Commissionned new lenses, foolish ?

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

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 Most have been replaced by newer, better products that are part of high volume commercial products and processes.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.

Dave,

I don't dispute any of what you just wrote. I know very well that many glass types used in older lenses are no longer available. Some used radioactive materials, other contain lead or arsenic, or used these and other hazardous materials in the manufacturing process. It is this very reason that caused Schneider to redesign their APO Symmar line a few years back.

Still, I have to point out that there are literally several dozen (if not 100s) of companies world wide offering a huge variety of synthetic optical adhesives. It is these companies, not Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon or Fuji that own any IP associated with their products. As their goal is to sell as much of their product as possible they gladly sell to anyone who is willing to pay a fair market price for their products.

Likewise, many lens manufacturers buy their optical flats from other companies rather than make their own glass. Those suppliers will gladly sell their optical flats to anyone willing to pay their asking price. Yes, they may have patents on their proprietary products, but those patents are designed to keep their competitors from copying their designs and processes, not to prevent their customers from buying and using their products.

Rather than argue about why Michael can't bring a line of new ULF lense to market, I prefer to offer him all the encouragement and support I can. Where there's a will, there's a way - and Michael is very strong willed. Remember, it was Michael who convinced Kodak to sell TMAX 400 in ULF sizes last year after most photographers had given up on Kodak as a viable supplier of film in any size. As a result of the special order TMAX ULF film program last year, TMAX 400 was available in a whole range of sizes never before offered in this particular emulsion, and in some sizes Kodak hadn't cut in ANY emulsion in several decades. This after Kodak had discontinued all their conventional silver based photographic papers. Most people said that project that was impossible, too. Yet, here I sit with I have a freezer full of 7x17 TMAX 400 that would not exist if it weren't for Michael's tireless efforts. Bet against him if you wish, but don't be too surprised when you lose that bet. You may consider his latest venture a long shot, but frankly given his track record I'll be surprised if he DOESN'T succeed.

Kerry

[Downix]

Well, has he done anything, such as develop a design for it yet? If not... if he'd like help on that front, just ask. I have a problem solving mind (work in cinema, trust me you develop one quickly) and would not mind sharing any ideas.

Like for the guy wanting a 4x5 CMOS grid. Right idea, wrong technology. The only way to make a commercial 4x5 digital back is to use multiple APS-C sized sensors. A friend of mine was working on a grid with a prismatic top to allow a medium format camera using commodity Sony 6mp sensors once. Worked, but he lacked the volume needed to compete against Hasselblad. LF on the other hand doesn't exactly have digital out the ears yet, so his idea might work.

[Helen Bach]

Speaking of the cinema, Lomo sprang to mind when I read this thread. The majority of the specialised, low-run, high quality MP optics I've seen and used were made by Lomo, though they often had other companies' names on. They weren't cheap, but almost nothing in MP is.

Best,
Helen

[Bruce Watson]

I would rather subscribe to optimism and connecting wants and needs particularly when it relates to my passion in LF/ULF photography. When you find the right experienced people that think alike THINGS HAPPEN.

I thrive on being told it cannot be done.

I believe the saying is "Where there's a will, there's a way."

[neil poulsen]

This sounds like an appealing idea. But, the last Dagor lens that Schneider produced, the f8 Schneider-Dagors, had their image circles pretty severely clipped. Kerry Thalman reported these at, I believe, something like 318mm for a 355mm lens. Yet, a typical image circle for a 360 plasmat at f22 is in the range of 490mm.

[Dan Fromm]

Neil, that's very interesting. Especially since Schneider claimed that their own f/9 Dagor types (G-Clarons, see http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/ar...f/g_claron.pdf ) covered 64 degrees (150/9) and 68 degrees (all others) at f/22.

Cheers,

Dan

[Dave_B]

Kerry:
This thread has evolved from an interesting discussion of the technical, legal and business aspects of building free space optical systems, something with which I am modestly familar to a personal one discussing Michael and his character, a subject about which I know nothing. At this point I think it is time for me to get off the train.

You obviously know Michael well and respect him for what he has accomplished. I respect you based on the many things I have read that you have written about lenses and large format photography. Perhaps he can succeed in this very challenging task. In any event, I wish him well. As I said earlier, if he can succeed in building very low cost, high quality ULF lenses I will be among his customers. I would also like to be able to get high quality ULF lenses for much less than they currently cost.
Best wishes,
Dave B.

