Related Local Links:
Cautionary Tale on Fitting a Tokina Lens
   to a Minolta Maxxum Camera (Peter Van Eyk)
Samigon Lenses

Related Links:
About Dr. Optiks
Camera Mount Adapter FAQ
(interchangeable mounts)
Canon Camera Museum
Chinon 35mm Pages
Japan Photography History
Kalimar
Kalimex 35mm Lenses
(post-soviet Ukraine/Czech)
Kalimex (Kiev)
My View on Mfgers (Klaus Schroiff)
Nikon Corp. History
Optical Glass Manufacturers
Promaster
Samsung History
Samyang/Phoenix
Short History of Japanese Lenses Sicor Optics
Sigma Lens Site [02/00]
Sigma Lenses
Soligor T2 Lenses (for Miranda) [11/2002]
Soligor Lenses [11/2002]
Spiratone History
Tamron
Tokina
Tokina (UK)
Vivitar
Who Made Your Vivitar Lens (Cameraquest) [3/2003]

Third Party Lens Makers

These Japanese manufacturers would generally be considered to be OEMs:

Here is a listing of some 22 Japanese third party lenses makers active in Japan in 1984 (not an exhaustive listing, just the better known ones...)

Who's Who: OEMs, Third Party Lens Makers, Importers

Let's start by reviewing who's who in lens making, focusing on 35mm lenses. Camera makers such as Canon and Nikon make their own lenses, in their own factories, using their own designs and quality control procedures. These lens manufacturers are OEMs (original equipment manufacturers). The lenses which pass their rigorous inspections are stamped with their own maker's name.

Those OEM lenses that fail inspection are destroyed or remanufactured (reworked), but they are not sold under anybody else's name or label.

I can't rule out the possibility that an OEM could lease or use a third party lens manufacturing line to build their lenses. But if they did, they would certainly have to meet their OEM lens specifications too. They would be branded and sold as Nikon or Canon or whatever lenses, and would be. But it makes no sense for Nikon to make a lens to its specifications and then sell it for a lot less under another brand name.

Third party lens makers include such manufacturers as Tokina, Tamron, Sigma, and Samyang. These companies make and design lenses for a variety of camera mounts and bodies. A few of these companies have recently branched out to build camera bodies (Sigma, Samyang). But their main focus is still on lenses. Their hope is that you will be attracted to their lenses for their features and low costs, rather than the OEM's own lens offerings.

Importers obviously import these third party lenses into the U.S., but they sometimes add to the name game confusion by adding their own trademark or brand name on their imported lenses. So many wide angle lenses made by Sigma were imported by Spiratone Inc. in the 1970s. They were labeled as Accura or Spiratone brand name lenses. Cambridge Camera Exchange uses the Cambron trademark for its imported lenses (e.g., Vivitar 19mm). Similarly, Quantaray is Ritz Camera's import trademark under which its imported lenses are imported and sold.

Brand Names and Branding

Without research, you can't be sure if the particular import branded lens is made by Sigma, or Tokina, or some other entity. In many cases, the same lens might be made by several different third party makers over the life of production. However, it is also possible for a lens maker (e.g., Vivitar) to make a lens to a slightly different specification to meet an importer's request. So while your research and mine might suggest that these variously branded lenses are the same lens (e.g., 19mm f3.8), you can't be 100% certain they are optically or mechanically identical.

Recently, some third party lens makers have shifted or hollowed out lens making to factories in China, Malaysia, and other Asian countries with low labor rates. Even the OEMs such as Nikon are now assembling some of their cameras and lenses in China and elsewhere. Again, where the lens is made and by whom matters far less than the quality standards both optically and mechanically to which that lens was built.

For various reasons, third party manufacturers also try to establish a brand name. The Korean lens maker Samyang has used the Phoenix brand and trademark for some of its lenses imported and sold in the U.S. The same lenses have reportedly been sold under the Samyang, Phoenix, Cosina, and Vivitar names and trademarks. You may only find this out by reading the fine print in a magazine review of the lens (e.g., reviews by Popular Photography).

Tokina Optical Corp. tested the U.S. market under the Asanuma brand name, then switched to using its own name. Vivitar provided many optics for Hanimex brand cameras. Samyang is developing the Phoenix brand name in the U.S. market today. Brands are important to consumers. But it is easier to introduce a new high-end brand name than to remake an older brand's consumer image (cf. Vivitar Series I below).

Vivitar is an interesting example of how flexible third party lens makers can be. Vivitar originally made and imported a series of lenses. They poured money into designing and making a highest possible optical quality lens line in the mid-1970s. Vivitar gained some fame for their higher quality Series I lenses in the 1970s and 1980s, especially among the small but picky market of professional users.

The company reportedly also selected lenses made by other third party lens makers in Japan. Vivitar imported these lenses under its Vivitar and other importer's lens brand names as a lower tier of consumer oriented lenses. More recently, Vivitar has reportedly focused on lens design (a high value added approach), while outsourcing actual lens construction (e.g., to lesser known third party manufacturer's factories in Japan and China).

Personally, I find Vivitar's eclectic approach to provide a challenge in identifying some of the real gems in their earlier lens lineups. While the later Series I lenses could be quite good, the first Series I lenses were often unique optics never duplicated by subsequent designers (e.g., 135mm f/2.3, 28mm f/1.9).

In some cases, you may be able to get a Samyang wide angle zoom lens imported under the Phoenix name for less than the same lens under the Samyang or Vivitar or Cosina brand names.

In other cases, you have to be careful that you are getting a top quality Vivitar lens (typically their Series I line), rather than an upgraded consumer lens. How can you recognize some of their better lens offerings? A major hint is that their faster lenses (e.g., 200mm f/3, 28mm f/1.9, and solid 600mm and 800mm solid cat mirror lenses) were professional photographer market lenses. In the case of the latter two solid catadioptic mirror lenses, these Vivitar mirror lenses were actually made by telescope maker Perkin Elmer Inc. (as in NASA space telescope).

While a generic Vivitar consumer zoom may be a modest performer optically, a similar Vivitar zoom marked Series I, their highest quality trademark, might be a high or even top quality optic.

Pushing the Specs

To make lens identification even more challenging, some importers (e.g., Cambron) push the specs. For example, a lens might test as a 19mm f3.8 +/- 10%. The importer will advertise these lenses as being a 19mm f3.5 lenses, at the best side of the range. You think they must have a better faster lens than what everybody else is advertising. But they just have pushed the lens specs in their ads. (see Ultra Wide Angle Lenses for more examples)

Similarly, an ultra-wide angle zoom lens is listed as 17-28mm lens, when it is really a 17.92mm to 24.8mm range zoom. That's really 18-25mm in my book, but 17-28mm sounds a lot more impressive.

My point here is that it can be quite difficult to identify a given lens as being the same as some other one under a different name. So while I suspect that the 19mm f3.8 Vivitar for circa $100+ US is the same lens that Cambridge Camera Exchange is selling for $90+ US as their 19mm f3.5 Cambron, I can't prove it in court.

OEMs Get Into the Action

I should also add that the OEMs haven't given up competing with these third party lens makers. For example, Nikon has come out with their Series E lenses. These lenses are excellent optically, with very good sharpness and color correction. However, they use lower cost manufacturing techniques such as internal plastic parts and single coated lens elements rather than the more costly all-metal lens barrels and multi-coated lens coatings. (See OEMs Low Cost Lens Lines)

On a related point, you will find that the OEMs such as Canon and Nikon are competing aggressively for the mass-market lenses such as the popular 80-210mm zooms. Their prices may be very much more competitive with the third party manufacturers on these consumer lenses. Typically, their build quality and optical quality will be very similar to that of the third party manufacturers near the same price point.

Despite the rumors, these lenses are almost certainly made by or under the quality control inspection of the OEMs (e.g., Nikon). It is rather unlikely that some third party lens offering is being bought and the Nikon label simply slapped on. If you were Nikon or Canon, would you want to trust your reputation with lenses produced by a competitor? The OEMs may accept a lower profit margin on these high volume lenses. They also use advanced technology and automated factories to lower costs for these large production run lenses.

The farther you get from these mass-market consumer lens entries, the more professional the lens is in speed and quality of build. For these OEM professional class lenses, the profit markups and costs diverge greatly from the consumer mass-market lenses they choose to make to compete against third party lens makers.

In a study of ultrawide lens prices, we have seen OEM lenses (Nikon) are three times the cost of similar speed and aperture third party lenses of high optical and build quality.

This competition from third party sources is healthy for the industry, and provides more choices and better optics to us as 35mm camera users. You can compare the vigorous 35mm third party lens market with the much more limited medium format third party lens offerings. Lacking such competition, many medium format optics are much older designs (many from the 1940s!) at often astronomical prices.

So be thankful that you will benefit from the existence of 35mm third party lens makers, whether you stick to buying OEM lenses or put some of these third party optics on your own camera!

The big three third party lens manufacturers today are Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma (in alphabetical order). Tamron and Tokina have dual track lens lines, with a higher priced professional series (SP, ATX) and lower priced consumer models. Sigma has a more diverse line, with a mixture of consumer and higher cost models. Other manufacturers and importers such as Samyang/Phoenix (Cosina) and Vivitar also have mixes of low and mid-range consumer and a few higher end lenses too.

In general, the more expensive and higher quality lenses may also use special glass formulae, known as apochromatic or low-dispersion glasses. These special glasses bend all three primary colors (red, green, blue) to the same point, unlike more typical achromatic (two color) glass elements used in less expensive lenses. These special glasses replace very expensive (and somewhat delicate) fluorite crystal elements, e.g., as used by Canon in their early apochromatic lens designs.

You will also be dealing with more recent lenses when you see an internal focusing (IF) lens. This design makes focusing faster. Since the front of the lens doesn't rotate, you also don't have to keep re-setting your polarizer or other filter positions too.

Finally, faster lens speed (larger apertures) are also a tip-off that the lens was probably a higher priced professional model. Typically, lens prices tend to double or even triple as you buy an extra stop of speed (e.g., going from f/4 to f/2.8).

Constant aperture in a zoom is also expensive, and a sign of more costly design too. A constant aperture telephoto zoom has to be a lot larger physically at the far end of the telephoto range to maintain the same f/stop. A variable aperture tele-zoom (e.g., f/4 to f/5.6) is cheaper to make and design, but can become really slow in the mid and far-telephoto zoom ranges.

The top Tamron lenses are usually indicated by the SP for super performance in their lens line. Many Tamron lenses also feature interchangeable mounts. In fact, the T in T-mounts stands for Tamron (or Taisei, the Japanese company's name). Besides the venerable T-mount, Tamron helped develop the T-2 and T-4 interchangeable lens mounts. The T-4 interchangeable mount was also popular in the Vivitar version known as TX interchangeable mounts.

Tamron's efforts continued with the early and somewhat clunky adaptamatic mounts, which led to the more popular adaptall and adaptall-2 current interchangeable mounts. So one of the big attractions to Tamron lens offerings is the possibility of getting an interchangeable mount version of their lenses for use on many different camera brands. When you see a used Tamron lens in the wrong lens mount, it is worth determining if you can swap out the lens mount for your camera brand.

Tokina Optical Corp. has a mix of lens designs in both consumer and high-end models. Their most expensive and best lenses earn their ATX lens designation, followed by their mid-line SMZ and SZX series, and then their lower end consumer EMZ and ELZ models. Tokina's top lenses use special low dispersion glass (SD and HLD). They also make autofocus lenses for various mounts, including Nikon, Canon (EOS), Minolta, and Pentax.

Tokina began importing lenses into the U.S. market under the Asanuma brand name in the mid-1970s, but then switched to developing their own corporate Tokina brand recognition.

Sigma is one of the earliest third party lens makers. They earned their initial fame with a variety of low-cost wide angle lenses. These wide and ultra-wide angle lenses were imported under a variety of importer names (e.g., Accura, Spiratone). Sigma has since developed a full line of prime and zoom lenses. Their best lenses have been labeled XQ. Many Sigma XQ lenses were made with their apochromatic glasses, and so also receive their APO designation.

While Sigma has some very fine current lenses, you will find a number of vociferous former owners online who denigrate some mechanical faults with one or more past Sigma lenses. The SIGnificant Malfunctions site lists both pro and con reports (site dropped in 3/2001). Sigma Lens Tests from Pop. Photography provides a rather better view of Sigma.

My impression is that most of the real quality problems were confined to a few models in particular. Recently, Sigma seems to be making major efforts to improve their service quality and customer satisfaction levels. But like Rodney Dangerfield, Sigma lenses just can't get the respect that they want and deserve. Again, this consumer and dealer mis-perception can translate into some real buys if you find the right lens at a great price.

The remaining third party lens manufacturers are much less well known than the top three. The situation is further confused since the independent manufacturers often work for each other, both for performing design and production tasks.

Samyang is a Korean third party lens maker whose lenses are reportedly distributed under both their own name and various importer names (Phoenix, Cosina, Vivitar). Their specialty is cutting costs by innovative redesign and reductionist re-engineering, using one less lens element here and a cheaper optical glass there. These savings add up quickly, producing some low-cost lenses for the mid-range consumer market.

Some of their most popular lenses are their super-wide prime lenses and especially super-wide consumer zooms. They also have some great buys in long telephoto lenses too. The Cosina online site and #800 have recently (10/98) been disconnected in the U.S., so expect some close-outs under that brand!

Vivitar started out producing accessories such as electronic flash units, and then got into the business of importing, designing, and manufacturing lenses. They are reportedly focusing their current efforts on value-added lens designing, preferring to out-source lower value-added manufacturing to other third party lens makers where they can.

Vivitar is best known for its cult classic Series I lenses from the late 1970s and 1980s. Vivitar took a rather innovative approach to achieve top optical quality, regardless of the loss of convenience and weight of these lenses.

A typical example is the Series I 90-180mm f/4.5 VMC flat-field macro lens from 1978 which cost $400+ (equivalent to over $1,000 in current 1998 dollarettes). This lens is huge (6+ inches), heavy (2.3 lbs), and has a very limited 2:1 zoom range.

A similarly priced Series I 35-85mm f/2.8 zoom used a vari-focal design, as well as being rugged, heavy (26oz.), and optically excellent for its time period (also 1978). In this case, you sacrifice the convenience of a true zoom for a vari-focal, meaning you have to refocus the lens after each shift in focal length.

Vivitar also came out with some odd-ball f/stop fast and sharp Series I prime lenses such as the 135mm f/2.3 ($220 in 1977) and 28mm f/1.9 ($300+ in 1978).

Sadly, these expensive lens did not catch on with the public, and were a marketing disaster. The later Series I lenses switched to a less rugged construction and more normal f/stop and cost ranges, while still providing an additional step up in optical quality.

Many of these earlier, high quality Vivitar Series I lenses are still respectable optical performers even against today's tough third party lens competition. Since the Vivitar name is usually associated with lower price bracket consumer zooms, you can often pick up one of these gems as a bargain. See cult lenses page for more details.

Unfortunately, Vivitar has used its brand on not only its own lens designs, but also on lenses designed and made by other third party manufacturers. Presumably, these lenses were made to Vivitar's specs. But low price point is an obvious major factor in many of these later designs. They also provided lenses to importer's specifications under the importer's brand names too. Conversely, they have relabeled and resold lenses produced by Samyang under their brand name recently too.

Kiron was the third party lens line of Kino Precision Optical Corp. of Japan. Kino Precision Optical actually was a behind-the-scenes manufacturer for other third party lens makers and importers such as Vivitar. Kiron came out with their own lens series and designs, and imported them directly into the U.S. and elsewhere during the 1980s.

I consider Kiron lenses to be great value for the money. These Kiron lenses are later designs than the original Vivitar Series I lenses, without using quirky odd-f/stops or varifocal zoom designs.

I have both a 28-210mm Kiron zoom and a 28-210mm Vivitar zoom from that mid-80's period. My Kiron 28-210mm zoom is significantly sharper and better, as well as slightly heavier and longer than my Vivitar zoom. Besides a number of zooms, they also made some f/2 24mm and 28mm lenses, as well as a 105mm f/2.8 macro lens.

To me, this observation suggests that Kino Precision Optical Inc. did their own designs and so may have improved on the Vivitar's design. I suspect they wanted to establish their own name's identity as a higher quality brand during their initial entry into the major U.S. market.

Because Kiron only distributed a modest number of lens models and numbers, they are not well known in the U.S. under their own name. But many of their lenses are on lots of cameras under other brand names, including Vivitar. So you can often find these under-valued Kiron lenses at pretty attractive prices too.

There are a number of other third party lens makers who aren't covered above. These makers range from the venerable French originators of the retrofocus lens design, Angenieux - to the various U.S. optical niche manufacturers.

Besides telescopes (B&L, Bushnell, Coulter, Meade, Questar), you can also buy some specialty telephoto lenses by Century Precision Corp. (CPC) in the U.S. Other manufacturers such as Novoflex and Dr. Optik in Europe have long supplied specialty third party lenses (and lens mount adapters in the case of Dr. Optik).

Finally, Kalimex in Kiev (Ukraine) supplies some very innovative third party lenses, including a 35mm Nikon mount shift lens ($280 US). These Kiev lenses represent the culmination of the post-Soviet empire's optical manufacturing efforts. Their earlier MTO sniper telephoto lenses are still highly regarded by many users.

Samigon Lenses

Someone asked about Samigon lenses, which were popular in the 1970s as a low cost series of prime lenses (35mm $62, 135mm f/2.8 $69, and 300mm f/5 $145). The 35mm does surprisingly well in central resolution for a low cost optic, as does the 135mm.

But most of us today would be more interested in the 300mm f/5, which is a good bit faster than the lower cost f/5.6 lenses often found, if slower than the prosumer 300mm f/4.5 and f/4 lenses out there. The odd part about the Samigon 300mm lens is how it is optimized for wide open use, at f/5 (max. opening) through f/8, but but falls off after that. This pattern is what you would want in a low cost 300mm, rather than the more usual improvements with stopping down to f/11 and f/16. You might also like the fact that the f/5 lens speed is still pretty fast, and usable wide open per the ratings, but less than the usual 300mm f/4 or f/4.5 pro-sumer lens speed. This parameter means the lens probably uses smaller filters, and is substantially lighter than its heavier cousins.

My point here is that you can find some interesting candidates for further study by reviewing sample lens test data as we have above. Because this lens is not a big name brand, you can possibly get quite a bargain. Very often, the more expensive and better quality lenses in "no-name" brands or import labels can be good buys, as they are priced based on the more modest cost and reputation lenses in the line. You also have to test your lenses to ensure they work well, and learn how to use them optimally. Sometimes you will find patterns like the 300mm f/5 shown here where performance is different than what you might expect...

See related discussion of 3 telephotos, Samigon vs. two Spiratone 300mm lenses including one preset lens example...

Related Postings

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: thirdperson [email protected]
[1] Re: how about the lenses of promaster?
Date: Mon Nov 02 1998

...
"Promaster" is a trademark of a United States based confederation of independent camera stores called the PRO group. (PRO stands for Photographic Research Organization, if I'm not mistaken). This group negotiates with photo product manufacturers to supply them with special-branded products, and, in other cases, special deals on regular-branded products (both Ricoh and Minolta have long histories of close relationships with the PRO group). The PRO group guarantees the manufacturer a certain volume of purchases in return for the best price possible on whatever item(s) they are trying to buy. Most of their lenses are currently made by Sigma and Tamron. Usually they are exactly the same internally as the Sigma and Tamron-branded equivalents, but have a different external finish.

From: "Charlie Parekh" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: how about the lenses of promaster?
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998

>Most of their lenses are currently made by Sigma and Tamron.  Usually they are exactly
>the same internally as the Sigma and Tamron-branded equivalents, but
>have a different external finish.

I believe this is the same thing for the Quantaray brand sold by Ritz camera. I think all their lenses are Sigma lenses. In fact, I compared the 70-300 Quantaray to the same lens by Sigma, they were identical except that the writing on the Sigma was white, and the Quantaray was green. The rear lens cap on the Quantaray had a small Greek Sigma on the inside as well.

So I guess Sigma and Tamron prostitute themselves out a lot.

[Ed. note: Rollei Lenses made by Sigma...]
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998
From: Jan Bvttcher [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Oriental QBM and Voigtlander Lenses

the 1.4/55 exists in more than 4 versions variations:

Made in Germany / Made in Japan (both Rollei and Voigtlander inclusive boxes labeled "Made in...")

Rolleinar / Voigtlander Color Skoparex (both Germany and Japan) Metal-Rings all black / partly machined to add "chrome" rings (for a time I thought black for Rollei, shiny rings for Voigtldnder, but then the parts are interchangeable) reasons: ?

Sigma: apart from the Apo-Zoom that is a Sigma lens labeled Rollei there has been at least a 2.8/28 "Sigma Mini-Wide" (seen some - didn't buy any because too expansive 120,- DM condition "B")

Rolleinar/Voigldnder-lenses made in Japan were "all" of the 3pin type and have the "Blendenstufe" mentioned in the Prochnow-Report 4.
Sure exception: the 5.6/400 and 8/500 (background: the SL2000f..3003 are only prepared for lens speeds from 1.4 to 4.0)
Japanese lenses not labeled Voigtlander: all that appeared after 1983: 4.0/80-200 HFT, 2.8/80-200, 28-105, 28-80, 2.8/105 Makro (and?) the 2.8/28 HFT (there is a Voigtldnder version oft the 2.8/28 MC Rolleinar)

Jan Bvttcher ([email protected])

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998
From: "Charles R. Boyd" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Is Chinon Still In Business?

I was recently given a Chinon CP-9AF camera body. When I tried to find a price for a lens, I discovered the telephone numbers for Chinon authorized distributors and service centers were no longer valid. Does Chinon still exist?

If someone could steer me toward an auto focus lens for this camera, I would appreciate it.

Regards,
Charlie Boyd

From: [email protected] (Mecamera)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: what's the brand Promaster?
Date: 1 Nov 1998

A local Store in Stockton, CA sells Promaster lenses; and they say that Sigma makes them

Manuel E.

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Anders Svensson" [email protected]
[2] Re: Get what you pay for, was Canon Lens Prices
Date: Thu Nov 05 1998

No individual object (like a lens) will be any better by by paying more for it. Some lenses are worth more, because they are better, not the other way around - but you did not mean it that way, I am sure ;-).

The price structure in the photo business is very complicated, and where the major makers have a oligopoly (or monopoly), prices are completely artificial.

For example, Canon and Nikon make lenses and camera bodies with unique and proprietary propertys and getting a alternative product may be impossible. If the importer can control the market, he can take what price he likes and think the market will support. Good examples are the entry level stuff "everyone" is making and marketing, compared to the "specialist equipment" that is considered after you have bought and "locked yourself into" a system.

It will come to no surprise that there are a number of independent companies that are doing contract work for the major makers, like Nikon using Cosina for their FE10. The Nikon 35-80 consumer grade zoom is "made in Thailand - Nikon still is a Japanese make...

The photo equipment business is not different from any other big business - they seek temporary (and not so temporary) partners all over the place to fill voids in their product lines and farm out production like most producing industries do. I suspect that this is a reason for the independent lens makers to be so well tolerated by the camera manufacturers - there may be more "third party lenses" out there than you think. I don't know this for sure, of course...

Strange thing is that when you look into the price levels of equipment like lenses. There is a difference in real costs between a consumer grade zoom and a "pro" grade zoom, and a lot is explained by actual building costs. Even more is explained by the fact that most sales and distribution costs are applied as a percentage of the original cost price. So, in reality, if a lens will list for 4000 dollars/pounds and another (lesser) only 200 dollars, chances are that the cost at the factory for these lenses differs with "only" 500 dollars (wich is a *big* production cost difference).

For those businesses who can avoid one or more middle men in this chain (basically grey import from a wholesale source elsewhere, where distribution is more efficient), there are profits to be made. If some of that profit is handed down to consumers, it might not be a bad thing.

--
Anders Svensson

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Anders Svensson" [email protected]
[1] Tokina (Beroflex/Varioplan) 70-210 AF zoom question.
Date: Fri Nov 06 1998

I have found a Beroflex AF zoom lens at such a ridicolous price that I have bought it unseen.

I have been informed by the seller (but don't completely believe) that the Beroflex (aka Varioplan) is the same lens as a Tokina 70-210 f/4-5.6. Assuming that this information is correct, is there anyone knowing anything about the Tokina lens, so I will know what to expect from a test shooting ?

Private email is OK, if you feel that your comments are too spicy for the NG ;-)

--
Anders Svensson

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Mark McMaster [email protected]
[1] Re: Promaster lenses?
Date: Mon Nov 30 1998

arouth wrote:

> I recently bought a Pentax ZX-50 with quartz date. The package came  with a
> Promaster 28-8- f3.5-5.6 lens. I wonder why Pentax packaged a Promaster  lens
> instead of a Pentax lens. Who makes Promaster lenses? According to dealer
> Tamron makes these lenses. The lens is very sharp. I have no complaint  about
> the lens. With thanks.

I seriously doubt that Pentax packaged the Promaster lens with their camera. It was more likely the camera dealer who did that, to save money (his, not yours). Some Promaster lenses are made by Samyang, who also make some models sold under the Phoenix and Vivitar names, but I'm not sure about this one.

Mark McMaster
[email protected]

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Michael A. Covington" [email protected]
[1] Re: Nikon vs Non-Brand Name Lens
Date: Mon Nov 30 1998

>Is there a big drop off in performance between say Nikon lens vs Sigma/Tameron
>(given same/similar F and same MM)?

Well, Sigma and Tamron wouldn't have lasted this long if their products were junk. I have a couple of excellent Sigma lenses. Expect somewhat less ruggedness than from Nikon (then again, though, the Nikon 35-80 f/4-5.6 that came with my N70 doesn't strike me as rugged!).

Avoid unknown-name lenses pushed on you by salesmen who say "this is made in the same factory as" so-and-so. But Sigma and Tamron are not off-brands. Along with Tokina and a couple of others, they are quite respected names.

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (UB2Cool4me)
[1] Re: Nikon vs Non-Brand Name Lens
Date: Mon Nov 30 1998

Depending on which lens you are looking at, the only major drop off you will see may be the $$$ it costs. SOME lens in Tamron, Sigma and Tokina are just as good as Nikons and some are not even in the ballpark. Re-ask your question and supply the lens you are looking at (i.e. 70mm - 200mm etc) the folks here will let you know what is junk in a hurry

Buster

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Finnegan T. Tsai)
[1] Re: Nikon vs Non-Brand Name Lens
Date: Fri Dec 04 1998

For those really care about the names...

Tokina and Hoya are actually in the same business group. Hoya is the biggest ground glass provider to other Japanese lens makers. This may explain the lower prices of Tokina lenses. Hoya do OEM for some famous German brands, too.

Nikon makes its own glasses though.

-finney

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Hasselblad, Koda, the Novar, and All That

[email protected] (Bob Shell) writes:

>  At the time I was writing my Hasselblad book about eight years ago Kodak
>  still had  substantial financial interest in Hasselblad.  My guess is that
>  they probably still do.

============================================
The financial statements Kodak filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission are available at:

http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/srch-edgar?kodak

R. J. Bender ( A Nikon, Mamiya and Rollei user. )

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected]
[1] Re: Leitz or Leica? Projectors
Date: Thu Dec 10 1998

Today E.Leitz GmbH is nonexistent. The camera maker now is "Leica Camera AG" not Leitz, now a part of Swiss company, and moved the headquater from Wetzlar to Solms. Check www.leica-camera.com.

----------------
Tom Kumagai

From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica lenses made by Kyocera Japan?
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998

>Some PhD keeps making this claim in another group.  Can Leicaphiles
>confirm or disprove?
>
>Andrew.

I was discussing this with Dr. Gary Gaugler as I didn't understand his use of my quotation in his response. So I sent a note off to a friend of mine who co-authored a book on Zeiss Ikon and is a member of the Zeiss Historica Society as well as an avid Leica user (and I believe he's in process authoring a book on Leica optics as well). I take his response as fairly authoritative:

MJS:

>A couple of the new Leica R zooms are manufactured by Kyocera --
>I believe there is some information on this on the Leica web
>site.  All other Leica lenses are made at Solms.  I am relatively
>confident that all M lenses are made there.
>
>The relationship with Kyocera came about because Leica hired away
>one of the senior Zeiss lens gurus a couple or three years back,
>and he was comfortable working with Kyocera.  But this
>Leica-Kyocera connexion is absolutely independent of the
>Zeiss-Kyocera relationship.  The Leica lenses, for instance, do
>not pass through Zeiss's 'round-eye room' for final inspection,
>but are inspected independently.

I have not checked the Leica website for corroborating information as yet, but it should be simple to do so.

Godfrey

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998
From: Terje Tveraas [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: thanks for HB history update!

bobm wrote:

>Thanks Leo, for the update - the message I saw indicated that "hasselblad
>was recently sold to an anonymous group of investors" (Dec 1 98) but I
>guess our definitions of "recently" must differ a lot ;-)

Earlier this year I read in a newspaper that Hasselblad was sold to a Swiss bank.

--Terje

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (X35g)
[1] Re: Nikon "Made in Thailand"
Date: Thu Jan 14 1999

[email protected] (Hp35) writes:

>Can anyone list which current Nikon bodies/lenses are manufactured in China
>or
>Thailand as opposed to Japan.

Thailand, China, and Indonesia, I have to say that what you are tring to ascertain is far more "greyed" than you might believe. Japan imports labor from many countries. My company has a great many guest workers from Brazil and the Philipines working in some of our Japanese plants as assemblers. The manufacturing standards are maintained and monitored. In Thailand, we have all Thai workers....again, the manufacturing standards are maintained quite well - even impressive. I haven't visited the China facility, but I'm sure that standards are also maintained there.

Farming out assembly work and having a production plant in a different country may or may not result in differing levels of quality, so the judgement you attempt to make is not an easy one. With my experience in Asian manufacturing, China is the only origin I would be careful with, and China production under Japanese scrutiny would still be a fine product, in most cases.

From: [email protected] (DWA652)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Quanteray = Sigma?
Date: 17 Dec 1998

My understanding is that they are indeed made by Sigma, but most lens tests show that they are not quite as good as the Sigma lenses. I do not know whether they have separate manufacturing lines, separate the lenses during inspection, or what, but the Pop Photo, etc. tests usually rate the Quantaray lenses a bit lower.

God Bless,
Don Allen
http://members.xoom.com/donallenfoto

From: "Donald D. Forsling" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How is the Quality of Quantaray Lense?
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998

Jim Bisnett wrote

>I was stupid enough to buy two of the Quantaray lenses when I first bought a
>camera 10 years ago. They suck. They suck. I can't believe that sigma made
>them. If they did, they still suck.
>
>If someone can tell me if sigma made them.. I would like to know. Since I have
>considered buying sigma before, and if they do make quantaray I won't even
>consider it. 

The fact that Sigma makes Quantaray lenses (generally conceded to be a pretty poor line of lenses) says nothing about the quality of the lenses Sigma sells under its own name. Quantaray lenses are made to a certain set of specs, obviously. Sigma lenses are made to another and somewhat higher and tighter set of specs. There's no reason to believe that if it wanted to sell in the high end, Sigma could manufacture lenses as good as Nikkors. Obviously they don't. Quantaray lenses aren't very good. Sigmas are better but are still not as good a Tamrons or Tokinas--and nowhere near as good as the average Nikkor. High quality does cost relatively big money. Quantarays are cheap, bad lenses. If you can afford something else, buy it.

Cheers,
--
Don Forsling [email protected]

Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999
From: "Richard D. Bright" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Third party lenses...

I love the site. I used to work in a camera store in PA and the info that you have would have been very helpful.

We used to sell Promaster lenses, which are not on your list. Promaster lenses are made by Tamron (at least the autofocus mounts). They are the same lens as the Tamron, with the exception of a rubber focusing ring. The quality was very good and we had next to no problem with defects/returns. Promaster has a website (www.promaster.com). I thought you might like to add their info...

