Rodenstock stops production of several lenses

[Arne Croell]

According to a German photo web site (http://www.photoscala.de/Artikel/Branchen-Ticker-49-13) Rodenstock stops producing the following LF lenses:

Apo-Sironar S 100 mm
Apo-Sironar S 180 mm
Apo-Sironar S 240 mm
Apo-Sironar S 300 mm
Apo-Sironar S 360 mm
Apo-Macro Sironar 120 mm
Apo-Macro Sironar 180 mm
Grandagon N 65 mm
Grandagon N 75 mm
Grandagon N 90 mm

It also says that even more lenses might follow.

Not really a total surprise, but still sad.

[StoneNYC]

Forgive my ignorance, but, what else do they even make? If they have no lenses, what will they sell?

[vinny]

Optics
https://www.google.com/search?q=rodenstock&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

[Arne Croell]

Forgive my ignorance, but, what else do they even make? If they have no lenses, what will they sell?
Mostly their three lens series for digital MF: Digaron-S, Digaron W/SW, Apo-Sironar digital. On the analog side, that would leave the Apo-Sironar S 135, 150, and 210mm, as well as the 35, 45, and 55mm Apo-Grandagons.

[Arne Croell]

Optics
https://www.google.com/search?q=rodenstock&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari
No, the eyeglass part is a different company; the Rodenstock lens making part (Precision optics) had been sold by them to Linos/now Qioptic quite some years ago, in 2000.

[Dan Fromm]

Our familiar lens maker http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/ and the parent http://www.qioptiq.com/

[Amedeus]

They are now owned by Excelitas Technology Corporation, a US based company since Nov 2013 ...

Our familiar lens maker http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/ and the parent http://www.qioptiq.com/

[Amedeus]

Mostly custom made optics for industrial applications


Forgive my ignorance, but, what else do they even make? If they have no lenses, what will they sell?

[Arne Croell]

They are now owned by Excelitas Technology Corporation, a US based company since Nov 2013 ...
and Excelitas was formerly known as EG&G. At least a thin connection to photography, being part of a company founded by Harold Edgerton....

[Amedeus]

There's still a lot of photography connection within Excelitas ... :)


and Excelitas was formerly known as EG&G. At least a thin connection to photography, being part of a company founded by Harold Edgerton....

[Bob Salomon]

Mostly their three lens series for digital MF: Digaron-S, Digaron W/SW, Apo-Sironar digital. On the analog side, that would leave the Apo-Sironar S 135, 150, and 210mm, as well as the 35, 45, and 55mm Apo-Grandagons.
The Apo Grandagons were discontinued earlier this year.

And to answer an earlier question. Rodenstock makes 3 Apo Sironar-S lenses and 19 digital lenses from 23 to 180mm plus a bunch of enlarging lenses.

[neil poulsen]

It's not surprising, especially since Copal stoped making shutters. It seems like it was just a matter of time.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Rodenstock know the market very well. They see the future is with digital.
Us film users have a huge bounty of excellent Rodensock lenses on the used market.
We are good for as long as film shall live.

.

[Jody_S]

Rodenstock know the market very well. They see the future is with digital.
Us film users have a huge bounty of excellent Rodensock lenses on the used market.
We are good for as long as film shall live.

.

Ever since I joined this forum, I have encouraged anyone who came asking about lenses to buy new if they had the money. Others pile onto the threads saying it's stupid to buy new lenses when you can buy excellent condition used lenses for a fraction of the price. Well, if no one buys new lenses, Rodenstock will stop making them, along with Schneider, Fuji, Nikon..... and the dozens of other manufacturers who have already quit. It's not that I personally mind buying used, because personally I never had the money to buy the lenses new. But someone has to, and LF photographers in general are not as poor as I am. I see people spending thousands of $$ on tripods, backpacks, accessories, JOBO gear, but trawling eBay for a bargain on a lens.

[Rolfe Tessem]

I have not seen any marketing for Rodenstock lenses for a long time. If you don't invest in marketing, you aren't going to sell many lenses. Actually, now that I think about it, I don't know that any of the existing manufacturers are doing any advertising.

[Kodachrome25]

Ever since I joined this forum, I have encouraged anyone who came asking about lenses to buy new if they had the money. Others pile onto the threads saying it's stupid to buy new lenses when you can buy excellent condition used lenses for a fraction of the price. Well, if no one buys new lenses, Rodenstock will stop making them, along with Schneider, Fuji, Nikon..... and the dozens of other manufacturers who have already quit. It's not that I personally mind buying used, because personally I never had the money to buy the lenses new. But someone has to, and LF photographers in general are not as poor as I am. I see people spending thousands of $$ on tripods, backpacks, accessories, JOBO gear, but trawling eBay for a bargain on a lens.

I bought my Schneider 350mm F11 brand new.

[Bernice Loui]

Part of the blame needs to be put on the lens manufactures for producing overly similar products. Look at their offerings of very much the same lens designs from Nikon, Fuji, Schneider, Rodenstock.. They all produced very much the same six element air spaced variation of a Dagor...

It was Schneider who broke the mold when they introduced the first LF lens using an Aspherical element and went on to improve their other wide angle offerings.
I have done my part by order both these new Schneider Aspherical LF lenses un-seen pre-paid and waited for almost a year for delivery.

What the big four lens makers could have done is to produce many of the classic lens designs that were quite valuable even back in the days when film was it. Instead, they followed each other and produced much the same lens offerings all trying to get the same share of that market.. This marketing ideology was bound for failure in time. What broke the market viability was the death of sheet film for commercial work. This also caused the death of many E6 labs and many other related services and companies.

There is no question that optics for LF photography is and always be a small market, what should have been done by the lens manufactures is to continue production of great classic lens designs like the Dagor, Tessar, Heliar and the many, many others including soft focus specialty lenses.. Instead, they spent their resources producing much the same LF optics..


Non photographic optics have become the more significant and profitable market for these optics companies..



Bernice




Ever since I joined this forum, I have encouraged anyone who came asking about lenses to buy new if they had the money. Others pile onto the threads saying it's stupid to buy new lenses when you can buy excellent condition used lenses for a fraction of the price. Well, if no one buys new lenses, Rodenstock will stop making them, along with Schneider, Fuji, Nikon..... and the dozens of other manufacturers who have already quit. It's not that I personally mind buying used, because personally I never had the money to buy the lenses new. But someone has to, and LF photographers in general are not as poor as I am. I see people spending thousands of $$ on tripods, backpacks, accessories, JOBO gear, but trawling eBay for a bargain on a lens.

