Are "cherry-picked" Linhof lenses a myth?

[Jack Dahlgren]

I always assumed that Linhof/Sinar were sent batches of lenses, and they checked them and whatever was good enough they kept, hence they got whatever from their batches that was good enough, rather than the pick of the entire Schneider output. I wouldn't expect for a minute that they had some guy from Linhof strutting around the Schneider factory with a monacle and clipboard like some sort of teutonic man-from-delmonte picking all the best gear.

So what do you suppose they did with the linhof labeled lenses that didn't meet their standards but which met Schneider's standards? They could have thrown them away perhaps, but it would seem unlikely.

[Bob Salomon]

So what do you suppose they did with the linhof labeled lenses that didn't meet their standards but which met Schneider's standards? They could have thrown them away perhaps, but it would seem unlikely.

They return them to the factory that supplied them with a report as to why they are being returned. Many are returned simply because of dirt/dust/marks inside the lens cells that require dis-assembling rather then a simple blast of air.

[Bob Salomon]

Third scenario is that Linhof (and sinar with their DB barrels) bought their cells to have their in-house expert lens mounters mount and collimate them on shutter and board before shipping them to the customer, which sieves out any dogs that skipped the Schneider QC, and avoids the quality issues associated with lens mounting by some camera shop assistant...

Partially correct for Linhof. They select lenses that perforn, particularly well for view cameras over the required coverage. They used to also select and tune lenses for use on their aerial cameras. They select lenses and reserve them for special format cameras like the Technorama 617S III and the 612 series cameras. The lenses that do particularly well over the area a Technorama requires may have issues outside the picture area that would fail the lens for a 45 to 810 view camera but those atreas can not be used with the 617 or 612 cameras.

[Paul Ewins]

They return them to the factory that supplied them with a report as to why they are being returned. Many are returned simply because of dirt/dust/marks inside the lens cells that require dis-assembling rather then a simple blast of air.

I wonder how much disassembly, correction and reassembly of cells would add to the overall cost of a lens. That might give a clearer picture of what percentage of the non Linhof output would meet the Linhof standards. i.e. if 100% of Linhof marked lenses meet the Linhof standard, would 90% or 95% of the other lenses also meet this standard? Or do (or did) Linhof mount the cells into shutters in-house, in which case there is another QC variable.

[Bob Salomon]

I wonder how much disassembly, correction and reassembly of cells would add to the overall cost of a lens. That might give a clearer picture of what percentage of the non Linhof output would meet the Linhof standards. i.e. if 100% of Linhof marked lenses meet the Linhof standard, would 90% or 95% of the other lenses also meet this standard? Or do (or did) Linhof mount the cells into shutters in-house, in which case there is another QC variable.

Linhof receives the lenses in shutter. Cleans them if necessary and then tests them.

[Jack Dahlgren]

They return them to the factory that supplied them with a report as to why they are being returned. Many are returned simply because of dirt/dust/marks inside the lens cells that require dis-assembling rather then a simple blast of air.

Good to hear that the majority of returns are for cosmetic reasons!
I'm not that concerned with a bit of dust or a smudge, but I realize that some people are and are willing to pay to avoid them.

[Bob Salomon]

Good to hear that the majority of returns are for cosmetic reasons!
I'm not that concerned with a bit of dust or a smudge, but I realize that some people are and are willing to pay to avoid them.

Jack,

It is not exactly cosmetic. If there is some dust or a smudge on the back of the rear element or the front of the front element in either the front or rear group they are cleaned and then tested.
If the problem lies between the elements then the lens is rejected.

[Paul Ewins]

So, running back to my initial hypothesis, the idea that Linhof "cherry-picked" the best lenses is a myth, what they did is ensure that all lenses they sold met a minimum standard. Most of the Schneider branded lenses coming off the production lines would also meet this standard, but the ones with the small problems (internal dust etc.) might slip through the Schneider QC and be sold.