Vicky Bright

From: [email protected] (JTWard01)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Quanteray = Sigma?
Date: 17 Dec 1998

>And another thing, a guy in Ritz photo told me that Quantaray are made by
>Sigma, is that true? Do they have the same quality?

I don't know if ALL Quanteray lenses are built by Sigma, but I know that at least some of their Tech 10 line are Sigmas. The 70-210 f2.8 lens, for example, is a Sigma, and I believe the 75-300 is also Sigma. The others, I don't know.

Of course, being built by Sigma doesn't guarantee that they have the latest improvements that you would get in a Sigma name lens. Who knows how long Ritz has had them sitting in a warehouse somewhere.

All I'm saying is to compare them carefully before buying.

John Ward
Brandon, Florida

From: Ray Roewert [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Quanteray = Sigma?
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998

DWA652 wrote:

> My understanding is that they are indeed made by Sigma, but most lens tests
> show that they are not quite as good as the Sigma lenses.  I do not know
> whether they have separate manufacturing lines, separate the lenses during
> inspection, or what, but the Pop Photo, etc. tests usually rate the  Quantaray
> lenses a bit lower.
>
> God Bless,
> Don Allen
> http://members.xoom.com/donallenfoto

I've read several test of lenses that included Quantaray, and you are correct, they rarely get the reviews of the big name lenses. However, as photographer on a budget I've used them, and have been very happy with the results.

Recently I had some LARGE blow-up made of some shots I took with my Canon EOS Elan IIe, and a Quantaray Tech 10 50mm macro lens. I could detect no problems with the quality of the image. I cant help but wonder if the the reviews aren't often biased in favor of the big name manufacturers who spend big bucks advertising in these magazine.

I dunno.... I guess you have to see for yourself.

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Robert Krawitz [email protected]
[1] Re: Tamron vs. Promaster 28-200
Date: Mon Jan 25 1999

[email protected] writes:

> Does anyone have any advice re: Tamron vs.Promaster 28-200 autofocus lenses
> for the Canon Elan II? I have used the Tamron 28-200 (manual) on my  Canon A-1
> and been very happy with it, but I don't know about the autofocus  version of
> this lens. My other option would be to change format and buy the Canon
> 28-105. If anyone has any input, I would appreciate a
> response....thanks...carolyu

The current Promaster 28-200 is really the Tamron 28-200 Super, which focuses much closer than the older 28-200. The Canon 28-105 is very highly rated, and is USM so focusing is almost silent and very, very fast.

--
Robert Krawitz http://www.tiac.net/users/rlk/

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] SL35 mount Makinon 300mm

>Hello,
>
>Does anyone have any knowledge of the quality of Makinon lenses.  I picked
>up a 300/5.6 on eBay ($46) in mint condition.  It has decent construction
>and is multicoated.  I'm wondering who is Makinon?  Were they a manufacturer
>or just another marketing co?  Also, were Sigma, Tokina, Tamron and Vivitar
>selling all their lenses in Rollei QBM?  I usually only see Zeiss or
>Rolleinars for sale.  How common are the other makers lenses?
>
>Happy New Year,        
>Tony Zoccolillo

Makinon lenses were made by Makina Optical in Japan. The company went bust around 1983 or so.

They were contracted at one point to supply lenses to Rollei after Mamiya shut down 35 mm lens production in 1982. but could not meet Rollei's quality standards.

I used to have one of their zooms for my SL35E and it was OK, but nothing to get excited about. They made some 2X converters in Rollei QBM which were pretty darned good. I think I still have one of those in a drawer somewhere. It came with a little metal wrench to take out the optical section so you could use it as an extension tube.

Bob

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] SL35 mount Makinon 300mm

>Hello,
>
>Does anyone have any knowledge of the quality of Makinon lenses.  I picked
>up a 300/5.6 on eBay ($46) in mint condition.  It has decent construction
>and is multicoated.  I'm wondering who is Makinon?  Were they a manufacturer
>or just another marketing co?  Also, were Sigma, Tokina, Tamron and Vivitar
>selling all their lenses in Rollei QBM?  I usually only see Zeiss or
>Rolleinars for sale.  How common are the other makers lenses?
>
>Happy New Year,
>Tony Zoccolillo    

Forgot your second question. Sigma never made lenses under their name for Rollei. Tamron made an auto adapter for their Adaptall line of lenses in Rollei mount. I don't think Tokina ever sold lenses under their name in Rollei mount. Vivitar is not a lens maker but a marketing company, and their lenses come from a variety of sources including Sigma, Kiron, Cosina, etc. I don't think they ever sold any lenses in Rollei QBM mount. All of my answers apply to the USA. In Europe where Rollei was more popular things may have been different.

Bob

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Buzzeb)
[1] Re: Promaster lenses
Date: Thu Mar 04 1999

Bill-

I've not seen any Promaster reviews, but it would seem that at least some of their lenses are manufactured by Tamron. E.G., their 28-200 is identical to the Tamron 28-200 Super, and their 70-300 seems to be a relabled Tamron 70-300 (which, according to some, is the same as the Nikon 70-300).

Michael

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected]
[1] buying in Japan .... Hoya/Kenko filters
Date: Mon Mar 08 1999

I went to japan recently to purchase a big bunch of equipment ..... even with the Yen at 110 to the dollar, I saved 20% off the B&H price and in addition, the 8% tax (I include the 8% tax because actually handling the equipment one intends to buy contributes substantially to the final decision). The market there is incredible .... there is nothing that isn't available. However, I got this price only at one store - Sakuraya at Ikebukoro

I wanted to buy Hoya filters .... but the only filters available there were Kenko. I ws told that Hoya and Kenko filters are the same with the latter being the official name in Japan - is this true?

Thanks

ramana athreya

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Ross Bench) [1] Re: SOLIGOR LENSES (Talk to me)
Date: Mon Mar 08 1999

[email protected] (JBradb6406) wrote:

>What can you tell me about these lenses, I have one 35-105 zoom with macro
>and it works real nice, just bought another, 80-200 what cha all think (be
>gentle).

I have owned Soligor lenses in the past... :)

As with ALL companies, some are serviceable, some are crap.

Soligor was owned by Allied Impex Corp here in America until it's demise in 1978.

They imported mid range cameras, lenses and accessories from various manufacturers under the Soligor name.

The quality of their products varied with whoever manufactured it. Some products were far better than others.

It appears that the Soligor name has been revived by someone and as near as I can tell they are based in Europe.

I cannot address the quality of their current line of products.

All of the Soligor review pages, of current products, that I was able to find are in languages other than English so I couldn't tell you if they are complimentary or if they are trashing them... :)

They may produce an outstanding product these days... ????

The bottom line:

If you like the pictures that your lenses are producing, then they are just fine and dandy lenses and screw what anyone else says..

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (RPMPhoto)
[1] Re: Difference between Vivitar and Cosina lenses!
Date: Tue Mar 02 1999

It is very likely they are the same lenses. Cosina makes a lot of lenses for Vivitar, and Tokina (EMZ line).

Jason

Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999
From: Bob Salomon [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Users list digest V2 #68

>Forgot your second question.  Sigma never made lenses under their name for
>Rollei.  Tamron made an auto adapter for their Adaptall line of lenses in
>Rollei mount.  I don't think Tokina ever sold lenses under their name in
>Rollei mount.  Vivitar is not a lens maker but a marketing company, and
>their lenses come from a variety of sources including Sigma, Kiron, Cosina,
>etc.  I don't think they ever sold any lenses in Rollei QBM mount.  All of
>my answers apply to the USA.  In Europe where Rollei was more popular
>things may have been different.                             

Rollei was imported by EPOI who was also the Sigma distributor at that time. As I sold both for EPOI I carried a sample Rollei mount Sigma.

HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Amazon, Braun, Gepe, Giottos, GO Light, Heliopan, HP Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof, Pro Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock,Sirostar 2000

From: "Rob Hull" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Quandry (sp?) lenses
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999

Quantaray is the store brand for Ritz Camera and I believe you will find that they are manufactured by Sigma.

From: "Bob Salomon" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Caltar lenses
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999

You may not have noticed but Rodenstock has been awarded ISO 9000 status. They are the only large format lens manufacturer to acheive this.

That means that all Rodenstock lenses sold under the Rodenstock name meet or surpass the specifications stated in the Rodenstock literature.

Rodenstock is the optical company. They design and manufacture lenses.

Sinar is a manufacturer of a camera. They do not design, grind, polish, coat, assemble optics.

The lenses sold by Sinar are not "hand picked out of the line" In fact they are tested by Sinar on exactly the same machine that is used at Linhof to test lenses. The machine used by both happens to be a Siemens Star tester made by Rodenstock and which was part of the final QC tests at Rodenstock prior to their having been awarded ISO 9000 status.

It is very possible that the ISO inspectors may have refined that test.

What Sinar says is that they properly center the lens on the lens board for Sinar cameras.

What Sinar said when they first introduced their lenses was that they "centered" the lenses.

They have been told to desist from stating this by the factory as it is untrue but you may find an uninformed supporter who is still deluded by that original false claim.

Rodenstock is a large. German manufacturer who produces lenses for sale world wide, in fact if you consider some special lenses for NASA for the Shuttle, you could say they manufacturer for more than world wide.

Calumet is a Camera store owned by an English company with stores in the U.s and a sales outlet in Europe.

Do you really think that Calumet is so big a world-wide source for house brand lenses that they outsell the number one large format manufacturer in the world in all countries? Including those whose native tongue may not be English or possibly Spanish?

----------

Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999
From: Matthias Wilke [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: third party lens site

Hello Robert,

I have three additions concerning your third party lens site. Meyer Go(e)rlitz was an East German manufacturer which belonged to Pentacon in the last decades of the so called "DDR". Cosina is not only a brand name, but a manufacturer, who builds for Voigtla(e)nder, Soligor, cheap latest Tokina line, Nikon, Olympus (OM-2000 with two dedicated lenses) and others. They have a difficult to find website, I have forgotten the address. Zuiko is not a name for third party lenses, but for the whole Olympus OM-system and Pen FT lens lines and for some older rangefinder camera lenses. Lately they have dropped the name Zuiko for P+S cameras and the IS-line but still use it for the OM-system.

Best regards,

Matthias Wilke

[Ed. note: speaking of Cosina, they're making a Leica M clone! ;-) ]
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999
From: Matthew Phillips [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Re: camera labels, Cosina's Voigtlander

...
>Believe it or not, every company (i.e. Rollei, Hasselblad, Leica, Zeiss,
>Braun, Voigtldnder) who is no more able to make own new cameras says that.
>However it is normally no more than a Japanese, Taiwan, Korean camera with
>the company lable pasted on it. Cameras from these countries are excellent!
...
>dirk

Speaking of which, has anyone seen one of the new Voigtlander Bessa L bodies, made by Cosina, with Leica thread mount and newly computed wideangle lenses? I saw a description of it on the Cameraquest site, and a Japanese-omly link to Cosina, and am curious to find out more. Particularly if these are to be exported to other markets.

Regards,

M.Phillips

Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: camera labels, Cosina's Voigtlander

...
I had heard many rumors about this camera prior to photokina, but no one at the show would admit that it existed.

If Cosina is building it then it could show up in the USA under several possible names. Cosina builds Vivitar's SLR cameras, and also builds some of Ricoh's SLR cameras. They have supplied cameras to other firms including Canon and Nikon in the past, but I doubt we would see either of those names on it.

I'll nose around for it at PMA.

Bob

From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Heres why I use Contax and not Nikon!
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999

...
Optics for Sony cameras are made by Tamron.

Tamron is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sony, something which few people seem aware of.

Bob

Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Voigtlaender Name sold out??

Jan Decher wrote:

>Wonder who they paid for it? (Marc, do you have any
>answers?)

Sure. A chain of German camera stores now own the Voigtlander labels. My first camera was, and is, a Voigtlander, and I hate to see how low the breed has sunk.

Marc

Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei]OFF TOPIC:Cosina, Voigtlander et al

[email protected] (Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)) writes:

>  Yes, Cosina is the manufacturer of the Olympus OM2000, Nikon FM10, Yashic
>  FX3 Super 2000, Vivitar V3000. Ricoh KR5 Super II, and others.
>  Check out
>  http://www.neci.nj.nec.com/homepages/sebastien/album/clone2000.html
>
>  This person also lists the Canon T60, Promaster 2000PK Super, which laong
>  with the previous ones noted above are said to be basically modified
>  versions of the Cosina C1.

Many of those models are sold as "entry level" or "student" cameras. The guy I spoke to at the camera store (Schiller's) also mentioned the Kalimar K90

http://www.kalimar.com/k90.htm

When you run through these images you can see the similarities: http://www.kyu.co.uk/fx3.jpg
http://www.olympus.co.jp/LineUp/Camera/om2000.jpg

If the Bessa L has a manual shutter, LED meter and manual focus it should be priced considerably less than a Rollei QZ or a Contax G 2, shouldn't it? With the recent price cuts on Rollei and Contax, the Bessa will have to be priced cheap.

They will probably just have the 15mm and the 25mm lenses if there is no rangefinder or autofocus mechanism on the body. Cosina must have this camera targeted for a particular market... tourists?

http://www.cosina.co.jp/bessa/anim.gif

If the Olympus OM2000 has a die cast aluminum body and sells for around $200, what do you think the Voigtlander body without a prism will sell for, $300? What do you think the street price for the lenses will be, $700 for the 15mm and $500 for the 25mm?

Does anyone know what Cosina's Polish distributor, MODUS VIVENDI, sells besides Cosina?

R. J. Bender ( A Nikon, Mamiya and Rollei user. )
mailto:[email protected] or
mailto:[email protected]
http://homepages.infoseek.com/~rbender/RS.htm

Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei]OFF TOPIC:Cosina, Voigtlander et al

...

Cosina has made cameras for many of the major players. The Nikon FM10 and FE10 are from Cosina. The Olympus OM2000 is from Cosina. There was a short lived Canon SLR also made by Cosina, but I don't recall the model number at the moment.

Cosina also makes some of Ricoh's SLR cameras, and many of Vivitar's Series 1 lenses. They hold some of the major patents on autofocus as well, even though they have never built an autofocus SLR.

Bob

Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei]OFF TOPIC:Cosina, Voigtlander et al

...

So far as I know Kyocera does not outsource any of their current cameras. On the contrary, they often build cameras for others. The original Olympus Infinity Stylus was built by Kyocera, which may be why the lens is so good. The Infinity Stylus Zoom was not built by Kyocera, which may be why the lens is so bad!!!!

Bob

Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: camera labels, Cosina's Voigtlander (off-topic)

>>The lenses, IMHO, are more intriguing.  The 15mm Heliar retails for
>>65,000 yen with finder, the 25mm Skopar with finder for 45,000 yen.
>>Compare that to 210,000 for the Contax 16mm Hologon (plus another
>>55,000 yen to have it re-machined for a Leica screw mount) and close
>>to 300,000 yen for the Leica 24mm/2.8 Elmarit-Asph.

Yes, very intriguing. Cosina makes very good optics.

I wonder if the 25 mm has a "cam" for rangefinder focusing on Leica cameras. It would not be necessary on the 15 mm, and only for critical work on the 25 mm, but would be nice to have.

All of a sudden it seems we will be flooded with new wide angle lenses and specialty cameras.

Bob

Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999
From: Dirk-Roger Schmitt [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Zeiss Jena /Oberkochen story

Some more story:

Before end of the war the Jena area was occupied by the US armee. However due to a contract with Russia they had to transfer this area to the Russian armee. The Americans decided to take as much Carl Zeiss gear and also specialists with them as possible. So before they retracted the armee a long train with machines, plans and people was loaded to go west. The train left Jena and reached the area near Oberkochen. At this time the war was over, the Americans lost interest in the Zeiss people and the train with all the machines and families was standing there allone. They now decided very quickly to keep together and to form a new company. In Oberkochen they found empty factory halls were they moved to.

Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Zeiss Jena /Oberkochen story

Dirk,

You are correct, but from research I have done on Zeiss in an attempt to put information tohgether for a book on optics here is what I have uncovered and documented....

"In April of 1945, General Patton's Third Army entered Jena. In less than two months the war ravaged Zeiss Works were ready to operate.

Unfortunately, during the month of June, agreements made at Yalta forced Patton to withdraw his troops. A clandestine operation was put into effect barely 3 days before the Soviet Army occupied Jena. A convoy of U.S. Army trucks pulled into Jena and with help from Zeiss executives, transported 1200 of the company's employees including key scientists and technicians more than 200 miles into the U.S. occupied territory to the town of Heidenheim.

Within a years time, the occupying Soviet forces would removed $100 million worth of goods and machinery from the Zeiss Jena Works and deport 336 technicians and factory workers to the Soviet Union. Those remaining in Jena started the rebuilding process. Even with the little than remained, the Zeiss Jena works began to take shape but just as that happened, the Soviet controlled East German government took over the factory. In 1945, Jena produced Tessar lenses under several names including Zeiss Jena, VEB Jena, and the very rare Ernst Abbe Jena.

In the meantime, the Zeiss scientists and technicians that had moved to Heidenheim started planning a new factory 10 miles from Heidenheim. They leased an abandoned war plant in Oberkochen and began production as Opton in 1946, later changing the name to Zeiss-Opton in 1947. Schott began glass production in Zwiesel during 1946 and would later transfer headquarters to Mainz in 1952.

Dr. Heinz K|ppenbender, the inventor of the Contax camera, helped rebuild the new Zeiss works. When asked what was the first equipment installed at the factory, he replied, "Beds!"

Perhaps if finished I could even sell what I have written thus fas as a history of Zeiss and the German Optical industry. Who knows.....

Peter K

Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Zeiss Jena /Oberkochen story

...

Not quite. The creation of the Foundation headquarters at Heidenheim and of the new factory at Oberkochen were under the aegis of the United States Army, who wanted Zeiss optical and medical gear for the Invasion of Japan. The train Dirk-Roger describes was actually several trains: the principal one simply disappears (it has been suggested by some of the staff on the Inter-Allied Committee on Optical Reparations that the British purloined it, but this seems to be idle speculation), the one with the lens-making equipment is taken by the Soviets after they so insist to Eisenhower.

Heinz Kuppenbender, then the Chairman of Zeiss, blandly pointed out in 1970 that "we are still waiting for the train to appear". Zeiss sued the US Army and was awarded a large judgement.

Marc

Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Zeiss Opton

A minor point.

The original use of the "Zeiss-Opton" trademark on the products from Oberkochen was determined upon at a time when the split of the two Zeiss entities wasn't foreseen. The US Army brought about the creation of the Oberkochen plant to ensure that Zeiss would be able to manufacture optical gear (primarily medical lab gear) for the anticipated invasion of Japan; as the Jena plant was in the USSR Zone, the concern was that the Soviets wouldn't enter the War in the Pacific, and the US Army wished to have a plant totally under its control. Hence, the "Zeiss-Opton" trademark was simply used as a differentiator from the products of Carl Zeiss Jena.

Later, when the lawsuits flew thick and fast, the Western courts granted the Zeiss name to Oberkochen, while the Eastern courts granted it to Jena. Hence, for forty years, products from Jena sold in the West often bore names such as "aus Jena" or "CZ", while Oberkochen products sold in the Warsaw Pact were labeled "Opton". (The East Block guys used to work Western trade shows with a huge banner marked, in small letters, "aus Jena" and, on the next line, in LARGE letters, "1 Carl Zeiss Strasse, Jena".)

There is NO difference between a Tessar made in Oberkochen and marked "Zeiss-Opton" and one made in Jena and marked "Carl Zeiss Jena". One of the most enduring myths of Rollei lore is that of the "Opton Tessar". No such lens existed, ever: it is just a "Zeiss-Opton Tessar".

Marc

[email protected] FAX: +540/343-7315

Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei]OFF TOPIC:Cosina, Voigtlander et al

Yes, Cosina is the manufacturer of the Olympus OM2000, Nikon FM10, Yashic FX3 Super 2000, Vivitar V3000. Ricoh KR5 Super II, and others.

Check out
http://www.neci.nj.nec.com/homepages/sebastien/album/clone2000.html

This person also lists the Canon T60, Promaster 2000PK Super, which laong with the previous ones noted above are said to be basically modified versions of the Cosina C1.

Cosina is an interesting company, they also do their own glass melting as opposed to buying it from others.

Peter K

From Nikon Digest List
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999
From: Adam Dietrich [email protected]
Subject: Re: nikon-digest V4 #314 [v04.n315/6]

> From: "George Bowen" [email protected]
> Subject: Nikon vs. Promaster [v04.n314/19]
>
> $200 range is the plastic mount 28-70 D lens. The Promaster has a metal
> mount with a sturdy plastic barrel with rubberized zoom/focus rings. Auto
> focusing is responsive and no noisier than my Nikkors. It is selling for
> $150 in a local camera shop in Maine. It has a 5 year warranty. I saw some
> photos that were taken with the Promaster 28-70 f3.5-4.5 zoom, some enlarged
> to large sizes (11x14 and larger, I don't recall the exact sizes) I was
> impressed! The color and detail were outstanding, rivaling Nikkors. Contrast
> seemed good. Does anyone know where I can find test results with this and 
> other Promaster lenses? Also does any one know who makes these lenses? 
I saw
> some that strongly resembled Tamrons. I like Nikon equipment, but I'm not
> fanatical about it. As I see it, as long as the lens in question,be it
> Nikkor or third party, gives great images it doesn't matter to me who makes
>
> George Bowen
> ********************
> Relax, relax, I need some information first.
> Just the basic facts.
> Can you show me where it hurts? 

Promaster is not a company in itself, The store I work at sells them as our "house brand" most of them are Tamrons, others are Vivitars, some are Pheonix. We don't stock the 28-70 promaster lens, but if it is infact a 28-70, then it is not a tamron since tamrons lens is a 28-80 3.5-5.6. The tamron lens has 7 elements in 7 groups, one aspheric element filter diamerter of 58mm minimum focus distance of 70cm angle of view is 75 degrees to 30 degrees, and has a six blade aperture.

hope this rattling off of statistics helps

Adam

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Third Party

hi - I just acquired a MIIDA 75-205mm zoom for the Minolta MD (Manual) mount - it is a f3.8 not f2.8 like your chart shows - By the way, who made the thing anyway - the box says "Marubeni America Corp, Made in Japan" The shop has quite a few in stock, it was closed for several years and then re-opened, I guess (Frank's Highland Park Camera in LA, CA) - they have LOTS of strange labels and models - most at pretty good prices. Thanks for the info that's there, useful and fascinating. Jim Franz ([email protected])

From: "sdmeyers" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Filters
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999

I've been told that the Promaster filters are just rebranded Hoya's. Owning a Hoya HMC and a Promaster MC (which both come in identical hard plastic cases) I tend to believe this claim.

I assume that Quantarays are also something else rebranded exactly what who knows?

-Scott

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (David M Anthony)
[1] Re: Re-post: CPC Filters?
Date: Thu Apr 01 1999

Robert Monaghan [email protected] wrote:

>CPC or combined products corp is an importer label I believe
>see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/third/mfg.html
>
>they don't make filters, but buy and resell from other mfgers

Also see:

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/~bdd/Pentax/lenses/non-SMC/

for info on CPC.

[Ed note: new URL is http://www.phred.org/pentax/k/lenses/non-SMC/ 03/2000]

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Ron Walton" [email protected]
[1] Re: tamron lenses
Date: Sun Apr 25 1999

Liv2cruise wrote

>Where I live, Promasters are Tamrons and Ritz are Sigmas.
>                            Steve

Check this out. www.wolfes.com/photo/lenses/promaster/

These are Cosina Products-
AF 19-35 3.5-4.5
AF 28-300 4-5.6
AF100-300 5.6-6.7
AF 100-400 5.6-6.7
AF 100 3.5 macro

They may be phasing the Cosinas out. Thier 28-105 zoom a few years ago was the 28-105 2.8-3.8 Cosina and now thier 28-105 4-5.6 appears to be a Tamron.

Ron Walton

Visit the BPC http://www.bpc.photographer.org

From: [email protected] (Maycop)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: soligor opics
Date: 12 May 1999

Would you be interested ina Soligor 250mm preset lens? I have 1 in exc. cond. Preset takes T2 adapters which allow it to be used on most older cameras. Email for details. Soligor was handled by AIC ,the co. that imp. Miranda. When Miranda went out of biz. in mid 70's soligor faded out . Latest info I have is E. Coast Camera,180 W. Merrick rd. Valley Stream NY 11580.

From: Markou [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: how to ID series 1 vivitar lens?
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999

Acer;

All Vivitar series 1,have that marked directly on the lens, where the focal length and the speed are shown. Also a thin red line circles the lens barrel. Hope this helps. Good luck. MGM..

Acer Victoria wrote:

> I've read some posts praising the Series 1 Vivitar lens. My supervisor  had
> an old box of stuff I was given to experiment with, and there is an
> "auto-telephoto 135/2.8" Viv lens. How can I tell what series it is?  It's
> made in Japan, is a Pentax screw mount (for old Spotmatic).
> Thanks,
> Siddiq

From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: tamron lenses
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999

The only PROMASTER AF lens made by Cosina is the 100-400. They may have a few Cosina MF lenses ... but the rest of the AF lenses are Tamron.

From: "Ron Walton" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Promaster 28-200?
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999

Russ Adams wrote

>A friend just showed up with a brand new Canon 2000 with a Promaster
>28-200 lense.

This lens is a Tamron 28-200 sold under the Promaster name. Go to www.dejanews.com and do a power search.

Ron Walton

From: [email protected] (David Rozen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: photographer loves soligor
Date: 22 May 1999

AVED88 ([email protected]) wrote:

: on ebay and most mail order companies and have been unsuccessful : finding a 28mm two touch zoom. focal lenghts listed by priority

: 28-50 : 28-35 : 28-70 : 28-80

: need for minolta md mount

Maybe sticking to Soligor is limiting you too much. My prized 28-70 is a Tokina 2-touch contant f:4 with excellent close focus system.

Soligor is a badge-label company, not a lens maker. My fave 28-70 might be one of Soligors you seek, but you would overlook it by ignoring all Tokinas [a lens maker, altho real name is Assanuma].

What you want is a twin ring [rotozoom] 28-whatever 3rd party MSR/MC/MD etc lens. You say as much when you "specify" a name like Soligor or Vivitar, who simply label Kirons, Tokinas, Sigmas and others with their marketing labels. Widen your pool of available optics by not specifying Soligor, and maybe you'll find something.

Regards, - dr

From: "Ron Walton" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How is Vivitar vs. tamron?
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999

Altho many older Vivitars are excellent, most, if not all, of the current Vivitars seem to be made by Cosina. At best these are mediocre lenses.

Many Vivitars of the past are made by the same manufacturers that make Kiron and Tokina lenses.

If you know what to look for you can get excellent quality Vivitar lenses when buying used.

--
Ron Walton
Visit the BPC http://www.bpc.photographer.org

From: [email protected] (Ted)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Address/email for Kenko
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999

Kenko is part of THK Photo Products (Tokina, Hoya)

Go to www.thkphoto.com

From: "Brad The Dog" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: tamron lenses
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999

you need to check your facts. promaster haven't used sigma glass for 10 years. they currently uses tamaron glass and workings.

From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Soligar lenses?

Accra, 28 May 1999

There is a short note in the British "Amateur Photographer" saying that Soligor has come up from the ashes with three SLR's, several lenses ans a number of other articles - flashes, bags, safety equipment. It said all cameras were made in China. I think the same applies to lenses as well. At the same time I got a leaflet from a Bulgarian daily dedicated to Soligor from their Bulgarian dealer. Judjing from the prices (in DM) and the sort of publicity campaign (so far not very popular in Eastern Europe - expensive and wasteful, I conclude that they are trying to enter the market with cheap products riding on the popularity of the brand. I do not think that they have anything to do with the old Soligor.

George Mitev

From Nikon Digest:
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999
From: "Pascal Willemssen" [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Third party lenses: Soligor

> [NIKON] Third party lenses: Soligor
> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 00:02:43 +0200 (MEST)
> From: [email protected]
> Subject: [NIKON] Third party lenses: Soligor
>
> Hello fellow subscribers,
> Today I saw a lens by Soligor that seemed to be a good buy. Does = anyone
> have experience with this brand and know something about it? Where are = this
> lenses made? What about the mechanical construction? If you have any = comments
> on them, please reply to my e-mail address. Thanks in advance!
> friedrich
> Graz, Austria

Hello Friedrich,

Well... I have never used a Soligor Lens, but I've read two tests about these lenses. They were published in a Dutch magazine called Foto + Doka.

In short the people were amazed of the quality of the lens performing wide open. The lens they were reviewing was a 100-400 mm as far as I can remember. It seems that the lens is already stopped down by nature and that all the apertures that are available don't suffer from the usual problems lenses have. It's sharpness was called good throughout the full range. And they backed it up with the following comment : This lens is just as the lens we had last month. Again it does not have any noticeable distortions, or optical problems. Therefor whe will call this a Top Class product. (That is their reward for a good product)

These lenses are made in Germany, your neighbours... By a company that specializes in optical equipment with a philisophy that is focussed at creating products with a good price quality ratio.

SOLI = Part of Solid or Solide meaning good production quality, GOR, just a nice part to end the brandname. :) As they call it themselves.

You can check out their homepage at www.soligor.de=20

I hope that this helps,=20

Greetings,

Pascal Willemssen

Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999
From: Dirk-Roger Schmitt [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Circuit Boards and Shutter Gears

>
>" The Japanese first fix the price, and then make the camera to fit
>  the price ".
>
>" The Germans make the camera first, and then add up the cost to come
>  up with the price"
>
>Its a shame and unfortunately, the second rule doesn't go well with
>business operations in current times.
>
>Nikon is an undisputed leader in optical instruments used to manufacture
>semiconductor chips (wafers) where the tolorences are in the order of
>microns !!.  The German industry can't even enter this arena, in spite
>of their rich and outstanding optical history.

That is not true: The best wafer steppers (even in Japan) are equipped Carl Zeiss lenses. Nobody in the world can make better lensens for wafer procution than Carl Zeiss.

Without Carl Zeiss lenses no Pentium II, no computers, no chips, no cars, no airplanes, no Rolleiflex 6008....

However, the lenses cost hundreds of thousand dollars, each and you need a truck for transportation.

This wafer stepper business saved Carl Zeiss! Some years ago, they had very low profits, very low sales in most products. Since they developed these very very high performance lenses all the Zeiss business has been boosted. It is a big big market for them and the whole world is lining up at Oberkochen to get some of these lenses

Greetings,

Dirk

Subject: Re: Angenieux ,requesting information
From: "Jim Williams" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999

>    Hi,
>        I'm really interested in this brand.Where I can get information? Is
>it so good as it seems? Does anybody got one for 35mm.
>        Thanks for your comments
>                                                            Joan Torrents

Angenieux no longer sells lenses for consumer photography; their business segment now is solely professional cinematography and video, as well as other specialized optics such as night-vision equipment.

The Angenieux zoom lenses that were offered for 35mm still photography in the early 1990s generally got very good marks from photography-magazine test reports, although some complained a bit about their 'plasticky' construction. The only way you can find these lenses now is on the used market, or perhaps as "new old stock."

If you'd like to read a brief profile of the current Angenieux company and products, see:

http://www.gifo.org/company/angenieux.htm

Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999
From: Dirk-Roger Schmitt [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Voigtlander

>There are current model (new) Voigtlanders for sale in Japan...not sure
>who produces them.

They are made by Cosina. You can have a look on their website. (don't know the url, sorry). It is a stripped SLR body without Prism and mirror. It has just a simple viewfinder. It is sold with a "Voigtgl�nder" superwide lens. The buy is a bargain. According to lens tests in a German magazine, the lens compares to the Carl Zeis Hologon of the Yashica Contax, but it is much much cheaper.