[Per Madsen]

I bought my Nikkor SW 65 mm and my Schneider Apo-Symmar-L 120 mm brand new.

All my other lenses are bought used, and the Zeiss Oberkochen Tessar 150 mm was only on the market as new until the mid sixties.

[AtlantaTerry]

So what companies are now left in the world manufacturing LF lenses?

Did I read that Fuji still makes them but does not export them? If so, maybe they could corner what is left of the market.

[john borrelli]

I think lens makers never adapted to the change in the LF market from studio-type photography to outdoor landscape photography.

They should have read Kerry's LF lens reviews on lighter, sharp lenses and adapted all of their products. Ron Wisner tried to produce a lens cell set, with the help of an LF lens manufacturer, but why couldn't an LF lens maker come up with a superior lens cell set in different focal length ranges and for different formats maybe enhanced with modern special glasses which might decrease the number of elements, weight and size. LF photographers were trying to make that old Schneider 90mm f6.8 angulon work because the lens makers thought if you were an outdoor photographer you were trying to photograph a building and needed a 90mm lens that weighed as much as your woodfield.

Why is it that camera makers could adapt to the change in the market but not lens makers? How many new non-digital monorails have been made in the last twenty years as opposed to all the new, wonderful field cameras that are coming in to the market even today.

[jp]

Ever since I joined this forum, I have encouraged anyone who came asking about lenses to buy new if they had the money. Others pile onto the threads saying it's stupid to buy new lenses when you can buy excellent condition used lenses for a fraction of the price. Well, if no one buys new lenses, Rodenstock will stop making them, along with Schneider, Fuji, Nikon..... and the dozens of other manufacturers who have already quit. It's not that I personally mind buying used, because personally I never had the money to buy the lenses new. But someone has to, and LF photographers in general are not as poor as I am. I see people spending thousands of $$ on tripods, backpacks, accessories, JOBO gear, but trawling eBay for a bargain on a lens.

I've bought 2 brand new LF lenses, from Reinhold. :-)

[Bob Salomon]

I have not seen any marketing for Rodenstock lenses for a long time. If you don't invest in marketing, you aren't going to sell many lenses. Actually, now that I think about it, I don't know that any of the existing manufacturers are doing any advertising.

You must not read Shutterbug, Outdoor Photography, Pop Photo, Nature, etc. We have ads running in these magazines regularly for the past several years and many include Rodenstock lenses. Alos you were not at WPPI, Photo Plus, PMA, CES. Lenses have also been there for the past few years.

[goamules]

In 1959 there were 50,000 large format and 5 Million 35mm photographers. Today, there are 150 LF and 5,000 35mm photographers.
Like most statistics, I just made up 92% of these. But I bet I'm not far off.

[Jody_S]

In 1959 there were 50,000 large format and 5 Million 35mm photographers. Today, there are 150 LF and 5,000 35mm photographers.
Like most statistics, I just made up 92% of these. But I bet I'm not far off.

If you count hipsters, there are probably 5,000 35mm photogs in my city alone. And if there aren't 150 lf-ers, I'd be surprised. I just made up those statistics also.

[Dan Fromm]

So what companies are now left in the world manufacturing LF lenses?

Did I read that Fuji still makes them but does not export them? If so, maybe they could corner what is left of the market.

Schneider still seems to be at it. And as far as I can tell some of their and Rodenstock's newer "digital" lenses will cover large formats.

[Arne Croell]

True, Schneider still makes some, although they reduced their offerings, too. There was an earlier thread on this:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?100681-Schneider-reduces-available-LF-lenses

And yes, some of the "digital" lenses can be used for 4x5 or smaller - I use a 180mm Apo-Sironar digital on my 4x5. That approach does not work for 5x7, 8x10, or larger, though.

[David Lindquist]

So what companies are now left in the world manufacturing LF lenses?

Did I read that Fuji still makes them but does not export them? If so, maybe they could corner what is left of the market.

This thread reports the ceasing of production of Fujinons for large format: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?104077-LF-Fujinon-lenses-discontinued/page3&highlight=Fujinons+discontinued

Badger still shows several several Fujinons on their website but indicates they are all "special order".

David

[Ian Greenhalgh]

So does this leave Cooke as the only remaining manufacturer of LF lenses?

[Arne Croell]

So does this leave Cooke as the only remaining manufacturer of LF lenses?
No - Schneider and Rodenstock still make a few, just not that many any more. These would be the "analog" lenses still in production:
Rodenstock: Apo-Sironar S 135, 150, 210mm
Schneider: Super-Symmar XL 80, 110, 150, 210mm; Apo-Symmar L 120, 150, 180, 210, 300mm; Super-Angulon XL 58, 72, 90mm; Tele-Xenar 250mm

[Dan Fromm]

So does this leave Cooke as the only remaining manufacturer of LF lenses?

Cooke? Who's that? Their product slate, if they're still actually making lenses and not just selling off stock, contains two very expensive and highly LF specialized lenses. Give us a break. Compared to Schneider they're uncommitted dabblers.

[Sekundogenitur]

According to a German photo web site (http://www.photoscala.de/Artikel/Branchen-Ticker-49-13) Rodenstock stops producing the following LF lenses:

Apo-Sironar S 100 mm
Apo-Sironar S 180 mm
Apo-Sironar S 240 mm
Apo-Sironar S 300 mm
Apo-Sironar S 360 mm
Apo-Macro Sironar 120 mm
Apo-Macro Sironar 180 mm
Grandagon N 65 mm
Grandagon N 75 mm
Grandagon N 90 mm

It also says that even more lenses might follow.

Not really a total surprise, but still sad.

Its me who set the ball rolling when I asked Linhof in Munich for a system with Rodenstock lenses two weeks ago. They told me about the production stop.
I don't like the thought that even 4x5 will no more be supported by probably the best LF lenses ever. Rodenstock should at least continue to produce a set of say 90mm, 150mm and 240 mm 4x5 lenses to support this classical format, for which a dozen of companies still produce new cameras.

