instruments by Haruo Tanaka: http://homepage2.nifty.com/bigbino/twins-e.html 20 cm Reflector Binocular Telescope made by Haruo Tanaka The tube is made of thin aluminam plate. The cell of primary mirrors and the top-ring are made of aluminam mold which is special order. The mount is made of wood. We can turn one of the focusers with the diagonal mirror to adjust these pupil width. The turning center accords with the center between primary and diagonal. 10cm(4inch) Fluorite Refractor Binocular Telescope made by Haruo Tanaka. Several years ago, Mr.Goto, who is an owner of a hot-spring hotel, wished to watch the three-dimensional Jupiter and Saturn at high magnification using a telescope binocular. The tubes are TAKAHASHI FC100N. They are fluorite refractors. The mount with Vixen Sky Sensor 2000 is made of cherry wood. 15cm(6inch) Reflector Binocular Telescopes made by Haruo Tanaka. The tube is made of thin aluminam plate. These pupil width are not adjustable. The right one is Mr.Tanaka's first binocular telescope in 1989. It is a memorial piece for him. He watched the impressive commet "Metcalf", across open clusters in Auriga, right after he made it ============================= Here's another amateur astronomer's binocular telescsope: http://www.andybat.demon.co.uk/bins.htm Andrew Batters. 6 inch reflecting binoculars. ============================== Subject: Unknown Hungarian Binocular, marked 'MM' From: "Jack Kelly" While I was in Vancouver BC last week, Tom Body showed me this binocular with Hungarian markings. It appears to be a typical dienstglas, 6x30 in size. I wonder if you or anybody on the list can identify the markings for me? Regards, Jack (The left prism housing cover is marked MM or MOM) ======================================================================== ======================================================== Binocular List #195: 16 December 2001. ========================================= Subject: Meopta Binocular Magnifier From: "Jack Kelly" Following up on the recent discussion about Meopta on the list I thought the members might be interested in this Meopta binocular. There are four different diopter lenses which attach to the objective lens allowing magnification but at a greater distance than a simple lens. For example, with the "2X" diopter attached to the 4x15 binocular the working distance is about 16". With the "8X" diopter, working distance is 3.5". As you can see from the pictures the unit is designed to be attached to some type of stand for stationary work examining specimens in the field. None of the lenses are coated but available reference materials indicate the Meopta brand was first used in 1945. The optical quality of the system is OK but not special. Zeiss manufactured this type of unit as early as 1912 and called it a "Fernrohrlupe" I have included one photo of an early Zeiss model for comparison. The optics on the Zeiss unit are quite nice and the stereoscopic perspective is great. Regards, Jack =============================================== Subject: vertical graticules From: Stephen Sambrook Gordon Jackson is absolutely correct in saying that military weapons like the U.S. 1903 Springfield and the M1 Garand rifles have properly adjustable rear sights which are calibrated out to considerable ranges. However, such nicely adjustable gadgets are not without their own problems in action, and the military mind in times past seems to have had an ambivalent view of how such sights should be used. Two particular problems in operation were firstly the estimation of distance, and secondly the application of the distance setting to the sights. A third, and in some ways even more significant problem was the ability of infantrymen actually to hit individual targets at ranges of 600, or more, yards. One musketry theory to minimise these difficulties entailed removing the responsibility for the first two from the individual rifleman, and to increase the probability of hitting by directing the fire of the platoon, company or whatever, en masse towards an indicated target. In this mode, rifle sights would be set at their shortest distance, which typically was 300 yards. The idea then was for the officer (who was hopefully not just a gentleman but a trained observer who could readily translate graticule scales into distances) to identiify a suitable target at - say 800 yards - and then relate its location not just in the landscape but relative to a second aiming point ABOVE the target so that the falling trajectory of the bullet would place the missile on its desired target area. Easy, eh ? Not as silly as it looks at first, particularly if ranges were expected to change unpredictably. It's hard to estimate 600, 800, or 1200 yards without a rangefinder, and infantry rangefinders were very few and far between in the US (or British) armies before 1914. And that's another story altogether ! And in the stress of action, it might be safer to tell the troops to aim at the third tree below the disused cowshed rather than to trust them to set their sights to 800 yards. And lots of bullets arriving in the general area of a target were at least as, if not more, likely to make hits as individually aimed shots. So, yes, vertical scaling for directing infantry rifle fire did make sense - in theory at least - to the pre-1914 military mind. Once graticule designs were established it made little sense to alter them just because some possibility inherent in the scaling ceased to be used. Similar things apply in nature don't they - "Daddy, why do have an appendix if it doesn't do anything..?" Oh, the joys of Optical Munitions ! Yuletide Cheer to all Stephen Sambrook Et in Arcadia ego =============================== Subject: Re: Use of Vertical Reticle in 6x30 Binocular From: "Rolf Penzias" Regarding the use of vertical scales to mark an elevated aiming point by riflemen; while possible that any individual soldier might have done so, it would not have been very practical or effective. Battlefields often degenerate into somewhat featureless environments with potential targets in the form of individual soldiers presenting themselves for a second or two then vanishing - often in rapid motion. Shooting at ranges beyond point-blank range by the average rifleman would be very rare on the battlefield even where the topography is very flat and open. Point-blank being somewhere between 200 and 300 yards depending on the rifle and cartridge combination for a man-sized target. The average rifleman's abilities in this area have historically been very poor; and the organization, training and fielding of snipers somewhat sporadic depending the particular war, service branch and theatre of operations. Even snipers might often not have been afforded the luxury of a field glass. Perhaps the greatest factor in shooting at distances beyond point-blank involve range estimation. Here a retical would be useful in bracketing objects of known dimensions. The subtension of the retical lines, or the spaces between, being known for various distances and then used to estimate the distance to the target. Actual aiming then becomes a matter of the rapid aquisition of a "sight picture", i.e. rear sight, front sight and target aligned. Adjustable rear sights, as pointed out by Mr. Jackson, could be set for various ranges if time allowed (as in trench warfare for example where the range was often the same for long periods). Otherwise holding the front sight over the target (obscuring the target altogether) would be very imprecise indeed. A sniper issued with a field glass would likely have also been issued a rifle equipped with a telecopic sight; the field glass used to locate targets, perhaps the retical used to estimate range, and then a visual holdover using the telescopic sight if necessary. Regards, Rolf ====================================== Subject: Prism Clusters From: "geneharryman" Just a quick note on where to find prism clusters. "www.surplusshed.com" has some and also some Zeiss porro prisms, along with a ton of other stuff for which I have no idea of it's use. They have telescope parts also. Regards, Gene ======================================== Subject: Borderguard Binoculars From: Kenny2@___m The 15 x 110mm PNB "Borderguard Binoculars " described variously as of Russian or Chinese origin are too heavy for consideration for my proposed use , but one feature of the model that interests me in the 6 degree True Field of View . Could anyone inform me if there is any other 15x model ( upward of 50mm objective size ) commercially available of a more easily portable weight that features a 6 degree or wider field of view ? -- and perhaps more to the point but demanding of a much more complex answer --if not WHY not ? Many sites include a photo of the model in question ( incidentally often referred to as PNB 2 ). One place where you can see an image of it is as follows : http://www.talscopes.com/resourcesphoto.cfm?RID=420 Regards and Season's greetings to all , Ken Jones . ------- A 15x binocular with a 6 degree field has a 90 degree apparent field. This requires a massive eyepiece, which in turn must be mounted on a solid housing cover. A binocular with a massive eyepiece assembly on a lightweight body is possible, but might not be appealing. A 90 degree eyepiece with any amount of eye relief will be so huge that two eyepieces will not fit in a typical 70mm interpupillary distance. Some users will say that an apparent field over 60 to 70 degrees is a waste of glass. With a monocular telescope, you can move your head around to see the whole field, but with a binocular, there is no way to see the entire field at once. Certainly the cost of 90 degree eyepieces is very high. Also, these massive eyepieces are not usable for those with narrow-set eyes & a large nose. The Fuji 16x70 is an example of a glass that I cannot use, due to the dimensions of the eyepieces & my eyes. --Peter =================================== Subject: Response to except from report of the Scientific Instrument Commission From: Lngubas@___m I have returned from my trip to Jena, Wetzlar, Oberkochen and Dresden. I was able to achieve my objectives in being able to take a single page overview of each and every Zeiss prewar binocular that I did not have in my own archives in order to publish in the near future a collectors guide to the Zeiss binocular and, to a lesser extent, the astronomical devices made prior to 1945. In Jena, I did meet with Dr. Helga Beez who was the curator of the Optical Museum in Jena. Her job was eliminated (excuse the personnel jargon) on September 1st of this year. She was fortunate to immediately find another position with the "Technische Hochschule" (Technical University) in Jena and will be concentrating on the science of the future instead of the scientific instruments of the past. So on an individual basis, she is securely employed within her field. There are a few minor errors in the report from the Scientific Instrument Commission. First, the Carl Zeiss Stiftung (Foundation) was not directly responsible for the elimination of the staff