Price in Germany for body an lens is announced to be about less 1000 $. Folks, if you like wide angle photography, don't hesitate to buy that "Voigtl�nder". (However, as someone who lives in Braunschweig, the home town of Rollei and Voigtl�nder, I would appreciate if it would be still made in the original Voigtl�nder factory, which still exists but which is used buy other companies)

Greetings

Dirk

Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999
From: Tim Baty [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Voigtlander

Hi RUG,

FYI, you can take a look at the new Cosina/Voigtl�nder products at these URLs:

The 'official' Voigtl�nder site (German language only):

http://www.voigtlaender.de/

Cosina's Voigtl�nder page (Japanese language only):

http://www.cosina.co.jp/bessa/1.html

Office Heliar's site (Japanese language, some English):

http://www.cameraguild.co.jp/voigtlander/eng/top.htm

This is a neat site, with basic information about the Bessa-L and the new VSL40 SLR. There's also some historical stuff about older Voigtl�nders, including a useful gallery of the different flavours of the 1950s Vitessa.

Of more general interest, this site is useful for camera collectors: 'How To' Classic Camera (Japanese language only) http://web.kyoto-inet.or.jp/org/mediajoy/cla_came/index.html A simple on-line pictorial user guide for collectors - the Vitessa's there, as well as the Rollei 35. If you want to know how to do the simple stuff with your new acquisition, this is worth a look.

Now if only I could read Japanese... <:-(

Regards,
Tim Baty
Hampshire, England

...

Ed. note: Maybe that Hasselblad 2x is made by....Fuji? ;-)
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999
From: Russ Rosener [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 150mm vs 2x extender

It's a valid question, considering the price of investing in a new Zeiss lens! If you are going to use the 150 focal length a lot, I'd say for more than 30% of your shooting, then a 150 lens is the way to go. It will be far less hassle and worth the price. There are many good used 150s out there, so I'd look for a clean used one first.

If you only need a telephoto occasionally, like I do, then by all means get a converter. In my opinion there is no difference in the quality of the extenders you mentioned. The Hasselblad 2x is NOT made by Zeiss. I believe it is made by an optical company in Japan, perhaps Fuji? So buying it will not give you any better resolution than the Kenko, Vivitar, etc. Figuring out the exposure is not a big deal. You lose two stops with a 2x converter. To make it simple, just rate the ASA on your meter two stops slower when you use the converter, ie. Asa 400 is now set at ASA 100.

The converter is also a good idea if you travel a lot and want to keep the camera bag light.

Russ Rosener

[email protected] wrote:

> I'm sure this has been hashed out before, but I haven't been a
> subscriber for too long..
>
> Could I get feedback on the merits of the Kenko vs Rokunar vs Vivitar vs
> Hass 2x extenders, and how much you lose vs a 150mm C lens ?
>
> Is it a pain to figure out the exposure compensation when metering? Do
> you just adjust the  ASA on the meter before taking a reading, or do you
> take the reading at the normal ASA then mentally adjust? I imagine it
> can get tricky when using fill flash, setting the flash on one, the
> meter on another and the lens on still another fstop.
>
> I apologize if this is too redundant..
>
> Bill Shepard
> [email protected]

Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999
From: LEO WOLK [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 150mm vs 2x extender

There's actually two Hasselblad 2X converters. The current model "2XE" has Japanese optics and is assembled in Sweden and marked "Made in Sweden". The prior model, the "Zeiss 2X Mutar", is indeed made by Zeiss complete with T* optics, and is marked "Made in Western Germany" (or at least mine is).

Best, Leo.

From: [email protected] (Ejkowalski)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Kalimar lenses
Date: 09 Jul 1999

>I just bought a Kalimar 60-300 f/3.9 lens. I can't find much info on this
>brand but the lens seems to take great photos and I really like the long
>range. Anybody know anything about Kalimar? It's made in Korea.

Kalimar Corp. is located right here in St. Louis, Missouri. They manufacture nothing, never have, but they watch for good deals throughout the world, buy in quantity, replace brand name placards and repackage. Kalimar goods can start out anywhere.

For a while they were even importing Russian Zenits and repackaging them as the "Kalimar 2000".

EJKowalski

From The Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999
From: Bob Salomon [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Re: ISCO

> ISCO is an acronym for "Ioseph Schneider Company";  it was a schlock lens
> plant in Goettingen where Schneider could produce, and market, rather
> mediocre lenses without polluting their own brand-name.  SOME few ISCO
> lenses were okay but most are, well, pretty poor.

The ISCO plant was spun off at the Schneider bankruptcy when Mandermann acquired the Schneider company.

Today ISCO makes professional projection lenses but not as part of Schneider.

--

HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Amazon, Braun, Gepe, Giottos, GO Light, Heliopan, HP Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof, Pro Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock,Sirostar 2000

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Philip Wang [email protected]
[1] Re: fully manual SLR's - only Nikon still makes them???
Date: Tue Aug 17 1999

I am surprise! Are those cameras all made by Cosina?

Thanks,
- Philip

"William J. Hayes" wrote:

> DJMaytag [email protected] wrote 1
>
> > some great results for a novice). I've been told that fully manual SLR's
> > aren't being produced much anymore, but i want to find out what the  "best"
> > manual SLR is for my budget (currently points to a Nikon FM10 or FM2N).
>
> There are a lot of good manual cameras around. The classic recommendation
> was the Penatax K1000, just recently discontinued.
>
> Nikon of course produces two superb cameras the F3hp and the FM2n.
>
> The there are all the cameras from Cosina. The Cosina C1 derivatives:
>
>         Canon T60               Canon FD mount
>         Cosina C1               K mount
>         Nikon FM10              Nikon F mount
>         Phoenix P1              K mount
>         Promaster PK2000        K mount
>         Ricoh RK5               K mount
>         Vivitar V4000           K mount
>         Yashica FX3             Yashica/Contax mount 
>
> And the Cosina C1s derivatives, with aperture priority exposure:
>
>         Cosina C1s              K mount
>         Nikon FE10              Nikon F mount
>         Olympus OM2000          Olympus/Zuiko mount

[Ed. a third party camera (above list) for a third party lens? ;-)]
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: FYI: Nikon's FM10 is terrible.
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999

Let's face it, this is an inexpensive SLR body but it does do the job quite nicely. While I'll agree that the focusing screen is not what it could have been,it is adequate,and the camera does have a accurate,centered weighted meter,and a very easy to use DOF preview button.I use mine with one of those sharp, cheapy,Vivitar 100 f3.5 macro lenses which makes a nice, light weight, packable combination for nature closeups in the field.So far, mine has performed smoothly and flawlessly and at a very reasonable cost.

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (BandHPhoto)
[1] Re: Hoya
Date: Tue Aug 24 1999

how good are Hoya's filters? I had never heard of them before a month ago.

There's nothing wrong with them at all. They're imported by THK = Tokina/Hoya/Kenko. See http://www.thkphoto.com/catalog/hoya.html

===============================

regards,
Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] ISCO

At 10:26 AM 8/2/1999 -0700, Richard Knoppow wrote:

>ISCO AFAIK was a company owned by Schneider. Isco lenses seem to be economy
>models although I've seem some pretty elaborate ones.

ISCO is an acronym for "Ioseph Schneider Company"; it was a schlock lens plant in Goettingen where Schneider could produce, and market, rather mediocre lenses without polluting their own brand-name. SOME few ISCO lenses were okay but most are, well, pretty poor.

Marc

[email protected]

[Ed. note: A Zeiss lens in Leica Labels - is it a third party lens? ;-)]
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rolleinar lenses & Gals

> I am quite sure that it is a Distagon 2.8/15 which is no fisheye. It  has a
> very huge front lens. I don't own one (unfortunately) but I have seen and
> tested it at my camera. It looks very identical to the Leica 2.8/15 lens,
> so I am not sure who was making it.

When I visited the Leica factory at Solms some time ago they let me borrow one of these lenses for a day. I took it on a Rhine cruise and had a lot of fun with this ultra wide angle lens. Yes, the Leica lens is simply the Zeiss lens rebadged. The Leica folks told me it made no sense for them to design and build such a lens when Zeiss had already done so, so they just buy in the Zeiss. I don't think Zeiss or Leica sell very many. It is a shame because it is a really nice lens.

Bob

From: "ulisse" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Leica don't know the standards? Re Hasselblad Dump
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 


> Which one is that?
> Arthur Kramer

As far as we know in Italy the 15mm 3.5 lens should be made by Zeiss for
Leitz, and the design should the result of a collaboration of Zeiss and
Asahi-Pentax (!!).

Really, the Pentax version of this lens is slightly different from Zeiss,
because there is an aspherical lens in Pentax version instead of a doublet
in the lens scheme. All of the remaining design should be the same.



From: "Brian Ellis" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Leica don't know the standards? Re Hasselblad Dump
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002

I know that Schnieder produces the 28 mm F 2.8 Super Angulon R for Leica and
Kyocera makes the 80-200mm F4 Vario Elmar but  I don't remember reading of a
Leica lens produced by Zeiss.  There are Leica lenses based on Zeiss
designs, such as the 15mm F 3.5 Super Elmar R, but that lens isn't make by
Zeiss as far as I know.  So which Leica lens is made by Zeiss?

ulisse" [email protected] wrote ...
> > Interesting confidence. Why are you so sure?
>
> At least one Leitz lens is directly made by Zeiss, many others, like is for
> other even Japanese brands have an optical scheme that is copyed from Zeiss;
> for istance: 50 Summilux - Planar, 50 Summicron - Sonnar, many tele lenses
> and Elmar 50 mm- Tessar.
>
> So, Should Leitz go to medium format, they would need a very winning camera
> body to give better performance than Hassie.

[Ed. note: While Minolta is not a third party lens maker, even for Leitz, the following may be interesting here:]
From the Leica List:
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999
From: "Doug Richardson" [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Lens quality from non-Leica factories

Dan Cardish [email protected] wrote:

My point is that there *may* be a difference in quality between Leica lenses made in a Leica factory versus Leica lenses made in a non Leica factory.

During the LHSA visit to Solms in April, I asked one of our hosts from Leica how the company could be sure of getting Leica-quality lenses from outside companies such as Minolta without giving such companies full access to Solms design and manufacturing methods.

His response was that Leica does not share its design or manufacturing technology with outside companies. If a lens is obtained from another company, then that company has to use its own technology to create a product which met the specification laid down by Solms.

So the quality of Leica lenses made in a non Leica factory is controlled by specifications devised by Leica.

I wish I'd had the time to take this topic further and ask if the Leica specifications also defined the desired level of product mechanical durability, and if this was the case, how Leica established that the durability standard had been met.

In practice, the only proof of long-term durability is passage of time. In the 1960s, Leitz vulcanite was seen as a material with superb wear-resistance, but we now see the dreaded "vulcanite disease" affecting cameras of ever-increasing age.

Regards,

Doug Richardson

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999
From: Larry Kopitnik [email protected]
Subject: re: [NIKON] Who makes what

> Also, I've long heard that Kyocera (manufacturer of most Zeiss lenses for
> Contax) makes the 60 mm Micro Nikkor for Nikon. And I believe Cosina makes
> the Nikkor-labeled lens that accompanies the FM10.

I am sure the 60mm Micro-Nikkor is made by Nikon. Tamron does not list a 60mm lens on their web site.

A couple of points ('tis my post to which you're responding).

First, there's a difference between design and manufacture. I used "manufacture" and "make" throughout my original post. I absolutely do not believe that the the 28-200 Nikkor or 60 mm Nikkor are anything but original Nikon optical designs. In fact, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find that Nikon supplies the glass to those to whom they MIGHT outsource the manufacturing. By "manufacture" I mean make the mechanical assemblage and barrel and assemble all parts. That's what I have been told -- perhaps erroneously -- is outsourced to Tamron on the 70-300 and 28-200 Nikkors. My apologies if that meaning was not clear previously.

Second, I didn't write that I'd heard 60 mm Nikkor manufacturing was outsourced to Tamron, but rather to Kyocera, manufacturer of Zeiss lenses for Contax. Kyocera does not design any of those Zeiss lenses. Zeiss lenses are designed in Germany by Zeiss. Rather, Kyocera manufactures the lenses to Zeiss design specifications and standards. This is what I've heard -- and yes, it certainly is possible that those who told me this were wrong -- Kyocera also does for Nikon with the 60 mm Micro Nikkor.

(By the way, I'm far less certain that the 70-300 Nikkor is a Nikon design. Specifications are virtually identical to the Tamron lens. Cutaway drawings are identical. Though I'd bet that's Nikon-made glass in the Nikkor, as far as the optical design, as the colloquialism goes, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well....)

Larry

From Rollei List:
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Leicas, Rolleis & Gals

[email protected] writes:

> Hi RJ, are you just asking Herr Schregle,
>  or would you ask me as well ?
>  (I have SL 35 Rolleinars (except the 3.5/14,
>  the fat 28-80 and the 8/500 Reflex) if anybody
>  should care)

Hi Jan,

Melinda said the people she knew in the USA all owned Mamiyas or 'Blads. Herr Schregle jokingly responded saying that she committed the "ultimate sacrilege." I just wanted to know if Herr Schregle owned any Rolleinar lenses that were made by Mamiya.

Do you have all of these Rolleinars: 21mm f/4; 28mm f/2.8; 35mm f/2.8; 50mm f/3.5 macro; 85mm f/2.8; 105mm f/2.8 macro; 105mm f/2.8; 135mm f/2.8; 200mm f/3.5; 50-250mm f/4-5.6 macro; 80-200mm f/2.8; 80-200mm f/4.0?

R. J. Bender (A Nikon, Mamiya and Rollei user. )
mailto:[email protected] or
mailto:[email protected]>BR> http://homepages.infoseek.com/~rbender/RS.htm

[Ed. note: regarding demise of Ricoh cameras]
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: A great p&s -Ricoh GR1

> Sorry for the late reply. I note that they no longer available in the USA. There
> were a couple of listings in eBay and they go for $350-$400. Some  outfit in
> London bought a batch of these and they run about $550 US. Judging by the
> information available, they are a superlative camera.
>
> Roger

Most recent Ricoh 35mm cameras were outsourced from Cosina and Goko. I would guess that this one is out of Cosina. For a short time in Japan you could buy just the lens in Leica mount, but they didn't make many and I think the supply has pretty well dried up.

Everyone I know who owns or has used a GR-1 has had nothing but praise for it.

Looks like Ricoh in the USA has decided to make their money on office copiers, since they are no longer selling any film cameras, just digital stuff.

Bob

[Ed. note: Minolta screens in Hasselblads?]
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rolleigrid Question

> It is my understanding that the Hi-D screen which is standard in the 6008i
> (and available as an option at about $235 for other 600x, E2/F and GX
> cameras) IS the Accu-Matte screen.  My further understanding is that it
> isn't actually Hasselblad technology but licensed from Minolta (if I recall
> correctly).

The Hi-D screen is not the same as the Acute-Matte.

Yes, Hasselblad buys the Acute-Matte screens from Minolta.

Bob

From: "RainMeister" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Does Chinon really exist?
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999

> Help! Can someone help me find Chinon America? 

I found their Japanese web site which may help you. It's in English. http://www.chinon.co.jp/faq/faq-e.htm

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999
From: John Albino [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] They ARE Tamrons

The Nikkor 70-300 f/4-5.6 and the 28-200 that is.

Some Nikon reps have quietly admitted as much to their larger customers. If the corresponding lenses are taken apart, the construction is exactly the same.

Now I still think Nikon may design the lens, and subcontract the manufacture out to Tamron, along with a license to sell a Tamron version. If so, that doesn't make the lens a Tamron, since such outsourcing is a fact of life in every industry today. (For example, the laser printer engine in Hewlett-Packard LaserJets is made by Canon, probably with Chinese "slave labor" but it is still an "HP Laser Printer.)

The cheap plastic Nikon lenses apparently are made by Cosina, and may have been designed and developed by Cosina (much as the FM-10 and FE-10 were). At least that's a common opinion on a wide variety of sources I've talked to recently.

- --
John Albino
mailto:[email protected]

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "JB" [email protected]
[1] Re: Focal Brand Lenses
Date: Thu Jan 13 2000

Yes, K-Mart sold the Focal lenses. I don't know who actually made them, but the same lenses were sold by Montgomery? Ward under the brand name "Ozunon", and by Ritz Camera as "Quantaray." They're OK mechanically, but mediocre optically. The "MC" stands for "Multi-Coated", meaning the anti-reflective coating on the glass, and the mount is usually designated by a series of letters, such as "PK" for Pentax K, "N" or "N-AI\S" for Nikon, "OM" for Olympus, etc. I still have one of the Ward's versions in Pentax mount laying around that I haven't used in years. Since, as I recall, they were very inexpensive, they might be a decent value if you're not planning on doing any big enlargements.

....

From: [email protected] (Jsn234)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Pentax lenes vs the others
Date: 13 Oct 1999

"I think that the 28-105 Pentax is made by Tamron. It looks identitical to the Tamron 28-105/4-5.6 -- a lens I was very disappointed with.

I believe there is an older Pentax 28-105 that was/is? actually made by Pentax but the newer version is made by Tamron (and/or a Tamron design) for Pentax. This is not "expert" knowledge so for the skinny on this lens you might want to ask/call/e-mail someone at Pentax or at the Pentax Users Group (sorry - I don't have an URL, do a search on Yahoo! or some other search engine).

Viva la Pentax!

From: [email protected] (John Francis)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Pentax lenes vs the others
Date: 13 Oct 1999

....

>I only use Pentax lenses. I have used some Sigma and one
>other brand. Within one year of purchase, all of the non
>Pentax lenses were returned to the dealer. The Sigma lenses
>in particular did not hold up.

Just because it says "Pentax" on it doesn't mean it is made by Pentax. A few recent Pentax lenses have beed rebadged Tamrons, etc., with the Pentax lens coating (and a Pentax chip to transmit MTF information to bodies such as the PZ-1p). You can't judge a lens simply by the name on the side. Some Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, ... gear is excellent; some isn't. And some lenses that say Pentax (or Nikon, or Canon, ...) are rubbish. That's particularly true for the cheap low-end zooms often sold as part of a kit - avoid them like the plague.

.....

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000
From: Ari Pesonen [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Cosina!

....

Don't kill the messenger. The Voigtl�nder name is owned by the German firms Ringfoto GmbH & Co. and Alfo Marketing KG and they began to relaunch the brand in 1997. You should tell _them_ not to let Cosina make their equipment but some more distinguished manufacturer. BTW, Sigma makes some lenses for Leica.

http://www.voigtlaender.de/

AriP.

[Ed.note Surprise! - Sigma made Leica lenses, Kyocera (Contax/yashica) makes Leica lenses now, Sigma makes the hasselblad zoom, so if Sigma is good enough for Leica and Hasselblad, what about you? ;-)]
[P.S. Mr. Bob Shell is a noted pro photographer and editor of Shutterbug]
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Cosina!

Or more correctly, Sigma used to make lenses for Leica. Today the Japanese-made Leica lenses are from Kyocera. Sigma does make the Hasselblad zoom, though, and Fuji makes the Hasselblad X-Pan and lenses. Should we insist on not calling this stuff Leica and Hasselblad?? The truth is that it is no longer economically practical to make much photo gear in Germany.

Bob

[Ed. note: Sigma strikes again, this time in Leica mounts!]
From: [email protected] (Joe B.)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Sigma == Leica

>John Stafford [email protected] wrote
>> So, when you Leica chauvinists wax dreamily about the Very Special quality
>> of Leitz lenses, do you know for a FACT whether your lens was not, in
>fact,
>> made by Sigma?

I have noticed Leica users tend to be pretty well informed about the origin of the lenses they use. Everyone I have discussed this with knows perfectly well which is which. My Leica 28-70 zoom was made by Sigma, but with Leica specs and quality control and redesigned mechanics and different coatings. It felt very good to use, very well damped with a heavy mount, and optically was quite a nice lens but wasn't up to the standard of the other Leica lenses I had and I eventually sold it. The point is that Sigma is a big lens manufacturer and it makes lenses to order for other companies too, to other makers' specs. They don't just bang everything out like a regular Sigma lens or other makers would be very reluctant to use them.

Joe B.

From: Bruce McLaughlin [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Sigma makes hassy zoom etc. Re: Hasselblad or Contax?

Perhaps one of the principle reasons for not using Zeiss as a supplier for the zoom may be that Zeiss may not be able, or willing, to make a zoom lens. After all, Hassey turned to Schneider for its other zoom. Zeiss seems to have a rather selective interest in the market place, choosing to either not enter or choosing to exit a market segment. Zeiss and large format lenses is one example. Zeiss no longer make them. Zeiss and zoom lenses for TV cameras may be another. I don't believe it has ever made them (in contrast to Schneider and Fuji, Canon, et al.). Zeiss does make zooms for motion picture cameras though.

Hassey can't buy from Zeiss if Zeiss is not interested in making a particular product and that may be the case in this instance. In any event, if Hassey is putting its name on another manufacturer's product, I'm sure it's smart enough to know it will be held responsible by the market for the quality. As is widely known, in recent years, more and more parts for Leica cameras (the SLRs in particular) are purchased from other sources rather than being made in house by Leica. So outsourcing is by no means unique. If the result is to turn a Rolls Royce into a junker, than the market will soon no longer be willing to pay Rolls Royce prices. Again, I'm sure Hasselbald is smart enough to realize that. If it isn't its competitors and customers will not be at all reticent about reminding them. But if it can increase efficiency while broadening its product base and maintaining highest quality, what's wrong with that? That is how one stays in business these days and no company can afford to ignore that.

From: "zip" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Sigma == Leica

> Just for the record, by early, you must mean AFTER
> the Leicaflex SL2 but before the current models....
> The Leicaflex, Leicaflex SL and SL2 were not made by
> or with Minolta.

The Current Model R8 is not made by Minolta.

The only one lens Sigma ever made for Leitz is the pre 28-70mm/3.5-4.5 The current same lens is made by Kyocera.

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000
From: "Frank Filippone" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Leica] Contax N1

I suggested some time back the combo of Contax and Leica as 1 company. There are a lot of ways NOT to mix corporate issues with cooperation.

Just listen to what we know and what have been told......

Leica puts their name on Minolta Cameras, with some design from Leica, some Minolta... R series, Leica CL/CLE

Leica has Minolta make lenses for them.

Leica has Zeiss make lenses for them.

Leica has Contax ( Yashica (Kyocera)) make lenses for them.

Leica makes Point and shoot cameras.... I do not understand wher these come from, but I doubt Leica is making the cameras in their factories.

Leica slaps their name on a Fuji DIgital Camera.

The President of Leica says that the company is heading for a MF camera... SO where does Leica have the $$$ ( that is also spelled huevos) to design and tool a bottoms up new camera when they are barely profitable?

Contax MF camera is considered world class if for no other reason than Zeiss lenses...

Does it take a big leap of faith to guess that the Contax MF cameras may be rebranded with Leica's name????

Ditto the scenario with some Fuji Camera, ala Hasselblad......

Match that scenario with a digital R9 camera...... maybe the Fuji digital with a R lensmount?

I am on pins and needles waiting for Photokina, it should be real fun!

Frank Filippone
[email protected]

From the Leica Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: xxx888 serial number

Miro Jurcevic wrote:

>I saw an R lense in a store yesterday, 24mm Elmarit, 3500888

Good lens. Optics by Minolta. I bought one in 1976 and used it until just last year. I now use my 24 ASPH.

Jim

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: [CONTAX] Zeiss and the N1

I wrote an e-mail yesterday to Zeiss asking why they didn't have the new lenses for the N1 on their web site yet and asking when they would have them up so we could see the optical diagrams and specifications.

Here is their most useful reply. [g]

Bob

>Dear Mr. Shell,
>
>Thank you for your e-mail dated July 19, 2000.
>
>We can't tell you when we will have information and optical diagrams of the
>new Contax N1,
>because we don't know when we will get them.
>
>Please contact Yashica Kyocera directly.
>
>Best regards
>
>Carl Zeiss
>GB Photoobjektive
>Tel: +497364/20-6175
>Fax:+497364/20-4045
>[email protected]

From: Bill Tuthill [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Rumor has it Tamron makes Nikon's lens

John Berenyi [email protected] wrote:

> I heard from more than one source that Tamron makes Nikon's 28-200mm
> optics.  Is this true?

No, I don't believe so.

Tamron does produce, or did design, Nikon's 70-300mm f4.0-5.6 ED zoom. The older 75-300 was sharper but had worse ergonomics.

Sorry for the serious answer.

From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Rumor has it Tamron makes Nikon's lens

I remember I once read in a german magazine that Tamron (or Tokina?) makes a 28-200mm for Pentax.

Winfried from Germany.

Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000
From: "Brian Ellis" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Caltar lenses

According to an interview in "View Camera" (I think it was) magazine several years ago, Calumet bids the contract for manufacturing Caltar lenses, with the low bidder getting the contract. I believe that it is usually, perhaps always, either Schneider or Rodenstock but I don't know how you tell which one made a particular lens.

...

Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000
From: James Meckley [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Caltar lenses

John Hicks wrote:

>   I _think_ the Caltar HR lenses were from Topcon. I know some were
> once made by Topcon but I don't know the designation.
>   We had a 210 f5.6 that the Calumet guys identified as from Topcon;
> it tested (by photographing objects) to be of around the same
> performance as the '70s Synnar-S etc, iow, not bad but not quite as
> good as current lenses.
>   Give Calumet a call, 1-800-CALUMET; they'll tell you more than you
> ever wanted to know about the current and old lenses. 

John is correct; the Caltar lenses designated "HR" were made by Topcon. I owned a 210mm f/5.6 HR for a brief time, tested it, and sold it... not because it was bad (it wasn't), but because it was no better than what I had at the time, a Schneider Symmar-S MC.

Jim Meckley

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Rollei] Cosina!

The same power winder was sold under the Rollei name. When I took one apart once to repair a bad solder joint I was surprised to find the internal parts marked with the Canon logo! So who made what where is always a question.

Bob

>From: John Jensen 
>To: [email protected], [email protected]
>Subject: Re[2]: [Rollei] Cosina!
>Date: Thu, Feb 10, 2000, 8:45 AM
>
> Keeping to the Rollei subject, I have a Rollei SL 35SE coupled to a Voigtl�nder
>  power drive (film advance).  Sounds incestuous, doesn't it?  Both made
> in Singapore, presumably in the Rollei factory there.

[Ed. note: Larry makes a good point, namely, the standards may be what they are; however, our point here is who makes what is often surprising!]
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000
From: Larry Kopitnik [email protected]
Subject: re: [NIKON] re: third party lenses..

....

The Sigma-made Leica lens, though (their 28-70 f/3.5-4.5) is made to Leica specifications, not Sigma specifications with, I hear, a high rejection rate. The Leica lens is of significantly better mechanical quality than its Sigma counterpart.

I've also heard from a couple different sources that Kyocera manufactures the 60 mm Micro-Nikkor for Nikon.

Larry

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Cosina, and unfortunate "garbage" remark

No, the Praktica is in no way related to Cosina. Schneider owns the Praktica factory today and I ran into someone from the factory at PMA. He told me that they are down now to 25 employees and production has ceased on all products. The 25 still there do office work and rummage through the old warehouses to find stuff in good enough condition to sell. It is a sad end to a fine old camera company.

The last Praktica cameras made were in the B series. These use a unique bayonet mount, so you are stuck with finding lenses made for them and these are very uncommon outside Germany. The top and bottom covers are plastic, but the main body casting is, as you note, aluminum alloy. The shutter is the Praktica L type and the recent ones are much better than the old ones.

Bob

.....

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] interesting new book

Rudi Hillebrand just sent me his latest effort written with Gunther Kadlubek, called Kadlubek's Lens Catalogue. It has text in German, English and Japanese, and lists just about every photographic lens ever made.

Since there has been discussion here over who makes what, it is nice to have a table of all Rollei, Rolleinar, Voigtlander, etc., lenses telling who actually made them, plus lots of other interesting info. This will be a must for collectors to own.

It costs $ 16.95 plus postage.

Info from [email protected]

Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000
From: tom pfeiffer [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Focal Brand Lenses

[email protected] wrote:

> I'm a bit of a "newbie" and I have a question or two about Focal lenses.
>
> How can you tell by the designation on the lens whether or not it will
> fit an AE-1? Does "MC" by any chance stand for "Mount-Canon"? And was
> this brand associated with K-Mart? Are the lenses of "reasonable"
> quality?  Thanks in advance.......John Bauer

Focal lenses were in fact sold by K-Mart. MC generally stands for meter coupled, although it also refers to pre-MD Minolta lenses as well.

Tom P.

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei SL 35 & lenses

Some notes from personal experience as a dealer and authorized repairman for Rollei in those days.

> SL 35 M made in Singapore black:
> open aperture metering, microprism and cylinder lens
> sucks (it's styled as a brick, looks rugged, but is not reliable) even if it
> does work, compared to the SL350 you gain a frame counter that only
> works, when a film is transported, and you loose the 1 second (1/2sec longest
> speed)

This camera is identical to the Zeiss Ikon SL706 with the Rollei QBM "reverse engineered" onto it and a minor change in film advance gearing to shorten the advance stroke. The repair manual issued by Rollei actually shows the ZI SL706 in most of the photos! This is part of what Rollei bought when ZI went out of the camera business in 1973. The top and bottom covers on the Rollei version are thin plastic and easily cracked.

This camera was also sold as the Voigtlander VSL-1. In Germany it was sold with M-42 thread mount and the same meter coupling as the ZI SL706, and in the USA with Rollei QBM.

.....

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000
From: "Jeff Kane" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Nikon's letting other companies produce certain products

It is a fact that Mamiya made the Nikkorex F for Nikon in 1962. While not exsactly a crowning achievment in SLR design, it didn't start the downfall of Nikon either.

As long as Nikon stays behind the product, I don't have a problem with them deciding that someone else can do it better.

Jeff

From: "Leen Koper" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Soligor 105mm Lens
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000

The Soligor name -at least in Europe- has been bought by -I think a german company- someone else. The lenses they sell in Europe with the Soligor name on it, are Cosina lenses.

.....

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999
From: Ferdi Stutterheim [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Samsung sells Rollei Fototechnic

A national newspaper in the Netherlands reported the sale by Samsung of Rollei Fototechnic to 'independent investors' . The paper added the company was well known for the Rolleiflex TLR used by all photo reporters in the fifties.

It is obvious Rollei has some marketing work to do.

Ferdi Stutterheim,
Drachten, The Netherlands.

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999
From: "J.P. van Dorssen" [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] New Ownership & Managementstructure Rollei Fototechnic

Dear RUG-ers,

In addition to my latest email about the retraction of Samsung out of Rollei Fototechnic in Braunschweig I send you (hot of the press) the official information about the new ownership & managementstructure of our beloved company. This information has been released today at 15:00 p.m.

Best regards,
Hans van Dorssen

=======================
PRESS INFORMATION
========================

December 01, 1999

The traditional German company Rollei is independent again

Just before its 80th anniversary, a change in the ownership was effected at the traditional manufacturer of camera equipment.

A group of employees in leading positions took over the shares of the former shareholder Samsung after corresponding negotiations:

Mr. J�rgen Fahlbusch (Sales RolleiMetric)
Mr. Hans Hartje (Sales)
Mr. Hansj�rgen Hartung (Development)
Mr. Klaus-Dieter Koss (Sales)
Mr. Karl-Heinz Krings (Production)
Mr. Roland Kr�ger (Development)

After this Management Buy Out (MBO), Rollei is an independent Braunschweig based camera manufacturer again. Until the new managing directors are officially enrolled, Mr. Paul Dume and Mr. Youngmin Lee will run the business.

All delivery agreements with Samsung remain untouched by this change. For the solid future business development of Rollei, the Korean group of companies is providing additional financial funds besides taking over financial obligations. The grounds, buildings and patents remain in the possession of Rollei. Samsung owned Rollei since 1995 and invested considerable amounts in the R & D centre as well as the city of Braunschweig and the Federal Province of Lower Saxony.

In the course of the already effected reorganisation measures, agreed upon with the workers council, Rollei will continue to work with a total number of 171 employees as of February 29, 2000. Further measures concerning personnel going beyond this point are not planned.