[Len Middleton]

I don't like the thought that even 4x5 will no more be supported by probably the best LF lenses ever. Rodenstock should at least continue to produce a set of say 90mm, 150mm and 240 mm 4x5 lenses to support this classical format, for which a dozen of companies still produce new cameras.

Demographics and economics are cruel masters...

I will not make up statistics, but wondering how many lenses would be sold each year, if every new 4x5 camera produced by your "dozen of companies" each went out with a new 4x5 lens. Nor am I convinced that there are a dozen viable companies still producing new cameras, other than the counting the craftsmen (Keith Canham, Richard Ritter) out there who do low volumes and also do formats bigger than 4x5.

Indeed for the larger formats 8x10 and ULF, other than the Schneider Fine Art series, when was the last time anyone produced (versus sold NOS) a lens capable of covering those formats.

Just may not be a business case for it, nor am looking for charity from a company to help support my hobby.

[Jim Galli]

Cooke? Who's that? Their product slate, if they're still actually making lenses and not just selling off stock, contains two very expensive and highly LF specialized lenses. Give us a break. Compared to Schneider they're uncommitted dabblers.

Uncommitted dabblers??! Really Dan?

Nobody wants to face that all of this stuff is "cottage industry" now. Large format cameras, Lunkenheimer valves for steam locomotives, dinosaurs, Model A Fords. Hooray for Cooke!! The brightest light in the last 15 years.

[Dan Fromm]

Really, Jim, just two lenses and those specialized. Even now Schneider and Rodenstock offer a broader range.

I salute Cooke for trying, regret that they didn't try to become a full line supplier, understand why they didn't.

[Sekundogenitur]

Demographics and economics are cruel masters...

I will not make up statistics, but wondering how many lenses would be sold each year, if every new 4x5 camera produced by your "dozen of companies" each went out with a new 4x5 lens. Nor am I convinced that there are a dozen viable companies still producing new cameras, other than the counting the craftsmen (Keith Canham, Richard Ritter) out there who do low volumes and also do formats bigger than 4x5.

Indeed for the larger formats 8x10 and ULF, other than the Schneider Fine Art series, when was the last time anyone produced (versus sold NOS) a lens capable of covering those formats.

Just may not be a business case for it, nor am looking for charity from a company to help support my hobby.

Craftmanship may be dominant in the US, but there are still some companies with tradition like Linhof, Arca Swiss, Sinar, Plaubel, Toyo, Cambo, Silvestri, and smaller manufacturers like Ebony, Tachihara, Shen Hao, Lotus View, Chamonix. A dozen, actually. Arca Swiss reports a a growing interest in Japan and Hong Kong, probably no Ansel Adams styled grandpas.

[Bob Salomon]

Craftmanship may be dominant in the US, but there are still some companies with tradition like Linhof, Arca Swiss, Sinar, Plaubel, Toyo, Cambo, Silvestri, and smaller manufacturers like Ebony, Tachihara, Shen Hao, Lotus View, Chamonix. A dozen, actually. Arca Swiss reports a a growing interest in Japan and Hong Kong, probably no Ansel Adams styled grandpas.

You left out Wista. Several 45s and an 810.

[Len Middleton]

Craftmanship may be dominant in the US, but there are still some companies with tradition like Linhof, Arca Swiss, Sinar, Plaubel, Toyo, Cambo, Silvestri, and smaller manufacturers like Ebony, Tachihara, Shen Hao, Lotus View, Chamonix. A dozen, actually. Arca Swiss reports a a growing interest in Japan and Hong Kong, probably no Ansel Adams styled grandpas.

And their total annual sales of 4x5 cameras are...?

Never mind the larger formats, where the demand and availability is even less...

[Len Middleton]

... probably no Ansel Adams styled grandpas.

Might want to understand the demographics of this forum...

Many (myself included) are, or could be grandpas

[Kodachrome25]

No - Schneider and Rodenstock still make a few, just not that many any more. These would be the "analog" lenses still in production:
Rodenstock: Apo-Sironar S 135, 150, 210mm
Schneider: Super-Symmar XL 80, 110, 150, 210mm; Apo-Symmar L 120, 150, 180, 210, 300mm; Super-Angulon XL 58, 72, 90mm; Tele-Xenar 250mm

So the the 350 F11 Apo-Tele-Xenar is no longer in production? B&H now shows it as a non-web order, call.

[Jody_S]

If Mr. W. Wray could make photographic lenses in his garden shed in 1880, to current designs (at the time), I don't see why hobbyists couldn't do the same today (to 1880s-1920s designs). Coatings are an obstacle, but there are enough small manufacturers of various optics around that it should be possible to contract out the coatings. It worked for the French manufacturers right after WWII, and they made some of the best lenses at the time.

I do believe this is the future of LF lenses. We have already accepted that the best cameras to be had are hand-made to tried and tested designs by individual craftsmen running one- or two-man businesses. Lenses require a different skill set, but not necessarily more investment. What is preventing this from catching on is that the lenses generally out-live the cameras, so we still have 1,000 used lenses on the market for every 1 used camera in good condition. But there is no reason to think that LF photography will die out just because Rodenstock (and everyone else) stops making lenses.

[Dan Fromm]

Jody, the idea of grinding lenses to old prescriptions has been discussed here a number of times. For those who want to try, some old lenses' prescriptions can be found at www.dioptrique.info A few people have pursued making specialized lenses now unobtainable at any price starting from one or another of the prescriptions Eric collected. All who've discussed their projects have grumbled that old prescriptions want old glasses that are no longer available. As far as I know, no one who's got that far has yet made a lens. Barrels are another problem.

About the future, I think we agree. The real threat is the disappearance of film, not a lack of lenses or of cameras. Lack of shutters and parts for them is another risk, but not as major as film's disappearance. I can't predict whether b/w film will go away, or, if it will go, when. I shoot mainly E-6, am convinced that its end is nigh.

Re coating, until Boyer got a coating bell they sent lens elements to SOM Berthiot for coating. That's probably what you were thinking of.

[Len Middleton]

If Mr. W. Wray could make photographic lenses in his garden shed in 1880, to current designs (at the time), I don't see why hobbyists couldn't do the same today (to 1880s-1920s designs). Coatings are an obstacle, but there are enough small manufacturers of various optics around that it should be possible to contract out the coatings. It worked for the French manufacturers right after WWII, and they made some of the best lenses at the time.