supporting the Optical Museum. It was the Ernst Abbe Stiftung which cut the staff from 5 to 1.8. Now this does not eliminate the Carl Zeiss Stiftung from complicity since they sit on the board of the Ernst Abbe Stiftung as does Jenoptik and other political and university personalities. The Optical Museum was formerly known as the Zeiss Optical Museum in Jena but the name was changed as was the oversight of the museum with the unification of Germany in the early 1990s. The Ernst Abbe Foundation took possession of the non-business interests of the East German firm "VEB Carl Zeiss Jena" and administers the pensions of that firm and the properties (mostly housing and some hospital functions) that were not a part of the integral business functions. The museum is still present and functioning. I presume that the 0.8 person is the lady who collects the fees for museum entry and the 1 is the head of the museum. All telephone calls to the museum by my contacts there remain unanswered. A number of retired Zeiss employees are working on a new exhibit on the history of the Zeiss planetaria but no one seems to know if the exhibit will ever be completed. The museum is still showing the exhibits of the previous years and the model of the mid- 1800's workshop has been moved to their location at 12 Carl Zeiss Platz. They formerly shared this space with the Pistor School of Optics but now have the building to themselves. I do not now how long such a wonderful museum and its store house of remarkable instruments can survive with no one attending to them. This is distressing since all such museums have wondrous materials in storage. Sorrowfully, it seems that no one is willing to support it beyond the small base of today. It is a shame since it is a repository of unique and wonderful Scientific Instruments and history. The Carl Zeiss Jena Archive is still in good hands with Dr. Wolfgang Wimmer working hard to preserve and protect the documents and artifacts in his care. The museum in Oberkochen at the Carl Zeiss facility there is also in good hands with Dr. Dieter Brocksch newly established as the key person there. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Larry Gubas ============================================== Subject: Repair & restoration shops From: Lngubas@___m I would like to form a list of binocular repair folks for posting on the Zeiss Historica website for those who are constantly asking. I know members of the list do this work but I want to make sure that they want to have their names and places of business stated. Larry -------- Below is a list of people involved in repair & restoration of binoculars. Some of these people are not active at the present time. Please correct any errors, by emailing me others who do this work & also by noting which of these are not active. I welcome an email from those on this list, confirming their status & describing their specialties. A & B Optical Repairs San Diego Binorepair@___com Baker Marine Instruments Brian Osterberg San Diego bmi-r@___l.net Roger Davis batsc@___ce.net.au Roger D. Gillispie, Sharp Instrument 641 N Walnut Colville WA 99114 887-684-3499. Herb Koehler Chicago area 1-847-362-7757 Kevin Kuhne Connecticut kkuhne@___et Ben Lacson binorepair@___o.net San Diego F.C. Meichsner Boston (now subcontracts jobs) Mountain Optics Dan Baldwin Kalispell, MT 59901 mtnoptic@___a.com Oceanview Instruments Bill Hartong Newport Beach, CA Phone: 949-646-3275 Earl Osborn optical-repair@___.net or optical-repair@___net Precision Optics - Show Low, Arizona. Sirius146@___l.com http://hometown.aol.com/precisionoptics/myhomepage/business.html Redlich. Hampstead NC redbinop@___m http://www.bos2.alltheweb.com/go/04/H/hometown.aol.com/redbinop/ Jim Rose jkrvanc@___m Vancouver, Washington Cory Suddarth binofixer@___ink.net Terry & Anna Vacani voptic.1@___line.co.uk England --Active or Inactive??: Paul Cerra pc@___ly.net Eric Magnuson atmjdesk@___tsnet.com Arch Owens owenswarpdrive@___ Eric Magnussen --Temporarily in management: Bill Cook atmj1@___tsnet.com --Camera & instrument repairmen who do not accept 'outside' binocular work: Dennis Bohrer bohrer@___wu.edu Rod Bolton brisphotoreps@___.net.au Details on some of these can be found at: http://www.deutscheoptik.com/repair_services.htm ===================================================== ===================================================== Binocular List #196: 18 December, 2001. ========================================= Subject: New Fuji 16 x 70 From: Allan Keller >The Fuji 16x70 is an example of a glass that I cannot use, due to the dimensions of the eyepieces & my eyes. --Peter< I also find that I cannot use the Fujinon FMT-SX binoculars due to the large outside dimension of the eyepieces and the narrow 58mm interpupilary distance of my eyes. I found a mention on Bino-net regarding a german site with a new version of these binoculars entitled FMT-SX-2. From the pictures, it appears that the rubber eyecups are smaller than the older version. I look forward to testing this new version when the are available in the USA. I could find no other mention of this new series from Fujinon's website or from other sites on the internet. See http://www.intercon-spacetec.de/fernglas/ for photos and information. Allan Keller --------- Those eyepieces are still pretty large. If the objective cell is 80mm dia., the oculars are maybe 50mm, more if the photo has perspective foreshortening. This is the same site with that great photo of a muscleman hand holding a Fuji 150: http://www.intercon-spacetec.de/fernglas/fujigross.html --Peter ==================================================================== Subject: Tech followup From: "William Cook" Dear Bino Friends: From time to time, I see an inquiry on the bino list asking about those who are doing binocular / optical repair. Knowing some of the scary things the novice can get into working on collector’s items, I have tried, as gingerly as possible, to suggest that those needing help on a “big” project send in a “little” project first to check out the skills of the tech before going for the whole inchal… anchi… enchala…… taco. I would not even bother to butt in; however, since 90 year old prisms do not grow on trees, I feel an obligation to say a few things. First, under “Active or Inactive”: Eric Magnuson left Captain’s almost 2 years ago. He may be doing optics on the side. However, atmjdesk@___tsnet.com is not his email address because that is the one he used here at Captain’s. Arch Owens left Captain’s over a year ago (do you see a pattern here), but the email address was his own. Cory Suddarth, America’s hottest bino tech, (until I put my shingle back out – at which time he goes back to bein’ dog meat), left Captain’s about 4 years ago. For a time, he was at Orion using the earthlink.net email address. He is in his home state of Oklahoma now and can be reached at binofixer@___m. Hey, and what is this “Bill Cook – temporarily in management” thing? Does somebody know something I don’t? Anyway, MANY TIMES I have wished it could be true. Doing tech stuff, you get the perk of watching the customer “ooh” and “aah” over an impossible restoration job. In management, I get to shuffle an endless and thankless stack of papers and try to get employees to follow instructions who don’t have obedience as their strong suit. Anyway, since optics has been my professional life, I appreciate still being left on the list at all. Please keep in mind that ANYONE can say they repair binoculars and that there are some folks out there who – while they may have a shingle out – are in no way prepared to perform major surgery on a 95 year old Zeiss or Leitz. And, another scary thing is that I have heard certain bino enthusiasts tout the work of some individuals who should probably not be allowed near a fishbowl. Recommendations and thoughts: Just because someone can shine up the lenses and polish the brass on your favorite bino, it does not mean that they are prepared to handle a world class restoration job. The proof should be in the pudding. Since this group seems really dedicated, I would suggest that a few of you get together, form a committee, and gen up some sacrificial heirlooms to send to some of the various techs to see what they CAN do. A tech catering to such a serious bunch should be able to: --Separate, center, and recement (without bubbles) objectives and eyelenses. --Free up “frozen” eccentric rings --Create prism placement springs --Locate, match, cut, and patch damaged pebble vinyl coverings / or replace ALL the vinyl from scratch. --Locate or substitute at least one out of production prism. --Collimate a bino to industry standard. (aligning an instrument better than it was does not mean that it is as good as it could be. Quantify…Quantify…Quantify.) Some of these repairs could cost a good bit. However, if you guys were to send out a few basket cases with EXACTLY known and documented problems (for goodness sakes take “before” photos), you could get an accurate idea of what each tech is capable of doing. Next, in order to save the cost of the middleman, you should ask the hard questions: “Who is your tech?” and “Are your binoculars repaired ON SITE?” If they tell you that they are, they should not have a problem with you speaking to the tech – especially if they know you are going to send them a valuable instrument. There are any number of companies that profess to do binocular repair when in fact they do not. I have worked on more than one instrument that was sent from Seattle to the East Coast to be repaired by a big name that simply sent them back for me to fix here in Seattle. That probably cost the customer 30% more in dollars and 3 times as much in time. I know I am overly presumptuous. However, as one who has hung up his spurs, I would like to offer a couple of tips on repair etiquette. When you find that great tech you are looking for: Give them some space. If yours is the only project they have, they will probably have plenty of time to talk to you. However, if yours is the only project they have, you might want to ask, “why?” One of the primary reasons, I closed my shop was because my day was filled with phone calls and emails from collectors who thought that, as part of the work package, I should be able to stop and chat about my work several times a week. Regardless of how much a tech cares about history, optics, binoculars, etc., he just can’t stop work to chat with everyone. This, of course, is not true if the customer is prepared to pay the tech what his work is really worth, along with the time spent on the phone and answering emails. And frankly, most of those who have that kind of money are so unrealistically finicky that the tech will undoubtedly lose money working with them – and they know it. Those who want to get too finicky may find the project ending before it starts. For all the “documentation” on what is and what is not original, stipulate at the outset exactly what you expect to be done rather than question the tech after the fact. A good friend called me a few days ago and innocently