Rise and fall of lens manufacturers

[IanG]

In a separate thread we took a discussion off topic talking about Meyer and Zeiss. May be we should continue here as it's something not often discussed:

Look at the amazing range of lenses tht Meyer produced in the 1930's and yet now we dismiss the company and idolise Schneider then relatively unknown, and treat Xeiss as a spent force. (LF lenses).
Ian

Maybe slightly off-topic, but it's quite simple why Meyer disappeared as a major player in lens production in the western perception. They were locked behind the iron curtain after WWII. In eastern Europe they were still well-known until they were forced into VEB Pentacon, which made an end to this distinguished name.

Well, the absorption into Pentacon was relatively late, the real issue was that the GDR believed in industrial scale production - which is a matter of numbers, and hence most feasible for small (and already less so for medium) format. Meyer actually grew considerably in GDR years and by the end, Meyer (now Pentacon) had pushed Zeiss (the Jena branch) right off the table and were even making many of the last remaining nominally Zeiss Jena camera lenses (including the last batches of GDR LF Tessars).

And there is the earlier issue of the dominating Zeiss trust that let few independent makers in Germany survive the crisis between the wars - among the few survivors, Schneider doubtlessly had the post-WWII advantage of being strictly in the West while Mayer was entirely stuck in the East, but that does not explain the decline of all the other Western-only smaller lens makers (among them venerable industry pioneers like Steinheil and Voigtländer).

Ian

[IanG]

Schneider's rise seems to really coincide with Nagel leaving Zeiss Ikon to found a new Camera manufaturing enterprise His first new cameras sold under the Nagel badge didn't use Zeiss lenses, I'd guess there was some ill feeling, instead many were sold with Schneider lenses, that increased further when Nagels company were taken over by Kodak and came under the remit of Kodak Ltd, UK.

Under Kodak control cameras made in the Nagel factory began using Zeiss lenses as well.

It's these manufacturing alliances that seem to have had a large impact on the rise and fall of lens manufacturers.

Ian

[rdenney]

After WWII, Rolleiflexes--by far the dominant medium-format camera of that period, completely displacing cell-focus folders even for amateur use--could not be equipped with Zeiss lenses. Zeiss Oberkochen was still barely formed, and didn't have rights to the model names (thus, "Opton"), and the Jena works were still being looted by the Soviets. So, Franke and Heidecke turned to Schneider, who had a good version of the tessar design that could be produced immediately. That gave them a big commercial boost at a critical time in the late 40's when Americans in particular were starting to spend money.

They also were among the first to create a good retrofocus wide angle lens, with the Curtagon. I have a Curtagon from about 1952 that they made for the Wirgen Edixa that is very sharp in the middle and quite competitive with the period Flektogons from Jena and the Distagons from Oberkochen. That of itself isn't that important, but it led them to the opposing-retrofocus design, which was a variation on the original Biogon, which they named the Super Angulon.

Zeiss Jena was under the same production pressure as Meyer Gorlitz, and there were no large-format cameras in wide use in the Second World, so they focused on smaller formats (their copy lenses like the Germinar notwithstanding). And Oberkochen focused on popular cameras like the Rolleiflex and (later) the Hasselblad. The splitting of Zeiss forced each to make those choices.

The Super Angulon, which came out in 1951, as I recall, was revolutionary, especially for architecture. It really expanded the possibilities for the highly flexible view cameras (such as the Sinar) that were just then being created. Schneider owned that segment by themselves for at least a dozen years, before Rodenstock and Nikon started creating competing alternatives. But that gave them the opportunity to cement their quality model and establish the brand.

Voigtlander and Steinheil were in the same position as Wollensak and Ilex, because they were so busy making money on traditional designs that they did not innovate. Ilex developed a double-retrofocus wide-field lens like the Super Angulon in the 60's, and Wollensak had a wide-field double-gauss lens at that time, but they had become price-point and stencil-brand producers by that time (Ilex made the first Caltars and Wollensak made the Graflex lenses). When the large-format press camera died, it took Wollensak's LF lenses with it. And Ilex could not compete with early Rodenstock even on price.