I do believe this is the future of LF lenses. We have already accepted that the best cameras to be had are hand-made to tried and tested designs by individual craftsmen running one- or two-man businesses. Lenses require a different skill set, but not necessarily more investment. What is preventing this from catching on is that the lenses generally out-live the cameras, so we still have 1,000 used lenses on the market for every 1 used camera in good condition. But there is no reason to think that LF photography will die out just because Rodenstock (and everyone else) stops making lenses.

Certainly interesting technologies happening in manufacturing. With 3D printing, one can do a batch lot of one with a reasonable degree of precision.

Maybe someone here can provide some insight into making optics (mirrors and lenses) for telescopes. As someone who spent time in manufacturing, I know that if tooling is required, that could easily change the economics (small volumes / prototypes, versus mass production). With CADD and CNC, or a skilled lath operator, one can make lens barrels. There also remains the issue of demographics in how many individuals are there with the necessary skills (skills, not just knowledge) to make and assemble lenses (including gluing lens elements).

On the other hand, I do have a Sinar Copal shutter, so I do have the lack of mass produced mechanical shutters covered...

[tgtaylor]

My first LF lens was a 150mmRodenstock apo-sironar S which I bought new along with the camera - also new. The lens cost more than the camera but I have been very pleased with its performance. It now sells for than double what I paid for it (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/43853-USA/Rodenstock_160702_150mm_f_5_6_Apo_Sironar_S_Lens.html) and according to the above list of discontinued Rodenstock lens it is still being made.

I suspect that the consolidation of LF lens makes will continue to be "consolidated" and Schneider may become the last man standing. But there will always be a market for high quality lens for imaging onto large sensors.

Thomas

[Jody_S]

Jody, the idea of grinding lenses to old prescriptions has been discussed here a number of times. For those who want to try, some old lenses' prescriptions can be found at www.dioptrique.info A few people have pursued making specialized lenses now unobtainable at any price starting from one or another of the prescriptions Eric collected. All who've discussed their projects have grumbled that old prescriptions want old glasses that are no longer available. As far as I know, no one who's got that far has yet made a lens. Barrels are another problem.

About the future, I think we agree. The real threat is the disappearance of film, not a lack of lenses or of cameras. Lack of shutters and parts for them is another risk, but not as major as film's disappearance. I can't predict whether b/w film will go away, or, if it will go, when. I shoot mainly E-6, am convinced that its end is nigh.

Re coating, until Boyer got a coating bell they sent lens elements to SOM Berthiot for coating. That's probably what you were thinking of.

With computerized calculations, it shouldn't be too hard to modify the formulas to take into account the currently-available glass. I realize that the initial calculations are beyond the scope of a 'hobbyist working in his garden shed', but there is no shortage of engineering grad students with access to MathCad, either. Also, the higher dollar-value lenses are the specialized soft-focus lenses, some of which were produced artisanally and continuously tweaked in the early 20th cent. There's nothing stopping someone from taking up the mantle and running with it, in fact we have someone on the forum who is doing just that already, though not grinding his own glass. With the number of people who keep a Speed Graphic around just in case (myself included), as well as the simplicity of a Packard shutter, I don't see the shutters as being that much of an obstacle. Yes, it's nice to have a modern shutter, but there are plenty of Copal 3s out there too, not to mention the larger American shutters.

Yes, I was thinking of Boyer re. coatings, but I thought there was another as well.

[Sekundogenitur]

Might want to understand the demographics of this forum...

Many (myself included) are, or could be grandpas

I could read several times that (in Europe) now even very young photographers show a growing interest in analogue techniques, including large format.

[mdm]

Mr Galli can start spruiking his large top secret stash of Sironar S's now.

[Dan Fromm]

With computerized calculations <snip> but there is no shortage of engineering grad students with access to MathCad, either. Also, the higher dollar-value lenses are the specialized soft-focus lenses, some of which were produced artisanally and continuously tweaked in the early 20th cent.

Oh. I didn't know that MathCad did ray-tracing and lens optimization. The problem with the free version of OSLO is the small number of surfaces it allows.

If you're thinking of someone resuming small-volume production, aren't soft-focus lenses niche products for a tiny niche? I know that people here make a lot of noise about SF, have to wonder how representative the noise makers are. Petzvals aren't SF lenses, but it will be interesting to see how Denys Ivan-whatsis Kickstarter campaign goes. I doubt an SF lens would be a viable artisanal product, but you might be right.

[Arne Croell]

So the the 350 F11 Apo-Tele-Xenar is no longer in production? B&H now shows it as a non-web order, call.
Yes, that is what Schneider told me last February. There might still be some new lenses sold from existing stock, the same is true for Rodenstock.

[Kodachrome25]

Yes, that is what Schneider told me last February. There might still be some new lenses sold from existing stock, the same is true for Rodenstock.

Since it came out in 2009, I wonder how many of these were actually made? When I ordered mine through B&H in October of 2012, it was a 7-10 day wait, they only had one in New Jersey and I got it. It's a stellar lens and indeed, compact, glad I snagged one before they stopped making it since there are really no other compact options for a 350-ish lens.

[Arne Croell]

Since it came out in 2009, I wonder how many of these were actually made? When I ordered mine through B&H in October of 2012, it was a 7-10 day wait, they only had one in New Jersey and I got it. It's a stellar lens and indeed, compact, glad I snagged one before they stopped making it since there are really no other compact options for a 350-ish lens.
I wouldn't be surprised if only one batch (whatever the size, 100-500?)was made. I bought one when it came out. Badger still lists it, but as special order, and the US Schneider Optics web site lists it, but with "availability: call". It disappeared from the German Schneider web site together with a bunch of other discontinued lenses in February. At the time, Schneider told me that they still have stock of some the discontinued lenses, and the same was said in the article on the discontinuation of Rodenstock lenses I quoted in post #1. We are talking about stopping production here, not that every lens will be gone immediately.

[Len Middleton]

I could read several times that (in Europe) now even very young photographers show a growing interest in analogue techniques, including large format.

Given the topic of this thread, it would seem obvious their interest and disposable income level has not generated sufficient sales of new lenses...

[Ian Greenhalgh]

One other factor is that there is a lot of interest in using old lenses. Personally, I prefer old lenses for their character and even if I had deep pockets to allow purchase of expensive new lenses, I'd probably still spend my money on old ones instead.