[Ed. note: see Kino Precision Corp. (KIRON)...]
From: "Mark Bergman" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Admiral/Panagor zoom: what is this, what do you think?
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999

I can't remember the history of Panagor but they were (is?) made by a company that routinely made lenses for other more well known names (like Vivitar). They made a few lenses for sale under their own house name of Panagor. Back when I had Olympus I picked up a 55 & 105 macro lens by Panagor and they were very very good (as good or better as my 50F3.5 Zuiko Macro).

Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Quantary

Quanataray lenses ARE Ritz branded Sigma lenses. The few exceptions are the T-mount manual focus lenses like the 500mm you mentioned (made by Cosina), the 800-1200mm that is actually made by Kalimar, and the 500mm/1000mm preset that I am not sure about. I don't know who makes their teleconverters, I think THK (Tokina/Hoya/Kenko).

Date: 5 Nov 1999
From: Lawrence Woods [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Does Chinon really exist?

Lawrence Woods [email protected] wrote:

: Help! Can someone help me find Chinon America?
: I have a ~6 year old Chinon camera that needs repair.

Thanks to the folks who replied here and by mail. For the record, (and anyone looking this up on Deja in the future) it seems my only hope is

Japan Camera Service
414 Bergen Blvd
Palisades Park NJ 07650
(201) 944-9242

Evidently they inherited Chinon's spare parts when Chinon withdrew from the USA. They may or may not have parts for any given model. In my case, they said they had parts for a "Pocket Zoom"

As for the person who suggested I get a replacement camera from a major brand, I can only agree. This was the only over $40 camera I have purchased since 1973 that wasn't an Olympus. Come to think of it, those under $40 models didn't hold up either, but usually because they got dropped by my kids.

-----
[email protected]

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999
From: "Ron Walton" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: ProMaster Lenses

....

>I went to one of the local photography shops and as I cannot
afford
>the Canon lenses in the focal length I want, they carry the Promaster
>brand of lenses....

The Promaster brand lenses are made by various manufacturers.

Up untill reacently they mostly were made by Sigma and Cosina. Most of the current Promasters are made by Tamron.

The 100mm 3.5 macro is a Cosina product as is the 100mm 3.5 Vivitar.

If you're looking for something such as a 28-105 zoom you can get a gray market Canon USM from B&H or Adorama for not much more than you will pay for a Sigma or Promaster.

Ron Walton
Visit the BPC http://www.bpc.photographer.org

From Rollei Mailing LIst:
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Rollei] Cosina!

Sigma had their lenses in QBM for Rollei. Tamron had adaptall mounts for Rollei. Makina, after failing Rollei QC, sold the lenses in QBM under their name. ENNA Werk in Munich made a full line of lenses in QBM which were sold in the USA by Silogram. And I think there were a few others. By the time of the SL35E, Rollei had finally gotten it right on a 35mm SLR but it was just too late. I think the lens companies expected it to sell better than it did and so they tooled up to make lenses for it.

Bob

Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999
From: "Chris Lee" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why doesn't Nikon make any Medium format gear?

I would. Kyocera or Zeiss, who makes it doesn't matter so long as the cameras are of high quality. In fact, I think Kyocera is doing a better job and leading more innovations than Zeiss was in the last days of Zeiss Ikon. Neither do I think Zeiss has enough resources and expertise in producing a modern camera if it chooses to do so again. The partnership has only benefited the two parties as well as consumers.

Kyocera is a very well respected company in the area of materials and electronics engineering. It's a materials and electronics conglomerate, and camera sales account for only about 10% of total revenue. It's a very well managed company whose success story has been published in the form of two Harvard Business School case studies, and founder and ex-CEO has received four honorary PhDs for his innovative management.

Kyocera never intended to hide the identity of the modern day Contax marquee. Go to www.contaxcameras.com and you'll see KYOCERA on the top right.

----------

Brian Ellis [email protected] wrote:

> Interesting point. I've often wondered how many people would pay Contax prices
> if Kyocera put its own name on the camera instead of latching onto a name that
> used to represent one of the great cameras and camera companies in the world
> and sticking it on their cameras. Brian
>
> Bob Salomon wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you really meant to say Kyocera who makes both. Yashica as a camera
>> manufacturer has not existed in years. But the name does.
>> --
>>
>> HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Amazon, Braun, Gepe, Giottos,
>> Heliopan, HP Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof, Pro
>> Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar 2000

....

Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999
From: geoff/camera tech [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [BRONICA] Re: bronica-digest V1 #113

>>Edwin,
>>
>>Long live NIKON !!!!
>>
>>Would but they made a medium format set-up...
>>
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>Kevin
>>
>
>Now that would be intriguing to see Nikon make a medium format setup. I
>imagine that they might try for the overcrowded 645 market if they were to
>actually attempt such a thing as that is where the technology that Nikon has
>for 35mm could best be applied but I'm not holding my breath for it. What I
>really wouldn't mind seeing is Nikon making some lenses for the Bronica
>bodies but given that Tamron is owner of Bronica and competitor to Nikon in 
>the 35mm lens market, not likely to happen. BTW is it really true that Sony
>is a major shareholder of Tamron?

Nikon does not walk on water either. Before tooting Nikons horn for them check this out. The stuff they put out now bears no resemblance to the quality and durability of the stuff they built their name on. Hardly anyone else does either, they are all cutting quality to cut costs. Have you noticed the Yen is in a nose dive and has been for quite sometime. Turn one of those precious Nikkors over and you will discover many of them stamped "made in Malaysia". Nikon also has no corner on technology. They would just like you to think so.

They made much more money making the machines that make computer chips, till the world chip market went in the dumper a year or so back. They were converting camera production facilities to chip machine making plants faster than you could shake a Nikkor. They now are now in full reverse since the chip market is down the tubes. Nikon is owned by Mitsubishi Industries. They were the biggest Japanese Military industrial complex supplier to the Japanese war effort in WW II.

Yes Sony is a major stock holder of Tamron, this came from number three in the company. Tamron makes all Sony's lenses from consumer grade camcorders to broadcast quality optics. Tamron is one of the worlds largest lens makers. They make lenses for the big five, Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax among others. The worm has turned Bronica now makes lenses for Nikon. Of course none of them will cop to this. These agreements are very hush hush. You scratch my back I will scratch yours.

In many cases no money changes hands in these deals. Technology is traded. I will give you rights to my patent if you give me rights to yours. Many of the once venerable Japanese camera companies now sub out their production to other contractors that maintain production facilities in cheap labor markets such as Malaysia, Taiwan, and China among others, where cheap labor and sweat shops are common and the environmental regulations are minimal to non existent. Ever heard of Love Canal or Minimata?

Ever notice that some of Tamrons high end optics are almost identical in design optically to those sold under other brand names? Look at the 300 2.8 lenses on the market. The only variance is cosmetics and price. You get raped for it under the brand name. You are not paying for product, you are paying for heavy hitting and very expensive ad campaigns.

Keep this in mind the next time you open one of those beautifully printed product brochures they give you by the gross ton at every camera show. Along with a free wheel barrel to haul them around in. The money to drive all this comes from somewhere, guess where? So reach ever deeper in your pockets for that next lens that will be half the quality of materials and construction for twice the price of the one you bought the year before for half the price.

Best regards,

geoff/camera tech
2308 Taraval St. S.F.,CA 94116 USA
UNDERWATER PHOTO/VIDEO SALES-REPAIRS-RENTALS
Bronica western regional factory service center
(415)242-1700 Fax (415)242-1719
email: [email protected] web site: http://www.cameratech.com

Date: 26 Mar 1999
From: [email protected] (Ryan Hare)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Promaster 60-300 f4-5.6

Apparently, this lens is really a Vivitar with the Promaster label on it. Any thoughts on the quality of this lens? I found one used, asking price is $149. All comments appreciated!!!!

Ryan

Date: Sat, 22 May 1999
From: [email protected] (Lou Caputo)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Pentax A Lenses

"JRiegle" [email protected] wrote:

> I have a CPC Phase 2 35-70 f4 MC lens. I looked it up in a '86 photo buyers
> guide which said "CPC, Combined Products Corp., was related to Cosmicar
> which was a Pentax subsidiary. I can't remember, but I think they said CPC
> was a distributor. The zooms were made in Japan and the primes were made
> elsewhere (Taiwan?). The lens is the sharpest zoom I have used. At 35mm it
> equals many primes I've used.. . .

I agree. I use it more than any other lens in my collection. Remarkably sharp throughout the zoom range.

--
Lou Caputo
[email protected]

From: [email protected] (JAdler444)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Spiratone lense: Any experience ???
Date: 31 May 1999

Most Spiratone lenses were made by either Sun Optical or Sigma. Your best bet woul dbe to leave a substantial deposit with the seller so you could test the lens. Alternatively you could buy it with a money back guarantee for X number of days. If you test it make sure to use a solid tripod. More sharpness is lost with long lenses due to camera shake than to poor lens resolution.

Jeff

[Ed. note: how about a Sigma zoom for Hasselblad?]
From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] important info

Who says it is made by Kyocera?

I have it on good authority that it comes from Sigma.

Bob

- ----------

>From: Andr� Oldani [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [CONTAX] important info
>Date: Wed, Apr 19, 2000, 2:29 PM
>
> Hassi has
> recently introduced a zoom lens for their 200 series that was not built by
> CZ but KYOCERA. It was rated as one of the best (the best?) zoom lenses ever
> made.

From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] important info

According to my friends in Solms the 80 - 200 f/4 was designed by them and is built for them by Kyocera. So that part is right. Also according to them they no longer source any lenses from Sigma or Minolta. So that part is wrong.

Bob

- ----------

>From: Andr� Oldani [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [CONTAX] important info
>Date: Thu, Apr 20, 2000, 3:26 AM
>

> Oh by the way and just for fun it's also claimed that the often praised
> Leica Vario-Elmar 4,0/80-200 is calculated in Solms but build in the
> Kyocera/Yashica plant in Northern Japan. The Leica Vario-Elmar 28-70 is
> built by Sigma in Aizu/Japan. (source fotomag 02/2000)
>
> Seems to be the alike strategy as for our CZ lenses.
>
> Andr�

From Pentax Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000
To: [email protected]
From: George Stanley [email protected]
Subject: Re: Soligor lenses

you wrote:

>Anyone has some kind of experience with Soligor lenses? How do they perform?
>Regards

Here in the US, "soligor" was a lens trade name used by a photo products importer named Allied Impex Corp, a firm that also had a major investment in a Japanese SLR manufacturer-- the "Miranda" cameras. When Miranda failed in the late 1970's, Allied Impex also went into bankruptcy. Subsequently the Soligor name was sold to some European interests, and for a short while, the name appeared there on cameras and lenses.

All the Soligor lenses were made by a variety of Japanese lens makers, just like the "Vivitar" and "spiratone" lenses of that era. Most were pretty good. Sone were not.

So-- be carefull!

--George Stanley, Studio City, Ca., USA

[Ed.note: Mamiya's Nikkorex cameras and lenses made for Nikon label early on...]
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000
From: Rick Housh [email protected]
Subject: Re: Speaking of Mamiya

Steven K Witt wrote:

>Ok. so the Nikkorex was it? Were there any others? Oh and yes, unfortunately
>the Nikkorex was a Nikon branded camera...  Dark moment in Nikon's history....

While the Nikkorex was obviously not up to the quality standards of the other Nikon cameras at the time, I don't know I'd say it was as bad as all that. After all, the Nikkorex introduced the vertical travel Copal Square shutter that allowed flash synchronization at 1/125 second became the basis for the Nikkormat and subsequent Nikon designs. It was the first vertical travel shutter in any interchangeable lens SLR camera.

Less well known is the fact that Mamiya produced a couple of Nikon branded lenses in the F mount, ostensibly for use with the Nikkorex, but which also fit any Nikon with an F mount. These were the Sekor Nikkorex 35mm f/2.8, and the Sekor Nikkorex 135mm f/2.8. Very few of each were made. These lenses had a semi-automatic diaphragm, i.e. the aperture closed when the shutter release was depressed but had a lever which had to be manually operated to reopen the diaphragm after it was released. The aperture ring had a lock with a button which had to be depressed to change the f/stop.

If you care to look, images of these lenses are at:

35mm - http://home.swbell.net/houshr/sekor3v.jpg
135mm - http://home.swbell.net/houshr/135nikkorex.jpg

The 35mm is a direct scan of my own lens.
The 135mm is a photo recently downloaded from eBay.

These were not the same as the Rikenon lenses produced later by Ricoh for use with its own Ricoh Singlex Reflex with the Nikon F mount or with the Sears (Roebuck) SL-11 SLR with the Nikon F mount (a rebadged Ricoh Singlex). Not to be confused with similar Ricoh Singlex and Sears SLR cameras and matching lenses with Pentax mount.

- Rick Housh -

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Prego Micron = Ricoh ?

....

> Jan, with respect to Ricoh GR-1. Is it made by Consina (sp?)? Why is
> that model only sold outside the US if is were so popular?

It is only sold outside the US because Ricoh USA decided last year to only sell digital cameras. They sell no film cameras of any sort in the USA.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Prego Micron = Ricoh ?

....

> Are all Rollei-prego Point and Shoot cameras made by Ricoh ?

No. There was one model which was built by Ricoh in the past, but the Rollei version had a different lens. Unless it has changed with the recent sale of Rollei, all of the point and shoot Rollei cameras are made by Samsung.

Bob

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] T2/ standing up for the Stylus

Keppler knows all. Or at least more than any other one man (or woman) I know in this business. I always respect his opinions.

Shhhhhhhhhh. Don't tell anyone, but I have heard from a reliable source that the original Olympus Infinity Stylus is actually OEM made for Olympus by Kyocera.

Bob

....

> The editor of Popular Photography (H.Kepler ?? sp??) wrote about
> The "third camera you should take" (the 2nd as backup SLR body and
> the 3rd as "good P&S capable to autofocus in low light"), he chose
> Olympus Stylus as the one, (with one more option of choice I forgot)
> having either passive or active autofocus mechanism. I forgot which
> was which, but only 2 models of P&S passes this criteria and that was
> why he chose it as the best 3rd camera to carry.

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Rollei Micron

I don't think Samsung made any of the Ricoh cameras, and the Micron is made in Japan, not Korea. All of the recent Ricoh SLR cameras have been rebadged Cosinas, so this may have come from Cosina as well.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 07 May 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Our Sister List

> There seems to me anyway to be a lot more gear available for photogs to
> play with compared to the old days. May be it was that photogs had to be
> more inventive then compared to now. For example.... I recall seeing my
> first 300/2.8. It was a Topcon lems with a Nikon mount and weighed a 'ton".
> I am not sure if it was 'bashed' or if it was avaliable with the N mount
> from Topcon. Nowadays many if not most of the 35mm SLR cameras have a
> 300/2.8 lens or equivalent in their line. Furthermore, AF, particularly the
> specifc electronic couplings, e.g., chip in the lens, has made 'bashing'
> less practical. At least LF photogs have a great range in optics choice and
> are not stuck primarily with the range provided by the OEM. 

Topcon used to build really first rate pro cameras in their D series. They offered the first add-on motor winder for any 35mm SLR. They were innovative and quality conscious, but hampered by really bad marketing, particularly in the USA. After Beseler dropped the line they just sort of fell apart here. Toward the end they were reduced to making rather generic Pentax K mount cameras sold under house brand names by Ritz and Cambridge.

I don't think they ever offered that 300mm f/2.8 in anything other than Topcon D mount, which was a modified Exakta mount. The one you saw had probably been "Forscherized" in NYC. Marty's people could make practically anything fit practically anything if you could afford their prices. These days Marty is semi-retired and works for NPC designing Polaroid backs and other gadgets. But he still gets a wistful look in his eyes and a smile on his face when I bring up the old days to him.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Rollei Users list digest V8 #19

Well of course it was made in the old Kilfitt factory. All Zoomar lenses were. Zoomar bought the Kilfitt factory.

This is the first I've heard of a Kilfitt/Zoomar adapter for Hasselblad 2000FC. When was the 2000FC introduced? I thought it was well after Zoomar went bust and the factory was closed.

Bob

......

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Angenieux

What mount? Vintage?

Interestingly, just a moment ago I got the latest newsletter from Zeiss and it announces a joint venture with Angenieux on lenses for shooting digital movies. Zeiss has the primes and Angenieux the zooms for shooting movies on 35mm, so they went in together to develop this adapter to use the lenses on digital movie cameras. Must be some adapter, twelve elements!!

They also announce that the official photos of the recent English royal wedding were taken with Zeiss 60mm f/3.5 lenses on a bank of Hasselblads, one fitted with a digital back, and say this lens achieves 250lpmm resolution!!

Bob

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] New camera soon

Glad to be back!

I had to go up to Long Island to the annual PMDA golf tournament since Shutterbug is a sponsor. I don't play myself, but I'm good at watching and heckling the real golfers. This year our team came in second with a score of 87. I thought this was darned good since the team that beat ours by one stroke was from Golf Digest magazine!!!!

There were teams from all the photo companies. Contax had a foursome of two of their execs and two dealers, and Canon and Nikon did the same. Also Minolta was there. Olympus was absent. Then there were magazine teams from National Geographic, Popular Science, Newsweek, and many others as well as the photo magazines.

It was a fun day, but very cool and breezy. I hadn't brought a jacket since it is usually hot this time of year in LI, so I borrowed one. Good thing we planned it for a Monday since it rained buckets on Tuesday!!

Tuesday and Wednesday we visited photo companies. Schneider and RTS on Tuesday, and Hasselblad, Mamiya and Fuji on Wednesday. Schneider is designing and making some lenses in the USA now, BTW. I didn't know that.

Bob

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000
From: Alexander [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Re: Lens Question

you wrote:

>Of course, there may be no connection between the current owners of the
>brand name and those that owned some years ago.  In any case, the lenses
>are manufactured in Japan.
>
>Jim

no no no no,

my soligor was most certainly made in Germany.

Are you sure about that.

Could there have been 2 production places.

[Ed. note: tip from Martin Ambuhl on websites:
http://www.soligor.com/
http://www.soligor.de/

...]

Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000
From: dlanor [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Zunow / Teraoka

Robert, Thanks for your info and further screens which are of help. Further to this, I've added some more comments....

>> Zunow Multi-C 80-200 f4.5 Zoom Macro lens
>>f4.5-22, A;  Canon Breech mount

>don't have data on Zunow, my guess is an importer label for
>Australian importers, ....
>EBAY - no zunow listed in lens sales (10,000+listings)
>isn't common in USA market, points to local import label.
>probably similar to another generic mfger third party lens
>track them down to a particular model by issues like filter size,
>weight,  zoom range, features.

When you searched ebay, was this using the standard Search facility offerred in the header of the ebay.com screens? or is there another way to search ebay more thoroughly?

******* ZUNOW ****

>>Zunow SLR,... other makes having Zunow lens,
>>eg "TERAOKA SEIKOSHO CO. LTD" Optika camera

further info on Zunow.

They made the first lens for the Orion Miranda T cameras of 1954, also provided lens for Nikon, Leica, Canon rangefinder cameras amongst others.

www.cameraquest. com/zunow.htm provides info.
http://homepage1.nifty.com/~sp5/nkslens/zunow110.htm shows Zunow 5cm f1.1 on Nikon rf.

A Zunow SLR recently sold on ebay for about $usa 5,000 .
A friend sold a Zunow SLR instruction booklet for $usa 400+.
Also in April, HALINA 44 Twin lens reflex, f2.8 60mm Zunow lens, sold GBP 90.00 (12 bids)

T'would appear this little under resourced company had some star moments and had tentacles far and wide?

>T.S.  probably made the lenses, or a subcontractor,
>with Zunow import label? .... I don't have listing for T.S.
>http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/optika.html Optika camera 

Nice looking, interesting camera, made by MUSASHINO KOKI Japan, became WISTA, according to McKeown's Guide.

Nothing like the TERAOKA SEIKOSHO Optika I mentioned, 35mm viewfinder camera roughly similar to rigid retinettes/ agfa optimas etc. It was on ebay, sold for $usa 318, April 2000; Zunow 4.5cmf1.8 lens, spring wound, from late 1950's.

********* TERAOKA SEIKOSHO Terry Hardy in UK advised me he had an article in "Photographica World" in 1999? While TS cameras are not common, they show up in the UK, apparently TS made cameras called Auto Terra and changed the name to Optika towards the ends of their short existence.

Another person mentions that TS is in Sugiyama's "Collector's Guide to Japanese Cameras". Made 1951 - 66, 10 models ranging from uncommon to extremely rare, but no mention of the Optika name. The TS Optika I saw on ebay was very much like the TS Auto Terra.

>list of mfgers http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/third/mfg.html
>firms merged and split etc. ;-) ....best list I've seen published.

Very impressive list, which I will no doubt visit from time to time, thank you for your effort.

The plot thickens, or thinnens into degradation?

Ron Ligtermoet
[email protected]
Australia

[Ed. note: Thanks to John for sharing these notes on Hoya's lenses!...]
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000
From: John Kuraoka [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Some info about Hoya HMC lenses, circa 1981

Bob,

Your site is a great resource. Here's something that might be of use to you and your readers: some more information about Hoya HMC lenses.

I may be one of the few people in the U.S. who has actually owned Hoya HMC lenses (the HMC, of course, refers to Hoya Multi-Coating). I bought them used, but they came with all their paperwork. They were a 35-75/4 Macro and an 80-200/4 from the early 1980s (the original sales receipts, from a camera shop in Croyden Surrey, England, were dated 27 October 1981). They were optically and mechanically very good; indeed, they were built like tanks and were two of the few third-party zooms I've used that were neutral in color. Sharpness was quite good, as I recall. Both lenses took 55mm filters. The "macro" on the 35-75 was a paltry 1:5.2 or so with a special macro mode setting; the minimum focus on the 80-200 was so distant as to be a bother. I eventually sold them both.

A brochure titled Hoya Worldwide Service Centers & Authorized Distributors, dated 12/80, lists distributors and service centers in 74 nations including the U.S. (Uniphot-Levit Corp, Woodside, NY). Interestingly, their German distributor was Hamaphot KG and their Hong Kong distributor was Fuji Photo Products, Inc.

A small, glossy brochure dated 2/81 reveals an extensive lens line: 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 135/2.8, 200/3.5, 300/5.6, 400/5.6, 28-85/4, 35-75/4 Macro, 70-150/3.8, 75-205/4 Macro, 75-260/4.5 Macro, 80-200/4, and a 100-300/5.6 Close-Focus. No variable-aperture zooms listed. This list matches up pretty well with Tokina's offerings of the same vintage, although who made what for whom is unclear. It seems likely to me that Hoya made its own glass, with Tokina as a partner in the actual manufacturing, although this is speculation on my part.

The last piece of paperwork is a guarantee card showing that Hoya offered a generous five-year warranty on their lenses. It has long since expired.

Regards,
-- John Kuraoka

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: OT Minox

Although you may not know the name, Goko may well be the world's largest maker of cameras. They make nearly all of Nikon's point and shoot, and many for Minolta, Olympus, Pentax, etc., etc. Mr. Goto, the owner and founder, is at all of the major photo shows drumming up business. Yes, Goko has factories in Malaysia, Indonesia, Macau, Taiwan, Mainland China, all over the far east.

Bob

From: [email protected] (R. Peters)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Congo Lenses

The Asrogon lenses were imported by Burleigh Brooks. Everything they imported for their business had the prefix "Astro" whatever.

bob

From: [email protected] (Michael Gudzinowicz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 16 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Congo Lenses

Phil Tobias [email protected] wrote:

>Michael:
>  They are usable, but not a good buy. The Yamasaki / Congo / Osaka / Astrogon
>/ Astronar lenses
>
>  Do you know who imported or sold the Astrogon or Astronar versions?
>  We were conjecturing about that here the other day. There were many guesses,
>but no real answers.
>  Since you're more familiar with these lenses than most, do you know any of
>the history in the US market?

The "Astro*s" are the older Yamasaki lenses, the Congos are the current Yamaski models (or names), and Osaka lenses are Congo lenses imported by Bromwell.

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Which Tripod & Head?

In Germany they are sold under the Rollei name, and in some other countries under the name of the company which makes them, Berlebach. They used to be part of VEB Pentacon.

Bob

> From: "Philip Coghlan" [email protected]
> Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Which Tripod & Head?
>
> Is there a European/UK distributor for Bromwell? I haven't heard of them.

From: Bob Salomon [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: Can Anyone Identify this Screw-Mount Soligor Lens

Soligor was the OAEM name for Interstate Marketing Corp. whose owners (The Silverman brothers) were the owners of the Miranda factory in Japan as well as being the Miranda distributor in the US. Since Soligor and Miranda had common ownership anything is possible.
--

www.hpmarketingcorp.com for links to our suppliers

HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Braun, Gepe, Giottos, Heliopan, HP Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof, Pro Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar 2000, Tetenal Ink Jet Papers

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] MF Nikon

This has been the situation with Nikon as long as I have been in the business. Nothing new. They are a small company with limited production capability, and they work to fill orders as rapidly as possible while still maintaining their tight quality control.

Why they have not enlarged production capacity to meet increased demand is a mystery to us all.

Bob

...

Date: 06 Oct 2000
From: [email protected] (Rick Walker)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: "Access" brand lenses?

>How did these lenses perform?
>Where were they made?
>And what happened to them?
>
>-Kevin

They were store branded lenses of average quality. There used to be a line of lenses called "Soligor" that were popular in the seventies and early eighties - Access lenses came from the same manufacturer. At least this was the case in the mid-eighties - there may have been a change to a different manufacturer after that.

I used to work in a camera shop that sold them. We made huge bonuses when we sold the Access lenses and tiny ones when we sold Vivitars, Tamrons, and Tokinas (the difference was frequently 20-40x in terms of the bonus). Our store's cost on the Access lenses was much lower than the other lenses, but we sold them at higher prices. Kind of disgusting. Why the store brand name? That way shoppers couldn't directly price compare these lenses with the mail order stores (or other retail stores in the area) and see that they were getting gouged.

I guess if you find one very cheap, they're fine. The more mainstream lenses are of better optical quality in general.

Rick

Date: 11 Oct 2000
From: [email protected] (Darrell A. Larose)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: AFTERMARKET LENS SUCK!!!

Let's see Tamron makes the AF-Nikkor 28-200, Back in 1982 Tokina made the 35~105 for Minolta, Samsung made the last version of the X-700. Cosina made the Nikon FE-10/FM-10, Olympus OM-2000 Vivitar V2000,V3000, and V4000, and they made the Canon T-60! There is far more outsourcing than most people realize. How do you know if Canon makes everything that they put their name on? The T-60 was a Canon, that wasn't

....

Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000
From: "ryujin" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Komuranon Lens

It's a Japanese lens maker, komura lens company.

I can find their lenses in a camera and lens white paper in 1979. But I cannot find their name in resorces in 1980'.

In the book, I found
KMC komuranon 28mm F2.5
KMC komuranon 135mm F2.5
KMC komuranon 200mm F3.5
KMC komuranon 300mm F4.5
KMC komuranon zoom 35-70mm F3.5-4.5
KMC komuranon zoom macro715 75-150mm F4.5

According to test charts about them, their optical qualities are acceptable.

Ryujin

[Ed. note: Impressed by those photos in the lens and camera ads? Maybe you shouldn't be, they could have been made by a competitors camera - even MF or LF!]
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000
From: Tony Polson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Outdoor Photography

LoveThePenguin [email protected] wrote:

> Check out the Nikon and Tokina ads
>  using the same photo
>    and
>  claiming it was their lens.
> Boy, I'll bet they're embarassed.

This is not the first time this has happened.

I have seen an advert (by a lens manufacturer) which used a stock photo that I know for a fact was taken with an OEM lens. The advertiser did not claim that the photo was taken with their lens, however readers of the advert could be expected to make that assumption.

--
Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK

From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Kinoptik lenses

I don't know if Kinoptik lenses are still made. They used to be distributed in the USA by Heitz, the same company which distributed Alpa and Gitzo. Alpa went out of business and they lost Gitzo, and they seem to be only a repair service these days.

When I was a dealer for Heitz products back in the mid 70s they carried a whole line of Kinoptik lenses, many of them Apochromats. I had the 100mm f/2 and the 150mm f/2.8. Unfortunately, because they were symmetrical designs, the lenses were very big and heavy. The 150mm f/2.8 Kinoptik Apochromat was bigger and much heavier than the Zeiss 180mm f/2.8 !

I sold the 150 ages ago, but could not bring myself to part with the 100. Every now and then I dust off my old Alpa 6c and shoot a few rolls with this lens. Kodachromes I shot with it in the 70s are still among the sharpest images in my files.

Bob

> From: Kravcar Bostjan    SENP [email protected]
> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 
> Subject: [CONTAX] Kinoptik lenses
>
> Bob !
>
> Do you have any first hand information about prices of present Kinoptik lens
> lineup ? According to very scarce information on the web these top notch
> French glass can make even Leica and Zeiss lenses to blush. Are they really
> so superior ?
>
> My regards
>
> Sebastian

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Re: Ziess Jena, ZEISS, ok?

This is not always true of lenses sold in the USA. Due to trademark fights between Zeiss in West Germany and Zeiss in East Germany, many Zeiss Jena lenses sold in the USA did not bear the Carl Zeiss Jena names. Some just said CZJ, and when Zeiss West challenged that they were changed to just read "aus Jena" (from Jena). Same is true for the Sonnar name, as some lenses were only marked CZJ - S or aus Jena - S when the courts ruled that the Sonnar name belonged to Zeiss West.

Bob

[Ed. note: Alpa is a highly regarded camera and lens name...]
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: [CONTAX] Kinoptic lenses/Alpa

>  Bob Shell wrote:
>They used to be distributed
>  in the USA by Heitz, the same company which distributed Alpa and Gitzo.
>  Alpa went out of business and they lost Gitzo, and they seem to be only a
>  repair service these days.

Bob, actually it seems that the Alpa brand was recently bought by some Germans and they have come up with a new model, check http://www.alpa.ch

It uses among other jewels a specially designed Carl Zeiss Biogon 4.5/38. In the web site they do not mention any new Kinoptiks though.

Gonzo

From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Kinoptic lenses/Alpa

Actually, Capaul and Weber, who make the new Alpa medium format cameras have no relation at all to the former Pignons SA which made the Alpa 35mm cameras. When the man who had been the driving force behind the Alpa camera at Pignons died, the company floundered for a while before going bankrupt.

At the bankruptcy auction Capaul and Weber, who were fans of the marque, bought the name and trademark. But that's all they bought. Others bought the parts inventory, tools, etc.

So the new camera, which is actually made by Seitz in Switzerland, only has the Alpa name. This is no criticism of the camera, which seems to be darned well made. Roger Hicks and his wife Frances Schultz each have one and they make lovely photos.

Bob

...

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000
From: Ray Moth [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Leitz NJ- poor service

Maciver2 wrote:

Jim Brick tells us that the Minilux is "not a really a Leica. It is a rebadged Japanese camera." (snip)

=====================================================================

AFAIK, the Mini Zoom and Z2X P&S cameras were made by Matsushita - don't know about the Minilux. The lens of the Mini Zoom (which I have) is supposed to be made by Leica, though. It produces very pleasing results so long as I avoid subjects likely to induce flare, to which this lens seems very prone.

Regards,

Ray

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Lab Prints (was Condenser vs.DiffusionEnlargerHeads)

.....

Actually, the Ansco name was bought by Haking in Hong Kong when GAF got out of the photographic business. At the time they promised to continue the films and photo papers, but like so many such promises nothing ever happened on this. Nowadays they put the Ansco name on some point and shoot cameras.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: who made 35mm Rolleinar lenses?

> From: "Max Tam" [email protected]
> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 
> To: "Rollei mailing list" [email protected]
> Subject: [Rollei] Re: who made 35mm Rolleinar lenses?
>
> Looking at the catalogue that I have for the 3003, the 28-105 zoom is
> identical to a Vivitar zoom that I have seen before, and the 80-200mm f2.8
> seems very similar in its built and lens construction to the Tamron SP zoom
> of the same era. Both these lenses have HFT coating as well.

