Commissionned new lenses, foolish ?

[Michael Kadillak]

I took an intellectual look at this. I thought about it, researched it, and poked around a bit in the market to see what I could turn up. I even know a few people who work in the industry in various capacities who I chatted up about this kind of effort. All the while I was thinking how great it would be to come up with two or three lines of optics that met the special needs of ULF. I have just enough optical physics background to be dangerous, so the whole thing seemed closer to "doable" than not.

Without going through all the mental gymnastics, here are a few approaches that I ended up with before I called it a day...

One - Go into business yourself. Required an optics facility, of which there are plenty languishing here in the USA. For a mere $100k, you could get an entire plant ready to grind/machine your own optics. Glass would need to come from China in raw chunks (for best price - and you should hear how upset certain three letter agencies are that none can be sourced in the West for reasonable prices!). Hire someone to do the optical design (if you don't have the talent yourself or the software package that can help make the magic happen). Payroll for the manpower easily cleared $200k/year. Alas, the costs of both "soft" and "hard" consumables were show-stoppers for me. Not enough financial depth to pull it off. But it IS do-able. If a person had $500k to throw at the challenge, I think some form of operation could get off the ground. A person could control their own optical destiny.

Two - Take a close look at classic lens designs, grab an optics software design package (of which there are more than several good ones), take into consideration the new none-lead glass, and re-formulate a few good optics. Then send the designs off to a fabricator. There are several here in the USA just waiting to take your orders. They'll even machine the metal parts to your spec. Just give them the right file format with embedded instructions, and you could have as many new lenses, fully coated, as you can afford. The costs of doing this are not cheap. But if you're seriously interested, one place to start is Edmond Scientific's Optics Group (or whatever they're actually called). I think it's possible to drop less than $50k and have something to show for the effort. All that'd be left is the marketing and sales. I wasn't sure how well it would work out going to "outside" suppliers who built to spec, but it certainly was an attractive approach.

Three - If you don't have background in optics, but still want to turn out some lenses for your ULF, let the optics fabricators do the design, glass prep, and machining for you. This will be even more expensive than #Two. But, as with all these approaches, it is entirely "do-able". You just need the financial resources to pull it off. I figured, depending on who you engaged and how much time they needed to spend on optical design, a person probably needs $100k to $200k to have something to show for their efforts. As with #two, all that'd be left to do would be marketing and sales. Oh, and a person would still be at the mercy of "outside" contractors.

Four - This is the approach I've settled on. Mainly because I quickly realized for myself that there aren't enough hours in the day for me to pursue something like building my own lenses when what I really want is just to go out and make a few images. So instead, I have procured old lenses that meet my need. For my own needs, issues like single vs. multi-coatings don't matter. In fact, some of the images I'm most pleased with came from uncoated optics. Those images are still very sharp and contrasty in ULF. Yes, shutters can be a little dodgy. But that's why we have Carol Miller at Flutot's Camera Repair.

Anyways, that's my lens builders saga. I'm sticking to my story.

Still, I envy those who have the time and financial resources to pull off this kind of venture...

Wow. After reading your post it is obvious that you and I from a business perspective on this objective are not even in the same universe. I am about as far apart from your described process as one could be but such is life. I will know what I need to know in a couple of months and I will take it from there.

Cheers!

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Dave,

My previous post was strictly about patent issues and the potential barriers they present. I didn't address manufacturing issues.

Your comments about patents on adhesives, coating technologies, low reflection paints, etc. make it sould like it was impossible to build a decent lens more than 17 years ago. Seriously, synthetic adhesives have been around since WWII. Kodak, Goerz, Schneider, Zeiss, etc. all built lenses in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s that are still considered perfectly useable - certainly not state-of-the-art, but for ULF photography where contact printing is the norm, they don't have to be.

If, ultimately the patent barriers prove to be too much, there is always the option of contracting with a lens manufacturing company that has their own patent portfolio covering all the steps involved. Or, you could license the technology from the legal owner of the required IP. As long as you're not competing with one of their current products (and who, other than Schneider is making lenses for ULF these days), most firms would be open to a licensing arrangement.