[Jody_S]

If you're thinking of someone resuming small-volume production, aren't soft-focus lenses niche products for a tiny niche? I know that people here make a lot of noise about SF, have to wonder how representative the noise makers are. Petzvals aren't SF lenses, but it will be interesting to see how Denys Ivan-whatsis Kickstarter campaign goes. I doubt an SF lens would be a viable artisanal product, but you might be right.

If anyone is interested in doing this, one has to realize that commentators of this website are not necessarily representative of the market. Certainly not the entire market. No one is going to start up boutique production of, say, Tessars. They're a fine lens, but if anyone wants a Tessar, they'll buy one off fleabay for $50. It will probably be a better lens than a handmade one from my garage. However, if someone wants a 48" Dagor, or a 'new' 32" Struss Pictorial, suddenly the $8-9K or so that I would charge for such a new lens in hand-finished engraved brass barrel, delivered in a monogrammed mahogany box doesn't seem so unreasonable. And I don't need to sell 50 of these to make it worth my while; 10 would do. Schneider certainly sold a few of their XXL series to deep-pocketed collectors.

No I am not personally considering such a venture, unless I manage to apprentice with a local lens-maker (there is one, I believe). I'm just saying that the market may well be there.

[goamules]

Didn't you read my statistics above Jody?! If there are only 150 LF photographers left worldwide, and let's say only 10% like soft focus, that would be 15 customers for a new lens making venture!

[Ian Greenhalgh]

I'd like to see some classic designs remade with modern technology, for instance, a triplet where the outer elements are moulded plastic aspherics, which would be cheap to manufacture but would 'cure' the triplet flaw of field curvature and uncorrected spherical aberration at large apertures.

[goamules]

Of course, to me, most of the charm is shooting through antique glass that could have been used to take a photo of Abraham Lincoln!

[Dan Fromm]

I'd like to see some classic designs remade with modern technology, for instance, a triplet where the outer elements are moulded plastic aspherics, which would be cheap to manufacture but would 'cure' the triplet flaw of field curvature and uncorrected spherical aberration at large apertures.Setup costs are a killer.

EKCo made molded plastic aspherics for inexpensive tiny format cameras. High-volume production made it possible.

[Bernice Loui]

Production of a high quality lens is far more complex than just re-calculating a specific lens design, specifying glass types and etc..

There is the entire art and science of lens grinding, cementing, individual element matching alignment and much more.

Inside many of the older lenses in the collection are lens cells with pencil marks, pencil numbers applied by the hands of a specialist who assembled, tested and made that individual lens cell which became part of the finished optic.

Being the designer of stuff that is similar to this, I know it requires a great understanding of the overall design and highly skilled personnel and related production hardware to produce the design as the designer intended. It is most often highly complex with a great deal of skill involved in every aspect of producing these objects.

Lenses are as much Science as they are Art and Craft. Learn to appreciate what the lens designers intended to express in their designs and all the highly skilled individuals who made a specific lens design into reality possible.



Bernice



With computerized calculations, it shouldn't be too hard to modify the formulas to take into account the currently-available glass. I realize that the initial calculations are beyond the scope of a 'hobbyist working in his garden shed', but there is no shortage of engineering grad students with access to MathCad, either. Also, the higher dollar-value lenses are the specialized soft-focus lenses, some of which were produced artisanally and continuously tweaked in the early 20th cent. There's nothing stopping someone from taking up the mantle and running with it, in fact we have someone on the forum who is doing just that already, though not grinding his own glass.

[Bernice Loui]

Molded Aspherics require highly specialized tooling that is very expensive unless there is enough volume to justify larger production numbers.

There are CNC lens machines that have the ability grind lenses.. Here is one made by Schneider:
http://www.schneider-om.com/products/precision-optics/grinding/slg-50.html


I'm not convinced these "flaws" in triplets or any other lens formulation are bad or un-desierable, it is more likely a highly skilled, talented and creative lens designer would use these "flaws" to their advantage to achieve the desired result in the finished lens design. As with most things science, art and technology related, it is more a balance of trade offs and what the intended goals are. Triplets can achieve good correction for these "flaws" at moderate apertures, while the Gauss designs can achieve similar degrees of correction at larger apertures. Still, it is very much a matter of what the design goals are.... and the interactions are complex.


Bernice



I'd like to see some classic designs remade with modern technology, for instance, a triplet where the outer elements are moulded plastic aspherics, which would be cheap to manufacture but would 'cure' the triplet flaw of field curvature and uncorrected spherical aberration at large apertures.

[Jim Galli]

I think producing new lenses at this point is ludicrous. There are thousands and thousands of good used lenses floating around out there, and hundreds of photographers to use them. We'll never make a dent in all the classic's (in spite of the silly inflated prices) so why would someone make new ones. In Cooke's case, they chose 2 lenses that truly are superior and really are in short supply, and made a few. Good for them.

I'm a 2 seater Thunderbird fan! I never looked twice at the 2005 re-pop! Why would I pay $30,000 bucks for a fake when I can get a real one for less $$$$$ ?? Sort of like this goofy petzval re-make wannabe. Just dumb (imesho of course). You can't get the numbers to add up, and the real thing is, well, the real thing!

BTW, even though I'm a fan of Cooke for re-doing some very worthy lenses, in my bag, I have the originals, not the new iterations. Yep, less money for the real McCoy.

[E. von Hoegh]

Production of a high quality lens is far more complex than just re-calculating a specific lens design, specifying glass types and etc..

There is the entire art and science of lens grinding, cementing, individual element matching alignment and much more.

Inside many of the older lenses in the collection are lens cells with pencil marks, pencil numbers applied by the hands of a specialist who assembled, tested and made that individual lens cell which became part of the finished optic.

Being the designer of stuff that is similar to this, I know it requires a great understanding of the overall design and highly skilled personnel and related production hardware to produce the design as the designer intended. It is most often highly complex with a great deal of skill involved in every aspect of producing these objects.

Lenses are as much Science as they are Art and Craft. Learn to appreciate what the lens designers intended to express in their designs and all the highly skilled individuals who made a specific lens design into reality possible.



Bernice

I'll add that a lens is somewhat magical in that it will last indefinitely with decent care. No moving parts to wear, the only way to damage one is abuse or accident.
The antique lens of today will still be useable a hundred or five hundred years from now.

