Mistakes In Uli Koch's Books

[RonVol]

Long considered to be the Bible for collectors of Nikon gear, but like that other book more commonly referred to as 'The Bible', it appears to contain errors.

It's quite possibly that's it's me that is in fact making the error here; but in Uli's book about the Nikkors, on page 54 he claims that the first production version of the Nikkor-H 2.8cm f/3.5 was one of the so called 'tick-mark' lenses. Now this would make a total of 5 F-mount Nikkors that had 'tick-marks' on them - 3.5cm f/2.8, 5cm f/2, 10.5cm f/2.5, 13.5cm f/3.5 and this one.
This is news to me as I have always assumed that there were only 4 of the F-mount Nikkors with tick-marks (on both the focus & aperture rings).
Uli goes on to claim that 2.8cm lenses between 301011 - 301171 were in the tick-mark range.
Now I have never seen a 2.8cm F-mount with tick-marks (other than the prototype versions) and am wondering if someone has in fact seen one of these lenses with tick-marks?

I guess that it's inevitable that mistakes are made given the broad scope that Uli's trilogy covers.

[Roland Vink]

Hi Ron, I have Uli's Nikon F Lens book, but not the others in the trilogy. Unfortunately this book contains many mistakes, the reference to the tick-mark 2.8cm lens is one of them. I know you are aware of more than one 2.8cm lens with serial numbers in the range 301011 - 301171 (first 60 lenses produced) and none have tick-marks. I've never seen any, otherwise it would be in my database. I have seen a picture showing a prototype 2.8cm lens with tick-marks which you also are aware of, but the serial number is not visible, possibly it is in the range 300001 - 301010.

Uli's book also mentions a PC 35/3.5 with 7 aperture blades (they only have 6), and a change to the optical formula of the 105/2.5 which does not exist. He also speculates the picture of a prototype 55/1.2 is actually a modified 50/1.4 because the name-ring is inside the filter ring, discounting the possibility the filter ring might be 60 or 62mm, even though the proportions of the lens match the 55/1.2 and not the 50/1.4:


Some of the serial number information is not accurate either. Perhaps that can be forgiven as his book was published some years ago and more information has come available since then. I can't comment on the accuracy of the other books in the trilogy as I have never seen them.

[RonVol]

Thanks for info and confirmation Roland.
I had been receiving feedback about the discrepancy between what is shown in Uli's book and what you show on your site.
Some had been suggesting that if the info is in Uli's book then it must be correct and your data is wrong.
One must try to not believe everything one reads!

[Roland Vink]

If anyone has questions about the accuracy about my site, they only need to contact me. I am quite happy to correct any mistakes, or put anyone right who comes with mis-information. I try to keep facts, that which I have directly seen one way or another, although I do make educated guesses about start points for serial numbers.

My site is a living document so it's easy to change things, unlike a book which is frozen once printed. I have been in contact with Uli over many years and let him know about some mistakes, which he freely acknowledges.