Given the goal of producing a relatively simple lens, with acceptable, but not state-of-the-art performance, based on a classic design, I don't think IP issues are the insurmountable obstacle you are claiming. I'm not saying it would be easy, just not impossible.

Kerry

[David A. Goldfarb]

One example of this happening, I guess, is Wisner's plasmat set. But did Wisner's hypergon ever see the light of day? Well, one for two ain't bad in this particular game.

[Dave_B]

Kerry:
A lot of the old technologies used in previous generations of optical system design and manufacturing are, in general, not commercially available now. Most have been replaced by newer, better products that are part of high volume commercial products and processes. For example, a lot of epoxies used 10-15 years ago can't be bought today. Sometimes this is because of the lack of a market for the old because the newer stuff is better and cheaper. However, in a lot of cases it is because our understanding of the health implications of some of these materials is now much more sophisticated. The glasses used in Aero Ektars are a classic old example. More recently a lot of glues and epoxies used twenty years ago are now understood to have seriously shortened the lives of the people who used them. In general, modern processes use materials with low vapor pressures of organic materials, no heavy metals, stay away from generating small particles, are non-toxic, non-radioactive, etc, etc. etc.

This general trend makes it hard to do things the way they were done twenty or fifty years ago even if one wishes to. This drives one towards modern processes, techniques and back to my earlier post today, active, valid IP that will cost you. Your view of what competes with what a Schneider or Rodenstock sells may not agree with their view and in any case, they are public companies with shareholders and will be compelled to extract the maximum value from all their corporate assets, including their IP. Such companies are not run as philanthrophic organizations.

If one looks at Christopher's analysis, he is not far wrong about the various costs of doing anything even modestly approaching a cottage industry for out of production ULF lenses. Maybe the total costs might be a few hundred K to get started, really on the cheap. This values the large numbers of hours to figure out what to do and how to do it by the original owner of the business at zero $/hour. What is the total market for such an ULF lens? Would a hundred people buy one from such a business? Maybe. How many ULF cameras have been sold in the last five years? That means each lens would have to cost at a minimum several thousand dollars plus the COGS with no profit and zero discount for the technical risks involved in making it work at all. That would be essentially what you can buy similar objects for today. I doubt you would invest in such a venture. It is a huge risk with almost no upside that I can see from a business point of view with all the technical and IP risks that I have discussed as a downside.
BMW's are expensive. I and all my friends would like to have one and can't afford them. From this I have not concluded that we should try to build them from scratch. If Michael can build a viable cottage industry in manufacturing and selling classic ULF lenses he is a better man than I and will be first to admit it if he succeeds. I wish him luck but would not bet on his being successful.
Best wishes,
Dave B.

[andy bessette]

They said it couldn't be done, so we didn't even bother trying.

Yo Michael,

I really like your style (honest).

Just some random thoughts. Perhaps one of the universities could be interested in a special project? Some have extensive model shop capabilities. Certainly many have the computing power and technical skill for at least a feasibility study, and part of the development of a prototype (which should precede any quantity build). Perhaps one has access to an appropriate database and optical design programs.

A very simple method of mounting used on an optical bench could prove feasibility. Perhaps a triple convertible?

Could a "breadboard" be built of existing elements to prove concept? As I recall, outfits such as Edmund Scientific have off-the-shelf lenses which might be useful for this purpose. Or elements salvaged from problem assemblies might be used. Perhaps culled elements are available from an actual production line.

One of the film producers might be interested in helping with part of the development costs.

A poll of ULF'ers could narrow the focus of a particularly sought after specification.
Undoubtedly there is a remarkable amount of related talent among this group, which could be helpful on a volunteer basis.

One of the established lens makers might be interested in helping in some very significant way, particularly if a university is also involved.

best, andy

THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE

[domenico Foschi]

I would like a lens that takes good pictures.

[andy bessette]

Yo Dave,

after reading some of your posts, I am inclined to believe that you are a highly intelligent man. It is also likely that you possess many skills and experiences important to the success of a project such as the one under discussion.

It is often great fun, and sometimes even helpful in some way, to play devil's advocate, a role in which I frequently find myself. And it is also quite easy to see many pitfalls, any one of which could spell disaster to a fledgling project which any normal person might realize is impossible from the start.