asked, “What was the formula Zeiss used in the camo paint they used during WWII?” Folks, NOBODY takes their role as a tech more seriously than me. However, I don’t know; Zeiss doesn’t know; I don’t care; Zeiss doesn’t care. Collectors need to try and understand that everyone does not share their all consuming interest. And…that that is NOT a bad thing and it has absolutely nothing to do with a tech’s ability to do a good job. Am I indicating that I no longer care? NOT at ALL. It is simply a matter of time and courtesy. Next, realize that if you can find a tech who is really capable of doing anything that comes down the pike, they are either going to charge you upwards of $75 an hour or be doing it for “fun” in their basement. I have found that whether we are talking about a new plastic Jason or a vintage piece from a pawn shop, customers have a propensity for saying, “Hell, I only paid $35 for it to start with!” as if those words are supposed to wrestle an optical craftsman into submission. Regardless of what he SAYS, any tech worth his salt will be thinking: “That ain’t my fault, do you want these things fixed or not?” Keep in mind that the tech KNOWS the same customer will buy a used computer for $20 and then pay $80 an hour for 3 hours to get it fixed without batting an eye. If qualified bino techs charged strictly according to the laws of supply and demand, their services would run about $500 per hour and you would never get to speak to him directly. Realize that while many collectors run about wanting this or that done to original “specs,” most of those specs were highly flexible during the war years. These manufactures were supporting a war effort and were not creating devices for you and me to sit around and fondle in our old age. Thus, the tech is just as apt to paint a bino to spec by accident as in trying to redo the color you remember. A story: some time back, I was sent a 20x120 bigeye for restoration. The crown element was broken and I was planning on replacing it with a lens I designed on Zemax-EE for the Coast Guard. That, however, was not what the customer wanted. He wanted a lens “EXACTLY” like the damaged piece. I had to decline the job because I didn’t have any 120mm first elements made out of green soda-lime plate glass with bubbles in it! Oh, I could have made him this inferior product. However, he wouldn’t have had the money for a one-off piece and would have probably been angry with me if I had told him all that was involved in making such a lens. Just a thought or two, William J. Cook, Opticalman Chief, USNR-Ret. Manager, Precision Instruments & Optics, Captain's Nautical Supplies, Seattle Editor / Publisher, Amateur Telescope Making Journal ====================================================== Subject: Reticles From: mikedenmark@___ele.dk I have read the replies to the vertical reticle issue here, and like to make a couple of comments. The use of the vertical reticle for range measuring is common here in Denmark. I have learned this in the Home defense, (US equiv: Nat. guard, only Home def. here is a lower standard) You also learn to use the front sight on the rifle, for the same purpose. We use HK G3 here, soon to be replaced with brand new canadian M16 clones. I have taken the basic sniper education as well, and a sniper DO have a binocular... Here snipers works as two men teams, and all teams has binoculars, usually 6x30 Zeiss or Hensoldt. I have once been equiped with a 8x40, but that is so far the only one, I have ever seen. ( No, I do not recall what make or model, sorry) On open sights, you are expected to hit man size targets up to 300 meters, and with scope up to 600. On silent grey days, it´s not impossible to hit at 600 resp. 1000 meters, but admitted: this is under perfect conditions. The stress factor, when the game is real, will reduce this a lot...even major drills can take a lot from these figures. I recall having read a study made by the US army after ww2, where they interviewed the top 3 german snipers from WW2, that is: those who survived, in order to get their professional opinion on what makes a good sniper. They also have comments on the use of binoculars for snipers. I know the study has been published, but alas, don´t know the particulars. It´s been years since I read it. I have also seen a german instruction movie on Sniping, where they show how to use camouflage, and the equipment. (Yes, the danish army does not have that much money, and why make a new movie, when the best ever made is available in black and white?) Today, I think they have new material on VHS, probably because the sniper job has turned more into a police job. That requires a different approach. In both world wars, german rifles had open sights up to 2 kilometers, about 1½ mile!!! My guess is, they rarely used this. Why did they make this then? It was a kind of arms race, and the logic was: If the soldier gets a rifle, where the sights only goes, say, 400 yards, he can or will feel inferior to the opposition, once he learns that the opponent rifle can shoot 2000 meters. Long range sights was supposed to increase the soldiers confidence in his weapon. I read an article here last month on danish navy carbines: their sights were all wrong from the outset, but even when the navy command found out, they let it be for 30 years, then scrapped that gun model. They were never set right, and the argument was: it costs money, and the likeliness of a sailor shooting more than 200 yards is close to zero. So why bother. This was in 1897! I see this as rather pragmatic. The army on the other hand did replace all sights on their carbines. And they did have the drill for coy shooting at larger targets, described in the reply of mr Sambrook. Only there is a simpler way of directing the fire: if say 100 bullets hits a narrow area, you order the aim of your men up or down, from the place of the area they hit. It works like old days artillery, or present days mortar fire, you use the first shot or volley as a help to aim the next. Another use for vertical reticles, when we talk artillery, is the overshooting of your own troops, or the assessing of the clearance needed around the trajectory of the grenades for trouble free flights. Most armies, I know have rules for this, and some have special optical angle meters to measure this. As a last item, I know that you can measure distance to ships, when you compare the vertical distance from the horison to the water line of a wessel. You need to know your own height above sea level to do this. This demands special optic systems, but they have been built, at least by Zeiss. Michael Simonsen =========================================== Subject: Buying DF/EDF 7x40 From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@___ne.de I was asked for advice on buying from Germany. Of course, German military surplus is more plentyful and cheaper available here, particularly with the weak Euro. But when comparing prices you should take into account the cost of overseas postage and international bank transfer. Typically German sellers don't have paypal or the like and even dealers rarely accept credit cards. Still prices would be cheaper in the US, but take in addition into account the risk of buying from a private seller who is a little bit "sloppy" when describing the condition of his merchandise. For instance I had to send back two DF 7x40 to the sellers. One puchased from ebay, one through a newspaper add. OK asking prices were cheap and both sellers accepted my return, but reversing the transaction from overseas would have been quite expensive. Again, the sellers were just "sloppy", but no crooks. On the other hand I was extremely lucky buying a poorly described EDF from ebay.de. Hans-Peter ================================================ Subject: Wollensak 8x30, Jason Magna Vue, Zeiss Jena Disassembly From: Fan Tao I had some difficulty opening up a Wollensak 8x30 (Rochester, USA) for repairs. Unlike most binoculars, this Wollensak (and the similar 6x30) does not have prism cover plates on the eyepiece end (there are prism plates on the objective end that need to be removed). I nearly damaged the eyepiece tubes when I tried to unscrew them as on a normal binocular. Instead, there are lock rings around the eyepiece tubes that need to be loosened. The innards of the binocular then separate from the body for easy servicing. The particular unit I had was so far out of adjustment that I could not achieve collimation with the eccentric objective cells. The prisms are not adjustable but are pinned down and glued. Fortunately I was able to achieve collimation by rotating one of the prisms. Apparently someone had previously worked on the unit and put a prism in backwards, as could be seen by the glue marks. Does anyone have any information on when Wollensak produced binoculars like these? My center focus 8x30 has a low serial number of 755 and is uncoated. I'm guessing that it predates WWII. I also have a coated individual focus 6x30 with a serial number of 41,218 that appears to be from WWII or shortly thereafter. I recently obtained two Jason "Magna Vue" models on eBay, a 7x50 and an 8x50. What makes these models interesting is their combination of wide field and long eye relief. The 7x50 has a field of view of 484 feet at 1000 yards (about 65 degrees apparent FOV) with 22mm of eye relief and the 8x50 has a FOV of 446 feet at 1000 yards (about 67 deg. AFOV) with 19mm ER. Unfortunately both units use low index prisms which results in vignetting of the exit pupils. The 7x50 is marked J-B22 and J-E29, and while the 8x50 has no J markings, externally it looks nearly identical. I took apart the eyepieces on each. The 7x50 has 4 element Plossl types and the 8x50 has Erfle types in a 2-1-2 configuration. Both eyepieces use large elements 30mm in diameter. It is a pleasure to experience the comfortable wide angle views on the Magna Vues. I used them on the night of the Leonids. Though binoculars are not ordinarily recommended for observing meteors, I was able to see several smoke or dust trails lasting for close to a minute through them. I preferred the extra magnification and increased contrast of the 8x50's for viewing deep sky objects, and the 7x50's were better for general scanning and observing meteors. Can anyone help me with how to disassemble late model Zeiss Jena porro prism binoculars from the 1980's and 1990's? These units have caps on the ends of the hinge without any screws visible and I need to know how best to remove them without causing damage. Thanks for any help. Fan Tao ============== Subject: Lemaire and BBT Krauss 7x50's From: Fan Tao I have a Lemaire 7x50 center focus binocular that appears to be from the 1950's. It is marked Lemaire Paris, Azur, and G.O. (I am not sure what G.O. stands for). It has an apparent FOV of about 50 degrees and about 15mm of eye relief. The unusual feature of this model is that it is the only one I have seen that exhibits negative or barrel distortion - lines at the edge of field curve outward. Most binoculars have some positive or