Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

A Word about Russian Serial Numbers
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I find the whole serial number thing quite dubious. If the numbers beginning with "0XX" are early in the series, it could be that some were snaffled by factory managers and various dignitaries and this may have been the start of rumours. The rumour would then gain legs when some sellers realised that the lens with these numbers they had for sale could sell for a premium. Has anyone seen a reliable side by side test of a premium zero series and a humble normal series lens? If so, was there an appreciable difference?


PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
The rumour would then gain legs when some sellers realised that the lens with these numbers they had for sale could sell for a premium.


I've seen this a couple times now. Where are you seeing these higher prices? Most sellers and buyers have no idea about this serial system. All the lenses mentioned in this thread are dirt cheap anyways, aside from maybe the Helios 40.

Believe what you want but I don't it's that big a conspiracy. The pre-series lenses represent the earliest lenses produced in the production line-up. It seems to be common lore that quality control suffered in the later years. That's repeated by just about everybody with little to no evidence. It never gets challenged. Why wouldn't it be logical that the earliest lenses had the highest chance of being better?


PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The only meaningful IMHO explanation to those serial numbers I've read is that each time something in the production process has been changed - new equipment, new materials, new coating, new grease, changes in an assembly process etc etc - everything - the serial numbers were switched to start from 0 until the changes have proved themselves and production process were stabilized.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I also don't believe in big conspiracy, but common sense tells that the earliest lenses should not be the best ones. It takes time while all the wrinkles in the technological process gets ironed.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sorry if my post suggested I suspected a conspiracy - that wasn't my intention. I just think a "rumour" has become a "fact" with much re-telling. I just think there are too many "0XX" lenses about for them to be specially made for people of importance. It doesn't bother me one way or another as I have never had a bad Helios lens. I have owned 6 Helios 44 variants and I realise that this isn't extensive sampling, but the quality seems to have been consistently decent.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm not particularly adamant about defending my original post. I'd be more more inclined to believe dimitrygo's last post but that's just as unsubstantiated currently.

I find it interesting that suddenly the information I simply relayed from the Zenit Camera Group years ago is under scrutiny now. If anyone was that interested in the source, they should have contacted Mr. Berry. He, according to the short bio I posted, has sadly passed though. So I think that info may be lost.

There are posts about the quality difference between white MC and red MC for zeiss or ausJena vs. Carl Zeiss Jena. Those threads stretch for pages and are as equally unsupported with real evidence. Maybe start those up again.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 6:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hello Moleman,

I am really sorry if I offended you or your source. This was not my intention. In this thread you seem to be the most knowledgeable of all posters.

A few things remain unclear:
* What triggered a lens to be export (normal script) or local (cyrilic)?
* How come some 0-numbered lenses (for high ranked officials in the factory and country and test models) have the normal script?


The story about 00 lenses "made in USSR" being made in 2000 does not fly. They are simply too heavy. Rolling Eyes Your explanation is more convincing.


However, there are a lot more things unclear about that region in that period. I think so far we have gotten very far.

Thanks again for your valuable contribution!


PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Could the normal script and cyrilic script have something to do with USSR and all it's post Soviet states? Surprised


PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Focus: very heavy wrote:
Well, if the lens was made in 2002, then there would not have been the indication Made in USSR, wouldnt it?

Oh, yes, of course.
I was just joking. Sorry for misundertsanding. Smile


PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Is not the use of the word "normal", as opposed to "Cyrillic", unfortunate ? The Cyrillic alphabet is entirely "normal" in a number of countries, just as the Roman alphabet is "normal" in others.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You're right Sichko.
Nordentro meant "normal for him in his country". Wink


PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sichko wrote:
Is not the use of the word "normal", as opposed to "Cyrillic", unfortunate ? The Cyrillic alphabet is entirely "normal" in a number of countries, just as the Roman alphabet is "normal" in others.


Indeed. But I have read Nordentro's message, and it does not seem to me that his intent was discriminatory, just inadvertent.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Is not the use of the word "normal", as opposed to "Cyrillic", unfortunate ? The Cyrillic alphabet is entirely "normal" in a number of countries, just as the Roman alphabet is "normal" in others.


Yeah, it's a bit Euro-centric. I think dividing them as Roman and Cyrillic would be good, to avoid confusion.

As far as what determined what lenses received what characters, I can't say.

Saying a lens is "reserved" for a member of the party is not the same as saying the lens is made for a member of the party. I don't think workers were on the factory floor saying "Oh, this ones for Mr. Pavlov, better make it good." But this seems to be what people imagine. Maybe factory managers got "first-dibs," so to speak, but nothing more than that.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
sichko wrote:
Is not the use of the word "normal", as opposed to "Cyrillic", unfortunate ? The Cyrillic alphabet is entirely "normal" in a number of countries, just as the Roman alphabet is "normal" in others.


Indeed. But I have read Nordentro's message, and it does not seem to me that his intent was discriminatory, just inadvertent.


I was speaking quite generally and not pointing at any individual. I made no comment on intent. That's why I used the word "unfortunate" and not something accusatory.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Imagine you're a production manager at KMZ in the 1970s. How would you decide which lenses had markings in Roman script and which had Cyrillic?