[Bernice Loui]

Do move the glass lens around every so often. Glass is an amorphous substance and does move if allowed to stand for a few hundred years due to the effects of gravity...


Bernice



I'll add that a lens is somewhat magical in that it will last indefinitely with decent care. No moving parts to wear, the only way to damage one is abuse or accident.
The antique lens of today will still be useable a hundred or five hundred years from now.

[Dan Fromm]

Do move the glass lens around every so often. Glass is an amorphous substance and does move if allowed to stand for a few hundred years due to the effects of gravity...


BerniceNo.

[Arne Croell]

Do move the glass lens around every so often. Glass is an amorphous substance and does move if allowed to stand for a few hundred years due to the effects of gravity...


Bernice
Sorry, thats an urban myth (the moving (i.e. plastic deformation) of glass under gravity, not that its amorphous). See: http://www.livescience.com/32119-do-old-glass-windows-sag.html

[Professional]

Time to buy new lenses then before it is gone completely, i need only 3 new lenses and i will accept all the rest with used, sorry can't resist.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

Many thanks to Arne for pointing us to the article on Photoscala.de

The bad news for all Rodenstock "LF film lenses" aficionados like me, will probably not not be recorded in History, deeply hidden behind Nelson Mandela's death & memorial celebrations.

To the best of my knowledge, as announced here by Bob S. some time ago, the "film" apo grandagon series 35 / 45 / 55 have already been discontinued.
And since "more discontinuations are to be announced soon" we can be grateful to Rodenstock to "amortize" the bad news in 2 announcements.

In South Africa, people have been prepared 5 months ago to the death of the famous charismatic leader and Nobel Price laureate.

Now we are prepared fo the definite demise of one of the best LF lens product line of the XX-st century.

Hence I can anticipate the title of Arne's future historical article, after LF lenses made by CZJ and CZ Oberkochen: "Rodenstock LF lenses".
Taking into account that CZ Oberkochen LF lenses were discontinued about 20 years ago, we are ready to wait until Arne publishes an outstanding, comprehensive and authoritative article on Rodenstock LF lenses (nothing serious can be done in a hurry ;) )

[Sekundogenitur]

Another nice detail: Rodenstock obviously now really wants to clear the stock: New Apo-Sironar N lenses (discontinued years ago) are now for sale in a german webshop, to which the lenses were forwarded by Rodenstock.

[Sal Santamaura]

...New Apo-Sironar N lenses (discontinued years ago) are now for sale in a german webshop, to which the lenses were forwarded by Rodenstock.Which Web shop and which focal lengths? Thanks in advance for sharing.:)

[Arne Croell]

Which Web shop and which focal lengths? Thanks in advance for sharing.:)
I am not sure, but I assume he means Christoph Greiner: http://www.greiner-photo.com/en/rodenstock-analog.html
Currently, he lists new 210, 240, 300, and 360mm Apo-Sironar N lenses (note there are also used lenses on that web page, and the prices include 19%VAT).

[Sekundogenitur]

I am not sure, but I assume he means Christoph Greiner: http://www.greiner-photo.com/en/rodenstock-analog.html
Currently, he lists new 210, 240, 300, and 360mm Apo-Sironar N lenses (note there are also used lenses on that web page, and the prices include 19%VAT).

Yes, this is the mentioned web shop. The Apo-Sironar N lenses are indeed in new condition, but the 5.6/150 is sold out since last friday.

[Arne Croell]

Many thanks to Arne for pointing us to the article on Photoscala.de

Hence I can anticipate the title of Arne's future historical article, after LF lenses made by CZJ and CZ Oberkochen: "Rodenstock LF lenses".
Taking into account that CZ Oberkochen LF lenses were discontinued about 20 years ago, we are ready to wait until Arne publishes an outstanding, comprehensive and authoritative article on Rodenstock LF lenses (nothing serious can be done in a hurry ;) )
Don't hold your breath, Emmanuel :). It took me 15 years from the first table of Docter Optic lenses I posted on rec.photo.equipment.large-format in July1998 to the present state with several articles.

I do admit that Rodenstock might be an interesting topic, as their present image of one of the major LF lens manufacturers is comparatively new. Apart from the Imagon, some prewar lenses continued for a few years (Perigon), a few Apo-Ronars pulled off the process lens line and put into a shutter, and an Ysarex (Tessar type) here and there, there were not that many LF lenses in the 1950's and early 1960's. The production numbers were way below those of Schneider. Their main production, apart from eyeglasses, were process and enlarging lenses, and a lot of 35mm taking lenses for several German camera makers (e.g. Retina), some under their name, some as OEM. They tested the waters with a few lenses for the Baby Technika in the early1960's, but lenses for 4x5 and larger did not show up before 1965, and their real success came with the introduction of the 2nd generation, i.e. Grandagon-N, Sironar N, in the late 1970's.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I assume he means Christoph Greiner: http://www.greiner-photo.com/en/rodenstock-analog.html
Currently, he lists new 210, 240, 300, and 360mm Apo-Sironar N lenses (note there are also used lenses on that web page, and the prices include 19%VAT).Further information developed by exploring that page and the links on it:


Prices excluding VAT are available by clicking on the "Product Details" link for each of those lenses.
There is only one piece in stock of each focal length, except the 240mm, where two are available.
The 300mm is not actually new, but described with the phrase "as new." My speculation, based on absolutely no data, is that this might be a refurb unit from Rodenstock. :D

Note that anyone in the US seeking a new example of the 210mm would save money by ordering it from Badger:


https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=223

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

but lenses for 4x5 and larger did not show up before 1965, and their real success came with the introduction of the 2nd generation, i.e. Grandagon-N, Sironar N, in the late 1970's.

Thanks, Arne: great to read what will be the core of your future "LF by Rodenstock" article ;)
1965, and 1970 for the last generations, it means that, sadly, the end of production comes relatively shortly after the first introduction to the market, if compared to CZJ and Jos. Schneider.
As far as I have found, the 6-element 75 mm and 90 mm grandagon-N were patented in the 1980's. But after the introduction of the apo-grandagon series, I would say the 1980's as well, the very last "LF film" lens to be added to the product line was the apo sironar S in 100 mm (for 6x9, hence not really LF). And that was the end of the story for "LF film" lenses.
But the "digital" lens line continues; this is definitely MF-oriented [format 4.5x6 cm ], hence probably off-topic here.