[Dan Fromm]

Dave, up to a couple of months ago I would have agreed with you about the hurdles Michael faces. But then -- long story -- I became acquainted with a man who'd been a friend of Boyer's last owner, had done calculations for the firm, and had turned down the opportunity to take it over when it closed.

He's told me a little about how things were in that lens factory. They had a staff of four, farmed out lens grinding to retired Boyer employees who had their own little establishments. One of the staff was a turner who made the barrels, rings for retaining glasses in them, ... Boyer got their coating chamber in the '70s, prior to that had sent glasses to SOM for to be coated. Never went to multi-coating. Still used Canada balsam to cement groups of elements.

This was artisanal production, and it persisted until 1982. One consequence of their methods was costs that were high for the time. I don't know how the recommended retail price of, say, a 150/5.6 Symmar (or was it -S by '82) in barrel, but Boyer's US distributor then wanted $486.60 for Boyer's equivalent in barrel.

The longest dagor type they made was the 355/6.8 Beryl, US price $1171.75 in 1982. Their dagor design scaled linearly with focal length, was last recalculated in 1965, and wasn't patented. Of interest, the owner himself set the cells' elements up for cementing himself, didn't enjoy the task and dreaded orders for Beryls.

I don't know Michael, accept as true reports from people who do that he's very strong-willed. The technology he needs has been around for over a century. I expect that if there's a way for him to reach his goal of causing new lenses for ULF to be made at reasonable cost he'll reach it. Given what I've learned about Boyer's practice, there may be a way.

Cheers,

Dan

Oh, and by the way, although Boyer's f/1.4 and f/1.9 6/4 double Gauss types weren't that great, their f/2.8 6/4 double Gauss types, f/5.6 and slower 6/4 plasmats, f/6.3 tessars, f/6.8 and f/7.7 dagors, and f/10 heliars were all pretty good. I can't speak of the triplets, my correspondent thinks little of them.

[Lee Hamiel]

This is the first time I've read this post & it's an interesting one & rather different than the usual "Which xxxx should I use" type questions.

Whenever a discussion of designing or manufacturing issues occur there are many point/counterpoint issues. This is part of the process in order to understand the potential problems and or advantages that may take place during the life of the proposed product at hand.

Whether other's input is perceived as positive or negative is not the point - what matters is taking into account all of the opinions of others & forming a balanced & educated approach to the desired project & then deciding what course of action to take. Is it worth doing? Is the objective to break even? Is the premise to be profitable? Should I/we just let it go? You need all opinions but pro & con and there is nothing gained by all being on one side of the fence - both sides help the final direction whatever it may be.

I have been involved in the patent/intellectual property field as an illustrator for almost 30 years and most of my clients are corporate. I have seen firsthand what it takes to bring products to the marketplace and it is not an easy thing to do. I do understand Dave's concerns but I also understand Michael's optimism & the issues surrounding such an endeavour are rather complicated and can be done but at what cost? If reasonable & safely then this would be great & I will buy one (or more).

My feeling is that the safest direction would be as Kerry has said (I believe) - using existing known designs wherein the patent terms have expired. For reference this is the premise behind patent systems - in exchange for sharing the technology one is granted protection for a period of time (25 years from the time of filing now) and after the term expires then the technology is in the public domain. This is designed to encourage sharing knowledge to further technology as opposed to keeping secrets. I will not go on about this aspect as the system has evolved into a different realm but this is the general meaning behind it all.

I would however be inclined to seek legal counsel for any project so as to be certain that one is not infringing on possible "unknown patents" that may still be in effect or in the process of being examined or recently allowed & this applies to what Dave was saying (I believe) in regards to the balance of the manufacturing of any "new" lenses. Otherwise you could be considered to be infringing & potentailly liable for way more than a short run of lenses. As I belive Kerry said - one could also license usage from the patent holder if there were a potential problem.

With all that said - I doubt that any big lensmakers would feel threatened by a small run of lenses set up by a group of diehard photographers - this would be similar to a car rally group getting parts made for the purpose of staying on the road due to OEM parts no longer being made.

It's not an easy task but if after pulling all the details together to make it work looks promising - go for it & the best of luck.

Regards

[bartf]

Out of curiosity, how much did the small run of 135/3.5 T* Planars cost up front?