Vivitar does not make lenses. It is just a marketing name owned by an American company. The best of the Vivitar lenses were made by Kino Precision, and were also sold under the Kiron name. I think Kino made some lenses for Rollei.

> Can I assume that the MC Rolleinar lenses were all made by Mamiya (or
> Tokina) and the HFT coated ones by other manufacturers? I also cannot
> understand why Rollei took the trouble to do the HFT coating for these
> lenses; the transport and manufacturing costs would simply make these lenses
> unaffordable.

Rollei did HFT coating in Germany and also in Singapore. They may well have licensed the process to companies making lenses for them. No, it would make no sense to ship lens elements to Germany or Singapore just for multicoating.

Bob

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected] Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Apochromats

> From: "David L. Powell Ph. D." [email protected]
> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [CONTAX] Apochromats
>
> so, you see, at least i came to the Carl Zeiss lenses honestly. btw, i also
> had a Schniedar  ( Sp.? ) 135mm that was very fine; Alpha had the finest
> lens makers in Europe right on line, but they blew it big time, --- sad,
> really.

Alpa's strength and its main problem were the same, the man running the company. His name was Bourgeous, I think. I'm probably spelling it wrong. Anyway, the camera was his idea. He first went to Jacques Bolsey to design a camera for him, and the earliest ones are 100% Bolsey design. The oldest Alpa cameras had BOTH SLR viewing and a coupled optical rangefinder/viewfinder. The idea was that you could use whichever was best for the job at hand. This overly complex design was dropped after only a few models and the rangefinder was replaced with an optical viewfinder. I still have an Alpa 5b which has both SLR viewing by means of a 45 degree prism finder and an eye level optical viewfinder. You can do focusing with the SLR viewfinder and switch to the optical viewfinder for following fast action!

In the late 70s Alpa joined forces with Chinon and had this Japanese firm build a camera called the Alpa si2000 for them. In a total departure from their past this camera had a standard M42 screw mount and its own set of lenses. This was a complete marketing disaster for the company since these cameras simply were not up to Alpa standards. Because Karl Heitz refused to sell this stuff in the USA (a wise decision), Alpa changed distribution to a new company called TAG (The Alpa Group) made up of some ex-Berkey Photo people. They made a valiant try with the products, but went bust in a little over a year. The Chinon cameras were abandoned and Alpa went back to Heitz for USA distribution.

They never were the same after the debacle. Even though the 11si, the last of the line, was a far better camera than its predecessors it was a dated design and just could not compete, particularly at its very high price.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Circular Polarizers

Good suggestion. I don't know what, if any, difference it will make in distribution, but Lindahl was just bought by Photo Control Corp. They are the parent company of Norman flash and a handful of other products.

The bellows lens hood I use in the studio is the one from Sailwind. It is all metal construction (except for the bellows itself) and quite rugged. Unlike some designs it has two filter slots so you can use two filters at the same time. Sailwind also offers an extension bellows which clips onto the front and is nice when using long lenses.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing LIst:
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Super long Rollei SLR lens for birding and more.

you wrote:

>Perkin-Elmer?  Wow, have not heard that name in a while.

They are very much still around and about, though they may have merged with someone else. They do most of the exotic optics for NASA. That's why they got out of consumer optics, as did SOM Berthiot and Olde Delft and Kilfitt/Zoomar: the demand for government glass got to be too great!

Best,

Marc

[email protected]

From Manual Minolta List:
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001
From: "Franka T LIEU" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kalimar

> I just stumbled across a website advertising this brand -
> cameras, lenses, binoculars.  They had two lines of cameras,
> one with a Pentax mount and one with an MD mount.
>
> Anyone know anything about these?
>
> According to the press release on the Tiffen website, they
> acquired Kalimar last February.
>
> thanks,
> Peter Schauss

Those , I believe , are just OEM expoort version of the Phoenix brand in China with a different trade name. They are manufactured by the Jinsei Optical Work ( no relation to Seagull ). The firm is a fairly big industrial optical Mfr in China, and this is their part of the consumer side. I know from previous trade post that they have tie with Seiko, Copal, and Kyocera. To my kn owledge, this is also the firm building the Yasuhara T98.

Regards the bodies, they are just OEM version of older Cosina CS bodies with the aft-said mount. My exposure ( limited ) to these bodies are that they are generally build OK and workable but the Shutter fire with great shock to the body ( seems like there's no damping at all to both shutter and Mirror ).

Franka
Hong Kong

From Manual Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001
From: Peter Schauss [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kalimar

SRT101

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: AW: AW: [CONTAX] Sigma 600/F8 mirror lens review

> From: Lotus M50 [email protected]
> Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: AW: AW: [CONTAX] Sigma 600/F8 mirror lens review
>
> One labeled
> "Praticar" (I'm not sure if it is the same as the CZJ lens) was on ebay
> recently.  It was unsold at a starting bid of $2995.  It would ne an
> intersting lens to have.

Most likely the Prakicar (may have been spelled wrong on eBay, not exactly a rare event!) is a rebadged Japanese mirror. Many of the recent Prakticar lenses were from Cosina and Sigma.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001
From: Jon Hart [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Camera choice

--- Bob Shell [email protected] wrote:

> My
> guess is that
> they went home, changed the flange distance just
> enough, started production,
> and said f*** Leica!

Frankly, this is and has been the current regime's attitude regarding anyone outside the corporate wagon circle since about the mid-80s. The whole thrust of Konica has been towards rangefinder-styled or -based camera production (and film sales) since that time. They abandoned a still-viable SLR market a bit prematurely to concentrate on cheap, money-making p&s shtuff, boost film sales and expand their office equipment line.

This is the Japanese end of Konica I am talking about. The Konica USA folks see things a bit differently but, of course, with little or no support from corporate.

BTW Konica USA still offers repair service for the FT-1 and has battery covers for sale (relatively cheaply) for both the FT-1 and FS-1. In fact, evidently, some entrepenurial souls bought up a number of them and regularly sell them on e-Bay.

As for firsts, per a recent post, Konica made the first Japanese camera to use 120 film in 1923, the Pearl (Showa 8). Strange, though, that they never made a TLR, as far as I know.

....

Jon
from Deepinaharta, Georgia

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Ringflash (RE: Subject: Re: [CONTAX] D21 and makros)

> From: Martins Bicka [email protected]
> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 
> Subject: RE: Ringflash (RE: Subject: Re: [CONTAX] D21 and makros)
>
> Soligor isn't new manufacturer. It makes many 3rd party photo accesories,
> lenses etc.
> I don't know where is this manufactured.
> The build quality and finishing of that Soligor ring flash isn't up to
> Contax standarts, but the guy who was using that on his Contaxes said, that
> it performed very well.
> For additional info look at their website www.soligor.com

Soligor is a marketing company, not a manufacturer. They buy from many makers and just put their brand name on.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Filters

Robert Lilley wrote:

>I guess I was/am caught up in the "put a UV filter on the lens to protect
>it" myth.  I just bought a Bay II UV filter!  One of the first things my old
>man taught me about photography - jeez, it's like finding out there is no
>Santa or Easter Bunny!  But it does make sense about putting an inferior
>piece of glass up in front of some beautiful optics.  However, couldn't the
>same sort of thing ring true about enlarger lenses?  You shoot with
>Schneider but enlarge with Vivitar?

A lot, if not most, of the Vivitar MF enlarging lenses are made by Rodenstock. I use Rodenstock enlarging lenses in MF, Leitz for miniature-format work.

Marc

[email protected]

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "fgm" [email protected]
[1] Re: JC Penney Lenses
Date: Fri Mar 23 2001

Many of the ProSpec AF lenses were made by Sigma.

Frank in Atlanta

"Matthew Carlton" [email protected] wrote

> Any idea who actually made these? I have some and they aren't too bad.
>
> Matt

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Argus group

> From: "Roger M. Wiser" [email protected]
> Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Argus group
>
> I had my first Argus C3 in 47 when I was stationed in West Point NY.   About 3
> years ago I sold 4 C-3's to Argus in Chicago for $25ea. At the time I
> understood
> that Argus had started again. They advertised in one of the photography
> magazines.

It's a new company that bought the Argus name. They are selling a variety of cameras and other goods with the Argus brand. Nice people, but they have nothing to do with the old Argus company. Same thing happened with Ansco. The name was sold to Haking in Hong Kong and they put the name on a variety of products.

Bob

From: Kirk [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001
Subject: Re: Anyone heard of Phoenix lenses?

[email protected] says...

> The 19-35 (if it's the same
> as the on of 3 or 4 years ago) the 100mm f3.5 macro and 28-105 all  produce
> image quality on par with other lenses of similar focal lengths and max
> apertures.

That lens is identical to the Vivitar offering. In fact, in a Popular Photography buying guide a few years ago, there was a Phoenix ad that reproduced the Popular Photography lens test for the Vivitar lens...that was reprinted in that very same issue.

--
Kirk

From RF Rangefinder Camera Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 6-Apr-2001
From: Franka T. Lieu [email protected]
Subject: RE: "Sun" lenses

" SUN " lens was manufactured by an independent small optical firm that actually are still around today ( though no longer in business for consumer optics ). Generally speaking its optical quality is comparable to then current competetion which is to say its consistent, and good overall, say in comparison with Komura, Arco and the like. I have experience with its LTM 135 and am quite happy with it.

All Sun lens I've used ( LTM, M42 and some other SLR ) tend to gravitate towards softness on wide open though. Advantage or disadvantage depending on your preference.

regards
Franka

marcus lee wrote:

> Anyone out there have experience with "Sun" brand lenses in LTM? I'm
> specifically interested in the 90/4, as it seems to be in my price
> range.
> Thanks,
>
> -Marcus

From RF Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001
From: "dlanor" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Do you Zunow ?

Stephen Gandy [email protected] asks for "info about Zunow Optical, as well as production figures for its lenses and SLR what I have been able to find is at http://www.cameraquest.com/zunow.htm "

I would be most fascinated in any information on Zunow and whether anyone has Zunow gear (lenses, cameras, other makes with zunow lenses, cine cameras, cine lenses). I am trying to amass information / history on this company, this is the first time that I am trying anything like this. I have very little in production figures.

Basically, ZUNOW started in 1930/40s with lens production and became heavily caught up in the race to produce fast lens. They produced very high quality lenses for RF cameras. In 1958 they produced their only camera, Zunow SLR for 1 year only. They provided lenses for a range of other small makers, eg Halina 44 TLR, Waltz Automat 44, Leotax S, Neoca SV C 400, Optika Auto 35.

Around 1961? they hovered on bankrupcy and there was I believe a Yashica buyout (unconfirmed) of some sort? Associated (?) with this is further development of Cine cameras 8mm and 16mm and cine lenses. Zunow also made fast cine lenses eg 38mm f1.1. The most common lens to appear these days is the Zunowmatic 13mmf/1.8 cine lens for 8mm cameras. This lens incorporates a selenium cell.

Apart from the SLR, Zunow is most renowned for :-

1. high quality FAST lens for Leica / Nikon etc RF cameras.

2. first lens used by Orion Camera Co. with their Miranda T SLR in 1954, Zunow 5cm f/1.9 in 44mm screw mount. This lasted for 2 years? until Orion renamed as Miranda. They later went on to close ties with Soligor for lenses.

( note : other makers provided standard lenses for the Miranda SLR).

Zunow name was reused in the 1970s/ 80s, I have a ZUNOW zoom lens 80-200mm in Canon FD mount.

Does anyone else have a Zunow lens for any SLR from the 70s / 80s ?

It has also been used by a bicycle maker, currently used by a plastics company in China / Hong Kong.

delta lanor
[email protected]

From Minolta Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001
From: "Swope's Mountain Photography" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re:Promaster / 100-300 mm APO (D) /Teleconverter?

Promaster markets lenses currently made by Vivitar and Tamron. Possibly others too, but these 2 I'm sure of. The upside is that they give them a lifetime warranty!

Linda Swope
Swope's Mountain Photography
Where Fine Photography is Fun!
http://www.swopephoto.com

From: Tony Polson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001
Subject: Re: Shanghai Seagull Camera Company

[email protected] (Mike) wrote:

> Anyone here have any experience with, or better yet own, a fairly late
> model Seagull SLR from China? What little I've been able to gather is
> that they are fairly high quality cameras, Minolta runs their factory
> and they apparently brought over quite a few Germans to help out with
> the lenses.
>
> They seem quite nice but I can't find anyone in the US who has use
> one, only the medium format TLR which is rather well reviewed. All
> info appreciated.

I believe that the Seagull is sold here in the UK under the Centon brand. Centon is the in-house brand of Jessops, the UK's biggest dealer chain. The cameras are based on an obsolete Minolta design and are apparently made in the same factory as a Minolta manual focus SLR.

I know one person who uses one and he knows several more. They are happy with their cameras but if anything goes wrong they tend to buy a new one, because the new camera costs so little more than the repair.

Jessops also sell a Centon camera with the Pentax K bayonet mount. This is Jessop top selling cheap SLR, and is extremely popular with photography students. Each year Jessops sell thousands of these cameras, many of them used and reconditioned, to students. The reason for their popularity is the wide availability of used K bayonet lenses.

However I don't know whether this camera is made by Seagull, although it is definitely made in China. I hope this is useful, although you will need to rely on others to fill the (large) gaps in my knowledge.

--
Tony Polson

From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001
From: Larry Kopitnik [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Re: Nikon branding (was: There Are NO "3rd grade" Nikons (Was: Re: Nikkor 85/2 AIS lens))

There is serious doubt whether we ever will see a film F6, especially since all indications are that the F100 is a far bigger seller than the F5.

There was a post on this list (I think it was this list) some months ago quoting a Japanese magazine, which quoted Nikon officials as saying they were starting design of the F6. The biggest issue they were grappling with was the extent to gear it towards professionals or advanced amateurs, for concern that by the time it is introduced most pros will be shooting digital.

In any event, there's a lot of evidence that Nikon will no longer be making much of anything other than the top-of-the-line equipment themselves, and maybe not even designing anything lesser themselves.

I certainly do not see any such evidence. On the contrary, Nikon has established manufacturing plants in other countries to control costs while continuing to manufacture themselves most products they sell. A reliable contributor to a Leica list, who imports cameras into Hong Kong, wrote that he was told by his Nikon rep that the FM3a is being "partly or mostly made [by Nikon] in China."

Sure, there's exceptions. There's much speculation (which I believe) that the 70-300 and 28-200 Nikkors are manufactured by Tamron for Nikon. I've been told the 60 Micro-Nikkor is manufactured by Kyocera. But I've also heard these are deals Nikon made because their own manufacturing capacity could not meet demand for their entire product line.

Larry

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] zoom lens advice

> From: "Larry Zasitko" [email protected]
> Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 
> Subject: RE: [CONTAX] zoom lens advice
>
> Another route is Zeiss Jena zooms, I bought a 35-135 f3.5, a bit slow  maybe
> but a terrific lens. I bought mine on a trip out to Victoria for just  over
> $100.00 CDN or about $60.00 of your money. The glass is really nice and
> pictures are great. I do have a couple older tamron lens that I used a  few
> years ago. The only non Zeiss glass that I have is a tamron 17mm that I bought
> used and a 38-200 zoom that one of my boys use on the 137MD that he  uses. I
> agree that Yashica lens are pretty decent also, don't have any at the  moment
> but I used to have some.
>
> Larry Zasitko

Are you talking about the lenses sold under the Jenazoom name? Those are Japanese (Sigma, I think) lenses sold by Pentacon. They were not built by Carl Zeiss Jena.

I do not think that Carl Zeiss Jena ever made any zoom lenses.

Bob

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] CJZ lenses

> From: Arthur Hood [email protected]>
> Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 
> Subject: RE: [CONTAX] CJZ lenses
>
> I have a CJZ marked lens with C/Y fitting, mine is a 28mm, I've seen
> a 35mm for sale in a local second hand camera shop. These may be marked  Carl
> Zeiss Jena, but are made in Japan. My 28mm f2.8 gives very sharp results  in
> my opinion, so much so that I will not replace it with a T* as was my
> intention. Build quality appears solid, stainless steel as far as I can  see.
> My guess was that these were manufactured for a short while prior to  some
> stop being put to the use of the name CJZ and continued under the  Yashica
> name. I must add this is purely speculation, anyone know any different?

As Evan pointed out, the lenses were apparently produced by Sigma who licensed use of the CZJ name for a while. They are most likely identical to Sigma-branded lenses from the same time frame, and would have nothing to do with Yashica/Kyocera.

Bob

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] 35mm macro revuenon for Contax...

It's a rebadged 35mm f/2.8 Ennagon. Revue is the house brand of a German camera store chain.

I've owned this lens and it is decent in performance. I never heard of it in Contax mount, though. They were made in mounts for Pentax K, M-42 and Rollei, and I think that is all. This is probably an M-42 lens with a Contax adapter on it.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Slightly OT: Can anyone compare quality of Rollei to Alpa?

> From: "Robert Lilley" [email protected]
> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 
> Subject: RE: [Rollei] Slightly OT:  Can anyone compare quality of Rollei  to
> Alpa?
>
> I owned an Alpa 35mm SLR in 1970 - with two of the Kern lenses.  Like a  fool
> I sold it - I was in the army at the time, just back from Vietnam and  not in
> complete control of my mental facilities :).  It was a beautiful camera  and
> it seemed to be the equal in quality to the Rolleiflex and Leica, et al.
> Perhaps they did test out or use as well.  I don't know why the 35mm  faded
> away - perhaps someone out there knows.

The present Alpa and the old Alpa are completely unrelated. The current owners bought the trademark at the bankruptcy auction of the old company, but nothing else. Their camera is their own, and quite nice, but I personally wish they had named it something else.

The old Alpa died with the 11si, last of a venerable line. Like so many companies driven by a strong personality, the company lost its thrust and direction when the founder died. It floundered around for a few years and went bankrupt. I find it very sad. I still have and use a 5b and 6c and have a broken 10d I may repair one day.

Bob

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Microtek FilmScan 35

I've got an older Microtek film scanner and it worked flawlessly for years until I retired it. Most of the Polaroid scanners are made by them.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: By any other name

It's damned hard for consumers to know what's going on with this sort of stuff.

In the specific case you mention, although Leica claimed that their point and shoot was different from the Vivitar, none of us in the photo press could detect any difference. Both cameras were made by Panasonic, and I compared them side by side and couldn't tell the photos apart.

Vivitar scored a PR coup on this one, since Leica sent all us press people cameras and then asked for them back. Vivitar heard about this and sent us each one with a note saying to keep it!

I still have mine.

Bob

> From: "John M. Niemann" [email protected]
> Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 
> Subject: [Rollei] Re: By any other name
>
> How does the consumer really compare the after market or off brand
> camera to the high priced spread?

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: By any other name

As in my other note, it was same as one model Leica, but I don't recall what the Leica version was called.

Bob

...

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Spirit of the Company

Jim Brick wrote:

> Yes and Leica still has some Minolta lenses and a camera body in their
> line-up. Hasselblad also uses Keocera (spelling?) for things like the
> 60-120 zoom, 2x extender, and other lenses just marked "Hasselblad".  Some
> Zeiss lenses are produced in Japan. Those on Contax and Yachica. Leica  has
> both Zeiss and Schneider lenses in its arsenal. As does Hasselblad.  Leica
> re-badges  Fuji digital cameras as Leica digital cameras.

Isn't the Hasselblad 60-120 mm zoom lens made by Sigma, not Kyocera? Is the 2x extended build by Kyocera? If so, why did they drop the Zeiss name?

And the other lenses just marked "Hasselblad", aren't they made by Fuji?

Kyocera (long standing partner of Zeiss), or rather their daughter Yashica, does indeed build some of the lenses for the Contax cameras, not all. Zeiss transferred machinery, know-how and personnel to Kyocera/Japan, and built up a lens production facility to do this. These Japanese lenses all bear the Zeiss name. (Similar to "Leitz made in Portugal", and Canada (was it?)). I don't know of any optics made by Kyocera/Yashica (i.e. "Zeiss made in Japan") that are part of the Hasselblad program.

If i remember correctly, Hasselblad presented 'their' zoom at the precise moment Zeiss reported their intention to give their camera lens division a boost, and to develop and build new, high quality zoom lenses.

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Rolleiflex 2.8D

LOL. That was great Bob! You missed your calling.

It is actually standa for Joseph Schneider Kreuznach, Kreuznach being the city where the Schneider Optics company is headquartered. Sometimes they are referred to by their telex address which is Josco.

from their website:

In 1913, Joseph Schneider (1855-1933), born in Kreuznach, Germany, founded the "Optische Anstalt Jos. Schneider & Co." Known today as Schneider-Kreuznach or Schneider Optics, the company has been designing and manufacturing high quality lenses for over eighty-six years. During this time, over 14 million precision Schneider lenses have been sold worldwide. Provided is a list of currently discontinued lens models grouped by format specification. Detailed information from our archives has been included for each lens.

Peter K

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Shell [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rolleiflex 2.8D

It stands for Jason, the dude who writes for Pop Photo and secretly owns the company.

Bob

> From: "Philippe Tempel" [email protected]
> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rolleiflex 2.8D
>
> What does the "J" in JSK mean?  I'm pretty sure the "SK" is
> Schneider Kreznach.  Same question for "JSX"...  Just curious.

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001
From: Tony Polson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lens lineup? (poll)

Bruce Murphy [email protected] wrote:

> Naha! Now have you bought all this non-nikon glass since you claimed
> to have an all-nikon lens stable by design? :)

Hi Bruce,

ROTFL!! I might have known you would respond ...

I consider the Tamron 90mm to be at least halfway to being a Nikkor, because (1) it has colour rendition that's identical to Nikon glass, and (2) Tamron make so many Nikkors in any case. {g}

The Tamron-made Nikkors include:

28-80mm G as included in most Nikon 'kits',
28-200mm AF-D,
70-300mm G,
70-300mm ED AF-D ...

I have also heard rumours that Tamron make the 24-120mm AF-D Nikkor.

Anyway, I don't *own* the Tamron. It's on long term loan in exchange for a large Manfrotto tripod and some other items of kit. But that's another story.

Best regards,

--
Tony Polson

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rolleiflex 2.8D

Eric Goldstein wrote:

>Ok, 14 million precision lenses... and Peter did the site say how many,  umm,
>less than precision ones got sold? :-)

Does the name ISCO-G�TTINGEN strike a familiar chord, Ophelia? "ISCO" stands for 'Ioseph Schneider Co.' Most of the 'non-precision' lenses came from there ...

Marc
[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] ISCO

> From: Marc James Small [email protected]
> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] ISCO
>
> ISCO was  JSK subsidiary.  In general, their lenses are not up to JSK
> standards.  Still, ISCO made some really useable lenses over the years.

You say "was" as in past tense. As of photokina last year ISCO was still very much in business. Mostly they make commercial projection lenses these days.

Bob

Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001
From: Tony Polson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Which Nikkor lenses are made in China?

"Don Forsling" [email protected] wrote:

> I'm having trouble following this.  _What_ lens in not the 28-200?  If
> you're writing about the Nikon 28-200, it certainly _is_ made in China.   I'm
> looking at one right now.  "Made in China" is marked on the barrel..   The
> build quality is pretty much OK.  The optical quality is, to put it  mildly,
> fair.

"Fair" is about all you can realistically expect from *any* 28-200mm consumer-grade zoom, regardless of brand. You can have zoom range, or you can have optical quality. Alas, it is very difficult to get both at a consumer-grade price.

The 28-200mm AF Nikkor is made by Tamron to Nikon specifications, along with the 28-80mm and 70-300mm G Nikkors and the 70-300mm ED lens. They are built down to a price that consumer-grade photographers are prepared to pay. You don't get better than "fair" at this price point.

--
Tony Polson

From LEica Topica Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001
From: Xavier Colmant [email protected]
Subject: Agreement Leica/Matsushita to build Digital cameras

Leica and Matsushita just signed a deal to produce digital cameras under Leica and Panasonic brands. Have a look at

http://www.leica-camera.com/index_e.html for more details.

Leica needed a partner with deep pockets to develop a digital camera. The only problem I can see is the huge difference in size between both companies. If they just signed the agreement, I guess a good digital Leica (at the level of the D1) is still far away.

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
From: Dante Stella [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica filters, by Leica?

B+W made Leicas filters for a long time.

Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001
From: Bob Salomon [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Who manufactured Hasselblad Filters?

Kirt E. Carter at [email protected] wrote on 8/7/01

> I have three Hasselblad fitlers (yellow,orange, and red) that I
> understand are no longer sold by Hassy. Does anyone know who
> manufactured these filters? I am trying to decide whether or not to
> spend the money on B&W filters, but if the Hassy filters were in fact
> manufactured by B&W, I am all set. Thanks for your time.
> Kirt

At various times different suppliers. Sometimes Heliopan sometimes B+W.

HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun, CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser, Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Sirostar, Tetenal Cloths and Ink Jet Papers, VR, Wista, ZTS www.hpmarketingcorp.com

[postscript: Heliopan made the Zeiss filters.]

Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001
From: "Jeff S" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Interesting News From Leica

Matsushita might be a more logical partner than Nikon: Leica optics are already offered on top-of-the-line Panasonic consumer camcorders, and I'm told Matsushita also produces the Minilux and other Leica point-n-shoot cameras as well.

Besides, Leica might still be a little sore at Nikon for that little thing they created in the '50s called the Nikon F ;-)

Jeff

"Stu" [email protected] wrote:

> The following is copied from another news group.  I thought it might be
> interesting
> Stu
> Subject: Some Information from Leica
> Leica's annual report reveals an interesting trend toward digital
> photography. They are dissatisfied with their current digital partner
> relationships (Fuji for one) and are seeking new relationships - maybe
> Nikon?
> The following excerpt shows a surprising growth in rangefinder related
> sales.
> "In the period under review, sales of the Leica M system grew by 16.2%
> to ? 49.8 million. This product line, made up of rangefinder cameras and
> lenses, is by far the Company's largest. New lenses, finely
> differentiated camera variants and accessories such as the LEICA MOTOR M
> were important sources of growth.
> With sales of ? 16.1 million the Leica R SLR range business decreased by
> 15.7% on the previous year. The increasing digitalization is reducing
> the demand for high-value analogue SLR cameras worldwide. The Company
> intends to stabilize the product line by introducing new, innovative
> lenses.  The strong increases in the compact cameras product line of
> 31.0% to ? 29.7 million contain sales of digital cameras in the amount
> of ?11 million. New digital models are planned, however they are not
> expected to generate sales in the current fiscal year. Leica Camera AG
> focuses on strengthening those product features that are typical of the
> Leica brand, in order to enable better differentiation from
> competitors."

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 
From: Bob Shell <[email protected]>
To: Rollei <[email protected]>
Subject: [Rollei] Rollei SL35 lenses

Having e-mail server problems again, so posting from alternate account.

The original Rolleinar lenses were optically identical to the existing
Mamiya lenses for their 35mm cameras. Most parts were interchangable
except for the bayonet mount and aperture ring. I've converted Mamiya
lenses to Rollei mount for people when the parts were still easy to get.

The Voigtlander lenses which were not from Mamiya were Zeiss designs made
at Rollei's Singapore works. As some of the early VSL-1 cameras
were built mostly from Zeiss Ikon parts it is possible that some early
lenses were rebadged Zeiss lenses originally intended for the SL706
camera. Some VSL-1 cameras were sold in Europe with M-42 screw mount
and accepted these lenses, which had a moving plate on the back of the lens
which moved a pin on the lens mount to convey the aperture information to
the camera body. (Same pin idea later used by Rollei in the 2000 and 3000
series cameras to convey maximum aperture to the camera). I have a 35mm
f/2.8 which has the SL706 mount but was made in Singapore and could well
have been built from Zeiss parts.

There was at least one Rolleinar macro lens later on, and I think it is
identical to the Vivitar Series 1 and Kiron macro.

Bob 

From: [email protected] (Tan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Tominon lens question
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001

I did some looking up on the lenses once. Apparently they're made by Kyocera,
the Yashica/Contax folks.

I had the 127mm Tominon that's supposedly a copy of the 127mm Ektar - bought
that to use that focal length when I was just starting out. Hated the lens
frankly, at least for colour. Didn't shoot B+W with it though.

Why didn't I like the lens? Well, the pictures done with it had a yellow cast to
them. If you look at the glass, the glass also has a yellowish cast - I guess
its like using a warm filter? Contrast was also not great. (I am comparing the
 results against my more expensive current glass from Schneider, Fuji.) I guess
if its for B&W it might be ok.

I bought it for $40 so no complains. In the end, I used the shutter for another
lens. Nice self-cocking press shutter with its very own funny pitched retaining
ring (be sure not to lose it! It's non-standard)

The 127mm cells now reside in a barrel. I replaced that focal length with a
used EBC coated 125mm Fujinon.

Mind you, I have heard of people who are happily using the Tominons as
enlarging lenses as well, given their flat-field design. 

[Ed. note: can anyone provide info on the Unitax lenses - import brand? mfgers?...]
From SLR Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 
From: "Dean Stanley" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [SLRMan] T4 / TX lenses


Great stuff! I especially enjoyed Stephen Gandy's "Lens Testers Anonymous"
article you linked to on your "Third Party Lens Reviews in Pop Photography"
page. That about says it all.

I'm wondering if you or anyone else here can tell me anything about Unitax
lenses? Who makes them?(Mine says made in Japan). I have a 135 f2.8 in K/AR
mount that I am very fond of, and I know they made some wide angles and an
80-200 zoom.

I think tomorrow I will go snap up that $30 Vivitar 75-205 f3.8 lens I've
been (stupidly)thinking about, and enjoy it instead of worrying about how
the quality will compare to my Zuikos.

Dean 

From: [email protected] (Gdwnphoto)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 27 Oct 2001 
Subject: Re: Kalimar glass?

>I was browsing through E-Bay looking for some bigger glass for my K1000.  I
>came across an auction featuring a 500mm k-mount lens that ends in a few
>days.  Reading through the description, I found that this particular lens
>was built by a company called Kalimar.  Anyone ever heard of or used a lens
>from this company?  Any good?
>
>Thanks.

Kalimar, now owned by Tiffen, is a distributer of lenses, like Vivitar. They
don't make their own product.  Often times, a lens sold under the Kalimar brand
(which offers a ten year warranty on new items), is the exact same lens sold
under the Vivitar, Phoenix and Tokina (depending on the lens) labels.

Visit our web page! www.goodwinphotoinc.com
Goodwin Photo, Inc.
[email protected]  



From: Anthony Polson [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: vivitar lenses?
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 

[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote:

> Vivitar is an importer of lenses etc. which they relabel for sale under 
> their brand name. The majority of current lenses being offered seem to be
> variants of current third party lenses by a number of makers (e.g., 
> phoenix/samyang/vivitar 17-28mm ultrawide etc.), so it makes little sense 
> to talk about "vivitar lenses" as they are made by a number of third party 
> makers. You have to specify the lens. 

Bob,

This may have been true, but several years ago Cosina purchased the
Vivitar brand and designs and, since then, nearly all "Vivitar" lenses
have been made by Cosina in China.  Cosina bought the brand name mainly
to enhance the appalling reputation of their own products, but in doing
so they have merely devalued the name "Vivitar".

> Even then, there is a pretty high 
> degree of sample to sample variation, so you have to test the individual 
> lenses to ensure top performance...

Quite so.  At their best, the new "Vivitar" lenses tend to be poor
performers.  At their worst, they are appalling.  Almost beyond belief. 

-- 
Best regards,
Anthony Polson

Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei at Photo Expo NYC
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>

Well, they did have the new compact camera!  That was certainly new.

Also, no surprise them teaming up with Horseman since Tosh Komamura, owner
of Horseman, is the Japanese distributor for Rollei.