[Jody_S]

I think producing new lenses at this point is ludicrous. There are thousands and thousands of good used lenses floating around out there, and hundreds of photographers to use them. We'll never make a dent in all the classic's (in spite of the silly inflated prices) so why would someone make new ones. In Cooke's case, they chose 2 lenses that truly are superior and really are in short supply, and made a few. Good for them.

I'm a 2 seater Thunderbird fan! I never looked twice at the 2005 re-pop! Why would I pay $30,000 bucks for a fake when I can get a real one for less $$$$$ ?? Sort of like this goofy petzval re-make wannabe. Just dumb (imesho of course). You can't get the numbers to add up, and the real thing is, well, the real thing!

BTW, even though I'm a fan of Cooke for re-doing some very worthy lenses, in my bag, I have the originals, not the new iterations. Yep, less money for the real McCoy.

As I said, the people that frequent this forum are not representative of the market for new lenses, especially given then emphasis here on collecting, restoring, and using classics. For instance, I see a lot more 'new' Mustangs on the road than originals, and the 'new' Thunderbird did sell. So someone has the money to buy them, and is willing to pay top dollar to have a 'new' car rather than a 50 year-old one. In fact, a lot of collectors hate dealing with the likes of fleabay, due to the constant disappointments with less-than-honest sellers and the realities of buying antique photo gear.

Bernice Loui brought up the technical difficulties in making fine lenses. Well, yes, but as I pointed out, people like Mr. Wray (an optician, so he had an apprenticeship or some training at some point) were able to make fine lenses in their garden sheds some 140 years ago. They didn't have CNC lathes, computerized lensometers & collimators, or automated lens grinding machines. None of these are particularly difficult to acquire in the surplus market. What is missing is someone with training in making optical gear, and a passion for fine art photographic lenses. And, obviously, some deep-pocketed collectors. But with people passing $200K orders for film, and the prices early Dallmeyers are fetching, I have to believe the market for the lenses is there.

[Bob Salomon]

but lenses for 4x5 and larger did not show up before 1965, and their real success came with the introduction of the 2nd generation, i.e. Grandagon-N, Sironar N, in the late 1970's.

Thanks, Arne: great to read what will be the core of your future "LF by Rodenstock" article ;)
1965, and 1970 for the last generations, it means that, sadly, the end of production comes relatively shortly after the first introduction to the market, if compared to CZJ and Jos. Schneider.
As far as I have found, the 6-element 75 mm and 90 mm grandagon-N were patented in the 1980's. But after the introduction of the apo-grandagon series, I would say the 1980's as well, the very last "LF film" lens to be added to the product line was the apo sironar S in 100 mm (for 6x9, hence not really LF). And that was the end of the story for "LF film" lenses.
But the "digital" lens line continues; this is definitely MF-oriented [format 4.5x6 cm ], hence probably off-topic here.

Rodenstock has been at it a bit longer then indicated above. They started making the Imagon in 1931 after taking it over from the original maker.

Here are some other Rodenstock lenses, many of which were made before the 1960's:

"Large format camera lenses[edit]
Rodenstock has a long history of manufacturing lenses for large format cameras, and has several lines of lenses.

Geronar[edit]
The least expensive of the Rodenstock lenses, these 3-element, 3-group designs have a 60° angle of view, and perform best when stopped down.

150 mm f/6.3 (for 4×5 in)
210 mm f/6.8 (for 5×7 in)
Eurynar[edit]
A pre-war anastigmat 4-element, 4-group lens.

165mm f/4.5 (for 4x5 in)
APO-Sironar-N[edit]
The APO-Sironar-N line is a 6-element, 4-group apochromatic design for general photography. Angle of view is 72°.

150 mm f/5.6 (for 4×5 in)
210 mm f/5.6 (for 5×7 in)
300 mm f/5.6 (for 8×10 in)
APO-Sironar-S[edit]
These 6-element, 4-group lenses are an update to the APO-Sironar-N line, incorporating a larger angle of view (75°) and extra-low dispersion (ED) glass elements to further reduce chromatic aberrations. Light fall-off at the edges of the field has also been reduced from the Sironar-N lenses.

100 mm f/5.6 (for 6×9 cm)
135 mm f/5.6 (for 4×5 in)
150 mm f/5.6
180 mm f/5.6 (for 5×7 in)
210 mm f/5.6
240 mm f/5.6
300 mm f/5.6 (for 8×10 in)
360 mm f/6.8
APO-Macro-Sironar[edit]
This line of 6-element, 4-group macro lenses is optimized for reproduction ratios from 1:5 to 2:1.

120 mm f/5.6 (for 4×5 in)
180 mm f/5.6 (for 5×7 in)
APO-Grandagon[edit]
The Grandagon lines are Rodenstock's wide-angle lenses. The APO-Grandagon line is apochromatic, incorporating ED-glass elements. This series has a 120° angle of view, but the extremely short focal lengths only cover mostly medium format image sizes. Designs are 8 elements in 4 groups.

35 mm f/4.5 (for 6×9 cm)
45 mm f/4.5 (for 6×12 cm)
55 mm f/4.5 (for 4×5 in)
Grandagon-N[edit]
With an angle of view of 105°, these 8-element, 4-group lenses are the standard wide angles of the Rodenstock line. In their respective focal lengths, they are among the fastest wide angles available from any manufacturer. The 90 mm f/6.8, by contrast to the rest of the line, is a 6 element design.

65 mm f/4.5 (for 4×5 in)
75 mm f/4.5
90 mm f/4.5 (for 5×7 in)
90 mm f/6.8 (for 4×5 in)
155 mm f/6.8 (for 8×10 in)
200 mm f/6.8 (for 11x14 in)[3]
APO-Ronar[edit]
These are apochromatic lenses with 4 elements in 4 groups and an angle of view of approximately 48°. They are optimized for 1:1 reproduction ratios, but also give excellent results in general photography, with extremely low distortion and superior sharpness. These lenses can be found mounted in shutter and as barrel lenses. In particular barrel lenses have a slot that allows to insert gel filters and waterhouse stops of any shape (for special effects) between the two optical groups; they also have a millimeters iris scale that indicates the real iris diameter, in order to calculate with high precision the effective f/stop when you work in close up and repro photography.