pincushion distortion, which results in lower angular distortion, desirable for astronomical applications. It is debatable whether one wants low rectilinear distortion in a binocular for terrestrial applications but I can't imagine why one would want negative distortion. It looks like the designers may have tried to flatten the field and correct for astigmatism at the edge, since I could adjust the focus so that the image is sharp across the entire field (though it is a modest angle). The eyepieces appear to be 3 element Kellners. The exit pupils are squared off from the use of low index prisms. The objective cells are not eccentric so it looks like collimation is accomplished by moving the prisms. The collimation on my unit was out of whack but I was able to fix it by remounting one of the objective tubes - it had been knocked out of line or cross threaded. I would appreciate any information on Lemaire as a binocular maker. I have also seen 7x35 and 10x50 models marked Lemaire Paris. The only information I have found is that Valette is the firm behind the Lemaire brand name, according to the Reicherts' "Binoculars and Scopes" book published in 1961. I have just finished overhauling a French BBT Krauss 7x50 individual focus binocular with an unusual linkage between the eyepieces. The unit is marked No. 144531 and 302-10. It appears to be a military model from the 1950's or early 60's as it was marked as serviced in 1963 under a prism plate - a prism chip had been blackened. Besides the linkage which acts as a kind of interpupillary dampener, it has the remains of rubber eyecups that have rotted away. I found the optics to be good, though there is some vignetting of the exit pupils (less than on the Lemaire 7x50). The BBT Krauss has basically the same FOV and ER (50 Degrees, 15mm) as the Lemaire, but exhibits low rectilinear distortion. The focal plane is not quite as flat as on the Lemaire, though it is still better than average. Like on the Lemaire, the eyepieces appear to be 3 element Kellners. Fan Tao -------------- Fan's letters might seem to be at odds with Bill Cook's message above. I feel they are both valid & not mutually conflicting. --Many binoculars are not worth the cost of having a professional work on them; and many collectors can't afford it regardless. The question is, should these models be left alone or is it justifiable to subject them to amateur work? There's no real answer, just a range of considerations. >A few reasons why many people think it is ok to work on binoculars: --Fungus can be progressive if not cleaned; so there are cases where inaction is worse than the attempt. --It is interesting & educational to disassemble a binocular, many of the important technical advances are not visible from the outside. I personally don't find it fun, but obviously some people do. >A few reasons why people cringe when they see a good binocular undergo home surgery: --Everyone has seen instruments that have been damaged by unskilled repair. --Everyone who has repaired binoculars has damaged one, or a few, or more. There is no end to the hidden pitfalls of these instruments - covered setscrews, locking assemblies, weather seals, etc. Metal castings that have deteriorated from the inside out; very thin wall brass tubing used for cell covers; seized lubricants; glass that scratches, chips, and fractures; etc. You have to accept the occasional botch, and be very cautious about opening up a truly rare binocular, and be honest when you sell one of your mistakes. --I am not sure that I've met a self taught amateur who can (and does) collimate a binocular so it is aligned throughout the range of interpupillary distance. This is fine, except when a binocular is represented as 'collimated' when it is only partly so; or when it has been collimated using eyeballs instead of a bench -- though it might be usable. Of course, I haven't met most of the people on this list. But there are many other skills that are part of restoration, that I am skeptical can be done by almost any amateur; the repolishing of lenses & prisms is one that comes to mind -- not impossible, just not something that I've seen. I wouldn't buy a binocular if I knew that someone had repolished the lenses, unless I was certain that they made a pitch lap to match the curvature. And repolishing of prisms is very very difficult, even for a professional with proper equipment & the 'proper touch'. This discussion could go on forever without being very enlightening; and I must have made somebody mad by now. So I'll quit. --Peter ==================================================== ===================================================== Binocular List #197: 24 December 2001. =========================================== Subject: sweden From: "Sven-Olof" Just an hallo from sweden to say that we receive the list and has a lot of pleasure with it. I´m on some small research behind the startup of swedish wartime manufacturing of optics at AGA and NIFE. Ive read some books, talked to some persons and has orderded more books from librarys. We will see what i find further on. We have found an intresting swedish memoarbook . Very uncommon in the binocular area. "Men and lenses" by Georg Vogl. He describes NIFE optic factory and stories back around. Another book "We builded AGA" has an chapter about the "german periscope". The story tells that U-3503 was abandoned out of Gothenbourg in late WW2. It was selfsank by the crew and after the war it was salvaged by swedish navy in research purpose. AGA and NIFE got all the optics to take experiences from. Solutions was used after in swedish uboats. There is an AGA museum in sweden who has a mounted AGA-periscope i collection. In our collection we have some diffrent NIFE binoculars, but we have not any AGA. Is there any on the list who can post any photos on AGA binoculars? best regds Sven and Bjorn Nyman Sweden ======================================================= Subject: reticles and Kern From: tenenholtz@___bal.com Since I started the discussion about reticles, let me add one remark, as an old sailor, if not a soldier, but as an enlisted man. The Eames scale was for the field officer, who could not trust the typical infantryman to be a marksman. The range of a typical rifle after the Civil War,whether a Springfield, an Enfield or a Garand, was greater than the ability of the average soldier aim it, accurately, at long range, so the field officer directed the fire, using whatever the landscape offered. Make it simple; make it soldier-proof! In the last letter, or maybe the previous one, there were some remarks about buying from abroad. I had been searching for a Swiss Armee Modell binocular made by Kern. When I first used ebay, I found one which sold at rather more than I was advised to pay. On a hunch, I searched for "Kern fernglas," and was rewarded with several choices offered all in German, or with misspellings, e.g. binoculares instead of binoculars, which foiled an English search. One of the sellers gave me very bad vibes. From another, I purchased a 1971 model for $118, including the Euro money order and small parcel shipping. From the mailing of the money order to receipt was three weeks, even though it was before Christmas. As in all ebay purchases, you really do not know what you might get, so I may have been rather lucky. I am absolutely delighted with this 8X30 glass, because it is in great condition, and seems to require no servicing. Even more important, this binocular was made for me. In the words of my optician, I have "serious myopia." Most binoculars made after 1920 require that I wear my specs. This glass accomodates my eyesight. Also the eyecups are so shallow that I get a really full view, even when I wear my glasses, so that my astigmatism might be corrected. Somew may find those shallow eyecups a drawback. I believe the later models had rubber eyecups. A good New Year of binocular using to all! Arthur Tenenholtz =========================================== Subject: Binocular repair!!!! From: "B. Beacom" REALITY!!!! Although it is considered normal to be skilled in a profession, and some are better than others, it is ridiculous to lose sight of the fact that more than 80 percent of the US binoculars in WW ll were assembled by laborers who didn't know a Prism Plate from an objective lens, before they went to work in the binocular factory. On top of this, because of necessity, training time was at a minimum. It is doubtful that most who inspected these binoculars were even qualified to repair them. I would have to ask all of the experts how many can pick up a binocular and accurately tell if it is collimated throughout the entire axis, and given manufacturing methods during wartime, how many can be collimated this way. In tests performed during the war, the different sides of the binocular tested as much as 50% off with regards to definition. Why should any individual assign a criteria to binocular repair that exceeds the original specification? Another question is in wartime how long does a binocular maintain "PERFECT??" collimation? I'll just keep right on repairing those I collect, and if someone asks what kind of shape the binocular is in optically, I will tell him if you let ten experts examine the glass, you will get ten different answers. The best thing to do is look through it yourself. If you're not satisfied, all the experts in the world testifying how great it is means nothing. P.S. Take Mirakel off your repair list. I won't go into details, but all of us live and learn. Bill Beacom ==================================================== Subject: Wollensack binocs From: Arnold Cohen The Wollensack binoculars have always been among my favorites. Their peculiar aesthetics are the primary reason. Wollensack was one of the many upstate New York Optical companies founded in 1899 in the Rochester New York area. They were perhaps most famous for their camera lenses which were used by Kodak, Universal and other makers. They made a wide variety of other optical goods such as lenses for projectors, color filters, etc. They made microscopes (150 and 225x), cine lenses, reading glasses, tripod magnifiers and riflescopes (4x). The odd Allscope telescopic spectacles in 2 and 31/2 power, the Explorer 8x achromatic collapsing telescope and variable power draw tube achromatic telescopes ranging from 10 to 45x and the 3 and 6x small pocketscope were other products of very good quality. They made astronomical scopes up to 68x (actually the 45x telescope with a celetial eyepiece) and 20x spotting scopes. Their binocs included the famous, cute and almost unusable (unless you have the interocular distance of John F Kennedy) 6x biascope with the unique lever focus adjustment. The more usable 4x commander was a typical Gallilaen with very nice optics. Their prismatic glasses were patented in 1937 as I recall and included IF 6x30 which was accepted as the M5 US Army glass used from the late 1930s. A 6x monocular was also issued. The 8x30 was CF with a field of 135yds at 1000 yds for an angular field of 7degrees 44 min. It