Mar 28, 2017 - -- Ihagee non Exakta. Jan 17, 2019 - Welcome to the Pentax Serial Number Database at PentaxForums.com!

C/qaadir Zeyd Axmed oo kamid ah madaxda hay’adda Hayad Foundation oo maalmahan kusugnaa magaalada Cadaado ayaa maanta qado sharaf u sameeyay naafada Cadaado. Wap obmenniki vse. Zoli 24.12.16 13:43 comment6, italiansko-russkii. Rikku 24.12.16 10:00 comment6, Blank.

I have a Fa 77 Limited that I brought new about 5 years ago. The serial number is under a thousand. The first four digits of the seven digits serial number are zeros. Going by the serial number would you say that this was a very early copy of the Fa 77 Limited? The box it came in and the lenses sure looked brand new.

Also this is a silver copy if that makes a different. I have been curious about this for a while and if this is a early copy it makes you wonder how long it was sitting on a shelf before being sold to me or maybe it was a case of Pentax using up old parts. Well yes, probably, but not a simple one.

Microsoft 2008 r2 32 bit. When comparing it with Windows themes settings it is not better than that of Windows.

Different manufacturers will have different ways of doing things serial number wise, especially if the building of the same lens is out-sourced to different factories. I have no idea if that (contracting out manufacture) applies to modern Pentax. My experience in this is with tracking down the provenance of classic Vivitar Series 1 lenses, for which most of the numbering is based on identifying which of the various sub-contracting companies actually built the lens; and as that went from one sub-contractor to the next there is probably some sort of time-line. The final few digits may give some sort of clue as to the number in the run, but I wouldn't count on it. Batch number, maybe. This is the first time I've thought about this, but getting drawn in, it seems to be absurd to think that as every lens clunks off the production line, the serial number etched into/onto it goes up by 1? Surely no way?

Gerry Winterbourne wrote: There seems to be no logic to the serial numbers. Here are some of mine: DA* 200/2.8 - 9031976 DFA 100/2.8 macro - 9340193 DA 70/2.4 - 0002300 FA 50/1.4 - 5886226 DA 35/2.8 Macro - 9275597 The FA 50 is relatively old, both in design and when I bought it. The three starting with 9 are probably in the order I bought them but the DA70 comes from somewhere in the middle. I’m beginning to think that there is no real meaning to the serial numbers as there is no way that more Da 35mm Macro lenses were made than the Fa. John Michael Winterbourne wrote: This is the first time I've thought about this, but getting drawn in, it seems to be absurd to think that as every lens clunks off the production line, the serial number etched into/onto it goes up by 1? Surely no way? That would have been the initial definition of a serial number, I think--a number that was assigned to the thing in serial order.

For many products, this is exactly what was and is done; but it is of course not the only method. For the limited lenses, I think this may be what Pentax does. The other forum website has a serial number database, which makes for interesting perusal if you're a nerd like me and into that sort of thing. Otherwise, it's likely almost as exciting as reading through the phone book. I didn't think of that - and no, I have never personally seen any reference to that (duplicate numbers, and by implication multiplied several/many times over). I've just looked very closely at a Super-Takumar 1:1.4/50, 1827055, and all of the letters/numbers are white paint in slightly recessed receptors, for want of a better word.

The same goes for a CZJ MC Sonnar 135/3.5 (10650290) - except the 'MC' on the Sonnar is in red;-)) Maybe that's why they were the bosses in their day, with such a rep for build quality. I hereby withdraw my 'surely not!' More research is clearly needed.or, probably better to say I need to do more googling to find research that other folk have already done. The other place's database isn't very enlightening, so I expanded the scope, and came up with this, and I'm going to have to eat my words: 'Various lenses with the Praktisix/Pentacon Six mount were optically re-calculated over the period of many decades during which they were produced. One example is the 80mm Biometar.

The original version of this lens in the Praktisix/Pentacon Six mount was calculated on 5th June 1956, although the first batch of this lens in what was at the time called the Praktisix mount was not produced until 24th March 1959. Over the following 30 years, almost all of the 80mm Biometars that were produced used the 1956 calculation. However, on 31st October 1979 the 80mm Biometar was re-calculated. Nevertheless, even after this date most of the 80mm Biometars produced were to the original calculation. Ten years later, on 29th March 1989, just one batch of 6,000 80mm Biometars was produced using the new calculation. The serial numbers of that batch are 42,001 – 48,000' Sorry for the CZJ detail, but I hope it's informative in this context, as it seems absolutely clear that each of the 6,000 had its own number. The number on my copy of this lens - the bog standard 'standard lens' on the 6x6 MF Pentacon 6 tank - is 33337 so presumably a bit earlier.