On the flip side, with no selection for the highest performing lenses (i.e. they weren't graded, just pass/fail) the best lenses are equally likely to be found amongst any of the brands. Which is to say that it is not that Linhof sold the best lenses, they just didn't sell any of the worst ones.

I don't know whether any of this is relevant 40 - 50 years later but the Linhof premium is is one of the bits of perceived lens wisdom and it is interesting to see how accurate that perception really is.

[Bob Salomon]

So, running back to my initial hypothesis, the idea that Linhof "cherry-picked" the best lenses is a myth, what they did is ensure that all lenses they sold met a minimum standard. Most of the Schneider branded lenses coming off the production lines would also meet this standard, but the ones with the small problems (internal dust etc.) might slip through the Schneider QC and be sold.

On the flip side, with no selection for the highest performing lenses (i.e. they weren't graded, just pass/fail) the best lenses are equally likely to be found amongst any of the brands. Which is to say that it is not that Linhof sold the best lenses, they just didn't sell any of the worst ones.

I don't know whether any of this is relevant 40 - 50 years later but the Linhof premium is is one of the bits of perceived lens wisdom and it is interesting to see how accurate that perception really is.

No, that is what you are reading in to my reply. Let's do it by the numbers.

1: Linhof, and Sinar, both purchased the Rodenstock Siemens Star lens test system.
2: Linhof purchases lenses from Schneider and rodenstock.
3: Linhof first examines lenses and rejects and returns any that have internal dust, dirt, marks, etc. that can not be removed or cleaned by simply unscrewing the front or rear group from the shutter.
4: The shutter is then tested for tolerances. Any that do not meet Linho'f standard are rejected and returned to the lens manufacturer.
5: Lenses that passed the above are then forwarded to the test projector room and tested at the limits of the format the lens is designed for. Lenses that fail this test are returned to the manufacturer.
6: Lenses that passed the above are then labeled with the Linhof logo or name and are sold by Linhof.

Over the 120+ years that Linhof has been in business there have been other types of tests performed by Linhof reflecting the state of the art at that time. So a lens that was tested in the 1950's went through different test procedures then a lens tested in the 2000's. But the lenses branded with the Linhof name do test higher then the typical lens without the Linhof name. But they also cost the user considerably more.

Whether or not that significant added cost is worth the added cost is up to the buyer. For most shooters the work that they do does not require the extra performance that the Linhof branded lenses will deliver. But when your living depends on that extra bit of performance, across the coverage of the lens, that extra cost becomes very small. Especially if that extra performance is the difference in getting the job or not.

[Paul Ewins]

Actually Bob that is how I understood it, it it just that without knowing the actual numbers that Linhof rejected it is hard to state things clearly. The point is that the Schneider QC would have to be good enough that most lenses (65%, 80%, 95%??) would pass the Linhof QC. Call it 80% for want of a real number. If 80% of the lenses supplied to Linhof pass the tests first go, then 80% of the Schneider branded lenses sold should also pass that test (and obviously 20% are below Linhof quality).
If the reject rate is too high then Schneider are losing money fixing them or junking them and that is probably costing Linhof extra too as they retest returned lenses.

I can understand the point of charging extra for a Linhof lens as that gives a guarantee that the lens you buy will perform at a certain standard. The cherry-picking myth is that Linhof chose the best lenses, leaving the lesser ones to be sold by Schneider when in fact a reasonably large proportion would have been just as good as the Linhof branded ones. It also means that the very best lenses (those well past the Linhof standard) are just as likely to occur in a batch of lenses sold to Linhof as a batch sold by Schneider.

Putting it into (probably exaggerated) numbers:
A batch of 100 lenses sold to Linhof might (after rework) contain 80 excellent lenses and 10 super-excellent lenses and maybe 10 were junked.
A batch of 100 lenses sold by Schneider might have 20 average lenses, 70 excellent ones and 10 super-excellent lenses.