Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
Fastest Deckel DKL Lens? —— f/1.9 OR f/1.8? 
I'm wondering... I cannot find any information on a DKL or Deckel lens faster than f/1.9, viz. the fastest that I am aware of are:
Steinheil Quinon 1.9/50
Rodenstock Retina-Heligon 1.9/50
Schneider Retina-Xenon 1.9/50
Nevertheless, there are several adapters available having a fastest aperture f/1.8.
E.g.:
Can someone enlighten me, please?
I'm wondering... I cannot find any information on a DKL or Deckel lens faster than f/1.9, viz. the fastest that I am aware of are:
Steinheil Quinon 1.9/50
Rodenstock Retina-Heligon 1.9/50
Schneider Retina-Xenon 1.9/50
Nevertheless, there are several adapters available having a fastest aperture f/1.8.
E.g.:
Can someone enlighten me, please?
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
If the adapters came from the same maker, despite the different logo or label, then
maybe it was an engraving mistake ?
maybe it was an engraving mistake ?
Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
Hm... Meanwhile I've seen other DKL adaptors having an f/2 as their fastest aperture. But actually I've found only few with the correct number f/1.9.
Weird. Very weird.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
With the outside f numbers on the adapter you showed is for a leaf shuttered SLR, some of the fastest 50 mil lenses were f2 or f1.9 for those cameras using the DKL mount ( Futura had faster 50s but the camera was not an SLR or using a DKL mount) but I suppose an f1.8 lens could exist, but I am going by the most probable explanation.
Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
I guess you can answer: is this list here exhaustive?
http://forum.mflenses.com/the-dkl-lens-thread-t65951.html
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I would surmise it is exhaustive, but never say never.
I though most likely would go with Occam's Razor, if there exists two explanations for an occurrence. And in this case the one that requires the least speculation is usually better.
I think you’re placing far too much faith in the inclination of the third party manufacturers of such adapters in 2018, to be as concerned about absolute accuracy to the degree you’ve queried, as you are. It was probably simply close enough for them not to care about. And in actual use, neither should you. It’s inconsequential.
Generally, the presence of a shutter in the lenses of this class of SLRs imposes a physical limitation on the maximum aperture they could affordably and practically feature. It also impacted minimum focusing distances the lenses would have, in comparison with many others of similar focal length made for focal plane shutter bodies. If you’re having trouble finding lenses faster than f/1.9 it’s because few (if any) production types actually exist.
Cheers,
Brett
Generally, the presence of a shutter in the lenses of this class of SLRs imposes a physical limitation on the maximum aperture they could affordably and practically feature. It also impacted minimum focusing distances the lenses would have, in comparison with many others of similar focal length made for focal plane shutter bodies. If you’re having trouble finding lenses faster than f/1.9 it’s because few (if any) production types actually exist.
Cheers,
Brett
Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
Dear Brett,
You're correct, perhaps I'm a spoiled brat since the third party adapters that I happen to know are either British or German, from reputable makers with a real address, not from no-name makers in China that have just some ebay-store
That's true of course —— they have their limits, but these 60 years old Deckel lenses had and still have the benefit of great compactness, let alone compared to the most recent f/1.8 monstrosities for digital cameras
I agree, I do *not* expect to find a faster than f/1.9 DKL lens
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Maybe you can contact those British and German reputable adapter makers, with a real address and ask them the question of why the f1.8 engraving.. and which legendary lens makers of the past made such lenses with that f1.8 aperture and also ask them to ID or name such lenses.
Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
In fact, meanwhile I found some answer, given by an Illinois area code US American firm that also offers DKL-adapters: «All pictures are for illustration purposes only. Actual product may vary slightly due to ongoing improvements in design.»
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
In fact, meanwhile I found some answer, given by an Illinois area code US American firm that also offers DKL-adapters: «All pictures are for illustration purposes only. Actual product may vary slightly due to ongoing improvements in design.»
Ah, the simplest answer is always the best.
Occam and his razor comes through again
Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
This morning I've been told another possible explanation that has to do with East Asian superstition:
Probably most of these adapters go to customers in Japan.
But: The numbers 4 and 9 are considered particularly unlucky in Japanese: 4, pronounced shi, is a homophone for death (死); 9, when pronounced ku, is a homophone for suffering (苦).
Since it's just impossible to avoid the inauspicious «4» on an aperture scale, they decided to at least avoid the unlucky «[1.]9».
Hence they've replaced the correct but inauspicious number with either «2» or «1.8».
After all, and our scholastic friend William of Ockham would very likely agree: this sounds absolutely not illogical —— after a superstitious fashion of course.
Probably most of these adapters go to customers in Japan.