And I don't think the minor German makers ever recovered from the war. Steinheil made some budget lenses for the Leica, as I recall, but Voigtlander seems to have disappeared by that time. Neither innovated with SLR-compatible lenses.

Rick "suspecting Schneider's big move was in LF by capturing the Biogon concept, while Zeiss Oberkochen's big move was aimed at Rollei and Hasselblad" Denney

[Ian Greenhalgh]

Voigtlander most certainly did innovate with SLR lenses. Because they were in the West and their factory was relatively unscathed by the war, they were the first to bring new designs to market in 1950-51. The Ultron was revolutionary and copied by most of the Japanese makers. The Skoparon/Skoparex 35mm was copied by Pentax and Minolta and maybe some others. The Germans never really grasped that focal plane 35mm SLRs were the future until it was too late, and the focal plane shutter models they did produce were too late to market, too expensive and too complex. Voigtlander lenses were the best available in the 1950-55 period, then Zeiss in Oberkochen started to produce their new designs and regained their lead. Leitz didn't catch up until the 1960s.

I think Schneider rising to the top of MF/LF production was largely due to the fortunes of war, they were in the west and the Americans pumped a lot of money into re-establishing industry in the West. I agree that the Angulon and Super-Angulon were very important though, other companies missed the boat on wide angles for MF and LF.

[rdenney]

Voigtlander most certainly did innovate with SLR lenses. Because they were in the West and their factory was relatively unscathed by the war, they were the first to bring new designs to market in 1950-51. The Ultron was revolutionary and copied by most of the Japanese makers. The Skoparon/Skoparex 35mm was copied by Pentax and Minolta and maybe some others. The Germans never really grasped that focal plane 35mm SLRs were the future until it was too late, and the focal plane shutter models they did produce were too late to market, too expensive and too complex. Voigtlander lenses were the best available in the 1950-55 period, then Zeiss in Oberkochen started to produce their new designs and regained their lead. Leitz didn't catch up until the 1960s.

I think Schneider rising to the top of MF/LF production was largely due to the fortunes of war, they were in the west and the Americans pumped a lot of money into re-establishing industry in the West. I agree that the Angulon and Super-Angulon were very important though, other companies missed the boat on wide angles for MF and LF.

Maybe I never look in the right places, but I rarely or never see Skoparon or Skoparex lenses from the early 50's, though I see earlier ones on Voigtlander folders. What camera were they made for? Angenieux is credited with the first retrofocus lens (for cine) in, I seem to recall, 1948 or '49. Zeiss Jena was right there within a year with the Flektogon, and Schneider a bit behind that with the Curtagon. I don't recall when Oberkochen came out with the Distagon, but it was probably right about the same time as the Curtagon. These were the first retrofocus lenses for SLRs, where the glass had to be in front of the mirror box, that I know of. Flektogons were popular on Practica cameras, and were also made from the mid-50's well into the 80's for medium format (in the Pentacon Six mount). The Wirgen I mentioned used Schneider lenses, and also used the Practica M42 screw mount (which was later adopted by Pentax). Zeiss Oberkochen started making Zeiss Ikon SLRs in the 50's, but, as you say, behind others (still ahead of the Japanese, though)--and before that time, Zeiss's main camera products were Ikonta folders and Contax rangefinders.

Really, Exakta was the real first SLR, and a camera I know little about, especially what lenses were made for it. Maybe that's the camera those Skoparons and Skoparexes were made for--perhaps you can say. But the pre-war Exaktas were made in Dresden and I would have thought Meyer would have been major supplier, as they were to Practica-Dresden after the war (later, of course, both were rolled into VEB Pentacon, eventually along with Zeiss Jena). I've always thought of Practica being the post-war successor to Exakta.

Yes, Schneider was already in the west and that helped them. But I'll bet the Americans pumped more money into Zeiss Oberkochen than into Schneider--they helped create that branch in the western zone and move the best Jena experts there to prevent the Soviets from getting all the technology. Of course, the Soviets crated up much of the tooling at the Jena works and sent it to Kiev, but that's another story.