Bob

> From: [email protected]
> Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei at Photo Expo NYC
> 
> The Rollei table was as usual, with nothing much new to show, but Rollei was
> much in evidence at other stands.  The Rollei X-Act bellows camera was in use
> in several digital displays, as was the 6008i in several others. Most
> impressive was the new X-Act-D, a joint effort with Horseman that claims to
> be "the world's first view camera designed exclusively for high-end digital
> photography." This camera uses a built in CPU and the Horseman ISS G2 system
> for full electronic control. It works with no fewer than nine digital backs.


From: Anthony Polson [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: vivitar lenses?
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 

"Webmarketing" [email protected]> wrote:

> I consider them, while not stellar performers,  a good value.  It gives
> beginning photographers a way to experiment with other focal lengths without
> taking our a second mortgage.

Hi Fred,

If only this were true.  The Cosina-made lenses are almost all junk, and
there are much better alternatives for only a *tiny* bit more money.

The clearest example is the Cosina/Soligor/Vivitar/Phoenix 19-35mm that
was also briefly available about 3-4 years ago as a Tokina.  The
rectilinear distortion of this lens is so bad that it could accurately
be termed the world's first zoom fisheye.  

Contrast this with the Tokina-made 20-35mm that replaced it in the
Tokina range.  This has dramatically better sharpness and contrast, less
than half the distortion of the Cosina/Soligor/Vivitar/Phoenix 19-35mm,
and superb colour rendition.  I bought one to try and find out which two
or three wide angle focal lengths I would choose to buy and ended up
liking it a lot.  It costs a tiny fraction more than the Cosina/Soligor/
Vivitar/Phoenix "lens" and is at least 10 times better value for money.

The same applies to most Cosina lenses; there will be a very much better
alternative for a small extra cost.  These other brands are not only a
way to experiment with other focal lengths, they are a way into taking
excellent pictures in the right hands.  

There's no need to take out a second mortgage either.  Win/Win/Win!

If people persist in buying Cosina/Soligor/Vivitar/Phoenix lenses
because they appear to offer good value to a beginner, they would either
be wrong or badly advised.  Even the best Cosina/Soligor/Vivitar/Phoenix
lenses suffer from such appalling build quality and sample variation
that you cannot sensibly expect *your* lens to give a performance that
even slightly resembles the results of any "independent" tests.

Just as with Sigma, we'd all love to be able to own the review samples
that Cosina supply to photo mags.  Unfortunately, thousands of people
end up buying Cosina and Sigma junk products on the basis of highly
inaccurate and dangerously misleading reviews in magazines that depend
on advertising revenue for their survival.  What price impartiality? 

And, as you once said to me (correctly) "Don't quote Photodo to me!"
 
(G)

-- 
Best regards,
Anthony Polson


Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001
To: [email protected]
From: Marc James Small [email protected]>
Subject: [Rollei "Voigtlaender"_Lenses?

Rollei marketed two different families of these lenses:

The following are Zeiss designs rebadged as Voigtl=E4nder and produced, for
the most part if not totally, in Singapore:

2.8/25 Color-Skoparex
2.8/35 Color-Skoparex
1.8/50 Color-Ultron
2.8/85 Color-Dynarex
2.8/135 Color-Dynarex
4/135 Color-Skoparex
4/200 Color-Dynarex

The following Mamiya lenses were rebadged as Voigtl=E4nder:
3.5/14 Color F-Skoparex AR
4/21 Color Skoparex AR
2.8/28 Color-Skoparex AR
2.8/35 Color Skoparex AR
1.4/55 Color Ultron AR
2/50 Color Ultron=20
2.8/85 Color Dynarex AR=20
2.8/105 Color Dynarex AR
2.8/135 Color Dynarex AR
3.5/200 Color Dynarex AR
5.6/400 Color-Dynarex AR
8/500 Reflex Dynar AR

The following are rebadged Tokina lenses:
4/28-85 Vario-Skoparex AR
3.5-4.3/35-105 Vario-Dynar AR Macro
4/80-200 Vario-Dynar AR

Thus endeth the tale of the Voigtl=E4nder SL35 lens line -- and nary a real
honest-to-Johann-Christoph-Voigtl=E4nder lens in the lot of 'em!

Marc


[email protected] 


From: Anthony Polson [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: compatible lenses?
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 

"Ahriman" [email protected]> wrote:
> Anthony Polson wrote:
> > When UK eBay buyers see "Carl Zeiss" they *swoon* long before the word
> > "Jena" enters their consciousness, if it ever does.
> > Putting "Jena" immediately after "Carl Zeiss" is like saying a sentence
> > and then adding "Not".
>
> 
> In some cases, definitely, but the 135mm f3.5 Sonnar design is a wonderful
> lens, and the later 35mm f2.4 Flektogon is reputed to be as good as the SMC
> Takumar 35mm f2, even better wide open at the edges. But yes, the 29mm f2.8
> was a dog; the 50mm f2.8 Tessar is OK but not particularly sharp. The
> Pancolar 50mm f1.8 is sharp but flares badly.
> 
> On my fave subject of cheap screw mount lenses, by the way, I just tested
> the Helios 75-150mm f3.8 lens I bought for �5 from a charity shop.
> Erm....Helios? Zoom? Oh dear, I thought. But it is exceptionally sharp! Even
> wide open the edges do not suffer the same sorts of aberrations my old Sigma
> 28-80mm used to when stopped down to f8! I know tele zooms at this
> particular focal length are the easiest to make, but I think I found a real
> gem here!


Hi Ahriman,

I've no doubt there are some good Jena lenses out there, somewhere.
I've also no doubt that you have the ability to sniff out a bargain - as
well as the ability to make good use of whatever you buy.

When Helios wanted to sell zooms to go with their Zenit cameras, they
did the same as Carl Zeiss Jena and bought from Japan.  Most of the Carl
Zeiss Jena Japanese lenses were made by Sigma; I suspect that the Helios
75-150mm f/3.8 lens was made by Vivitar, Kiron or maybe Tamron. 

-- 
Best regards,
Anthony Polson


Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Cosina 50mm F3.5 "Heliar"?!
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>



> From: [email protected]
> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Cosina 50mm F3.5 "Heliar"?!
> 
> I thing most Cosina products are marketed under other brand names, e.g.
> the cheap, non-AF Canon and Nikon SLRs, many consumer grade zoom lenses
> for Canon/Nikon/Pentax/Minolta. And they sell through mailorder/chain
> stores with own labels, e.g. Foto Quelle ("Revue", mostly made by
> Chinon) and Foto Porst ("Edixa", "Exakta"), which all utilise formerly
> prominent brand names.
> 
> HP
> 

Right idea but wrong brands.  Cosina makes non-AF cameras for almost
everyone but Canon.  There is no non-AF Canon SLR at this time.  This is
due to the electrically driven diaphragms in Canon lenses.  Likewise
they don't make any lenses for Canon, although they do make Canon mount
lenses for several companies.  Their lenses are commonly seen here under
the Vivitar name.  

Bob



To: [email protected]>
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Phoenix/Samyang

Mark Overton at [email protected] wrote:

> Isn't Zuiko made by Olympus?  If so, did you mean that the *best* of
> them (Phoenix/Samyang) is probably *worse* than Zuiko?  Or am I
> missing something here?


Zuiko is Olympus's brand name for lenses, and they consistently tested
worst of all lenses tested.  I did mean that the worst Samyang was probably
better than Zuiko.

Bob



To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 200
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Phoenix/Samyang

On 14 Jan, Bob Shell wrote:
> Mark Overton at [email protected] wrote:
> 
>> Isn't Zuiko made by Olympus?  If so, did you mean that the *best* of
>> them (Phoenix/Samyang) is probably *worse* than Zuiko?  Or am I
>> missing something here?
> 
> 
> Zuiko is Olympus's brand name for lenses, and they consistently tested
> worst of all lenses tested.  I did mean that the worst Samyang was
> probably better than Zuiko.

Bob, I'd be most interested to see your justification for this fairly
radical statement - it's certainly inconsistent with either my own
30 years of experience with a very wide range of Zuiko lenses, or with
any other information that I've seen in the past. (which isn't to say
that all Olympus lenses were all equally good performers - like most
manufacturers, they had good and "less good" designs). 

However lenses branded "Zuiko" (as distinct from just "Olympus") were,
in my experience, generally very good to excellent. You may find it
interesting to take a look at:

		http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests

Rgds,

-- 
Richard Lindner      [email protected]      +61 (0)419 556 560


To: [email protected]>
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Phoenix/Samyang

Eric Maquiling at [email protected] wrote:

> I thought Olympus Zuiko lenses were very good?  Just didn't marketed well.
> I used to know a lot of Olympus SLR diehards.

They were the worst lenses ever marketed by a camera maker.  I'm speaking of
the ones for the OM system.

Bob



To: [email protected]>
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Phoenix/Samyang

[email protected] at [email protected] wrote:

> Bob, I'd be most interested to see your justification for this fairly
> radical statement -

Actual lab tests.  Now let's drop this, because this doesn't belong here.
Ask me off list if you want more info.

Bob


Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei SL35E Brochure
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>



> From: Reg Ronaldson [email protected]>
> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei SL35E Brochure
>
> I have a Rollei35 fitting Voigtlander Color-Skoparex 2:8/35mm. It looks
> very Mamiya-ish. Is it the same as the Rolleinar?


Yes.  Mamiya made all of the original Rolleinar lenses and many of the
ones sold under the Voigtl=E4nder name by Rollei.  The reason for changing to
other suppliers was that Mamiya went out of the 35mm camera and lens
business around 1982-83 and Rollei had to scramble to find new suppliers.

They tried to source all lenses from one OEM manufacturer, Makina, but the
samples supplied to them did not meet their quality standards, so they ended
up using multiple sources.

Bob


To: [email protected]>
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Fotosnaiper FS12

> From: "Don Tuleja" [email protected]>
> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Fotosnaiper FS12
> 
> You're right about the company name... But their website still shows them!
> With your choice of Leica 600mm glass or Novoflex's own glass. :-)
> 
> Waaaaaaay too rich for my blood! :-)


They no longer show them at photokina, so I assumed they had stopped making
them.  It may be one of those cases where a product is not listed as
discontinued so long as they have one piece in the warehouse!!!

Novoflex glass, BTW, was always made for them by Schneider, so is pretty
darned good.  

But in these days of autofocus and image stabilization, I can't imagine
using
one of these.

Bob


Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 
To: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: brand war chuckles Re: Are Soligor lens any good?


Maybe it is just me, but the part I find so funny about some of the many
recommendations to buy just the OEM lenses is that so many of the OEM
lenses (e.g., Nikon..) are made by Tokina, or Tamron, or Sigma. I mean, if
a sigma zoom lens is good enough for Hasselblad, they must know something
about lenses? see http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/third/mfg.html for other
surprises and examples ;-) 

Given the volume of sales of these rebadged Tamron consumer lenses, I'd
bet a large fraction of the "nikon"  lenses sold today are not made by
Nikon but one of the third party makers for them, etc. for other brands
;-0) 

the other funny part is that if you ask most folks to pick out the various
shots taken by OEM lenses from the ones by third party lenses in a mixed
stack of slides, they can't do so with any statistical significant
reliability. ;-) 

Lately I have even discovered that some of the photos in the ads for 
various lens makers aren't even taken with THEIR lenses, as implied in the 
ads. Even worse, some aren't even taken with the same format lenses many 
times. And even worse, the photos in some ads for some gear is taken with 
their fierce competitor's lenses and cameras! So much for drooling over 
ads! ;-) 

I have over a hundred lenses, from blads and schneider and zeiss to 
soligors, dozens of OEM lenses, and the worst lens in the entire bunch is 
a nikon 43-86mm zoom (ugh) original series ;-) I also have an OSAWA 28mm 
that is shockingly decent for a $10 junker lens against my nikkor and 
pentax and minolta OEM 28mm optics. So it varys. 

You just have to test them out and see if they meet your needs. Some of
the older fixed lens Soligor/Vivitars are very good - for example, from
July 1970 Modern Photo the vivitar 135mm f/2.8 scored ALL excellents
center AND edge; the 200mm f/3.5 scored the same, the 28mm f/2.5 scored
all excellents too. A Leica summilux 50mm f/1.4 in the same issue scored
only half excellent ratings (8), 5 very good, and 3 just good scores.
Ooops!!!! I'll grant the Leica/Leitz lens is probably better corrected and 
is optimized for wide open use, but I have a number of under $50 normal 
lenses that do better in the midrange resolution ratings center/edge where 
I do most of my shooting. So for me, the $17 junker Minolta 50mm is fine, 
thanks! ;-) It is the lens that counts, not the name pasted on it ;-)

keep smiling ;-) grins bobm
-- 


From: Tony Polson [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Are Soligor lens any good?
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 

"Mike Lipphardt" [email protected]> wrote:

> Based on my extremely good experience with an old Vivitar Series 1 70-210
> f3.5/4.5 and an old Vivitar 135 f2.8 (tank describes them both, both
> opticalley excellent) I recently bought a Vivitar Series 1 28-105.  Total
> piece of junk.  Poor both mechanically and optically.  Somewhere along the
> line, Vivitar forgot what "Series 1" was supposed to mean.

That's because Vivitar no longer exist.  After the Vivitar company was
defunct, Cosina bought the name to put on their junk lenses.  

"Vivitar Series 1" is supposed to excite memories of the 'old' Vivitar
brand which, twenty to thirty years ago, signified a good quality lens
at a good price.  Now all it signifies is junk, unless any of today's
Cosina lenses are former Vivitar designs.  

If any of today's Cosina/Vivitar/Phoenix/Soligor lenses *are* based on
the older, better Vivitar designs, you can be sure that the build
quality is so poor and/or the sample variation is so huge that you will
never, ever know.

Yet Cosina's Voigtl�nder brand cameras and lenses are respectable
products.  An enigma in the making ...

-- 

Best regards,

Tony Polson


From: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 
From: William Hoffman [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [SLRMan] R8 ? Warranty


Dear Bill:

I think you missed my point.  A maker of a top notch product shouldn't 
be reluctant to stand behind it.  I don't assign a direct correlation 
between product quality and length of warranty, but the manufacturer 
should, and I find the analogy made between Miranda and K-cars 
inappropriate and somewhat insulting.  Mirandas may not be Nikons, but 
they're a hell of a lot more reliable than a K-car.  I know they have a 
reputation among some as unreliable, but only because of a couple 
models, most notably their last one, the dx-3.  For some reason, people 
remember best the last thing you did.

To evidence my point, Miranda did not have a poor reputation from the 
late '50's through the early '70's.  In fact, it was the opposite.  They 
were innovators.  If they were actually crappy cameras compared with 
their competition, Miranda wouldn't have lasted as long as they did. 
 Miranda was never a big company, unlike Nikon and Canon, so a large 
number of defective cameras would have finished them at any point in 
time. Most of them are very solid cameras, like most SLRs of the period. 
 I believe Miranda's lesser standing among classic Japanese camera nuts 
is more a function of herd mentality than anything else.

I do admit to being naturally inclined to root for the underdog and take 
more interest in things that are unique, rather than commonplace, but I 
won't tolerate shitty cameras.  If my Mirandas didn't work well for me, 
I'd dump them in an instant, because I'm a shutterbug first, and a 
collector second.  In fact, I don't consider myself a serious collector 
at all, although my wife may disagree. (she usually does!) :-D

Remember those early AF Nikons that were so slow to focus, owners 
resorted to using them as manual focus cameras?  This is an example of 
Nikon's marketing department getting ahead of engineering.  Small 
companies can't afford to sell first and fix it later, and I miss them. 
 Miranda only made one big mistake, the dx-3, and they paid the ultimate 
price.  Nowadays, cameras are more advanced, but don't last nearly as 
long as those of a generation ago.  You can thank big companies with 
lots of marketing geeks and M.B.A.s for that.

I won't use the word "durable" concerning cameras, because instruments 
aren't meant to be treated like footballs, and durable implies it should 
tolerate abuse and misuse, which no camera does. SLRs are supposed to be 
for people who know what they're doing, not careless oafs.  If my 
Miranda C wasn't reliable, it wouldn't still be working good as new 
after 41 years and hundreds of rolls of film.  Maybe my Dad and I should 
have kicked it around some to see if it's as tough as a Nikon F.

Regards,

Bill

Bill Salati wrote:

>
>
>     I suspect the Miranda 3 year waranty, much like Lee Iacocca's 5 
> year/50,000 mile warranty, was a marketing effort on the part of the 
> seller. Having been on both sides of both counters, the Miranda was 
> not 3 times more durable than anything except perhaps a Petri. 
> Likewise the K-cars I sold were noticeably inferior in materials and 
> workmanship to the captive-import Mitsubishis that had only a fraction 
> of the domestic Chrysler Corp. warranty.
>     The warranty is there only to leave the customer with a warm fuzzy 
> feeling. It seldom is a reflection of the quality of the product.
>
> Bill
>
>> Steve and all:
>>
>> I couldn't help but notice that a 1 year warranty seems quite stingy for
>> a top-of-the-line camera.  Mirandas had a 3 year warranty.  But that was
>> 30 years ago, when companies stood behind their products.  I keep
>> wondering when that will happen again.  I'll slap myself now.  There,
>> I'll be O.K.
>>
>> Bill


From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 
Subject: [camera-fix] Olympus officially discontinues OM cameras

I guess it is no surprise, but the sad end of a proud dynasty.  The original
OM-1 changed the course of photographic history by forcing the competition
to downsize their cameras.  This information was forwarded to me by my
Japanese friend Muchan.

Bob

> Olympus Optical Industry, Japan, announced they stopped making OM-3Ti and
> OM-4Ti black. They are the last of their OMs in production so it means
> they officially ended production and selling OM series bodies.
> 
> Some lenses and accessaries for OM series are still in production till
> the end of March 2003. Service for OM series will continue. The parts
> should be aveilable 10 years after the end of production. Some bodies
> were stopped production before, so it doesn't means 10 years for all
> bodies from now on.
> 
> The list of lenses, continued production till Mar 2003:
> Zuiko 21/3.5, 24/2.8, 35/2, 35/2.8, 50/1.2, 50/1.8, 85/2, 100/2
> Macro50/2, Makro90/2. Macro20/2. Macro 38/2.8.
> 



From: Brown Bear [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Osawa lenses
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 

Osawa was the sole distributor for the Mamiya brand.  If the lenses
weren't actually made by Mamiya on their behalf, they would certainly
incorperate Mamiya technology in their design and manufacturing.

[email protected] (Iskandar Taib) wrote:

>Anyone know anything about these? I bought a used Osawa 24mm f2.8 on
>ebay (for about $50 - I always wanted something wider than a 28)? According to:
>
>   http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/third/table1.txt
>
>it was a fairly expensive 24mm f2.8 in it's day. Also, according to:
>
>   http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/third/mfg.html
>
>Osawa was (or is) a manufacturer in Japan, not a relabel brand. 
>
>See:
>
>  http://bigwig.geology.indiana.edu/pictures/24mm/011123B-23.JPG



Subject: Re: SL66 questions
From: Bob [email protected]>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 

Q.G. de Bakker at
[email protected] wrote on 12/6/01 6:26 AM:

> Rollei and Schneider both have been Samsung owned
> companies

 No they weren't, Rollei was owned by Samsung Aerospace. They bought the
company from Heinrich Manderman who also owns Schneider.

HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun,
CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser,
Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Sirostar, Tetenal Cloths and
Ink Jet Papers, VR, Vue-All archival negative, slide and print protectors,
Wista, ZTS www.hpmarketingcorp.com


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm lens opinion

[email protected] at [email protected] wrote:

> As far as the Pentacon or Carl Zeiss Jena name goes once the Photo industry
> was consolidated in the DDR it seems to primarily be related to where they
> intended to sell the items. They could not use the markings "Carl Zeiss"
> because of a patent court decision in the US so they had to mark items
> Pentacon when intended for the US market.

Actually, lenses from Carl Zeiss Jena which were officially imported into
the USA were marked CZ Jena, CZJ, and Aus Jena.  The Pentacon, Pentaconar,
etc., names were used on lenses made by Meyer G�rlitz, and not by Carl Zeiss
Jena.  I sold these lenses in the 70s when they were current.  They were
imported into the USA by Hanimex, Exakta Camera Company, Edixa Camera
Company, and Camera Specialties Company (Caspeco).  The Meyer/Pentacon
lenses were generally regarded as "second tier" lenses below the Carl Zeiss
Jena lenses, and priced cheaper.

Bob

From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]>
Subject: RE: Re: Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm lens opinion

[email protected] wrote:
>Bob,
>I agree with what you say, however when I lived in Berlin in the late 80s
and early 90s I shopped in the Carl Zeiss shop am Alexanderplatz. It may be
that the products of were still made at what had previously been Meyer and
Zeiss but they had all been part of V.E.B. Pentacon for over 10 years.
>
>These lenses which I purchased in the late 80's or early 90's look very
much like typical Japanese production with the exception of the auto/manual
switch. All of them are multicoated. One of them is marked Carl Zeiss Jena,
the 20mm.

Nathan


First, it is important not to confuse "Carl Zeiss Jena" and "Carl Zeiss"
and "Zeiss Ikon" and "Pentacon" and the like.  Different companies with
different traditions and standards and fates, though all have a common
origin in the optical shop established in September, 1846, by Carl Zeiss 
--
then "Karl Zei�" -- at Jena.

Second, Meyer retained an independent existence even after it was merged
into the CZJ Kombinat in 1985.  It was hived off again in 1990 at the
downfall of Communism and is back into lens production today.  We just had
a discussion about this on the Praktica Users' Group.

Third, CZJ licensed their name to the Orient around 1983 and, from then up
to the end, a variety of pleasant-but-not-outstanding Japanese lenses were
marketed under that brand.  These lenses appear with some regularity on
e-Bay.  But let us not confuse those lenses with real Zeiss products.

Marc

[email protected]


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001BR
From: Marc James Small [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Late CZJ Lens S/N


Bob Shell wrote:

>As of last photokina when I talked to them, Meyer Optik in G�rlitz was  still
>in business.


Well ... Meyer was absorbed into Pentacon in 1956 or thereabouts.  
Pentacon was bought by CZJ in 1986.  If there is a "Meyer Gorlitz" running
about now, they must be a post-unification castoff like Noble or
Schneider-Dresden.
BR>P>

Marc
[email protected]

From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Late CZJ Lens S/N

> From: Marc James Small [email protected]
> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [russiancamera] Late CZJ Lens S/N
>
> Well ... Meyer was absorbed into Pentacon in 1956 or thereabouts.   Pentacon
> was bought by CZJ in 1986.  If there is a "Meyer Gorlitz" running about
> now, they must be a post-unification castoff like Noble or Schneider-Dresden.

That's not the way they tell the story.  According to Thomas Beier, the
man I spoke with, their marketing was combined but manufacturing was
always at G�rlitz, and still is.  They have plans to re-introduce some of
the classic lenses, including the 500mm Tele-Megor (which was renamed
Prakticar when Pentacon took over marketing), in mounts for modern
cameras.


If you want to contact them, the address is Aradstrasse 11, G�rlitz.  They
don't have a web site yet.

Bob


\
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001
From: Rick Housh [email protected]
Subject: Re: Whatever happened.......

Jim Bielecki wrote:
>Being somewhat new to Nikon, I'm wondering if somebody could tell me
>whatever happened to E.P.O.I., which was the company which handled
>distribution of Nikon products in the U.S. back in the 1970's.

In 1981 Ehrenreich Photo-Optical Industries (EPOI), founded by Joe
Ehrenreich, was bought out by Nippon Kogaku and renamed Nikon U.S.A., 
which now handles the official distribution in the U.S.A.

- Rick Housh -


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm lens opinion

 tigerarm2000 wrote:
> I know Carl Zeiss Jena made some excellent lenses for 120 format.
>What about their 135mm lenses? Are lenses with Zeiss brand bettet
>than pentacon lenses?
>
>I know this is not a Russian topic but I don't know other place to
>ask the question.

Well, other possible fora for this would be the Zeiss Ikon Collectors Group
and the Praktica Users Group.

Zeiss has always been the one company that will never chintz on quality,
which is why they dominate the top-end optical field.  In the US, many
hospitals insist on using Zeiss gear in their laboratories, simply because
no attorney in a malpractice suit would ever fault them for this choice.
Zeiss is the cutting edge, the absolute best, the chevalier sans reproche.
But beware of the Law of Diminishing Returns:  to get that extra 1% in
quality, you pay three or four times as much.  (And that is why SPS gear is
such a superb buy:  you get Zeiss-derived optical quality in, well, less
than Zeiss-quality mounts!)

I have a slew of Zeiss gear, from Contax and Praktina and Praktica and
Contaflex and Contarex and Ikoflex and Icarex gear, all with lenses, plus
Zeiss lenses on my Rolleiflex and Hasselblad cameras.  I have a Whole Damn
Bunch of binoculars, and all but a few are Zeiss -- and the ones which
aren't Zeiss are Zeiss-derived, either Docter or Russian.

Carl Zeiss split into two entities between 1945 and 1990, Carl Zeiss Jena
-- East German -- and Zeiss-Opton and Carl Zeiss -- West German.  The West
German gear is certainly preferable in terms of mounting but the East
German gear is often of stunningly fine optical qualities -- the absolute
finest, best, most marvelous binoculars I have ever used are my 7x40 DF
BGA's, the sort of glasses which put tears in your eyes, so good are they.

Damn, but I love Zeiss!

Marc

[email protected]



from minolta manual mailing list:
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002    
From: "aranda1984" [email protected]>
Subject: Re: 800 Cat

Yes Ze'ev, you are right.

Minolta made 800/8 RF and 1600/11 RF lenses for Leica. And that's the
fact even if Leica owners don't like to hear it.

There was a web site: http://www.minmail.org.mug/mf-bodies.html
That web site listed all the Minolta/Leica projects under 2.13. This
web site no longer is maintained, however, a short time back someone
had another site with the same information.

Stephen I. Molnar
...




From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm lens opinion

[email protected] at [email protected] wrote:

> As far as the Pentacon or Carl Zeiss Jena name goes once the Photo industry
> was consolidated in the DDR it seems to primarily be related to where they
> intended to sell the items. They could not use the markings "Carl Zeiss"
> because of a patent court decision in the US so they had to mark items
> Pentacon when intended for the US market.

Actually, lenses from Carl Zeiss Jena which were officially imported into
the USA were marked CZ Jena, CZJ, and Aus Jena.  The Pentacon, Pentaconar,
etc., names were used on lenses made by Meyer G�rlitz, and not by Carl
Zeiss Jena.  I sold these lenses in the 70s when they were current.  They were
imported into the USA by Hanimex, Exakta Camera Company, Edixa Camera
Company, and Camera Specialties Company (Caspeco).  The Meyer/Pentacon
lenses were generally regarded as "second tier" lenses below the Carl
Zeiss Jena lenses, and priced cheaper.

Bob




From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: RE: Re: Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm lens opinion

[email protected] wrote:
>Bob,
>I agree with what you say, however when I lived in Berlin in the late 80s
and early 90s I shopped in the Carl Zeiss shop am Alexanderplatz. It may be
that the products of were still made at what had previously been Meyer and
Zeiss but they had all been part of V.E.B. Pentacon for over 10 years.

>These lenses which I purchased in the late 80's or early 90's look very
much like typical Japanese production with the exception of the auto/manual
switch. All of them are multicoated. One of them is marked Carl Zeiss Jena,
the 20mm.

Nathan


First, it is important not to confuse "Carl Zeiss Jena" and "Carl Zeiss"
and "Zeiss Ikon" and "Pentacon" and the like.  Different companies with
different traditions and standards and fates, though all have a common
origin in the optical shop established in September, 1846, by Carl Zeiss
--
then "Karl Zei�" -- at Jena.

Second, Meyer retained an independent existence even after it was merged
into the CZJ Kombinat in 1985.  It was hived off again in 1990 at the
downfall of Communism and is back into lens production today.  We just had
a discussion about this on the Praktica Users' Group.


Third, CZJ licensed their name to the Orient around 1983 and, from then up
to the end, a variety of pleasant-but-not-outstanding Japanese lenses were
marketed under that brand.  These lenses appear with some regularity on
e-Bay.  But let us not confuse those lenses with real Zeiss products.

Marc
[email protected]




Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 
From: Jan  [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] SM

forgot who was asking what SM stands for, but found out and thought it's worth
telling you!

"Mamiya was founded in 1940 by the businessman Tsunejiro Sugawara and the
engineer Seichi Mamiya.

The stylized SM symbol on older Mamiya cameras stands for their initials and
not for Mamiya/Sekor"

as can be read at
http://eddy.uni-duisburg.de/joerg/allerlei/mamiya/mamiya.html

Jan


From: Bob Salomon [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Rollei's MC coating before HFT?
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002

[email protected] at [email protected] wrote 
> only Rollei-made lenses have the HFT coating.

Nonsense.

Kiron made Rolleigons and Rolleinars, Schneider made lenses and Zeiss made
lenses as well as some Samsung and Ricoh made lenses as well as Apogon
lenses for Rollei 35mm and 6x6 cm cameras have HFT coatings. HFT is simply
Rollei's designation for their MC and is used on their lenses, regardless of
supplier, It is not just on Rollei made lenses.

HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun,
CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser,
Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Sirostar, Tetenal Cloths and
Ink Jet Papers, VR, Vue-All archival negative, slide and print protectors,
Wista, ZTS www.hpmarketingcorp.com



From Camera Fix Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 
From: rod_kendall [email protected]
Subject: [camera-fix] Re: Original Iskra

--- In camera-fix@y..., Darcie tesoro@r... wrote:
>
>    I just got a russian Iskra (original) and can't find a manual
> anywhere online for it - and I can't figure out how to even close the
> dang thing! It looks like someone carved two holes in the back of it,
> too... and replaced them with red windows.  What's up with that?
>
>    Anyone direct me to instructions?
>
> thanks!
> Darcie


Iskra is actually Slovenian and not Russian. They no longer make film
projectors. Their corporate web page is http://www.iskra-si.com/
However, I am not sure if they can help you with the manual (the
factory that manufactured the stuff might no longer exist). It might
be worth a try...

Rod



Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected],
    [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] PAM Britar

I recently picked up a lot of Leica gear on e-Bay.  Among this stuff was a
4.5/105mm PAM Britar, a rather mysterious US-made LTM lens about which very
little is know.  With the lens came its 4" auxiliary viewfinder, in box --
and, on the box, it identified the manufacturer as "Photographic Arts
Manufacturing Corporation, 45 West 19th Street, New York, New York".  I've
never heard of this company before but it IS nice to have the "PAM"
decyphered.  Bob Pins has long opined that the Britar was to be the
long-focus lens for the civilian Kardon camera, and this is made a bit more
likely by the box's inscription "Leica or Kardon".

Does anyone else know anything else about this company or any other
products it might have made?

Marc
[email protected]


From Classic 35mm Compact Cameras List
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 
From: winfried_bue [email protected]
Subject: [Classic 35mm Compacts] Re: Vivitar 35ES


As you might have guessed, I own both the Revue400SE and the
Vivitar35ES (in multiples until I am going to sell some).

Both are exactly identical except for the 'bulge' on the top cover
that bears the Vivitar label.

Vivitar used to sell a range of rangefinders in the mid 70s, and all
of them were sold by german retailer Foto-Quelle with the Revue
label. The 'original' Vivitar cameras are pretty rare (I haven't seen
one yet) but the Revue400 series is quite common in Germany.

I have heard from several Revue400SE owners that the meter is 2 or 3
steps of. I did not find how to adjust this correctly. Also, some of
the Revue400SE suffer from a wobbly lens. To cure this a bit you will
have to open the body (rather straightforward) and tighten the ring
which holds the shutter assembly to the front plate.

BTW, a Revue400SE was the first camera I bought on german ebay. The
problem is that almost none of the german ebay sellers accepts PayPal
or BidPay (I don't either). But with the EURO it's easier to send
cash by letter. German banks accept foreign (and BidPay) cheques only
at horrible fees.


From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Leica 3rd party manufaturers

 kelvin at [email protected] wrote:
> I wonder if any of these parts would be interchangeable ...

Possibly the electronic chips, but not likely the whole circuit boards.
> whatever happend to tomioka?