But it can also be fun to, for the moment, consider the "what if" scenario, and assume that some easy, some difficult, work-arounds might be contrived to sidestep these impossible roadblocks. I'd be willing to bet a nickel that, in order to maintain your position regarding the impossibility of this project, you have suppressed a few actual solutions of your own ingenuity. Come on. Let's hear at least one of them.

best, andy

THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE

[Michael Kadillak]

Kerry:
A lot of the old technologies used in previous generations of optical system design and manufacturing are, in general, not commercially available now. Most have been replaced by newer, better products that are part of high volume commercial products and processes. For example, a lot of epoxies used 10-15 years ago can't be bought today. Sometimes this is because of the lack of a market for the old because the newer stuff is better and cheaper. However, in a lot of cases it is because our understanding of the health implications of some of these materials is now much more sophisticated. The glasses used in Aero Ektars are a classic old example. More recently a lot of glues and epoxies used twenty years ago are now understood to have seriously shortened the lives of the people who used them. In general, modern processes use materials with low vapor pressures of organic materials, no heavy metals, stay away from generating small particles, are non-toxic, non-radioactive, etc, etc. etc.

This general trend makes it hard to do things the way they were done twenty or fifty years ago even if one wishes to. This drives one towards modern processes, techniques and back to my earlier post today, active, valid IP that will cost you. Your view of what competes with what a Schneider or Rodenstock sells may not agree with their view and in any case, they are public companies with shareholders and will be compelled to extract the maximum value from all their corporate assets, including their IP. Such companies are not run as philanthrophic organizations.

If one looks at Christopher's analysis, he is not far wrong about the various costs of doing anything even modestly approaching a cottage industry for out of production ULF lenses. Maybe the total costs might be a few hundred K to get started, really on the cheap. This values the large numbers of hours to figure out what to do and how to do it by the original owner of the business at zero $/hour. What is the total market for such an ULF lens? Would a hundred people buy one from such a business? Maybe. How many ULF cameras have been sold in the last five years? That means each lens would have to cost at a minimum several thousand dollars plus the COGS with no profit and zero discount for the technical risks involved in making it work at all. That would be essentially what you can buy similar objects for today. I doubt you would invest in such a venture. It is a huge risk with almost no upside that I can see from a business point of view with all the technical and IP risks that I have discussed as a downside.
BMW's are expensive. I and all my friends would like to have one and can't afford them. From this I have not concluded that we should try to build them from scratch. If Michael can build a viable cottage industry in manufacturing and selling classic ULF lenses he is a better man than I and will be first to admit it if he succeeds. I wish him luck but would not bet on his being successful.
Best wishes,
Dave B.

Fortunately for me we are wired completely opposite David and I will graciously leave it at that. But I will tell you that if you knew me, you would not be so quick to make wagers.

Have a great life.

[Ed K.]

And just think...somewhere in China right now, a small company is probably tooling up to duplicate some of the more prized classic lenses. It wouldn't be too surprizing, and well, they too have a government budget to possibly put money into optics research and manufacturing.

A few foolish thoughts - Hmmm, 20,000 units sold (optimistic, no?), 3,000 gross profit to manufacturer, 3,000 to retail channel and ongoing warranty / legal expenses fund. That's 60 million bucks for the first 6 years; 10 million / year average. Enough to put a man into low orbit for a few moments, and enough to at least produce a few fighter jets. 6 thousand per customer, perhaps 2 lenses per customer. 1,500 per unit for R&D, tooling and operating costs, adveritising, etc. or 30 million. Still leaves 30 million profit, if there are 20,000 people willing to buy 2 lenses at about 3,000 each over a six year period, and the advertising budget would fund a few Discovery Channel advertainment pieces to stir up interest in ULF. Of course, the EPA, workers comp and other lawsuits could wipe it all out, but it is interesting. Some folks have spent more money on their personal vanity in the last few years, with their boats, planes and homes.

I wonder if that would be enough money to pioneer a "real time" 4x5 inch CMOS chip array instead? Investors might find that a bit sexier. It seems quite possible to find 30 people with a million bucks to risk on a venture that might turn their million into 1.5 million or more in a 6 years (if interest rates stay low).