weighed 18 oz and had a tightly adherant rough rubber covering. Its really cool shape was compact and streamlined, consistent with 1930s design, said to "fit the hand like a ball." Early glasses were, of course, not coated but post war glasses were and from my own comparisons the coating were especially effective in reducing glare. The construction was unsual as Fan Tao mentioned and until figured out makes takedown a real puzzle-the objectives can be dismounted it their rings greatly facilitating recollimation by us novices. Eyecups were bakelite, straps leather. They came with either a hard leather, unlined case in which the binocs were slid sideways or for extra, a velvet lined rigid case with the glasses placed (always it seems very snugly) upside down. The military used a similar brown unlined case with a usual top handle and strap. They were marketed as a finer grade binoc at a modest price. Their performance was very good, not as good as the B+L, but they were considerably cheaper. Wollensacks history wanders through the 1960s, making the famous reel to reel Wollensack tape recorder and then going though a variey of mergers and takeovers and finally disappearing. The info is available somewhere on line but I've misplaced the reference. Sorry. Arnie P.S. I did finish the 8x30 comparison but need to work up the strengh to write it up! ANC ========================================== From: "William Cook" Subject: Repair supplies Gene Harryman wrote: >>The reason I write is twofold. First, the comment you made about being able to match coverings. The only place I have been able to find anything is Fargo (MicroTools?). Could you tell me of any other sources? Fargo has only one vinyl pattern. I would appreciate any help.<< I got my NEW vinyl from Fargo as well. Note, however, that I said NEW vinyl. The new vinyl will please 98% of all the customers out there – most of whom didn’t think the problem could be solved at all. Then, there is thinking “outside the box.” The new vinyl can be altered to make smaller “cells” in the grain. This, however, requires experimenting with heat, pressure, and tools with different points. Increasing the cell size is a whole different ball game. Here you can experiment with hot plastics; but that opens up cans of worms I don’t have time to go into and, the success which, will still depend on the tech’s ability to experiment and learn from his mistakes. If they ever start making black hot glue sticks, we will enter a new age of restoration. The main thing to consider here is that whatever texture you are looking for is probably awaiting you in the form of a used, $29.00, pawn shop binocular. Of course, you can probably buy the bino for $5, once you point out to the youngster behind counter that it is severely out of collimation. [Though you should say “alignment”; the use of “collimation” will usually lengthen an already non-productive conversation.] >>Secondly, Fan Tao made a comment about being able to bring a pair into collimation by reversing the prism. Is this accurate? By that I mean that I thought that the path should be identical from either end. Can there be that much difference/ lack of uniformity of the glass?<< Fan Tao wrote: >The particular unit I had was so far out of adjustment that I could not achieve collimation with the eccentric objective cells. The prisms are not adjustable but are pinned down and glued. Fortunately I was able to achieve collimation by rotating one of the prisms. Apparently someone had previously worked on the unit and put a prism in backwards, as could be seen by the glue marks.< I have seen Fan’s name many times on the list and I would not, in an open-ended fashion, say he was wrong. I don’t know everything; I just act like it. However, nothing in my experience will justify his findings as presented. While a few (a VERY, VERY few), Porro prisms differ in their x and y axis from end to end (to accommodate a diminishing light cone), the distance along the z axis should be exactly the same. A slight “rotation” of a prism will introduce “lean,” which I have described on the List before. Swapping ends of the prism should do nothing unless the prism is tilted in the process. A LITTLE tilting will go a VERY long way since light is reflected at “twice the angle of incidence with two reflections per prism. Concerning tabs of glue: in a good binocular, they are used to keep the prism in place, not to determine what that place should be. Again, I have written this to be helpful and not cause a pointing of fingers. If I misunderstood the post, or if I have not taken something into consideration I should have, I certainly apologize. Kindest Regards, William J. Cook, Opticalman Chief, USNR-Ret. ================================================ Subject: Repair From: Allen Feldman I enjoyed reading Bill Cook's comments on the current situation of optical repair [men]. I've been "around" a long time and seen the long parade of "want-to-be's" and the few who can walk the walk after the talk ... From my view, Bill certainly is "right on." Keep up the "preaching," Bill! Best regards, Allen Feldman ============================================== Subject: Yoshida From: Tom Vaughn I have been searching for information on the following binoculars with no luck. They are marked: Yoshida & Co. Tokyo, Japan 7X50 "Woodsman" lightweight coated. A search of the web finds nothing on this company. Do you have any information? Tom Vaughn ==================================================== ===================================================== Binocular List #198: 03 January 2002. ================================================== Subject: Binocular coverings From: "B. Beacom" There is a company called GANE out of Elk Grove Illinois, that makes backing for expensive book bindings. They show 10 different weights and grains in black in synthetic covers. They also handle real leather but it is quite expensive. The only draw back is you have to buy a running yard. Some material is 39" wide some 54" wide.Their 800 number is ---800-323-0596. Ask for a sample book. I too have discovered not only prisms that have been switched end for end, but field lenses reversed. While I agree the adhesive is not supposed to be there to align prisms, the reality as Fan Tao and others have discovered, is those of us who are amateurs, can use our eyes to solve collimation problems. Bill Beacom ======================================================== Subject: Kern 8 x 30 From: "Grimsey" Does any one in the group have any experience of the Kern 8*30 Swiss Army binocular.I am thinking of trying to acqiure one but have no detailed specification such as field of view, do they have a reticle. What is the performance like? Any feed back would be greatly appreciated. Phil Grimsey, Hitchin, England. (I sent Phil some of the earlier postings on this binocular -Peter) =========================================================== Subject: Kern 8 x 30 From: Thomas Press Regarding Arthur Tenholtz's comments concerning the Kern Swiss Army 8 x 30 binoculars in the December 24 Binocular List, I, too, succumbed a while back to one of the many eBay offerings, and have been truly amazed at the level of quality. My sample, dated 1978, arrived perfectly collimated, with minimal wear to the prism covers and no abrasion on any of the lenses. The earlier version of the eyecups (and mine is an example) had an unusual for the period screw-in, screw-out feature which permitted both use with and without glasses. Later versions dating from the mid-80's used the more common rolldown rubber eyecups. I would guess the field of view at 8 30, with surprisingly little distortion for the wide angle view. Brightness, clarity and especially the extraordinarily generous depth of field were remarkable. I remember with fondness the exceptional Kern Macro-Switar lenses made for the Alpa Reflex 35mm cameras of the 60's and early 70's, so I guess I should not be surprised that their 8 x 30 military glass would stand out against the competition. At approximately $150 - $175 net from a varity of eBay sellers, these Kern binoculars strike me as a steal. Best regards, Tom -------- Tom notes the depth of field in these binoculars. This is always one of the most noticeable features of a binocular. When using any terrestrial telescope, DOF is dramatically reduced compared to naked eye views. A binocular with increased DOF will allow you to see more, but there are some advantages to a reduced DOF - it allows you to isolate a camouflaged bird, or lets your view penetrate into brush. If you are trying to see through a sunlit dusty window into a darkened room, you can defocus the bright dusty glass and see details in the room that were previously invisible. Microscope users go to extreme lengths to minimize their DOF, so they can see some particular tiny bug. Binocular users commonly believe or observe that Porro I binoculars have a larger depth of field than roof prism binoculars. This is not 'supposed' to be possible; DOF is a function of the objective lens. I have yet to hear an explanation of this frequently noted difference between prism types. --Peter ================================================================== Subject: Meaning of 41 on Eastern Block military optics From: Monica Body I have a Russian TZK 10x80 (tripod-mounted military observation binoculars) and a Hungarian military 8x30 , both with the marking 41.I also recall seeing Bulgarian military binocs marked 41 on Ebay. Anybody out there know what 41 stands for? It is not the year; could it be the country of manufacture,or simply the Eastern Block ordnance code for military optics? Also,is there any way of tracing the year of manufacture for my Russian TZK 10x80 (serial # 831135), probably made at Novosibirsk Instruments? Interestingly, the electrics (ie battery and bulbs) to illuminate the reticle were made in Hungary,and the date 1983-05-19 is inscribed inside the batterybox cover.The binoculars were picked up in Iraq during Desert Storm in 1991. All the best for 2002! Tom Body ==================================================== Subject: Re: Binocular List Repair & Collimation From: Fan Tao Just to clarify where I stand on binocular repairs, I am only a hobbyist and not a professional. I only work on binoculars for myself, and would not touch a very rare model (I have a B&L WF and a blc 5-10x70 sitting waiting for someone to work on them.) About replacing prisms in binoculars, I tend to agree with William Cook that rotating an ideal prism should have a only a small effect on collimation. I did not claim that prism rotation is a fix for collimation, only that it happened to be what I did on the path to collimation. My point was that for a non-professional, one of the first things one can check on a binocular that is out of collimation is if any of the prisms have been shifted from their original positions and glue marks are an easy way to tell. Putting the prisms back in their original positions can then be used as a starting point for collimation. That is why I am a little confused