Validity of "Linhof Select"

[Duane Polcou]

When perusing Ebay, many older Schneider lenses are branded "Linhof Select", which tend to sell for more. IMHO, I think this was simply a marketing tactic on the part of Linhof to create the illusion that their branded lenses were somehow superior in performance to mere-mortal Schneiders. After all, the feeling of exclusivity is a proven marketing technique, like labelling wine "Private Reserve". If it's so private, why is it on the shelf of a supermarket? lol . Plus I find it nearly inconceivable that a representative from Linhof actually tested all Schneider lenses and said
"Set all of these aside. These meet our requirements. You can have all the others"

Is there any actual evidence to substantiate the claim the Linhof Select lenses outperform non Linhof branded lenses? Just curious is all.

[CCHarrison]

The story I have heard is that Linhof Select lenses were actually selected from batches and they didapply higher standards / quality control than "run-of-the-mill" Schneiders. I am sure someone has more definitive data...look forward to hearing too...

Dan

[Brian Ellis]

It wasn't just a marketing ploy, at least not in the sense that Linhof just stuck their name on some of the lenses and did nothing else. Linhof did a variety of things to the lenses before they left the factory none of which do I now remember. However, the relevance of these things to lenses that are 10, 20, 50 years old, long after they left the factory, is questionable at best.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Actually, back in the 1940s, 1950s and early 1960s it did make a difference. In one of my old "International Photo Technik" magazines there is an article describing the additional quality control checks Linhof did on the lenses they received from their suppliers (it wasn't just Schneider, but also Zeiss and Voigtlander). They definitely had more rigorous and stringent quality requirements than their suppliers back in those days and only the very best lenses were selected and branded as "Linhof".

Of course, companies like Schneider eventually caught up, but even if Linhof's standards are no longer more rigorous, it can't hurt to have a lens pass two sets of quality control checks, just to weed out any that squeak through the first time.

Of course, when you're talking about lenses that are 50 - 60 years old, the condition of the lens and the way it was treated and stored over the years is more important than the condition it was in when it left the factory. I generally avoid buying any used lens that has obvious defects that show it was mistreated, or otherwise damaged. I have had several Linhof branded lenses over the years, all in excellent condition with no signs of abuse, and I haven't had a single one that was not an outstanding performer.

I can't say the same about "generic" Schneider lenses, especially from the late 1940s and earlly 1950s. I've seen 90mm Angulons from that time period that were in mint condition, but were just awful performers. Yet, every Linhof Select Angulon I've tested, regardless of age, has been an outstanding performer.

What I learned was that prior to the late 1960s, Schneider quality control was a bit spotty. Most of their lenses (if in excellent or better condition with no defects or signs of abuse) were still excellent performers, but an occasional dog slipped through. The second set of more rigorous quality checks by Linhof eliminated these dogs from the lenses that were selected to bear the Linhof name.

By the 1970s, Schneider's own quality control, while not perfect, had improved to the point where the number of "dogs" leaving the factory was nearly (but not completely) eliminated. Thus making the additional Linhof testing a bit redundant.

Kerry

[Bob Salomon]

Linhof has and still does test the lenses that they sell. And they currently sell Schneider and Rodenstock lenses and over the past few decades also sold Zeiss, Nikon and Voigtlander lenses which they also tested.
Currently Linhof test their lenses on the Rodenstock Siemens Star projector in a large room where the operator is able to easily see any deviations in the lenses and can easily pick the best lenses for a specific application. That means that the lenses they select for their panoramic cameras are selected for their performance over the area that they are destined to cover where the view camera lenses are selected for performance over their entire image circle.
The lenses that pass this test are then sent to a room where testers check the lenses for internal problems like dust or dirt between elements, flaked paint internally, etc. The lenses that have passed that far are then tested for the accuracy of their shutters.
Lenses that can not be properly cleaned, have other problems or did not pass the Siems Star test are returned to the manufacturers as not up to Linhof's quality level.

Before the aquisition of the current equipment they did tests photographically which has been documented in their catalogs from those periods of time. As technology has changed the test methods have changed. But they still offer the very best lenses from both Rodenstock and Schneider today. But is it worth the extra cost to you? Well that is only something that you can decide. However, how many threads have you read where someone either bought or suggested someone else buy multiple versions of the same lens and test to find the one they prefer? The Linhof select lenses remove that need.

[Frank Petronio]

What Bob and Kerry said... never bought a bad Linhof (or Sinar) version of a lens.

Plus those black Linhof Compur shutters with the conical face from the 1960s are so cool looking!

[Duane Polcou]

Wow, I owe the Linhof legacy an apology. I had no idea they actually went to the trouble to test every single lens to a higher set of standards before branding it Linhof.
Thank you for your responses, I knew I'd get an answer!

[BradS]

Wow, I owe the Linhof legacy an apology. I had no idea they actually went to the trouble to test every single lens to a higher set of standards before branding it Linhof.

I don't think that Linhof tested literally every single lens. Typically what is done is that a sample is drawn from an incoming lot and the sample is tested. The whole lot is accepted or rejected based upon the results obtained from the sample. This is a very standard and well documented operating procedure that is used throughout industry.

[Frank Petronio]

I doubt they test every lens Rodenstock or Schneider make. But I bet they test every lens that the manufacturer gives them before they get their select mark.

I bet you're talking hundreds of lenses, not tens of thousands. Something an individual tester might do.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Okay, so Linhof individually tested and gave their seal of approval for to every lens bearing their imprint but manufactured by others. And yes, if the manufacturer's Q/C was not up to snuff and once in awhile one or some got through not up to spec, Linhof would have rejected those by virtue of their testing every lens.

Equally plausible is that Linhofs lenses all were made for them on the very same machinery, milled or ground to the same tolerances as the original manufacturer's brand, with the very same optical designs and coatings and specifications and tolerances for error. Also plausible is that any lens failing Linhof's test would be have also been rejected by Rodenstock, Schneider, Ilex (or whomever) had the manufacturer tested that individual lens. So how big were those Q/C cracks? Did OEMs not test every lens themselves? Is Schneider or Rodenstock (or Ilex or whomever) known to have only collimated and tested every third or tenth or hundredth lens that came out of their production line?

It seems to me a stretch to think that there was one manufacturer's spec or tolerance for Linhof, and another for Rodenstock's own imprint, one for Sinar, and yet another for Calumet. To infer that Linhof was cherry picking the very best examples of lenses or that somehow failed ones went back to the factory become garden-variety Schneiders or Rodenstocks or Caltars or Sinarons or Ilexes or whatever seems absurd.