Kyocera needed more lens production capacity.  They negotiated the purchase
of Tomioka.  This was in 1974 I think.  The Tomioka name disappeared at that
time, although Polaroid built cameras for years with Tominon lenses which
were from their stock.  Currently NPC builds a folding camera for Polaroid
films which is still built with brand new Tomioka lenses from Polaroid's old
inventory (they must have bought vast numbers of them!!!).

> I've been searching for an old tomioka 55/1.2 in M42 for months, without much
> luck too.

They were never common, so you may look for a long time.  Personally, I
never heard of that one.

Bob


from rollei mailing list:
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 
From: Ferdi Stutterheim [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Rolleiflex 2.8 F with OPTON lens


Geir,

OPTON (OPtische Werke OberkocheN) was the (first) name of the new post-WWII
Zeiss lens work at Oberkochen, West Germany. In later days the name was
changed to Carl Zeiss. After the change to the Carl Zeiss name, the Opton
name was still used for exports to Eastern European countries where (West
German) Zeiss had no rights to use the Carl Zeiss name. The same thing
happened to lens names. A Planar was marketed as an OPTON-P in the Eastern
Europe. A Tessar was an OPTON-T.


The East German Carl Zeiss Jena company sold their lenses in the West as
"aus Jena".

Your 2,8 F would have a standard Carl Zeiss Planar lens.

Ferdi Stutterheim,
Drachten, The Netherlands.
http://www.stutterheim.org
http://www.rolleigraphy.org
...



From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Suer Iknta C vs Besa II
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002


Vincent Becker wrote:

> I believe you are right, it is the same thing: post-war tessars were
> sometimes called "Zeiss Opton Tessar", "Zeiss Opton" being, I believe,
> the name of the manufacturer (a name that Zeiss took for some times).
> But I'm not so sure about it. As you say "Opton"lenses  were coated.
> Anyxay they were all Tessars.

Yep. Opton is the name Zeiss 'West' used while they were still battling it
out which one of the two Zeiss's was entitled to the name Zeiss. They
continued to use the name Opton on products shipped to the East Block long
after they decided to use the name Zeiss again.


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] "Lense" Spelling [was] Rolleiflex Filter and focus point change.

Prinz was one of several house brands of the old American Camera company,
later shortened to Amcam.  I bought lots of stuff from Amcam when I owned
and operated my own photo shops.

The name apparently belongs to new people now, who call themselves just
Prinz.  You can find out a little about them on their web site at
www.prinzusa.com  .  It's pretty vague, though.

Bob
...
> Is there a company that owns the Prinz brand name?
>
> I have been trying to locate them in order to purchase templates for
> trimming film leaders.
>
> Roland Smith



From: [email protected] (Winfried Buechsenschuetz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Suer Iknta C vs Besa II
Date: 7 Apr 2002 

I just got some more details from a german website covering Zeiss
history.

The 'Opton Optische Werke Oberkochen' was founded in 1946 by some
managers and techicians who had left the soviet occupied zone (the
German Democratic Republic was not established yet) and started
manufacturing optical equipment. Some years later the west german
'Carl Zeiss foundation' was established as an owner of Opton, and the
latter was renamend Zeiss-Opton. In 1953 west german 'Zeiss AG' was
founded by the 'Carl Zeiss foundation', and Zeiss-Opton was integrated
into this company.

So Opton and Zeiss-Opton lenses were made by a predecessor of the west
german Zeiss AG.


They had lots of trouble with east german 'Carl Zeiss' since the
latter were manufacturing optical equipment with the same name. Many
years later they agreed that east german 'Carl Zeiss' did not sell its
lenses in West Germany any more with the Zeiss label (the east german
Tessar was renamed 'Jena-T', and many lenses were sold just with a
lens name and an addendum 'aus Jena' = made in Jena, but for exports
to West Germany only). On the other hand, the west german glass
manufacturer Schott (who is part of the Zeiss AG) got back the right
to use the term 'Jenaer Glas' (glass from Jena) for its special
heat-resistant glass.

Winfried





from russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Unusual Zenit Lens - Anyone knows about it?

Your lens is a 240mm f/4.5 Tele-Ennalyt under Revue house branding.  Revue
is one of the house brands used by the German camera store chain Photo
Quelle.  Photo Quelle used to also sell Zenits rebadged as Revueflex.
Enna Werk in Munich made lenses for them in a variety of lens mounts
with the Revue name on them, so I would guess that Photo Quelle just asked
them for some in M39 to sell for their rebadged Zenit cameras.

I'm sure it was very easy for them to turn out the rear piece in M39
thread.

Unfortunately, I doubt anyone would know details of these lenses.  Hans

Spude was sales manager for Enna for many years, but he has now been
retired for almost ten years and would probably not remember.  Werner
Appelt, the current owner, is the son of the founder, but this deal would
have taken place when his father was still alive and running the company.


If they made all the lenses in M39 there would have been 24, 28, 35, 135,
240, and 300.  The 300 would have been easiest since it was made in T
mount.

Bob

[email protected] at [email protected] wrote:
> I have a 39 mm Zenit mount lens, please see it at
>
> http://store.yahoo.com/fedka/ungertel24.html
>
> The lens is made in West Germany, called Revue. My question is - why would
> West Germany produce a lens is a 39 mm Zenit mount. Were there any other,
> non-Soviet, cameras with the 39 Zenit mount?


from minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 
From: "xkaes" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Who is Rokinon?

Minolta lenses have always been called "Rokkor",
> > until Minolta dropped the Rokkor name.
> >
> > Bert

Minolta SLR lenses are labeled either "Minolta", "Rokkor"
or "Celtic".  Some of these lenses were not made by Minolta (they
were made by Tokina, Cosina) but they are still labeled as
mentioned.  A complete list of Minolta-made lenses is on the MINMAN
website.  Rokinon is an independent company that came up with a name
that sounded like Rokkor to confuse people.  That might be the main
reason Minolta dropped the Rokkor name from their lenses a few years
ago.



from contax mailing list:
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 
From: Alexander [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Contax] More on the rumor story

> Also, remember that zoom lens Leica had made by Sigma?

I hate to be a party pooper, but I have 2 Leica SLR lenses (24mm fixed
and the 35-70) both made in Japan by either Sigma or Minolta...



from russian camera mailing list
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: ISCO and JSK

 Javier Perez wrote:
>
>Are ISCOs considered to be second rate with respect
>to Schneiders or on the same level. I've noticed that
>just about every ISCO has a Schneider counterpart.

Yes, in general, ISCO was considered to be of second-rate quality, though
the factory was started to manufacture the cutting edge of JSK lenses, such
as really advanced aerial recon lenses.  But, after the War, Schneider had
the good stuff made at Bad Kreuznach and the more mundane stuff at
Gottingen.  There ARE some good ISCO lenses, but I don't know which ones
fall into this category.


Marc
[email protected]



From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: ISCO and JSK

 Marc James Small at [email protected] wrote:
> There ARE some good ISCO lenses, but I don't know which ones
> fall into this category.

Today a lot of the professional motion picture projection lenses come
from ISCO, particularly the anamorphics.

Bob


From: "Mike" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Makinon Lenses
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002


Dan,  Makinon was a low end lens who's quality was a little hit & miss.
When I owned a camera store in 83 I tested a couple of 28-80 zooms with the
idea of selling one with a camera body.  One lens focused perfectly while
the other did not. The one that focused correctly was a very sharp lens. I
have an 11x14 of a light house on the Oregon coast, you can count the
vertical parts of the railing.

$70.00 is a fair price IF you are happy with the photos.  You can always
list it on eBay if it doesn't perform to your satisfaction.

Mike
...


From: [email protected] (Karl Winkler)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica M6 and 50mm f/2 Summicron Versus Older Pentax M42 Spotmatic
Date: 19 May 2002 


[email protected] (Lewis Lang) wrote 
> >[There is an obvious exception; the later bayonet mount Takumars were
> >mostly cheap and nasty and in any case were not made by Pentax]
>
> Hi Tony:
> The latter bayonette mount Takumars were Takumars and not Super Takumars or SMC
> Takumars? - if they are later, I'm wondering why they are using the
> earlier/non-coated formulas in bayonette mount...

No, he's correct. My brother has a 28mm f/2.8 Takumar lens with
bayonet mount, not made by Pentax, and it's mediocre. Not at all
comparable to the earlier SMC Takumar screw lenses or the Pentax SMC
"K" or "M" lenses. Well, I suppose they are "comparable", but not in
any good way!

-Karl Winkler
http://pages.cthome.net/karlwinkler


From: Paul Chefurka [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica M6 and 50mm f/2 Summicron Versus Older Pentax M42 Spotmatic
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002

 [email protected] (Lewis Lang) wrote:
>>[There is an obvious exception; the later bayonet mount Takumars were
>>mostly cheap and nasty and in any case were not made by Pentax]
>
>Hi Tony:
>
>The latter bayonette mount Takumars were Takumars and not Super Takumars or SMC
>Takumars? - if they are later, I'm wondering why they are using the
>earlier/non-coated formulas in bayonette mount...

They were  only called Takumars - they weren't the original Takumar
designs. I think they were mostly new third-party designs, called Takumar
to differentiate them from the "Pentax" lenses that were in-house designs.
The Takumar name made people feel they were getting something with an
historical connection to the original Takumar lenses.  Kind of like today's
"Voigtlander" lenses...

Paul


From: .T.o.n.y. [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica M6 and 50mm f/2 Summicron Versus Older Pentax M42 Spotmatic
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002


[email protected] (Lewis Lang) wrote:
>>[There is an obvious exception; the later bayonet mount Takumars were
>>mostly cheap and nasty and in any case were not made by Pentax]
>
>Hi Tony:
>
>The latter bayonette mount Takumars were Takumars and not Super Takumars or SMC
>Takumars? - if they are later, I'm wondering why they are using the
>earlier/non-coated formulas in bayonette mount...


Hi Lewis,

I understand that they were cheap off-brand lenses re-badged Takumar
so Asahi could compete with cheap off-brand lenses badged otherwise.
If what I was told is correct, most, if not all, bear absolutely no
optical resemblance to M42 Takumars.

Best regards,

Tony


From: [email protected] (Gdwnphoto)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.35mm
Subject: Re: Kalimar lens
Date: 18 May 2002


>Kalimar Auto-T Telephoto 1:3.5   f =200mm No. 325727
>
>if anyone out there knows anything about the lens or perhaps where I might
>find some info I would greatly appreciate it.
>
>Thanks
>Ed

Hi Ed,
Kalimar was a distributing company, and they did have some of their own items
made as well, dating back to the 1940s/1950s.  Tiffen bought them out a few
years ago and basically dissolved the company.

Amy
Goodwin Photo, Inc.
www.goodwinphotoinc.com


From: [email protected] (Largformat)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 24 May 2002 
Subject: Re: large format trade show


  Yup, they're still at it. In fact, a couple of years ago I was
contacted by someone at TT&H about the possible market for the old
Cooke soft focus lens. Maybe they decided to make some.


In the May/June 02 issue of View Camera there is a history of Cooke lenes and
an announcement of a new lens from them. The new lens will be premiered at the
large formnat trade show.

steve simmons


Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002
From: "bmoag" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: After market lenses...


After researching this topic and trying Nikon and aftermarket lenses I would
say that some of the old reasons for purchasing camera brand lenses are no
longer valid. This is particularly true of the long wide to tele zooms where
the Nikon lens is no better or worse than the Tamron or Sigma, at nearly
double the price. Nikon is now building a series of "G" lenses that are
priced even lower than Tamron or Sigma equivalents.  I have no doubt that
Nikon is outsourcing manufacturing, and probably design, to the same
manufacturers of aftermarket lenses.



From: T.P. [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: After market lenses...
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002

... (quotes above post)

To an extent, you are right.  The Nikon 70-300mm G Series and ED
lenses, cheap 'kit' zooms and 28-200mm 'superzoom' are all made under
contract by Tamron.

However, you will not find more than a few independent lenses that
optically come close to Nikon's fixed focal length lenses and pro
zooms.  in addition, Nikon make a range of lenses for advanced
amateurs that beat almost anything from independent brands.



Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 
From: Ray MacDonald [email protected]
Subject: RE: Kobori Lens Manufacturing

Dear Bob,
Thanks for your help. I think Kobori is still in business as I found them
on the Web:

http://www.genyosha.com/JCTN/Advertisers/jcia.html

I guess they were one of a number of manufacturers who made lenses under
contract to Vivitar in the 1980s.

My 35-105 3.2-4 is a Vivitar design and patent. (made 1983)
My 75-205 3.8-4.8 I believe was one of Kobori's designs as there is no
patent number on it. (made 1984)

These two consumer lenses are a cut below the Series 1 but not bad for 4X6
prints. They are built like tanks compared to the Vivitars made today.

...

Regards,...
Ray MacDonald


Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 
From: Gordon Moat [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Does Blad have a Carl Zeiss exclusive?

Quite a bit of information about agreements and co-operation can be found on the
http://www.zeiss.de web page, with an English version also available.

Special agreements exist for some products with ALPA. Another very special
arrangement occurs with Rollei, especially for products intended for the Rollei
Metric photogrammetry system.

There is a rumour that the Zeiss lenses for the Contax 645 are only in 645 format
to not upset Hasselblad or Rollei. Economically, it may make simpler sense for
them to not compete with each other. However, I wonder what the situation will be
since the introduction of the rotating 645 back for the Rollei, which in some ways
competes well with the Contax 645.

Exact information about Zeiss lenses for Rollei:

http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/A756E9FE95F8DF3041256A6F002BAF9A

So a simple answer is that some lenses come direct from the Zeiss Oberkochen
plant, and others are made under license by Rollei. I did not look into the
situation with Schneider. A table indicating which lenses are made by each is
here:

http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9/InhaltWWWIntern/EF1F89EC735FEFC3C12567A80044EEAB

The advantage of the Rollei 6000 system is the range of possible flash sync. This
can be greatly useful for some portrait photography, and other genre as well.
Personally, I just tried the handling of a 6008i recently, and I found that I
liked it more than any Hasselblad that I have used.

After that all too brief encounter, I am compelled to save up for a new Rollei.
There are quite a bit more rental lenses for Hasselblad, but I was very impressed
with the Rollei quality. Obviously, this is going against the grain of many
Hasselblad users, but I simply felt more comfortable shooting hand held with the
Rollei, than the Hasselblad . . . . on a tripod it may make little difference. I
should add that I have no aversion to electrical cameras, despite the fact that I
own a few mechanical ones.

Information about Zeiss and Hasselblad:

http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/BA9F5C15BF9B51FD41256A6F002BACDB
and
http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9/InhaltWWWIntern/2B861F361C41D2FB41256A5300270A1F

There are some new products for the 200 series Hasselblad discussed on the site.
Also, each of the links I provided is available in a frameset from the regular
menu. There is a bit more in depth information in the shareholder notes, and in
the company history notes. The least amount of information seems to be in the
Zeiss and Kyocera dealings.

Since it seems that you have some interest in lens testing, here is some
information from Zeiss about equipment:
http://www.zeiss.de/de/photo/home_e.nsf/CategoryIntro/Lens_Testing_Technology0_Category_Intro

Enjoy your photography.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html

ArtKramr wrote:

> It is  interesting that the Blads use Carl Zeiss lenses, but other cameras like
> the Rolleis use lenses made  by other suppliers made on Zeiss  licenses. These
> are not really Carl Zeiss products. I wonder of Blad and Zeiss signed an
> exclusive contract?  Anyone know?
>
> Arthur Kramer
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 
From: Bernard Cousineau [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Q: CF(E/I) over C?

> How good are Panavision lenses, and who makes them?

Some of the Panavision lenses are made by Elcan
(http://www.elcan.com/PandSComCINE.htm), the former (?) Leitz Canada
manufacturing facilities.

Bernard


From: "Meryl Arbing" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Does Blad have a Carl Zeiss exclusive?
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002

Sorry, but the similarity between the Sony/Zeiss lenses and the other brands
stops at the physical look of the lenses. They are not the same glass, not
the same coating and...what is more important...not the same performance.
When you go to the Zeiss home page (http://www.zeiss.de) you will see that
Zeiss acknowledges that the Sony lenses are 100% Zeiss and each lens carries
a Zeiss serial number. The other "look-alike" lenses may well be clones of
the real Zeiss lenses. This has certainly happened before with classic Zeiss
designs. How many Tessar clones are there?

There is no real comparison between the look-alikes and the Sony/Zeiss.

[email protected] wrote...
> Zeiss makes the lenses for the Contax 645, all (or at least mostly) in
> Japan.
>
> The "Zeiss" lens (probably made by a 3rd party) of the Sony S70/75/85
> is shared by the Canon G1/G2, Casio 3000/4000, Panasonic LC5/Leica
> Digilux 1, Epson 3000, etc.
>
> Andrew


Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002
From: Lourens Smak [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Does Blad have a Carl Zeiss exclusive?


 [email protected] (ArtKramr) wrote:

> It is  interesting that the Blads use Carl Zeiss lenses, but other cameras
> like the Rolleis use lenses made  by other suppliers made on Zeiss  licenses.

Rollei lenses are made by Rollei itself (apart from the Rolleigon series
from the early 80's) according to Zeiss designs and Zeiss specifications
& tolerances. It is done this way because of Rollei patents and
technology, not because of Zeiss, I was told. (by a zeiss-person)

But:
All Rollei lenses have a pre/early-production run that IS made by Zeiss,
(marked "Carl Zeiss" and sought after by collectors) before production
is transferred to Rollei's lens factory, and from then on lenses are
marked "made by Rollei".

Some lenses, like the 120mm S-planar, are also actually made by Zeiss
for a larger part. (but not completely!) In fact because of this degree
of manufacturing, this one always says Carl Zeiss on the Barrel, instead
of "made by Rollei"...

> These
> are not really Carl Zeiss products. I wonder of Blad and Zeiss signed an
> exclusive contract?  Anyone know?

Why would they do that? Zeiss make and sell lenses, the more the better.
Even Sony handycams have a Carl Zeiss lens these days...and these ones
do say "Carl Zeiss" on the barrel, unlike the Rollei lenses.

;-)
Lourens.


[Ed. note: looking for info on Vivitar Series 1 lenses? Here's a kind offer to help...]
From: [email protected] (Quietlightphoto)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 02 Jul 2002 
Subject: Vivitar Series 1 lens specs

Hello all,

   I have the production code for the Series One line. If you would like to
know who manufactured it, and what year, send me the serial number. The older
one's are quite good!

Quiet Light Photography



from rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] SL 35 ?

Dale Dickerson at [email protected] wrote:
> Patric,
>
> I have a Rolleiflex SL35. The Planar has a great HFT coating. I also
> have an adapter to use m42 lenses and  a m42 p-6 adapter. I have a set
> of CZJ lenses in m42 and p-6. For example, the CZJ p-6 mc 2.8/180 is a
> bit heavy, but the results are great. With the Rolleiflex SL35 and two
> adapters, I have use of an amazing range of lenses: CZ, CZJ, Rollei,
> Schneider and other m42  lens. The camera is very reliable, simple to
> use and works even if battery fails. I recommend finding one on ebay and
> the two adapters. The mix of great lenses you can use is worth it. The
> results will speak for themselves.
> Dale

There are two versions of the SL35, the first made by Rollei in Germany and
the second made by Rollei in Singapore.  Quality control was much better on
the German ones.  When they first moved production to Singapore someone
miscomputed the diopter value of the eyepiece lenses and you could not focus
the cameras.  I replaced those with eyepiece optics from Minolta SRT cameras
at the time so people could focus the cameras.  Also, the early production
Singapore cameras had meter contacts made from the wron material and they
would bend with use until the meter would no longer switch on when you
pushed the button.  This is difficult to fix since the meter contacts are
not easy to reach. If I bought an SL35 I would hold out for one made in
Germany.

The best of the lot is the uncommon SL350, which solved all of the problems
of the SL35, but was made in very small numbers.

Bob


[Ed. note: can anyone help Ray out on Kobori corp.? Thanks!]
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 
From: Ray MacDonald [email protected]
To: "'[email protected]'" [email protected]
Subject: Kobori Lens Manufacturing

Dear Bob,

I just found out that my  35-105 and 75-205 Vivitar consumer zooms from the
1980s were made by a company called Kobori. They apparently had/have a 3rd
party brand called Tefnon.

There's no information about them on your site.
Have you heard of them and are they still in business?
Thanks for any info you may have.

Regards,
Ray MacDonald


from rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 
From: David Seifert [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Tokina makes the Rolleinar lenses?

Austin,

Yes, it is true! According to Prochnow all the Rolleinar and many of the
Voigtlander badged lenses for the 35mm SLR systems were made by a variety
of Japanese optics manufacturers, Tokina among them.  If you would like
specifics, I will be glad to drag out the books.

Best Regards,
David Seifert

 you wrote:
> > It may surprise you to know that Tokina makes the Rolleinar lenses for
> > the SLR Rolleiflexes.
>Is this true?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Austin



From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 
From: "tonyturnbull" [email protected]
Subject: cokin filters

thought I would mention that Minolta has sold cokin filters to
proquest. Why after 20 years would they do this?



From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 
From: "minoltaman222" [email protected]
Subject: Re: cokin filters

Because the only part that made money was the "P" holder. People
buy/bought other brands of filters. The "A" and "X" sizes never
really caught on because no other company made filters for them.

 I suggest you might want to pick up an extra "P" holder if you use
them incase the new management changes it.

--- In Minolta@y..., "tonyturnbull" turnbull@f... wrote:
> thought I would mention that Minolta has sold cokin filters to
> proquest. Why after 20 years would they do this?


From chinese camera mailing list:
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 
From: "Per Backman" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Mingca

They were or are sold by Jessops (UK) as Centon K100. I have forgotten which
model. There was some discussion about the different labels on Mingca cameras
on this list some time ago.

Per

Eric and Kathy Craft wrote:
>Other than ebay, Does anyone know where to buy a
>Mingca MCK-1000 or MFK-1000, and how much do they cost
>(USD)?
>
>Eric...


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 
From: "haefr2000" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Osawa?

--- In Minolta@y..., "Lucius" unohuu@u... wrote:
> anyone know about Osawa lenses...I would like to know who produced
> them.  I have an interest in a MF 85-200mm lens with floating f/3.5-4.5
>
> lucius

"Osawa", itself is (was?) an export company that had its name stamped
on products it distributed.  At one time Osawa also exported (still?)
high-end moving-coil phonograph cartridges for the golden-ear crowd.
I have no idea who actually produced the lenses or the cardridges for
them.  I had an Osawa zoom lens for a Minolta MD-11 I owned.  It was
a decent performer for the time, and trouble-free.  I could guess
that it may have been a relabled Tokina, but I have nothing solid to
back up that suspicion.


From: Michael Quack [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Beroflex lens
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002

HLim371292 says...

> I saw this 300/4.5 Beroflex lens on Ebay for canon FD
> Never heard of this brand before
> is it from the former E. Germany or W. Germany
> is related to the Carl Zeiss makers??

It has been a West Berlin company specialised in trading,
they never manufactured themselves. Their market segment
have been very cheap shitty lenses, with one exception,
the so called "Wundert�te" (miracle tube).

The Wundert�te was the 8.0/500 mm Beroflex Mark I, with
72 mm filter thread and apertures stopping down to 22.

The follow-up, which had a 67 mm filter thread and stopped
down to 32 was significantly worse. I cannot recommend
any of the Beroflex lenses except for the Wundert�te, that
I own myself. At less than 100 Dollars a must have in
any line-up.

There have been many others producing the same construction,
but only Beroflex managed to sustain excellent product quality,
clearly separating their Wundert�te from other seller's clones.

Who originally manufactured the Wundert�te is unknown to me,
but it is very likely that Cosina is responsible for both
construction and production.

--
Michael Quack [email protected]


From: "Ralf C. Kohlrausch" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Beroflex lens
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002


> HLim371292 says...
>
> > I saw this 300/4.5 Beroflex lens on Ebay for canon FD
> > Never heard of this brand before
> > is it from the former E. Germany or W. Germany
> > is related to the Carl Zeiss makers??

Amongst other stuff they specialised in providing lenses for the East
German Praktica-cameras that were sold in Western Germany and they
were the importers of Tamron-lenses from Japan to West-Germany, at
least in the lat 70s/early 80s, IIRC. And they were the importers of
Pentacon- and Carl-Zeiss-Jena-lenses from East Germany.
>
> It has been a West Berlin company specialised in trading,
> they never manufactured themselves. Their market segment
> have been very cheap shitty lenses,

I would not go quite so far, Beroflex just addressed the lower end of
the market.

> with one exception,
> the so called "Wundert�te" (miracle tube).
>
> The Wundert�te was the 8.0/500 mm Beroflex Mark I, with
> 72 mm filter thread and apertures stopping down to 22.

This lens has been marketed under lots of names, in Germay Beroflex
was one of them. In the US of A Cambron and/or Kalimar/Spiratone and
the likes used to market this construction. I remember Modern
Photography-mail-order-ads quoting excellent test results but don't
remember the exact make or resolution numbers.

> The follow-up, which had a 67 mm filter thread and stopped
> down to 32 was significantly worse. I cannot recommend
> any of the Beroflex lenses except for the Wundert�te, that
> I own myself. At less than 100 Dollars a must have in
> any line-up.

I agree with this one ;-) I keep combining the T�te with converters
for shooting the moon.

> There have been many others producing the same construction,
> but only Beroflex managed to sustain excellent product quality,
> clearly separating their Wundert�te from other seller's clones.
>
> Who originally manufactured the Wundert�te is unknown to me,
> but it is very likely that Cosina is responsible for both
> construction and production.
>

There have been a number of "relatives" of the Wundert�te like 6,3/400
or 5,6/300mm, I don't know about the lens you mentioned though. It is
not listed in my 1979 lens catalogue. There seems to have been a
5,5/300 as well.
> --
> Michael Quack [email protected]
>
> Fast, reliable, cheap. Pick any two of the three.

easy: The solution is de.rec.fotografie ;-)

Greetings
Ralf C.


From Kowa FAQ:

The Kowa Lens Company of Japan reportedly (per Gordon Hutchings, quoted in an EBAY 
lens sale posting) made at least some of the Computar lenses for Burleigh-Brooks corp.
These same lenses were later carried by Kyvyx (after B-B folded), under the Kyvytar name,
and also offered independently by Kowa corp. under the Kowa Graphic lens line, in both
shutter and barrel variants.



Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 
From: Andrew [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Leica don't know the standards? Re Hasselblad Dump

"Brian Ellis" [email protected] wrote:

>I understand that Zeiss designed it, which is all the link says.  Is it to
>be assumed that if Zeiss designed the lens, they also manufactured it for
>Leica?

Here's some pics - note the inscription "CARL ZEISS HOLOGON 1:8/15 F�R
LEICA-M."

http://homepage1.nifty.com/RLFC/PlaywBody/M_Body/Hologon/hologon_1.html

Andrew



Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: H1 list mania

Austin Franklin wrote:

> > Or by Minolta or by some gang of Canadians.
>
> Henry,
>
> I believe in the case of Canadians/Leica, you are off base.  Leica/Leitz
> still designed the lenses, they are merely manufactured in Canada.  As far
> as the "Hasselblad specified Fuji lenses", Zeiss has been designing lenses
> for many decades.  Hasselblad has never designed a lense, that I am aware
> for many decades.  Hasselblad has never designed a lense, that I am aware
> of.  Fuji designed the optics for these lenses, plain and simple.

I don't think Hasselblad's Per Nordlund will be very happy with you
belittling his contribution like this... ;-)

It's somehow good to be reminded about the similarities between Leica and
Hasselblad: Fuji as a partner (though Leica switched to Panasonic after
Hasselblad's XPan); Minolta as a partner; lenses made by Zeiss; die-hard
fans vehemently opposing anything that reaks of change; the "old stuff" kept
alive because of that; price level; status; hard times keeping alive;
investors taking over...

Now when will Hasselblad production be moved to Canada and Portugal?
;-)



From minolta mailing list:
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 
From: "haefr2000" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Vivitar Series 1  AUTO FOCUS ZOOM 19-35mm /3.5-4.5

It's actually made by Cosina and is also available under the Phoenix
and perhaps Kalimar brand names, and perhaps several others.  It
was/is available re-branded as a Tokina, but it is NOT the same lens
that Tokina actually makes and sells as their "AF-193" lens of the
same speed and focal range.  The Cosina 19-35 model has a filter
mount that rotates during focusing which complicates use of
polarizers and gradient density filters.  The Tokina AF-193's front
element DOES rotate, but the filter mount does NOT.


From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Leica Minolta history.

I just received from the Leica Gallery, NYC- "The Leica Story, A History of
the Leica Camera", by Emil G. keller (1989).

An entire chapter is devoted to the Minolta-Leica cooperation and the
manufacturing agreement first pursued in 1969, signed in 1971, and, according
to the author, still in effect as of this book's publication date (1989).
Leitz desperately needed to lower some manufacturing costs, and Minolta
needed someone's experience in improving their quality of their cameras, they
cite the successes of Nikon and Olympus.

Interesting points-
       1.- ALL CLs and CLEs were made in Japan.
            But before agreeing on a pact with Minolta, Leitz first explored
other              possibilities in Germany, Tunisia, Singapore, and
Portugal.
       2.-"Certain parts" of the Leicaflex SL were made in Japan based upon
drawings
             done in Wetzlar. Final assembly was done in Wetzlar.
       3.- Leicaflex SLII shutter and film transport was made by Minolta.
       4.- The R-3 had at least 30% Minolta manufactured parts.
       5.- The Minolta XD7 formed the basis for the R-4.

Best,
George S.

 [email protected] writes:

I have a guess, but since Minolta is well known for bright Accu-Matte focus
screens and the SL2 is well know for it's bright viewfinder, I will hazard
the guess that this screen was a Minolta contribution just as it was for
Hasselblad.  This is just a guess on my part so don't hold me to it if I'm
wrong.  ;-)



From: Andrew [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Leica don't know the standards? Re Hasselblad Dump
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002

 "Brian Ellis" [email protected] wrote:

>If Zeiss makes that lens it's news to me (which wouldn't be the first time :
>: - )).  I've read many places that Zeiss designed that les but never heard
>before that Zeiss also manufactures it. Where did you get your informaiton?

I'm not ulisse but here's one source:
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/lensreports/hologon01.html

Andrew


From: [email protected] (ROBMURR)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 24 Feb 2003 
Subject: Re: Elderly Telephoto

>I have a 30 (or so) year old Asanuma 90-230 4.5 lens. I think I paid
>about $100 (new)for it in the 70's.
>Do I own the sole example ? I have used it at automobile races and for
>wildlife stuff for years with decent results. I have never heard
>anything at all about this lens, good or bad.
>
>Any comments ?
>Thanks

Asanuma is a brand name of Tokina when they
first started out in the 1970's.
Since zoom technology was just getting started
at that time the zooms were not nearly as sharp
as they are today. Now we have computer generated
optical fomulas and special types of glass and new
rear focusing designs that make the new ones so
much better...Not to mention that film has improved
tremendously in the last 30 years... 



From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 
From: Jeffery Smith [email protected]
Subject: Erwin's Review of the Rollei RF lens


Erwin Puts just sent out his newsletter with a brief review of the
Rollei 40/2.8 Sonnar. He claims that the lenses are made by Kyocera (of
Contax G fame) and assembled in Germany (but he doesn't seem terribly
certain about this). The build quality is of Leica standards and above
Cosina standards. The center has very high resolution with lower at the
edges, like the RF lenses of yesteryear.

He didn't mention the price. I expect it to be astronomical. If it is
above Leica prices, I don't expect this lens to be a success.

Jeffery Smith
New Orleans, LA



From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 
From: Jeffery Smith [email protected]
Subject: RE: Erwin's Review of the Rollei RF lens


Rollei has used Zeiss glass for its TLRs and Rollei 35 cameras. Kyocera
makes Zeiss glass for Contax cameras (Zeiss design licensed to Kyocera).
I think Zeiss lenses for the Rollei 35's were made in Singapore for a
while.