Rick "who needs to look back through Kingslake again" Denney

[Mark Sawyer]

A few other things that had impacts on the lens makers:

In the post-WWII years, one of the biggest impacts on European and American makers was the very fast development of the Japanese optics and photographic industries.

The acceptance of 35mm as a "professional" format had as big an impact on large format as digital later had on film.

The arrival of new designs, and newly-available AR-coating for old designs with inherent internal flare problems, (Plasmat, Tessar...), had many photographers buying new lenses.

[Sevo]

I've always thought of Practica being the post-war successor to Exakta.

Not at all - the Exakta had its peak in the fifties and carried on into the late sixties. The company, Ihagee, was Dutch-founded and -owned so that they, as a foreign company, escaped the immediate seizure by the Soviets after the war and retained their independence longer than most other photographic companies in the GDR. It was not until the sixties that the owners started another Ihagee in West Berlin, after which the company was forcibly merged into Pentacon.

[Sevo]

A few other things that had impacts on the lens makers:

In the post-WWII years, one of the biggest impacts on European and American makers was the very fast development of the Japanese optics and photographic industries.

Was it so in the US? It certainly was not in Europe. Japanese brands did not even appear on the European market until the early sixties - the rapid swing from a German dominated to a Japanese dominated European market was around or even after 1970. The earlier collapse of the British, French and Italian camera industries presumably was due to the fact that they all shifted into the more profitable military and aerospace sectors (which still were off limits for the German and Japanese) - a luxury problem that also had many heavyweights of the US optical industry withdraw from the photography market.

[rdenney]

Not at all - the Exakta had its peak in the fifties and carried on into the late sixties. The company, Ihagee, was Dutch-founded and -owned so that they, as a foreign company, escaped the immediate seizure by the Soviets after the war and retained their independence longer than most other photographic companies in the GDR. It was not until the sixties that the owners started another Ihagee in West Berlin, after which the company was forcibly merged into Pentacon.

Okay--good. As I said, Exakta has not been my interest. I was at least partly confused by the reskinning of the Pentacon Six in the 90's as an Exakta 66. That camera was surely made in the Pentacon works, but by that post-unification time they were owned by...wait for it...Josef Schneider.

Were Voigtlander lenses popular on Exakta cameras in the 50's?

Rick "putting 2 and 2 together and getting 3" Denney

[Peter Yeti]

Yes, Schneider was already in the west and that helped them. But I'll bet the Americans pumped more money into Zeiss Oberkochen than into Schneider--they helped create that branch in the western zone and move the best Jena experts there to prevent the Soviets from getting all the technology. Of course, the Soviets crated up much of the tooling at the Jena works and sent it to Kiev, but that's another story.

I think you may be right about this. Both Schott and Zeiss needed a complete start-over in the west and certainly got a lot of political support. But, as far as I know, Schneider already took off to become a major player way before this, namely in the 1930s. They were founded relatively late and at first copied successful designs by others like the Tessar. They could do this because the patents had expired by then. This was a mass market and lenses were made in astonishing numbers by a plethora of makers. Besides major companies like Zeiss, Meyer, Goerz, and Busch with a great reputation there were plenty of small to medium size producers, which I think mainly competed by lower prices. It seems that Schneider started out as one of the latter but then grew very quickly.

Another thing was already pointed out by Sevo. The Zeiss foundation basically formed a trust and forced many highly reputed lens manufacturers to join it. Busch was not allowed to use it's own name on the lenses anymore after the merger. I think Goerz was still using it's name, though. Many minor producers must have had a really hard time after the formation of Zeiss Ikon in 1926. Voigthänder was able to compete by the outstanding quality of their lenses, Schneider probably by lower prices, Rodenstock because they earned money with spectacles. But many others died or merged with a biggy or changed to different products.

These are just a few aspects about the "rise and fall" between the wars. I think I'll stop here for now.