Now if you could get me my simply designed 1200mm f6.3 coated LF lens for about 1,200 bucks, I'd love to have it! Are there 20,000 ULF folks in the world that could part with the money you might need? I'd have a hard time putting up three grand for a lens, and a harder time putting up six, unless I had a bona fide plan to have that lens make me a ton of money. Hmmm, big group shots on film instead of the newest panoramic digitals? Perhaps.

I am *not* an optics expert. I am a believer in the power of startups and people who can put teams of people and money together. It has worked before, and it will work again in the future. I can only wish you well, and hope that if you do embark on your journey, that the risk is within your means and that you have success. I do not know enough about the field to argue any of the advice of others. If you've got the power to persuade people to part with their money and the power to lead...

Okay, enough of my musings. One thing is sure. Imagine it - I buy one of your trick new lenses and stick it on a huge camera. People ask "What kind of lens is that?" I say, I use only the best, it's a Kadillak. Has a ring to it, no?

Any way to just buy, perhaps a Russian, lens company as a starting point?

Here's to the spirit of innovation and dreams!

[Michael Kadillak]

And just think...somewhere in China right now, a small company is probably tooling up to duplicate some of the more prized classic lenses. It wouldn't be too surprizing, and well, they too have a government budget to possibly put money into optics research and manufacturing.

A few foolish thoughts - Hmmm, 20,000 units sold (optimistic, no?), 3,000 gross profit to manufacturer, 3,000 to retail channel and ongoing warranty / legal expenses fund. That's 60 million bucks for the first 6 years; 10 million / year average. Enough to put a man into low orbit for a few moments, and enough to at least produce a few fighter jets. 6 thousand per customer, perhaps 2 lenses per customer. 1,500 per unit for R&D, tooling and operating costs, adveritising, etc. or 30 million. Still leaves 30 million profit, if there are 20,000 people willing to buy 2 lenses at about 3,000 each over a six year period, and the advertising budget would fund a few Discovery Channel advertainment pieces to stir up interest in ULF. Of course, the EPA, workers comp and other lawsuits could wipe it all out, but it is interesting. Some folks have spent more money on their personal vanity in the last few years, with their boats, planes and homes.

I wonder if that would be enough money to pioneer a "real time" 4x5 inch CMOS chip array instead? Investors might find that a bit sexier. It seems quite possible to find 30 people with a million bucks to risk on a venture that might turn their million into 1.5 million or more in a 6 years (if interest rates stay low).

Now if you could get me my simply designed 1200mm f6.3 coated LF lens for about 1,200 bucks, I'd love to have it! Are there 20,000 ULF folks in the world that could part with the money you might need? I'd have a hard time putting up three grand for a lens, and a harder time putting up six, unless I had a bona fide plan to have that lens make me a ton of money. Hmmm, big group shots on film instead of the newest panoramic digitals? Perhaps.

I am *not* an optics expert. I am a believer in the power of startups and people who can put teams of people and money together. It has worked before, and it will work again in the future. I can only wish you well, and hope that if you do embark on your journey, that the risk is within your means and that you have success. I do not know enough about the field to argue any of the advice of others. If you've got the power to persuade people to part with their money and the power to lead...

Okay, enough of my musings. One thing is sure. Imagine it - I buy one of your trick new lenses and stick it on a huge camera. People ask "What kind of lens is that?" I say, I use only the best, it's a Kadillak. Has a ring to it, no?

Any way to just buy, perhaps a Russian, lens company as a starting point?

Here's to the spirit of innovation and dreams!

I have given this subject considerable time and thought and I have decided to put on some staff to assist me with the areas that I have no expertise in and I will leave it at that.

When you isolate logistical or technical issues it takes considerable dilligence and innovation to work through each of these issues. Every project has them so this is no different. I do not subscribe to the belief that as mature as this industry is there is not a viable alternative that will meet or exceed the stated business objective than the accepted status quo. The infrastructure, expertise and the market demand is there. The only thing missing is the product itself.

In a month of two I should have some preliminary information to share with some folks. In the meantime I have some airline tickets booked and some people to meet.

Cheers!