about Mr. Cook's statement - "Concerning tabs of glue: in a good binocular, they are used to keep the prism in place, not to determine what that place should be." Certainly I agree with the first part of the statement, but when a prism is knocked out of alignment, should not one try to put it back where it was originally glued? This brings leads to an interesting point on prisms. I have read somewhere that some binocular manufacturers have matched prisms to reduce errors. I have seem instances of prisms marked with several numbers on them. Presumably these are the divergences in angles and dimensions from optimum. Pairs of prisms can then be matched to offset these errors. Can anyone corroborate this? Fan Tao ================================================== ===================================================== Binocular List #199: 06 January 2002. =============================================================== Subject: Prism markings From: William A Franko Prism marking for correction: US military WWll prisms were not a EXACT right angles. In a fixture they were read and marked.....2-6 2= clock position 6=minutes of arc The prisms were seperated into groups, and them matched to one that had compensating correction. =============================================== Subject: Russian binocular serial numbers From: Fan Tao I'm fairly sure that Tom Body's Russian 10x80 with serial #831135 was made in 1983. The 1983 date in the battery case would seem to support that. I have several Russian military binoculars that are marked with YYXXXX where "YY" appears to be the year. For example, a 10x42 (made at the Kazan Optical Mechanical Plant) has a serial number of 990184 and the inspection paperwork shows a manufacture date of March 1999. Having said that, however, my Russian TZK 10x80 is marked "NM02930". I have no idea why mine is marked differently. Perhaps the "NM" is a factory code. I don't know what the "41" marking means either. Fan Tao ============================================= Subject: Russian production dates From: "geneharryman" I have a fair number and variety of Russian glasses, and with the exception of some of the later low end Berkut's, if there is a serial number, the first two digits are the year of production. Others I have seen without serial numbers usually have the year of production embossed somewhere on the frame. A few on the front hinge cover button, which might easily go missing. Novosibirsk has a web site at http://www.telescopes.ru/index.phtml , where Tom might contact them and get definitive information. Gene ================================================ Subject: Novosibirsk From: Peter Abrahams Novosibirsk apparently makes the 15 x 110 models we discussed recently; and a 10 x 65 with a 70 degree field. They also have on line, a simple 'service manual' for the 110s, which is a great thing for a manufacturer to do. There's two good articles on the site; about the history of telescope making in Russia, and on the Klevtsov telescope design. http://www.telescopes.ru/plant.phtml (with good photos, but none of binoculars) The Novosibirsk Instrument-Making Plant was founded in 1905 to manufacture artillery sights for the Imperial Russian Army. It made a significant contribution to equipping the Russian and Soviet armies during the world wars. Following the Second World War, the factory began to produce an increasing number of products for the civilian market. The manufacture of astronomical telescopes began in 1980 under the initiative of the Novosibirsk amateur astronomer Leonid Sikoruk. The TAL, a Newtonian reflector with an aperture of 2.5" (65 mm) intended for beginners, was the first model to be introduced, and remains in production to this day. In 1984, production of the more sophisticated 4.3" (110 mm) TAL-1 commenced. The disintegration of the USSR brought extremely difficult economic conditions for the factory. Because military production was greatly curtailed, the factory was compelled to compete on the world market of optical devices. In 1993 TAL telescopes began to be sold abroad, at first in England, then in other countries. Novosibirsk is the third-largest city in Russia, has the biggest library in Siberia, and the biggest opera/ballet theater in all of Russia -- even bigger than Moscow's Bolshoy. In 1943, the Academy of Sciences opened up its Siberian branch in Novosibirsk, many research institutes are located within Novosibirsk itself, still many more are clustered in Academgorodok, a small city founded in the 1950's by the Academy, 30 km south of Novosibirsk. At its height, Academgorodok was home to 65,000 scientists and their families, and was a priviliged area to live in, with well-stocked stores and dachas for the academic elite. Gorbachev's perestroika was initially conceived here, by economists who where then relocated to Moscow to author the economic revolution. In recent years, Academgorodok has fallen on hard times thanks to slashes in government funding, and many of the younger researchers who once populated the town have left. ============================================ Subject: Ross 7 x 40 From: Hello out there. happy new year and all that... Today I just bumped into something, I haven´t seen before: A 7x40 Ross used by the danish navy. Marked Crown over Søartilleriet , Marinetjenestekikkert 7x40, but apparently No model year. This may mean that it was issued before1956, when the large 7x50 Nedisco was issued. The Ross, London?? Made in England marking is very faint. Dr. Seeger has a picture of the type in picture 131, right. Only this must be the 7x40 Tropical mentioned in the text. there is no sign of british military marking, that I can find. here are two pics of the bino... http://www.geocities.com/mikedenmark/plc5/ross1.jpg http://www.geocities.com/mikedenmark/plc5/ross2.jpg I like to ask if anyone knows of a binocular 7x50 name: Luchs. This bino was introduced before 1939, and that is all I have...Any detail on which kind of bino this might be, will be appreciated... Michael Simonsen ============================================= Subject: Repair From: "Rafael Chamón Cobos" I have the impression that Mr. Fan Tao is too much criticized because his free expressed opinions about the repair and manipulation of binoculars of his own collection. I have in mind that most participants in these 'binocular lists' are amateurs, and therefore we are interested in all subjects and issues related to our hobby. As amateurs we probably live 'for' our hobby rather than 'from' our hobby. And this is what makes the hobby great. I am personally grateful to Mr. Tao since he offers concrete issues and problems about constructive aspects. All the best Rafael ================================================= From: Peter Abrahams Here are four posts from the Deutsche Optik 'Bulletin Board' web site: http://www.deutscheoptik.com/bullitin.htm December 18, 2001. 8 x 25 L.Z.127 Deutsches Erzeugnis. L.Z. 127 marking on the left eyepiece plate. No other markings other than these (8 x 25 on right plate). ------ LZ 127 is an indication the binocs were equipment on a dirigible in the twenties. The 'Hindenburg' was designated LZ 129. ----- The LZ 127 was the "Graf Zeppelin." -------------------------------- >> Does anyone know of an organization for us collectors of optical equipment? << …we might direct you to Zeiss Historica and the Leica Historical Society (both emphasizing vintage cameras, but with some overlap into binoculars and other optics)…..we would certainly be interested in sponsoring such an organization if we had indication of enough interest. Anybody else out there that would participate? s/ Deutsche Optik ================================ Subject: Organization From: Peter Abrahams There's a lot that could be accomplished with an organization of binocular collectors & others interested in the subject. A printed journal would be a really significant addition to email & internet publication. Formal meetings with displays, papers, and tours. There are museums in Europe who might be willing to open up for a full tour to a group; though I can't think of a similar institution in the US. Collectors sometimes are a little more accomodating with granting access to co-members of a group. We have three officers of Zeiss Historica, and three officers of the Antique Telescope Society, on this list who could tell us about how much work it is; but that's OK, you don't have to. Steve Rohan, myself, and others, have made a start with organizing meetings of binocular collectors, and they have been very successful & educational. We have discussed a more formal organization, but none of us are willing to commit to such a project. We certainly don't need a half hearted attempt by already-busy people, who hope that they can get the ball rolling & others will take it from there. I know that there are people on this list who could & would help with an organization, and the sponsorship of Deutsche Optik could be a big help, but I don't know of an individual who could & would take the lead, and follow through for a couple of years. I certainly hope there is such a person. Let us know. --Peter ============================================== Subject: Prism Matching From: Fan Tao I was able to find an article discussing the matching of binocular prisms in Amateur Telescope Making, Book Three. The article is "The Overhaul and Adjustment of Binoculars" by G. Dallas Hanna. There is also a related article by Mr. Hanna, "A Reflecting Autocollimator for Precise Measurement of Prism Angles". Hanna goes into quite a bit of detail, too much to repeat here, but I can summarize it with a statement he makes on the angle error and pyramidal error (deviation of the three polished faces) - "It is well established in assembly that, if either of the errors mentioned amounts to more than 3' (arcminutes) in each prism of one barrel, the instrument cannot be collimated without matching the errors so that those of one cancel those of the other." He also states that errors of much more than 3' were commonly found in prisms of binoculars he examined. Mr. Hanna appeared to be an interesting character, a zoologist with the California Academy of Sciences, who repaired binoculars and fabricated prisms during WWII. He passed away in 1970. Fan Tao =============================================== Subject: G. Dallas Hanna From Peter Abrahams Hanna is a person we need to learn about. In addition to his work with binoculars, he published many papers and books in natural science, geology & fossils. ------ The 'Amateur Telescope Making' 3 book series, edited by Albert Ingalls, was re- edited & reprinted many times, and is now in print in a fully reorganized edition. Page numbers are inconsistent across these editions & so are not cited in the following three articles from these books. G. Dallas Hanna, Making Rhomboid Prisms. (6 pages). These were mostly for collimators. G. Dallas Hanna, A Reflecting Autocollimator for Precise Measurement of Prism Angles. (13 pages). Lists people who made prisms, including binocular prisms, at the Calif. Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, for repair of Navy equipment during WWII: ATMs J.A. Steinback, D.A. McLaren, L.A. Parsons, Carl Wells, & Karl S. Bailey; also 'non-ATMs' Allyn G. Smith, C.C. Church, & Edwin Over. Hanna writes, concerning binocular prisms: "these errors [angles between surfaces of prisms] left uncorrected, then the prisms must be matched in pairs in a particular manner so that the angle error of one cancels out the pyramidal error of the other; otherwise they will be additive, spectral colors will be bad, and the instrument cannot be collimated." G. Dallas Hanna, The Overhaul and Adjustment of Binoculars. (58 pages). "I received my instruction from a master teacher, Mr. Daniel Brower, then stationed at the U.S. Optical School at Mare Island, California, and who was detailed by Commander F.R. Kalde (U.S.N.R.), then in charge of the school, to assist the California Academy of Sciences in setting up an overhaul shop for naval optical instruments in World War II. As a result of this instruction we completely overhauled over 6,000 binoculars of many types and put them back in service." Hanna cites mil specs for the standard US 7 x 50: prisms, tolerance on all angles: 5 minutes of arc (that sounds pretty loose to me! --Peter) ----------------------- Ingalls, Albert. Telescoptics. Scientific American, Nov. 1953 Practical literature on binoculars up to now has been virtually non-existent. In World War II, C. Dallas Hanna, a California Academy of Sciences paleontologist with a flair for the mechanics of precision instruments, headed a group of amateurs who were making roof prisms until they were discovered by the U.S. Navy and asked to recondition its optical instruments They reconditioned 6,000 Navy binoculars. In ATM-3 Hanna records all that he learned, not alone on the overhaul and exact adjustment of binoculars but on their basic principles. Hanna explains those basics clearly. He also gives instructions for building, around a telescope mirror, an autocollimator for testing the prisms used in binoculars, as well as other prisms. (Scientific American, October, 1951): the U. S. Navy which began bringing him damaged fire-control instruments, and later binoculars. Hanna directed 50 employees reconditioning binoculars in the museum of the Academy, and Waldeyer was the foreman of this force, which reconditioned 6,000 binoculars. (Scientific American, November, 1944) G. Dallas Hanna, zoologist, paleontologist, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, with others of the Academy museum staff, made 165 (roof) prisms but shifted to emergency repair of Navy optical instruments. ------------- Rose Tools, by Albert G. Ingalls. Telescoptics. Scientific American, November, 1946 ROSE TOOLS having petals which are tapered, in contradistinction to tools similarly used for local correction of optical surfaces but which are simply channeled in the normal manner, turn out to have been the invention of the famous "Uncle John" Brashear. Mirror makers have used such tools for years but their origin has been lost sight of. Porter, in "A.T.M.," 64, describes such a tool. The rediscovery of the rose tool's origin happened thus: G. Dallas Hanna, a San Francisco advanced amateur mentioned having come across "an interesting paper" in Volume 33 (1884) of the Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and when this paper was looked up it was found to contain evidence that Brashear invented that type of tool. Background is supplied by Brashear's "Autobiography." --------- http://www.biconet.com/crawlers/infosheets/MarvelousMyriadDiatoms.pdf Mounting individual diatoms requires patience. I use a hog's eyelash on a toothpick mounted on a dowel rod attached to my microscope. I once asked one of the modern masters, the late G. Dallas Hanna, how long he thought it would take me to learn the mounting technique. "It took me about six weeks," he said, "but you should be fairly proficient in three." I asked why I should learn faster. "Well, I started out in the Pribilof Islands off Alaska," he explained. "It was thirty below zero, and my hands shook a lot!" ------------------------------- (Biography, with photo, from the Bulletin of the Monterey Bay Paleontological Society. By Frank Perry http://www.calcentral.com/~fossils/peoplea.html ) If the title "Renaissance Man of the Natural Sciences" was to be bestowed, G Dallas Hanna would be a chief contender. He led an extraordinarily rich scientific life, most of it while Curator of Paleontology (and later Geology) at the California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. During his lifetime, he authored approximately 450 publications, from abstracts, popular articles, and reviews, to lengthy scientific papers. Hanna was born in Arkansas in 1887 and graduated from the University of Kansas in 1911. After working for the Bureau of fisheries in Alaska, he returned to school and received his Ph.D. from George Washington University in 1918. He had many interests, as demonstrated by the diverse subject matter of his publications. Here is a sampling: land mollusks of Kansas, mammals of the Pribilof Islands, amphibians from the Carboniferous of Illinois, birds of Golden Gate Park, a fossil whale from the Miocene of California, introduced mollusks of the San Francisco Bay region, the geology of Sharktooth Hill in Kern County, preserving nudibranchs, illustrating fossils, how to repair binoculars, and articles on diatoms. Hanna's accomplishments seem more in keeping with the era of Leonardo da Vinci than with the period just a few decades ago. He did, however, have his specialties; these were primarily mollusks and diatoms. With regard to mollusks, his interests ranged from fossil to modern, from terrestrial to marine, from native to introduced. Hanna published numerous articles on fossil and modern diatoms, many pertaining to California. His interest in microfossils led him to invent a "mechanical finger" for manipulating specimens under magnification, to develop improved mounting media, and to take up the study of optics. During World War II, when German-made lenses became unavailable, he set up an optical shop at the Academy, grinding lenses for the U.S. Navy. After the war, he converted the shop to civilian use, building the planetarium projector for the Academy's Morrison Planetarium. Despite being a curator and prolific writer, Hanna was not one to stay cooped up in the museum. He traveled extensively, often to Alaska. As a young man, he made a thousand mile journey from Bristol Bay to Iditerod and back by dogsled. Fifty years later, in 1964, he was back yet again, to investigate first-hand the damage from the great Alaskan earthquake. G Dallas Hanna died in 1970 but his legacy lives on. Others continue research on diatoms, using and building upon the extensive data, collections, and library he assembled. In 1987 the Academy established the G Dallas Hanna Chair in diatom studies, which is currently held by J. Patrick Kociolek. (One final note: Hanna had only the letter "G" for a first name. Therefore, as with Harry S Truman, the letter is not an abbreviation and does not need a period after it.) Further Reading: Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences,April 24, 1962 (v. 32, no. 1); California Geology,April, 1991, p. 75-82. ---- Alaska, field exploration for petroleum; also ocean floor sampling mid-Pacific from research vessels. Supervised design & construction of Calif. Academy Morrison Planetarium, modified Zeiss design using 3800 stars, each on a mask made by aluminizing glass with a grain of abrasive at the correct spot, later removed to reveal hole in aluminum. A traveling microscope was designed to properly place each grain. (Biographical notes from ATM, Overhaul & Adjustment of Binoculars) ===================================================== ===================================================== Binocular List #200: 12 January 2002. ===================================================== The list started circa 01 November 1997, and after 4 years we have 117 members, in the US, Japan, Australia England, France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Italy, Belgium, Spain, and maybe others I've forgotten. Thanks to Mike Simonsen for his information in this 200th list. Do you remember 13 years ago, before Seeger's first book, before the internet, when there was no information available on binocular history? The list needs your knowledge, send emails & I will include them in the next list. I act as a moderator & remove text that might cause a problem. If you feel your privacy is violated by having your email in the archives, I can remove it. I have not heard from anyone that they noticed an increase in 'spam' after their address appeared in the archives. If you email me anything that looks like information on binoculars, it will go to the list, so let me know if it is a private message. I am willing to continue running the list this way, but if there is someone who can run a listserv program, at a reliable computer, that allows digests & individual emails -- let me know. It would probably increase participation if we had such a program. I am not willing to move the list to 'yahoo'. I'd like to issue my web page on a CD. Is there a computer expert on the list who can answer a question: I can ftp the site to my computer & burn a CD, but all the html links to pages will be wrong. What should I rename the files, and is there a way to avoid renaming them all - or to do it without having to retype them all? The purpose of this list is to promote knowledge of the history of binoculars. User's reports on old binoculars are welcome. Reports on new binoculars are welcome, noting that there are several other places where these are published on the internet. Advertisements accepted, although longer lists should be posted elsewhere & a link placed in the list, and ads don't go into the archives. Ebay notices are accepted for very unusual items, but since there is only one list a week, that is not generally effective. I can post images on my site, although that does take some time & so I'll limit that service to unusual binoculars; also if you can convert the image to a jpeg of under 100kb, that helps. I feel that there is much more that we don't know about this history, than is already known -- that the books & journals, the internet, and our collective knowledge has just 'scratched the surface'. I hope we know a lot more by the time list 400 comes around. --Peter ==================================================== Subject: Earliest binoculars made in the U.S. ? From: Peter Abrahams While visiting the Smithsonian last September, I read through some notes assembled by Deborah Jean Warner, a historian of scientific instruments. These papers included a note on the following three people, who were awarded prizes for opera glasses, which normally means they manufactured them (this is not certain, it is possible they simply imported them). If so, they would be three of the earliest American binocular manufacturers. Antoine Derne. N.Y.C. 1850s-1870s. Optician. 