Only a theory but could be plausable

[CanonRFinder]

First, I have no connection with the following auction but something that I have muddled over the odd time. In the following auction the lens has a SIX digit serial #

http://cgi.ebay.com/Leitz-Leica-SM-Canon-Serenar-100mm-f4-Lens-in-Exc_W0QQitemZ300361279612QQcmdZViewItemQQptZFilm_C ameras?hash=item45eeed687c

On my database I have recorded nine 100mm f/4 lenses with SIX digit serial # and this is the tenth lens. Most of these six digit lenses are spread individually throughout my database BUT at times there seem to appear in batches, (this is also the case with other focal lengths where I have recorded six-digit serial #). Most of these six-digit # end with a zero (0) but I have also recorded a couple ending in one (1). I have recorded four 100mmf/4 lenses with serial #414600, #414650, #414670, and #414710 and to date have not recorded any lenses between these four lenses. My theory is that these lenses were to replace lenses that were lost after the lenses had left the factory for distribution. At the time Canon were producing lenses there must have been some law in Japan at that time preventing the duplication of serial #. If this was the case then to replace the “lost” lenses Canon replaced those with another lens with the same # except it now had a zero at the end designating a replacement lens. By coincident I decided to check the 85mm f/2 chart, there also is a batch of lenses with six-digit #, and at a rough calculation from my information it looks like these may have been a consignment that was lost early in 1950.:rolleyes:

74442

[nikonhswebmaster]

Much more likely they were duplicates, made at the factory, and they simply did not want to throw away the part.

Nikon did it, but added a colon, rather than engraving a number.

No way for Canon or Nikon to keep track of lenses once they entered the retail world, it was too large, and unregulated -- so the concept of "lost" did not exist.

Just a guess, I do not collect Canon.

[ZeissFan]

Actually, my own thought was, "What?"

I read this twice, and I still don't understand the question. I feel like an idiot (again).

However, you might want to pose this question to a Canon collectors forum. They probably have people who compile lists of serial numbers, and they should be able to share information with you.

[CanonRFinder]

I suppose life is boring at the moment as I have been told by the quack (Dr) to keep of my feet after doing a stupid thing by jumping of a ledge and badly bruising both heels last month while in the middle of a recent trip to France, Germany, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Anyway it was more an observation than a question and I suppose it makes research what it is “research” be it small or insignificant. Questions will be asked. I only wish there was a Canon Rangefinder forum like there is for Leica, Zeiss and Nikon but alas there isn’t or not yet (must chase up Mike Otto on that). Information and knowledge about Nikon wouldn’t be where it is if it wasn’t for Rotoloni, likewise with Leica and Laney, or Barringer & Small for Zeiss and many other researchers. Peter

[Brian Sweeney]

Now I'm going to have to look at the SN of my 100/4. I suspect it is run of the mill 5 digit. It makes sense that the 6th digit was added to replace a lens. What are the chances that it was just to replace the name ring of a repaired lens?

As far as doing the research on information like this, it's a tough -and often boring job- but I'm glad that some people are doing it!

I've spent a lot of hours in the lab staring at numbers for hours until figuring things out. Of course, being paid to do it helps pass the time.

[ferider]

I suppose life is boring at the moment as I have been told by the quack (Dr) to keep of my feet after doing a stupid thing by jumping of a ledge and badly bruising both heels last month while in the middle of a recent trip to France, Germany, Syria, Jordan and Egypt.

Very sorry to hear this, Peter. Hope you get better soon.

Interesting observation, too.

I have used results of your research multiple times in the past and am grateful it exists, together with similar work by Rotoloni on Nikons and Lager on Leicas.

Best,

Roland.

[Brian Sweeney]

Quite a few changes were quietly introduced into cameras, lenses, and other photographic equipment, and those who know the history and serial numbers have an advantage in selecting equipment from hunting grounds such as Ebay. That's one reason why my $67 1953 J-3 is every bit as good as the best wartime Sonnar.

[xayraa33]

CanonRFinder, you are doing some good investigative work on Canon RF gear.
Keep it up do not be dissuaded.

[CanonRFinder]

Ah, a lively discussion, which is what, I like to see. I check the RFF site quite often and skip most of the subjects unless they interest me in some way. I also know I should get of my butt and use some of my many Canon Rangefinder lenses I own so as I can enter into some of the discussions on why this lens is better than others in regards to Bokeh, vignette, contrasts etc and now the book is out of the way I will. I also knew that Nikon placed a colon after the serial # but Rotoloni (I have his books and NHS journals) is still unsure why and can only theorize. Another small thing that intrigued me was when Nikon collectors were mentioning a certain “tick” mark on F series lenses and by Googling, I found out what it was and why these lenses sell sometimes for high prices. All these small additions add to the knowledge of Nikon and likewise to other makes. My main aim and still is, is to broaden the knowledge on Canon RF gear, as there was nothing out there in the English language other than Peter Dechert’s book. Maybe now people who have purchased my book will realise that certain Canon RF Lenses are unique. I suppose I got a bit uptight about the “bored” remark but life is anything but that. Anyway, I will keep adding dribble to this forum, as there is really nowhere else to have a discussion or put a point across where people who are interested in other makes can access a variety of information besides variety is the spice of life. Peter

[Brian Sweeney]

http://www.canonrangefinder.servehttp.com/

Peter, Thankyou for maintaining your excellent site on Canon Rangefinders. It's been a great source for information. Quite a few of us do appreciate it, and the time and effort that goes into updating and maintaining it. Most of my Canon lenses are "R6's", but take great pictures.

I love taking things apart to find out what makes them tick. I do not have the patience to document the lessons learned in a format to share with others.