For the UK (and I think Holland), the sole importer of USSR equipment was a company called Technical & Optical Equipment Ltd and I would imagine they ordered cameras and lenses in batches from KMZ (or probably some government organisation covering all the factories) according to how well the items were selling. The T&OE export orders received at the factory would undoubtedly have been designated to have Roman markings. Other orders, from within the USSR and other countries who use the Cyrillic alphabet (Yugoslavia for example), would have been designated to have Cyrillic markings.

I don't believe the style of lettering has any bearing on the quality of manufacture, except for the coincidence that export orders were possibly given more stringent inspection. T&OE used to test and calibrate cameras and lenses before sending them to retail outlets, and they would have rejected and returned anything that didn't come up to scratch.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
Imagine you're a production manager at KMZ in the 1970s. How would you decide which lenses had markings in Roman script and which had Cyrillic?

For the UK (and I think Holland), the sole importer of USSR equipment was a company called Technical & Optical Equipment Ltd and I would imagine they ordered cameras and lenses in batches from KMZ (or probably some government organisation covering all the factories) according to how well the items were selling. The T&OE export orders received at the factory would undoubtedly have been designated to have Roman markings. Other orders, from within the USSR and other countries who use the Cyrillic alphabet (Yugoslavia for example), would have been designated to have Cyrillic markings.

I don't believe the style of lettering has any bearing on the quality of manufacture, except for the coincidence that export orders were possibly given more stringent inspection. T&OE used to test and calibrate cameras and lenses before sending them to retail outlets, and they would have rejected and returned anything that didn't come up to scratch.

I think most Helios 44 family lenses made by KMZ were marked in Roman script regardless of their destination. Exceptions are very early models and small series that all were marked in Cirillic. Some lenses like Zenitar-M 50mm f1.7 probably indeed were marked according to their market.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sichko wrote:
Orio wrote:
sichko wrote:
Is not the use of the word "normal", as opposed to "Cyrillic", unfortunate ? The Cyrillic alphabet is entirely "normal" in a number of countries, just as the Roman alphabet is "normal" in others.


Indeed. But I have read Nordentro's message, and it does not seem to me that his intent was discriminatory, just inadvertent.


I was speaking quite generally and not pointing at any individual. I made no comment on intent. That's why I used the word "unfortunate" and not something accusatory.


Sometimes word just slips out, "normal" in this case is of course thought from my point of view,
I'm sorry if I offended some Surprised

I actually prefer Cyrillic version lenses because it's a little bit more exotic for me Wink

Regards
Lars


PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nordentro wrote:
I'm sorry if I offended some Surprised

Me too.

Quote:
I actually prefer Cyrillic.....because it's a little bit more exotic for me Wink

Again, me too ..


Street sign, Varna


PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi, I was looking for some history on my Helios-40T and I stumbled upon this thread, which seems to have some experts Very Happy
What I've found so far is that the Helios-40T is supposed to be a tv-lens. But mine has a m42-thread, I always assumed tv-lenses had other mounts and or different flange distances?
Secondly my lens has the serial number 000011. This doesn't really fit with the explanation of serial numbers that start with zeros (see first post of this thread).
Also this lens lacks a depth-of-field scale, which I haven't seen on any other pictures of Helios-40.

I've had this lens for a couple of years, and I've always been a bit intrigued by it, but now I finally tried searching for some info, but I've found very little. Maybe some of the experts here know a bit Smile

Some pictures:

#1

#2

#3


PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
SuperTL wrote:
Hi, I was looking for some history on my Helios-40T and I stumbled upon this thread, which seems to have some experts Very Happy
What I've found so far is that the Helios-40T is supposed to be a tv-lens. But mine has a m42-thread, I always assumed tv-lenses had other mounts and or different flange distances?
Secondly my lens has the serial number 000011. This doesn't really fit with the explanation of serial numbers that start with zeros (see first post of this thread).
Also this lens lacks a depth-of-field scale, which I haven't seen on any other pictures of Helios-40.

I've had this lens for a couple of years, and I've always been a bit intrigued by it, but now I finally tried searching for some info, but I've found very little. Maybe some of the experts here know a bit Smile

Some pictures:

#1
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20126/big_5741_IMG_0029_1.jpg]

[/url]
#2

#3



Photos don't show on your first ever post on this forum (anti spam measure). If you post a reply they will show up on your original post.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ooohhh ! Very Happy
It's an old one for sure : alu and 8,5cm.
Great lens. How did you have it ?


PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've always read the T was supposed to stand for Television. Could translate to better quality testing/assurance?
The serial pattern fits, it's just a very early production. The 11th made.
One post (I think on the Pentax forum) I read mentioned different coatings on the 40T: A one layer manual chemical coating. Looking at the reflection pattern on yours, it looks like the typical Helios 40.
Should be a very good lens. It's quite rare too.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think you could get some extra $$ just for that serial. Awesome lens, congratz Very Happy


PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks, it is a great lens! It's definetly not my most used one, but it would be hard to miss it for portraits. And I hope to soon be able to try it on digital as well.
I bought the lens from http://www.okvintagecamera.com/ in 2005.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Don't believe the hype about the serial numbers. Zeros at the start just indicate a preseries.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5