These sort of arrangements are unsettling to me. But I assume that, if
Kyocera made lousy lenses under the Zeiss license, Zeiss would pull it
from them. The Zeiss lenses made by Kyocera are great.

Jeffery
...


From: "Tusk..." ejgn@*remove*gmx.net
Newsgroups: uk.rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Centon lenses for Pentax!
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 

...
> >>>Does anyone have experience of using Centon lenses?
> >>>They seem incredible value for money..but are they any good??
> >>
> >>
> >>They are cheap junk lenses from
> >>various Far East manufacturers.
> >>
> >>If you consider them to represent
> >>"incredible value for money", then
> >>may God help you.
> >>
> >>Of course, if your expectations
> >>are sufficiently low, any old crap
> >>will do.
> >
> >
> >Well, Tony may be a little blunt in his approch to this type of
> >advice, but I can't argue with his conclusions. Centon is crap.
>
>
> All the centon K-mount stuff I've fitted is utter junk. Buy a used
> Pentax - you should get say their 50mm SMC for about �50 tops and that's
> a brilliant lens.
>
> The only Centon that was any good was a 500mm mirror. Quite acceptable,
> but I could just have been lucky and got the only good one they ever
> made.

Thank you for the advice gentlemen..however blunt!! :-)
I shall be buying a second-hand Pentax lens.

Regards
Tusk



From Manual SLR mailing list:
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 
From: Stephen Gandy [email protected]
Subject: Who Made that Vivitar Lens?


http://www.cameraquest.com/VivLensManuf.htm

reported Vivitar lens manufacturing codes, aprox 1970 to 1990

Stephen




From K-Cams mailing list:
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 
From: Gene Poon [email protected]
Subject: Re: Vivitar Farm Out

Eric and Kathy Craft wrote:
> While I was at the camera shop yesterday I made a
> discovery about my Vivitar V3800N. There in the
> camera case I spied what at first appearance seemed to
> be the exact camera that I have, a Vivitar V3800N. It
> caught my interest because it was grey and mine is
> black.
>
> On a closer look I saw it had a different name on it.
> It was a Hikari 2002. This got my interest because it
> was the exact same camera that I have except for the
> color. When I got home, I looked it up and found that
> it was made by Phoenix.
> http://www.phoenixcorp.com/Cameras/Discontinued/Hikari_2002_35-70mm_Grey/hikari_2002_35-70mm_grey.html
>
> So it seems that My V3800N and it's 28-70mm macro zoom
> lens are made by Phoenix. Since I belive my Vivitar
> to be a very good little camera, (especially since I'm
> on a budget) this does not lessen my opinion of my it.
> What this does do is raise my opinion of Phoenix and
> make me want to give them a closer look the next time
> that I go camera shopping.
>
==============================

This SHOULD raise your opinion of SOMEBODY. But that SOMEBODY isn't
Phoenix.

Phoenix, like Vivitar, is a marketing company. As such, it doesn't
build anything. It contracts out to other companies who engineer,
design and build the items, and put the Phoenix brand name on them.

The Vivitar Corporation functions similarly, except that some items are
actually engineered and designed by Vivitar, and built by others to
those Vivitar designs. Good examples are the Vivitar Series One zoom
lenses of the 1970s-1980s; and the long-lived Vivitar 283 and 285 flash
units, which have been built by at least three different factories in
three different countries.

Phoenix didn't build your Vivitar. Phoenix didn't even build the Phoenix.

Both were built by Cosina.

Cosina has quite a history. Besides building cameras with its own brand
name, it has done so for many other customers, both marketing companies
like Vivitar and Phoenix, and major, well-known camera brands. Vivitar
has long had its SLR cameras built by Cosina, going back to the M42
screw mount Vivitar SLRs from thirty years ago.

Cosina, using its basic SLR chassis, also has recently been building
rangefinder cameras with the Leica M39, Leica M and Contax rangefinder
lens mounts, under both their own Cosina brand and the Voigtlander
brand, the rights to which they have licensed from its German owner.

Even more than a camera maker, Cosina is a large manufacturer of lenses,
both for the aftermarket as well as some for major camera makers. Many
Vivitar lenses are made by Cosina. A good and well-respected example is
the 100/3.5 macro. Exactly the same lens is also built as a Phoenix,
and as an SMC Pentax. Some truly excellent lenses have been built by
Cosina for their aforementioned rangefinder cameras, and are a very fine
alternate for those with Leica cameras who cannot afford the inflated,
collector-driven prices on Leica rangefinder lenses.

When Ricoh and Chinon phased out construction of mechanical SLR cameras,
they turned to Cosina, who built the Ricoh KR-5 Super II and the Chinon
CM-7.

When Canon, Nikon, Olympus wanted "entry level" cameras to sell at a low
price, they went to Cosina to build the Canon T60, Nikon FM-10 and
FE-10, and Olympus OM-2000. So, when your friend brags about his having
a prestigious Nikon FM-10, you can sit back and KNOW his camera is
internally the same as your Vivitar!

The recent/current Cosina body does have some weak points. The weakest
of them is the mechanical self-timer, which is built with thin plastic
gears having tiny gear teeth. It often gets sticky, or jams, simply
from wear if used frequently. Which is too bad, because the self-timer
provides a very useful function with the Copal vertical-blade shutter
that Cosina uses: mirror pre-fire. When a camera is mounted on a tripod
for long telephoto or macro photography, it helps a little bit if the
mirror is flipped up and its vibrations settle down, before the shutter
is fired. Some cameras have a separate mirror-lockup control. Others,
including the Cosina, have a special self-timer setting that flips the
mirror when the self-timer is started, with the shutter opening a few
seconds later.

So, give credit where it is due, to the Cosina Camera Co. of Nagano,
Japan. Camera/Lens builders for the world!

-Gene Poon


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 
From: Winfried Buechsenschuetz [email protected]
Subject: RE: Steinheil Quinar


All I can tell you is that most Steinheil lenses had a good reputation,
especially the f/4.5 35mm Orthostigmat lens. I once owned one but sold
it to get a more powerful Komura f/2.8, but I can't say anything bad
from the few shots I made with this one.

I have heard (and seen it on the Orthostigmat) that most Steinheil
post-war lenses don't have an excellent coating.

However, since the Quinar is a 5-element design you can expect some
image quality. If I were in your place (and would not have two other M39
135mm lenses) I would have had repaired.

Winfried



From minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 
From: "bg1911fan" [email protected]
Subject: Tokina made Minolta lenses

I noticed in some reading that several MD Minolta lenses (i.e. 35-135
f3.5-4.5 MD Minolta) was actually made by Tokina. How does the
quality of the Tokina compare to that of Minolta made lenses?


From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 
From: Ze'ev Kantor [email protected]
Subject: Re: Quality of 3rd party lenses

AFAIK there where three levels of cooperation between Minolta and Leica:

a. Common design. Some lenses shared common optical design, but manufactured separetly and independently by both. 
The best example I am aware about is the 24 f/2.8. In the era of manual calculations and limited computation power, 
this cooperation saved much money and time-to-market for both companies. The XE.. and XD... series served as a 
basic platform for Leica SLR (R3 and R4, R5...), but Leica added some features (spot metering and motor-winder 
above the XE platform). One can assume that manufacturing and assembling standards are different. BTW, the R3
 was assembled in Canada and Portugal. Another example of cooperation is the rangefinder CL / CLE.

b. Subcontracting. Minolta was probably the only company to manufacture lenses for Leica under Leica brand name. 
These lenses were marked "made in Japan" and Leica claimed there were made according to Leica strict quality 
requirements.

c. Minolta labeled lenses in Leica mount. AFAIK these where only the 800 and 1600 RF (mirror) lenses, but I 
remember seeing a picture and direct reference to these lenses in Leica brochure. The lenses where clearly labeled 
MINOLTA (in old logo).


Ze'ev Kantor
http://www.angelfire.com/art2/kantor_z
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave
To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2003 
Subject: Re: [MinMan] Quality of 3rd party lenses


Sam said:
 they would have one terrible job to remount them as Leica lenses anyway.
Moreover, I do not think Leica claimed its branded version of the lens to be
any better in image quality than the Minolta version; 

Hi Sam,
Don't be so sure that Leica didn't claim optical superiority with their
branded versions. I am on numerous Leica lists as well as Minolta lists and
I can assure you Leica does indeed claim their versions are picked very
carefully from the Minolta offerings. Many Leica shooters also claim the
same. I, on the other hand, have some Leica versions and Minolta versions
of the same lens and cannot tell the difference from their resulting images.

Dave Saalsaa


From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 
From: "Dave Saalsaa" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Quality of 3rd party lenses

Hi Ze'ev,
Minolta was not the only Japanese manufacturer sub-contracted by Leica.
Tokina and Sigma also made zoom lenses for Leica under the Leica logo.
The French company Angenieux also made a zoom lens for Leica. Novoflex also
worked with Leica with a 400mm and 560mm len that used the Novoflex Rapid
Follow Focus grip.

Dave Saalsaa
...


From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 
From: "Dave Saalsaa" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Quality of 3rd party lenses

Yes, they did One a tour of the Leica factory, a the Leica tour guide was
asked about a large number of crates of lenses that had Minolta written on
them. The Leica rep said that they were rejected Minolta product that was
to go back to Japan and that Leica only used the best of the product for
Leica's logo. The rest went back to Japan for Minolta to put into their own
lenses. I know this statement is said by Leica but the fact of this is
actually being the case is highly unlikely. The loyalty of the German Leica
factory worker is intense. They firmly believe that their German produced
product is the best. This competition between the ELC factory in Midland
Canada and the factory in Wetzlar Germany, now Solms Germany, helped lead to
the closing of the ELC (Ernst Leitz Canada) factory. I see nothing wrong
with pride of production in your own factory so please don't get me wrong
that I am criticizing Leica Solms. Quite the contrary, I believe we need
more pride of production so we can have pride of ownership.

Dave Saalsaa


From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Quality of 3rd party lenses

[email protected] writes:

 The Leica rep said that they were rejected Minolta product that was
to go back to Japan and that Leica only used the best of the product for
Leica's logo. 

What it comes down to is that Minolta has some sort of quality control, and
Leica does as well. But how much more strict can Leica's be when examining
the same product? Let's say, for example, that Minolta rejects 5 of every
100 lenses that it makes as having significant flaws. How many of the 95
left will Leica reject? If it were a significant number, they wouldn't waste
their time using the lens to begin with. They might like to paint a scenario
where they are picking the top 10 out of a batch of Minolta lenses, but
optics don't work that way. A lens can only be so good and the vast majority
operate at that peak level. A handful will have problems that degrade the
image, but none will have flaws that IMPROVE the results. I suspect that
Leica would have to "throw out" a smaller percentage of lenses than Minolta
did. Even in the "worst case" scenario, out of each batch of 100 lenses,
only a couple of the Minolta lenses would enter the market below Leica's
standard.

Back in the 70's Minolta was selling it's 80-200mm f4.5 Zoom Rokkor-X for
$400 (list). Leica was selling the same lens for $1200. That's a lot to pay
for german "quality control".


From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 
From: "Dave Saalsaa" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Quality of 3rd party lenses

I agree with you completely. I also think that what some of the Leica folks
say is for the benefit of the stigma of ultimate quality control and
justification of the much higher price. Like you said, if Minolta's product
was so bad as to reject a very high percentage of the product, it would not
be economically feasible for either party to continue the joint venture. We
know this was not the case because of the many years of cooperative
projects. As far as the difference in price between Leica branded product
and Minolta branded product, there are most likely a number of reasons
besides just quality control issue.

Dave Saalsaa


From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Quality of 3rd party lenses

[email protected] writes:

 The MD 35-70 f/3.5, the 75-200 f/4.5 and the 70-210 f/4 were
all made using Minolta glass. 

Leica also sold the 80-200mm f4.5, 16mm f2.8 and 24mm f2.8 Rokkor lenses as
their own. Maybe some others as well. These lenses are all marked MADE IN
JAPAN. Leica may have made some minor cosmetic changes to the lenses, but
the guts are Minolta. Just like the XE-7 was made by Minolta, and modified
by Leica and sold as the Leica R3. Comparison shots are on the MINMAN
website.


From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 
From: Samuel Tang [email protected]
Subject: Re: Quality of 3rd party lenses

Hi Joe,

[email protected] wrote:

(snipped)

> Leica also sold the 80-200mm f4.5, 16mm f2.8 and 24mm f2.8 Rokkor lenses as
> their own. Maybe some others as well. These lenses are all marked MADE IN
> JAPAN. Leica may have made some minor cosmetic changes to the lenses, but
> the guts are Minolta. Just like the XE-7 was made by Minolta, and modified
> by Leica and sold as the Leica R3. Comparison shots are on the MINMAN
> website.

I have a suspicion that the Leica mount demands a stronger diaphragm mechanism in the lens; an engineering design 
parameter rather than an image quality parameter. Knowing the high consistency of Minolta lenses I doubt if Leica 
would need to check every specimen to skim off the best of
them, they would have one terrible job to remount them as Leica lenses anyway. Moreover, I do not think Leica 
claimed its branded version of the lens to be any better in image quality than the Minolta version; therefore the 
"improvements" required by Leica could very well be cosmetic and
mechanical so as to make these lenses function correctly on Leica cameras, rather than saying that the Minolta
 branded versions are in any way less satisfactory when used on Minolta cameras.

Best,

Sam.


From minolta manual mailing list:
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 
From: "Dave" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Quality of 3rd party lenses

Yes, it's true. The MD 35-70 f/3.5, the 75-200 f/4.5 and the 70-210 f/4 were
all made using Minolta glass. Modifications were made to the standard
mounts to conform to Leica specifications. It is claimed that Leica picked
the cream of the crop of these lenses for their logo but there is much
speculation on this. But without a doubt, Minolta made these lenses for
Leica.

Dave Saalsaa



From K-camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 
From: Gene Poon [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Cosina builds SMC Pentax lenses?

Daniel Bachmann wrote:
> I have heard that they Cosina does make only the Series 1 lenses for
> Vivitar and the other brands listed here except for the Pentax ones.
> As far as I know Pentax SMC lenses have only been made by Pentax and
> always marked as either "Pentax SMC" or "Super Takumar."


There is a Web page, which I will have to find, that decodes the Vivitar
lens serial numbers as to manufacturer, and even date of build.

NOT all lenses marketed as "SMC Pentax" are built by Pentax. There are
two popular SMC Pentax zoom lenses, the 28-200 and 28-105 IF, which are
well-known to be made by Tamron, and one macro, the FA 100/3.5, which
is...believe it...made by Cosina. 

For information, see:

http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/short-tele/FA100f3.5-Macro.html

Asahi Optical/Pentax has also made lenses under other brand names than
Pentax and Takumar. Several were built under the "Cosmicar" name, which
is an Asahi/Pentax trademark, as "CPC Phase 2" and as "Finex." All were
promoted to the aftermarket as low-cost options to the SMC Pentax-A
line.

-Gene Poon



From: westin*[email protected] (Stephen H. Westin)
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: Cost of hundreds of thousands of lenses.
Date: 14 May 2003 

Jim Klein [email protected] writes:

> The M lenses are all made in Germany, as is the M6. I don't know about
> the M7. The MP is also German.

See http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/m7.html for someone
who claims he "happened to be in the Portugal factory when the first
new M7�s started to be manufactured." Apparently the factory started
production in 1973: see
http://homepage.swissonline.net/dedual/wild_heerbrugg/Milestones%20of%20Leica.htm. The
same Dutch guy chats about Leicas of different ages and production
plants at http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/choosem.html.

So I think it's a toss-up as to whether any given camera will be made
in Germany or Portugal.

According to Leica, "Today, important sub-assemblies for the Leica M
and R cameras are manufactured in Portugal." (see
http://www.leica-camera.com/imperia/md/content/pdf/investorre/annualrepo/9.pdf).

A 1999 magazine article on Leica's cost-cutting mentions "shifting
certain production segments to Leica�s facility in Portugal".

I certainly stand corrected on the M lenses (though it seems a number
of R lenses come from Kyocera in Japan). The M6 and M7 seem both to
have substantial Portuguese content, and at least the M7 is assembled
in Portugal, as well. I don't think we can attribute their high price
to expensive German labor.

> I don't consider the R series to be superior to the Canon or Nikon and
> definitely not worth the price.
>
> Jim
>
> westin*[email protected] (Stephen H. Westin) wrote:
>
> >Jim Klein [email protected] writes:
> >
> >snip
> >
> >> Of course this means the workers in the poor back water country where
> >> the lenses are made are working literally for table scraps compared to
> >> the US.
> >>
> >> God Bless Capitalism. :-)
> >>
> >> If you don't believe this, go to your Leica dealer and buy a 28 mm
> >> F/2 Summicron and an M7 camera and watch your bank account go "GLUNK".
> >>
> >> Then again, going out every afternoon for Scnaps and Beer is a small
> >> price to pay for a rock solid camera system, even if it is not
> >> technologically up to date.
> >
> >Where have you been, Jim? I believe the M-series is built in Portugal
> >these days. And many Leica lenses have been sourced from Japan for
> >years. Apparently Sigma produced a certain zoom for Leica for years; I
> >think now the same lens comes from Tokina or someone. Don't know if
> >the 28mm f:2 Summicron still comes from Germany.
>
--
-Stephen H. Westin


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Flange Back
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]


 David Nebenzahl wrote:
> Elaborate, please: who or what is "ELCAN"? (And I assume you're talking
> about "real" Leicas here, no?) Pardon my ignorance.

ELCAN = E. Leitz CANada.

Bob


From: George Mann [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: $500 USD price range - choose yer weapon...
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 

[email protected] (Gordon Gekko)
wrote:

>Someone intent on dissing Contax would point out that Contax is just a
>name that Kyocera bought the rights to.
>

Actually, the Contax brandname is wholely owned By the Zeiss
foundation.

Kyocera has contracted with the Zeiss foundation to manufacture the
Contax camera bodies, and they also provide some or all of the
electronics for them as well.

Contax camera's are jointly designed by Zeiss/Kyocera. Zeiss lenses
are designed and manufactered by Zeiss in Germany and Japan .

George Mann


From Pentax K-Cameras mailing list:
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 
From: Gene Poon [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PentaxUsers] pentor lens

gekkegozer wrote:
>
> I have a pentor 300mm F5.6 lens which I can buy after trying it.
> Has anybody had experiences with this lens or other lenses from
> pentor and what price should I ask for it???

"Pentor" was a brand name created for joint marketing (in the
Netherlands, I believe) by two East German companies: PENTacon the
camera manufacturer, and ORwo, which made film.

I've never seen a sample of a Pentor 300mm lens, much less used one...I
have seen
"PENTOR" SLR cameras; they've all been rebadged Prakticas. But a
marketing firm could source their product from anywhere. Another brand
under which East German Prakticas were sold was "PORST," of which at
least some were sold with a normal lens supplied from Japan by Chinon.
So it is not impossible that a Pentor lens could have been built in the
Orient.

Of course, it COULD have been an unscrupulous attempt by some promoter
or importer to confuse buyers between the Pentax and Pentor names. That
sort of thing happened, too.

The price on something like that is basically what the market will
bear...

-GP


From: Bob Salomon [email protected]
Newsgroups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Hoya vs Tiffen Filters
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 

George Mann [email protected] wrote:
> Bob Salomon [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Heliopan filters are brass rimmed but come standard in thin mounts, they
> >are made from Schott (Zeiss) glass and are available coated or multi
> >coated.
> >
> >these are the best filters made in Germany.
>
> Schott is an independent glass maker who supplies the german
> lensmakers. B&W/Heliopan is a product of Schneider Optics.
>
> George Mann

Thanks but not quite correct.

Schott is a division of Zeiss so they are not quite independent.

Heliopan is owned by the Summer family in Munich. The father, Martin
Summer founded the company after WW II.

B+W was founded by the Berman and Weber families (hence B+W). After
their deaths the trustees sold B+W (in Wiesbaden) to Heinrich Mandermann
who purchased the Scheinder factory after the Schneider liquidation. He
then moved B+W to the Schneider factory in Bad Kreuznach.

Heliopan and B+W are not related companies but sell similar products.

Heliopan is the only manufacturer of photographic filters in Germany who
exclusively uses Schott to supply all of their glass for their filters.
If Schott does not have the glass Heliopan does not offer the filter
(excpt, of course, for those filters that are made from acrylic).

B+W does have glass suppliers other then Schott.

--
HP Marketing Corp.


From: [email protected] (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 30 Apr 2003
Subject: Re: I bought a Stigma...

>Subject: Re: I bought a Stigma...
>From: [email protected] (Bob Monaghan)
>Date: 4/29/03 
>Sigma got there first. As noted, sigma also provided the zooms for leica R
>series and hasselblad to sell under their own names. Surprise ;-)

That was short lived since Sigma just couldn't meet the standards they agreed
upon with Leica. Leicas rejection rate of the Sigma lenses was so high it was
an economic disaster for Sigma.The relationship was ended by mutual consent.


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer



From: [email protected] (Chris Wilkins)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Who makes Jessops Filters?
Date: 6 May 2003 

[email protected] (Chris Wilkins) wrote 
> Who makes Jessops Filters please?
>
> Chris....

I think I've answered my own question.

I rang up Kood Filter who told my that they made Jessops square
filters. The type of filters on offer seem to match the range of
Jessops square filters.

I also notice that Jessops seem to ask a lot more. �22.50 from Kood
compared to �39.99 from jessops for a circular polariser in 'P' size.

Chris..

BTW. Jessops are selling off their Jessops Square filters for half
price but don't tell anyone.


From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Who makes Jessops Filters?
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003

T. P. [email protected] wrote:
> There are *several* German suppliers of B&W filters who undercut Hoya
> HMC filter prices by a *huge* margin. 

...and there's a few more selling Heliopan filters at most attractive
prices.

Just like those from B+W, Heliopan filters are made of Schott glass.
They have a very interesting 'slim-line' filter series with very thin
mounting rings allowing their use on wide angle and extreme wide angle
lenses.

Their complete catalogue is online under:

http://www.heliopan.de

I've bought a few Heliopan filters from a German outfit called
'team-foto' on ebay and I've been quite happy with their prices and
service.

The usual disclaimers apply.
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - K�ln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de




From: T. P. [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Who makes Jessops Filters?
Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 

[email protected] (Chris Wilkins) wrote:
>I rang up Kood Filter who told my that they made Jessops square
>filters.

If you rang up Hoya, they would tell you that they supply glass for
almost every Japanese filter manufacturer. So what?

Kood is a new brand name for a long established Asian manufacturer of
filters. Previous brand names include Regent. If you have ever used
Regent filters, you will know just how "good" Kood filters are likely
to be. ;-)

I suggest you should consider avoiding almost everything that carries
the Jessops brand. In my experience, most of the Jessops own-brand
accessories are neither good nor cheap. 


From: "Simon Watkins" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Who makes Jessops Filters?
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 

"Chris Wilkins" [email protected] wrote
> Who makes Jessops Filters please?

Latest ones have "Made in Japan".

I have an older Fox Talbot filter, that has "Made in Japan with Hoya Glass".

If you are after some cheap, good quality filters, let me know. I've found
a German supplier who I've been buying B+W MRC filters for comparable prices
to those being charged in the UK for Hoya filters. No affiliation, just a
happy customer.



From minolta manual mailing list:
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 
From: Samuel Tang [email protected]
Subject: Re: Info on Hoya Lenses

Hi Jeff,

Hoya is part of a group of which Kenko and Tokina are also members. In the late 1970s Hoya brand lenses were 
released to the market, with the manufacture done by Tokina. At the time they were considered to be of very fine quality.

Not only does Hoya make filters, it is also a major manufacturer of optical glass and fine glassware and crystal ware.

Best,

Sam.


Jeff Matsler wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Can anyone tell me anything about the older Hoya lenses? I know they make filters, but I had no idea 
> that they make / made (?) lenses.
>
> Thanks and let me know.
>
> Jeff M



From Manual SLR pages:
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 
From: Peter Wallage [email protected]
Subject: RE: Enna lenses: worth interest?




Tomasz Holdowanski wrote:

> Today someone offered me Enna Ennalyt 4/24 in T2 mount, at about $50. I
> read a 85-250/4 Enna zoom review at Cameraquest, however still don`t
> know
> about general quality of Enna lenses.Does anybody know this particular
> lens, or may share some general opinions on Enna optics?

Ennawerke, in Munich, were quite prolific lens makers in the twenty
years after the war. At one time they made the lenses for the Corfield
Periflex which got a good reputation. Some of the Enna range was
available in the US with the brand name Sandmar. I've never owned one,
but some Enna lenses got good reviews and were quite highly thought of.
I hadn't heard of them being available in a T mount, but they used to
make their own interchangeable system called the Enna Socket (or Sockel)
system. With this, an adaptor socket was fitted to the lens mount of the
camera and then a whole range of Enna lenses could be fitted to this.
The idea was to avoid having to have a separate adaptor for each lens.
There were two versions of this, Sockel I with semi-automatic diaphragm
operation and later the Sockel II with fully automatic diaphragm. The
lenses for the fully automatic were usually named Auto Ennalyt, but some
identical lenses seem to have been labelled Auto Lithagon

On the Enna lens page of his Exakta website
http://captjack.exaktaphile.com/Enna%20page.htm
'Captain Jack' describes the Sockel II lenses as highly collectable and
in high demand.

Peter



From K cameras mailing list:
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 
From: "Kelvin" [email protected]
Subject: Koboron lenses

no.
Koboron's primary business is in sub-contracting from the
major brands. Some of Minolta's lenses were made by them.
Another example is the old Tokina 60-300. Compare the
tokina and the koboron ... the markings are almost identical.

Their own brand lenses are usually good value for money.


From: [email protected] (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Boyer lenses ?
Date: 6 Jul 2003 

[email protected] (P. MacGahan) wrote 
> Wim [email protected] wrote
> > Has anyone ever used the french Boyer LF lenses ? Are they any good ?
> >
> > Gilbert
>
> I've never used one. Even so, I have the impression that they have
> a different reputation in France than elsewhere. When I visit Bievres
> in June it seems that there are many different ones available, and they
> are well-known there.

There were many. I have three, of which I've so far tried two. All
three are coated, therefore probably post-war.

75/3.5 Saphir B enlarging lens, got to try for photomacrography and
close-up. Not good, absolutely and as in I have better, at 2:1 and
4:1. I finally got around to takingsome test shots at 1:1, 1:2, 1:4
this weekend. Not too bad looking images on the gg at 1:1 down. This
one is quite complex, absolutely not a tessar type.

20/1.9 Saphir in mystery mount (threaded, 18.70 mm across the threads)
in a c-mount adapter. In its adapter its prefocused to about 2:1.
Disaster at that magnification. Had a hard time resolving 100 lp/mm
in the target at 15:1. Can't imagine what it was made for or what to
do with it. Oddly, no serial number on it. The Vade Mecum says the
/1.9 Saphirs are double Gauss type, this one could well be.

reflections finds two groups, each of three cemented elements. Sort
of Dagorish. Not used yet, its a little long to use near 1:1 on my
little Graphics. The Vade Mecum says nothing about this one.

Any advice/informed speculation about what the 20/1.9 and ~200/7.7 are
and how they'd best be used would be welcome.

Cheers,

Dan


From lenses mailing list:
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 
From: "ograf51" [email protected]
Subject: Koboron lenses

Just bought a Koboron 28-105 macro zoom on ebay to use as
a "default" lens on one of my K1000s. I haven't been able to find
out much of anything about this brand other than it is made in
Japan. Anyone have any experience with Koboron lenses that they
would like to share?
Thanks
Brad


From contax mailing list:
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 
From: "Steven Inglima" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Contax] Sony/Tamron/Bronica

To the list:

I am told that Sony owns 100% of Tamron.
>>Sony is major owner of the Tamron stocks

That would mean that they also own Bronica and are in competition with the
Contax 645. I wonder why they would choose to use Zeiss lenses instead
of Bronica branded lenses?

I used to work for Tamron, and came there by way of having been the
technical service mgr for GMI/Bronica in the US for 15 years, and prior
with Ehrenreich Photo Optical Industries (the original imported of both
Bronica and Nikon).

Sony does not own Tamron, except in the sense that a great deal of
Tamron's business has been historically supplied by Sony. Their
relationship over the years was somewhat of an acrimonious symbiosis, in
that Sony needed Tamron's lens manufacturing (especially in the '80s and
'90s) for their camcorders, and much of Tamron's production (and profit)
was dictated by Sony's schedule.

As I understand it, the relationship between Tamron and Bronica was due
to the personal investment and relationship that a senior Sony executive
had with Mr. Zenzaburo Yoshino (in my opinion, a genius, and multi
patent holder and inventor of Bronica). When Yoshino-san passed away,
his company was left to his wife and sons, and through a series of
problems and setbacks, they needed an investor. The Sony exec strongly
recommended to Tamron that they buy Bronica as a vehicle for medium
format lenses that Tamron would produce. Tamron bought the company and
moved all of into their facilities.

Best wishes,

Steven Inglima


From contax mailing list:
From: "Robert G.Bellin Jr." [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Contax] Sony/Tamron/Bronica
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003

Steven I remember Tamron producing the early Sony Handy cam optics. They
also made them for the Ricoh variant as well.

Robert


From leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Wollensack lenses for Leica

[email protected] wrote:
>Wollensak Optical Co. of Rochester, NY was a well respected lens maker in the
>40s and 50s. They were among the first US lens manufacturers to use coatings
>and made high quality press and enlarging lenses. I believe the company was
>acquired by Eastman Kodak. A good trivia question among Leicaholics would be to
>ask if Leica ever supplied a 127mm lens. The Wollensak lens seems to be the
>one and only 35 mm camera lens of that focal length.

Wollensak supplied the US Army with its excellent fire control optics
during the first two-thirds of the last century. They also supplied the US
Navy with a lot of their fire-control gear.

This was a first-rate firm capable of producing first-rate optics.

Marc
[email protected] 


From leica mailing list:
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 
From: [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Wollensack lenses for Leica

Leitz, NY lenses, made by Wollensack, were indeed coated and their quality
equaled or surpassed that of other manufacturer's lenses of the same era.

As long as we are on the subject of Wollensak lenses for Leica cameras,
Leitz, NY supplied three different Wollensak lenses for Leica cameras sold in the
USA during WW2 and shortly after. The rarest seems to be a 50mm f3.5 Wollensak
Velostigmat fitted to Leica E and Leica IIIc cameras in place of the Elmar.
More common was the 90mm f4.5 Wollensak Velostigmat short telephoto. The
longest lived seems to be the 127mm f4.5 Wollensak Velostigmat, used from 1944
through 1951. Leica supplied the focusing mounts while Wollensak made the lens
heads. Many of the Leica cameras sold by Leica, NY during that period were
assembled out of the spare parts stock. Because of the comparative rarity of the
Leica/Wollensak lenses, they bring higher prices in the collector's auctions that
do the comparable Leica lenses of the same period.

I have only seen pictures of the 50mm f3.5 but I own and regularly use the
90mm f4.5. I have never used the 127mm F4.5 on a Leica but it seems to be the
same lens head that was fitted to 4x5" Speed Graphics.

Wollensak Optical Co. of Rochester, NY was a well respected lens maker in the
40s and 50s. They were among the first US lens manufacturers to use coatings
and made high quality press and enlarging lenses. I believe the company was
acquired by Eastman Kodak. A good trivia question among Leicaholics would be to
ask if Leica ever supplied a 127mm lens. The Wollensak lens seems to be the
one and only 35 mm camera lens of that focal length.

Larry Z


From k-cams mailing list:
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 
From: "Ali" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lens Suggestions?

Albinar...that is a blast from the past. Albinar was marketed by
Best Products. I own an Albinar tripod...have had that for about 20
years. However, I wouldnt trust their lenses. Stick with
manufacture, Sigma, or Tamron....you wont go wrong!
...


End of Page