But: The numbers 4 and 9 are considered particularly unlucky in Japanese: 4, pronounced shi, is a homophone for death (死); 9, when pronounced ku, is a homophone for suffering (苦).
Since it's just impossible to avoid the inauspicious «4» on an aperture scale, they decided to at least avoid the unlucky «[1.]9».
Hence they've replaced the correct but inauspicious number with either «2» or «1.8».
After all, and our scholastic friend William of Ockham would very likely agree: this sounds absolutely not illogical —— after a superstitious fashion of course.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
This morning I've been told another possible explanation that has to do with East Asian superstition:
Probably most of these adapters go to customers in Japan.
But: The numbers 4 and 9 are considered particularly unlucky in Japanese: 4, pronounced shi, is a homophone for death (死); 9, when pronounced ku, is a homophone for suffering (苦).
Since it's just impossible to avoid the inauspicious «4» on an aperture scale, they decided to at least avoid the unlucky «[1.]9».
Hence they've replaced the correct but inauspicious number with either «2» or «1.8».
After all, and our scholastic friend William of Ockham would very likely agree: this sounds absolutely not illogical —— after a superstitious fashion of course.
That means any Mitutoyo micrometer or vernier caliper would never have a number 4 or a 9 engraved on those precision instruments.. and all those Japanese cars and motorcycles would be naturally be missing those bad hoodoo digits from their odometers to conform to Japanese superstition
Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
That means any Mitutoyo micrometer or vernier caliper would never have a number 4 or a 9 engraved on those precision instruments.. and all those Japanese cars and motorcycles would be naturally be missing those bad hoodoo digits from their odometers to conform to Japanese superstition
To an extent, they do exactly that; instantly, I did not find stuff regarding the «9», but this appears to be a good article covering the topic «4», and how they (even Western firms that have East Asian customers!) avoid the number 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraphobia
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I suspect that you set out to confuse your self with your over analysing your original question to a point of a Mandelbrot set like never ending micro complexity that veers way off from a simple number engraving mistake, which is the most likely explanation.. in great Occam Razor fashion.
Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
I suspect that you set out to confuse your self with your over analysing your original question to a point of a Mandelbrot set like never ending micro complexity that veers way off from a simple number engraving mistake, which is the most likely explanation.. in great Occam Razor fashion.
, regarding the original question: I'm 99.9% sure there was never any real f/1.8 «DECKEL» or «DKL» or «Compur bayonet» lens on the market. But I found this adapter-discrepancy annoying! BTW: That's really intriguing, there was a bellows unit available for the DKL SLRs:
http://www.der-klinterklater.de/ozubehoer.html
—— I knew that there were the WEP converters (by chance, I have one), but this bellows thing is a huge surprise!
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
BTW: That's really intriguing, there was a bellows unit available for the DKL SLRs:
http://www.der-klinterklater.de/ozubehoer.html
—— I knew that there were the WEP converters (by chance, I have one), but this bellows thing is a huge surprise!
Many things in life are annoying but we pick our fights carefully and we don't make mountains out of mole hills and move on to real life concerns.
If you were truly interested to find any answer to your original question then you should have taken up my suggestion and contacted the adapter manufacturer and asked them why the f1.8 engraving on their adapters.
Get the answer from the horse's mouth, anything else and you are wasting time unless.. you get off on Monty Pythonesque silly questions veering off to infinitude.
Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
Now it's you who is jumping to conclusions: In fact, I've checked my email correspondence —— and I found messages containing the search term «DKL». In fact, already years ago I had contact with a dealer of these adapters —— the answers he gave me were completely useless (and I was asking my questions in his native language!). —— Now to start digging for an address of a manufacturer of the adapters in question (and they're basically always in China today?) and then to send them a comprehensible question: that would mean a time consuming but very probably fruitless task!
mich rassena
Well-known
Most likely the design for the aperture ring has been lifted from one of dozens of similar lens adapters made at the same factory. While a mistake like this is not a sign of quality, its inaccuracy is a matter of trivia. Does the adapter work well? Did you get what you paid for? While I'm sure the $100 German adapters are beautiful works of art, the $10 adapters for my $20 lenses have worked adequately for my purposes.
There are also some nice-looking Chineses-made DKL rear lens caps in silver metal which are a good match for the lens and fit nicely all for less than $10.
There are also some nice-looking Chineses-made DKL rear lens caps in silver metal which are a good match for the lens and fit nicely all for less than $10.
retinax
Well-known
Apologies for hijacking the thread, but here is currently the highest concentration of DKL knowledge on the planet.
Would you know if there is a DKL-M42 adapter? If it can't be done, I'd resort to PK, but I'd prefer M42...
Would you know if there is a DKL-M42 adapter? If it can't be done, I'd resort to PK, but I'd prefer M42...