1851, American Institute Fair, silver medal for opera glasses. 1852, A.I. Fair, silver medal for spy and opera glasses. 1853, N.Y. Crystal Palace, diploma for telescopes, spy & opera glasses. 1870, Census of Industry: produces telescopes & spyglasses worth $16,000. Joseph H. Semmons. Nashville (1855), Indianapolis (1860), N.Y.C. (1864-80). 1855, opera glasses won award. 1862, advertisement in Harper's Weekly, 'military single and double spy-glasses, for land and sea use, with extraordinary power and definition'. 1870, N.Y. city directory, 'Oculists' optician. Manufacturer and inventor...opera, field and marine glasses, telescopes...'. Henry Waldstein. New York City. 1850s-1870s. Optician, importer, & manufacturer. 1855-6 advertisement: 'received prize medal at the Crystal Palace for...opera glasses...telescopes'. 1876, American Institute Fair, bronze medal for 'improvement in binocular glasses...'. 1877, adv. in American Journal of Microscopy 'Improved field, marine, opera and tourist's glasses'. ========================================================= Subject: Binoculars for the Danish military From: I am planning to write something about danish military binoculars, and this is the result of my first go at the archives here in Copenhagen. I have just today spent three hours skimming a pile of old Zeiss letters, invoices etc. Several other optical companies are present too. The lists below contains the serial numbers of 220 Carl Zeiss D.F. 6X30 that was delivered to the danish army, march 1919, directly from the Zeiss factory. One note of interest is that at the time the Interallied war material commision wasn´t active yet. This meant that Zeiss could deliver unhampered by allied control. This was by no means easy just a year later. After 1920 the Nedinsco plant in Venlo undertook deliveries, as the allies could not do anything about a dutch company. The binos below was a part delivery of a total order of 300 DF 6X30 and 200 DF 8x40. Apparently Zeiss was unable to deliver the 8X40. The danish army did receive some 8X40 earlier though. 60 delivered Nov. 17th 1915. 100 more on aug. 8th 1916. The delivery was conditional: The danish State had to deliver war materials to compensate for the loss Germany had, making these binoculars. A part of the payment was 88 pounds of kautchuk, about 400 pounds of brass, and some more. This was needed to get the German foreign office to accept export, and a statement from the danish government was issued, that the binos was for danish use only. They must not be re-exported. Exactly why the binos was delivered like this, with intermingled serial numbers I don´t know, but a guess is, they wanted as much goods out as possible, while there was time. Maybe that is why there was two deliveries with 5 days between. Serial numbers delivered 18 marts 1919. Crate 1: Binoculars 6x30 with danish graticules, without holsters or leather accessories. 51 binoculars. 990208, 990213, 990620, 990641, 990646, 990647, 990651, 990697, 990699, 998161, 998165, 998172, 998176, 998177, 999262, 999267, 999270, 999273, 999275, 999278, 999381, 999382, 999390, 999391, 999400, 1005307, 1005311, 1005312, 1005626, 1005637, 1005688, 1005690, 1005695, 1005696, 1005700, 1005854, 1005858, 1005859, 1005860, 1005863, 1006064, 1006067, 1006074, 1006078, 1006114, 1009664, 1009668, 1009676, 1011506, 1011509, 1011517. 58 binoculars. 968704, 988746, 990211, 990220, 990605, 990655, 990660, 990686, 990688, 990696, 998170, 998173, 998175, 999261, 999274, 999276, 999279, 999384, 999389, 1005303, 1005306, 1005316, 1005317, 1005632, 1005635, 1005640, 1005685, 1005687, 1005691, 1005693, 1005694, 1005697, 1005699, 1005843, 1005851, 1006003, 1006020, 1006069, 1006070, 1006072, 1006075, 1006079, 1006080, 1006101, 1006105, 1006108, 1006111, 1006112, 1006116, 1006119, 1009663, 1009670, 1009678, 1009680, 1011510, 1011511, 1011515, 1011516. Serial numbers delivered 22 marts 1919. Crate 1: 71 binoculars 6 x30 with danish graticule, without holsters or leather accessories. 966074, 988741, 988743, 988744, 988751, 988752, 988753, 988760, 990204, 990205, 990206, 990210, 990214, 990609, 990610, 990615, 990616, 990618, 990619, 990642, 990648, 990650, 990656, 990682, 990683, 990685, 990691, 990692, 990693, 990694, 990698, 998162, 998164, 998166, 998167, 998169, 998174, 998178, 998180, 999265, 999266, 999268, 999387, 998388, 999392, 999396, 999397, 1005301, 1005310, 1005320, (1005302, 1005305, 1005309, 1005318 These binoculars may have numbers slightly higher, as they appear to be breaking the number system in the list) 1005621, 1005623, 1005625, 1005627, 1005629, 1005630, 1005636, 1005639, 1005682, 1005683, 1005684, 1005689,1005692, 1005698, 1005841, 1005842, 1005845. Crate 2: 40 binoculars 6 x 30 with danish graticule, without holsters or leather accessories. 1005847, 1005849, 1005855, 1005857, 1005860, 1006001, 1006002, 1006005, 1006006, 1006007, 1006010, 1006012, 1006013, 1006014, 1006018, 1006062, 1006065, 1006068, 1006077, 1006107, 1006109, 1006110, 1006113, 1006115, 1006118, 1006120. 1009661, 1009662, 1009667, 1009669, 1009671, 1009674, 1009677, 1009679, 1011504, 1011505, 1011507, 1011512, 1011518, 1011520. One note to these numbers must be added....The danish army technical Corps wrote back to Zeiss arguing that one of the crates had been damaged during transport. Apparently some kind of acid had permeated one crate damaging a lot of the binoculars. The corps ask Zeiss if they should return the defective binos, and ship one sample through the danish diplomatic representation in Berlin to Zeiss for inspection. As an alternative they ask if they should keep the binos in Copenhagen and have Zeiss personel come to Denmark to repair the binos. This is another indication that the corps was aware, that the binos might not come back if they were sent to Germany. Eventually the defective binos was returned for repair may 6th. 1919. I can find no further about it, but with danish graticules they probably came back after repair. In 1924 the corps returns a complete lot of 20 Scherenfernröhre to Nedinsco for repairs, because they were faulty upon arrival. Now they don´t even warn about it, they just ship them. Times had changed in 1924. And Nedinsco....seems to deliver the goods from Zeiss in the period 1923-1927. The sales channel is the Company: Nordiske Instrument AB in Stockholm. Their logo is Just like Nedinscos, only it has the name Norinab, where you find Nedinsco name in Nedinsco markings. The similarity is also present: Nederland instrument compagnie = Nedinsco. Nordiske Instrument AB = Norinab The System Zeiss written with a single e, not the dutch version: Systeem. I have seen their logo on the company papers, but have anyone ever seen it on a pairs of binoculars.??? Maybe there is a connection to Nife. I mean Nordiske Instrument could be the NI in NIFE? Other short notes: Zeiss claims that the DF 8x24 is used by the german field artillery, in a letter dated oct.7th-1913. The large 10X80 with 80 degree are offered in a Zeiss catalog marked as received in 1936. The picture in the catalog is like the one upper left corner, page 353 in dr. Seegers book. Only the back side of the craddle is marked System Zeiss. If I look closely on the drawing/picture on page 353, I can see faint traces of a text there too. Perhaps that illustration was taken from a catalog, like the one I have seen. Only I have a date on it. More Zeiss serial numbers: DF 12x40 Serial number 377019 DF 16X40 Serial number 308484 Was delivered for trial in june 15th 1915. These binos appear earlier in the correspondance, and they are part of the local Zeiss agent´s stock. Their first appearance I have seen, is dated 1913. The last I can see about them, is their testing in an armoured train in 1916. DF 18x30 ser. No. 366559 is made available for tests on Nov. 18th 1913. Hypoplast serial number 145 underwent test in 1909. The archives here holds more small stories, but they are scattered around in the material. I will continue the work, and hopefully I can provide more news in the future. Michael Simonsen ========================================================= Subject: U.S. Army M25 binocular. From: Peter Abrahams 14 power x 41 mm objectives, 4.3 degree field, gyroscope stabilized. Made by Fraser-Volpe Co. The M25 binocular has user removable day eyepieces that can be replaced with optional eyepieces containing GEN III Image Intensifier Tubes, to provide for night vision capability. The binocular can operate from internal batteries (2 "AA" cell). Stabilization Freedom ±8 Degrees ±8 Degrees. Focus Adjust ±5 Diopters. Interpupillary Adj 60-72mm. 2.1kg; 4.6 pounds. Waterproof to 1m. The prisms inside the M25 Stabilized Binocular are mounted on a platform that can swivel independently of the rest of the binocular. A tiny motor driven gyroscope also sits on the platform. One binocular eyepiece has a horizontal and vertical scale reticle graduated in 10-mil major (5-mil minor) increment unit markings (1 major unit = 10 mils, 2 major units = 20 mils, etc.). Fire corrections can be made by viewing the impact area and determining angular corrections by use of the left or right horizontal reticle scale. In determining range, if an object fills one 10-mil unit marking on the horizontal reticle scale and is known to be 10 meters wide, the object is 1000 meters away. If the same size object fills two unit markings (20 mils), it would be 500 meters away. When this formula is used, the distance will be given in the same units of measurement (feet, meters, etc.) as is used in estimating the known size of the object. The same formula can be used to determine range with the vertical reticle scale when the height of an object is known. Use of the vertical scale is preferred (especially on level terrain), since objects are often viewed obliquely along the horizontal axis. The erecting prisms are mounted on a gimbal, which allows them to move freely in two axes – up and down and left to right – as you look through it. When the stabilized binocular is moved, the prisms stay where they were and then slowly come around to the new alignment. (Above text from Army manual. These binoculars were also to be purchased by the Navy for the NAVAIR branch.) =============================================== Subject: Huet binocular From: "jean-laurent pernice" Hello, maybe this binocular is known by the members of your list. I send to you for iconographic interest 2 pictures of an unusual Huet SGO model. It is a 8x40 binocular made for the french navy in 1953 with 2 particularity, roof prism (it is the first time that i see roof prism for Huet binoculars ) and a specific focusing system without dioptries numerals ,very difficult to turn and probably made for use like fixed focus system (this focusing system is the same for the 7x50 Huet navy binocular of 1960 seen on the Seeger's book figure 264 page 386.) The brightness is very high and the field of view also. all the best in 2002 for your binocular's list Regards Jean-Laurent ===================================================================