[MikeL]

I've mostly followed Nikon history through NHS, but I find the history of how things develop to be interesting and entertaining, and I appreciate your effort to bring that history to us. Thanks!

[Brian Sweeney]

The behavior on this thread by some RFF members is an embarassment. It's the best and worst of Internet forums.

Someone has gone out of their way to document a piece of trivia, and a bunch of cranky old men ridicule him for it.

On behalf of the RFF community, I apologize to Peter (CanonRFinder), and can only hope that he does not write RFF off of his list of forums to visit.

[PAN F]

Well spoken,Brian.
My thoughts entirely.

Peter (CanonRFinder).
Your information and postings on RFf about everything and anything CANON which helps to increase our knowledge of this important Japanese rangefinder camera manufacturer are very much welcomed and appreciated by the vast majority on this forum.

[BillBingham2]

I find this sort of thing very interesting as it puts information together about people. For the folks who find it boring I recommend the back button.

B2 (;->

[januaryman]

I agree with the above couple of posts and remind some of you (who know of this history) we have, in the past, lost valued members to the RF forum who possess valuable, specific knowledge about photo gear due to some unharnessed insults and snide remarks. So if your intent is to deride and mock opinions while supplying nothing of any worth, perhaps another forum might be more to your liking. I hear MySpace and Facebook enjoy such banter.

So I will also add my thanks to Peter and wish ONLY that he would discover the ENTER key, to break his many sentences into paragraphs! ;) I hope that won't drive him away....

Let's all lighten up. Remember, we already lost Brian once and had to badger him to return. I think Raid, also. To paraphrase your Moms, -- If you don't have anything nice to say --- Shut-Up!

Have a nice day.

[Mackinaw]

I, for one, find this Canon rangefinder minutiae fascinating. I love Peter's Canon rangefinder lens book and look forward to his upcoming book on Canon rangefinder accessories. The more he posts about this kind of stuff, the better.

Jim B.

[PAN F]

All I can say about members who don't want to discuss or learn about what they call "trivia" is for them to leave the Canon forum and take their " nit- picking" elsewhere and allow the rest of the Canon forum who want to continue with their research and discussion to do so in peace.

[nikonhswebmaster]

I have moved this thread to Canon History.

Please! No more comments regarding history, however trivial, being unimportant to photography.

I have spent many years collecting this kind of trivia about Nikons, lens types, formula, behavior, changes in coating, production dates, sales dates, duplicated lenses, etc, and many find it of interest.

If you do not -- no need to comment.

[nikonhswebmaster]

I agree with the above couple of posts and remind some of you (who know of this history) we have, in the past, lost valued members to the RF forum who possess valuable, specific knowledge about photo gear due to some unharnessed insults and snide remarks. So if your intent is to deride and mock opinions while supplying nothing of any worth, perhaps another forum might be more to your liking. I hear MySpace and Facebook enjoy such banter.

So I will also add my thanks to Peter

Well said, I do not want to have to say it again. There is little enough Canon and Nikon history on the RFF, let's not spoil it for guys like Peter, who bring a point of view I want to listen to! Without interruption!

[Brian Sweeney]

Thankyou, Fred.

It reads much better now.

[bennyng]

Thank you Fred. The derailed discussion was getting nowhere.

Peter, I've always enjoyed knowing as much as I can about the vintage optics and the information on these serial numbers. I am looking forward to your next book with great excitement!

Cheers,

p.s. Hope your legs get better soon.

[Mackinaw]

Peter, now that Fred has resolved this rather unfortunate situation, any more Canon rangefinder tidbits you want to tell us about?

Jim B.

[raid]

Ah, a lively discussion, which is what, I like to see. I check the RFF site quite often and skip most of the subjects unless they interest me in some way. I also know I should get of my butt and use some of my many Canon Rangefinder lenses I own so as I can enter into some of the discussions on why this lens is better than others in regards to Bokeh, vignette, contrasts etc and now the book is out of the way I will. I also knew that Nikon placed a colon after the serial # but Rotoloni (I have his books and NHS journals) is still unsure why and can only theorize. Another small thing that intrigued me was when Nikon collectors were mentioning a certain “tick” mark on F series lenses and by Googling, I found out what it was and why these lenses sell sometimes for high prices. All these small additions add to the knowledge of Nikon and likewise to other makes. My main aim and still is, is to broaden the knowledge on Canon RF gear, as there was nothing out there in the English language other than Peter Dechert’s book. Maybe now people who have purchased my book will realise that certain Canon RF Lenses are unique. I suppose I got a bit uptight about the “bored” remark but life is anything but that. Anyway, I will keep adding dribble to this forum, as there is really nowhere else to have a discussion or put a point across where people who are interested in other makes can access a variety of information besides variety is the spice of life. Peter

Peter,
Thank you for your observations regarding the Canon RF cameras and lenses. I bought your book a while ago, and I frequently read parts of it for enjoyment. Your contributions here are welcomed.

[harry01562]

I'm glad that the smoke has been cleared, and those interested in "trivia" or research, whichever you call it, can compile lists and gather arcane data without fear of ridicule or sarcasm.
Seriously, their is too little available on many facets of Canon history. We haven't had the benefits that Nikon and Leica have had until recently. The publishing of the Lenses book has increased awareness, and brought new people, and old people out of the closet. Most of us are hoping the next book will have a shorter gestation time, but we'll wait, nevertheless.
One observation, Peter, on the pics in the first post. I know you must have noticed that the last digit appears to be not quite in correct spacing and placement with those preceding. That might be a clue as to timing, if not reasons. Any thoughts?

Harry