Format coverage given for Focus at infinity at f/22

150 mm f/9 (for 6×9 cm)
240 mm f/9 (for 4×5 in)
300 mm f/9 (for 5×7 in)
360 mm f/9 (for 5×7 in)
480 mm f/9 (for 8×10 in)
520 mm f/10(for 8×10 in)
600 mm f/9 (for 8×10 in) CL*
890 mm f/14(for 8×10 in) CL*
(*Linear f-stop scale)

Imagon[edit]
Introduced in 1931, the Imagon is an achromat doublet uncorrected for spherical aberration used together with diffusion discs ("sink strainers"). It is one of the classic soft-focus "portrait lenses". Imagons do not typically have shutter mechanisms and are instead mounted on shutters (i.e. Copal large format shutters). All Imagons were originally sold with three different diffusion discs matched to its focal length. The Imagon equivalent to aperture size is determined by the interplay between the imagon lens central opening and the modifiable array of smaller openings on the diffusion disc. These taken together produce an "h-stop" designation which approximates the corresponding f-stop of a normal lens. By rotating the outer rim of the disc, the opening of these smaller holes can be modified, and by this the amount of softness is also changed. Wider h-stops, or more-open holes, mean more softness.

Focus is set with the diffusion disc closed. The diffusion disc is then opened to the degree desired to record the image.[4]

120 mm h/4.5 (for 6×6 cm and 35mm)
150 mm h/5.8 (for 6×6 cm)
200 mm h/5.8 (for 6×9 cm)
250 mm h/5.8 (for 4×5 in)
300 mm h/7.7 (for 5×7 in)"

And as a point of reference, and scale. In 1986 Rodenstock made over 100,000 lenses for large format (2x3 up), graphic arts and enlarging. The market is much, much smaller now.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

The only Pre-war Rodenstocks I see with any frequency are Trinars and Eurynars, usually 105mm and 135mm on 6x9 and 9x12 cameras. I think they were lucky in being based in the West so that after the war they could thrive whereas those makers that found themselves in the East found things rather more difficult.

The Trinar 4.5/105 on my Franka Rolfix is rather good:

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20124/4077_DSC01375_1.jpg

[Dan Fromm]

Ian, what are you thinking of? Schneider made Radionars.

[Bob Salomon]

The only Pre-war Rodenstocks I see with any frequency are Radionars and Eurynars, usually 105mm and 135mm on 6x9 and 9x12 cameras. I think they were lucky in being based in the West so that after the war they could thrive whereas those makers that found themselves in the East found things rather more difficult.

You mean after they rebuilt the factory. Like the Linhof factory it was also targeted.

[Jody_S]

The only Pre-war Rodenstocks I see with any frequency are Radionars and Eurynars, usually 105mm and 135mm on 6x9 and 9x12 cameras.

They're not that rare.

Rodenstock Recti-Aplanat 210/8 serial 64,xxx

106286

[Arne Croell]

Rodenstock has been at it a bit longer then indicated above. They started making the Imagon in 1931 after taking it over from the original maker.

Here are some other Rodenstock lenses, many of which were made before the 1960's:
.....
And as a point of reference, and scale. In 1986 Rodenstock made over 100,000 lenses for large format (2x3 up), graphic arts and enlarging. The market is much, much smaller now.
Thanks for the list, Bob. I do not think its necessarily a contradiction to what I said. First off, my articles on Zeiss Jena, Zeiss Oberkochen, Voigtländer, Docter Optic lenses etc. that Emmanuel was jokingly referring to, are all about coated lenses, i.e. they start after WWII. Rodenstock certainly made lenses before that, but I did not mention them or referred to them. Most of the lenses in your lists originated in the 1970's or 1980's and they are indeed their best known lines that also forced Schneider to keep up with their research. Thats what I meant, Rodenstock became the well-known name in the LF world that we know now based on their exceptional lenses that started in the early 1970's . The exceptions are Ronars and Imagons, but the former (as taking lens) was a side product of the process lens lines and the latter a really specialized lens.

[Oren Grad]

But after the introduction of the apo-grandagon series, I would say the 1980's as well, the very last "LF film" lens to be added to the product line was the apo sironar S in 100 mm (for 6x9, hence not really LF).

Emmanuel, just a historical trivia point for the record, for those who might be confused by that statement - the 100mm Apo-Sironar-S was a much later addition (photokina 2004), presumably to keep that focal length available after the Apo-Sironar-N series was discontinued.

[Bob Salomon]

Emmanuel, just a historical trivia point for the record, for those who might be confused by that statement - the 100mm Apo-Sironar-S was a much later addition (photokina 2004), presumably to keep that focal length available after the Apo-Sironar-N series was discontinued.

Also later were the 120 and 180mm Apo Macro Sironar lenses which replaced two other later products, the 210 and 300 Makro Sironar lenses. Also a later, though short lived lens, was the 120mm Sironar-N MC - but it did not cover 45.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

You mean after they rebuilt the factory. Like the Linhof factory it was also targeted.

Every city over 60,000 people was at least 50% destroyed so everyone had to rebuild to some extent.

[Jac@stafford.net]

While some Rodenstock lenses have been discontinued it is still heartening to know that they continue to pursue success in the new paradigm of digital imaging. Us Rodenstock fans want the company to live on.

We LF mavens still have more than our fair share of great Rodenstock optics in the largely 'hardly used' market. We will never be without Rodenstock lenses.

All is good.

[Drew Wiley]

The weak link to all this seems to be that appropriate new shutters are disappearing. Then you've got glass type issues, which have to become volume cost effective. ... Then at the other end of the teeter-totter you've got all the rest of us salivating at all the bargains out there on almost every category of view lens,
with the exception of a few cult lenses that probably don't live up to the hype anyway. There's a glut of the damn things. Why should someone make more of em when there's a vastly better market for machine and medical device optics etc. Forget silly digital devices - those BB-sized lenses are largely plastic anyway. But if you wanna go custom, go ahead. Right down the road there's an outfit that will give you anything aspheric you can dream up.... Just bring along your NASA or NSA credit card, with about a $200,000 limit on it (per lens). But don't mention "large" format - they'll interpret that as something like the Hubble lenses.

[koh303]

There is a difference between a new car and an old car, especially when the old car is harder to drive and service, and might actually cost more then then a new car.
This is not really the case with a LF lens, when a new lens costs close to 700$ (on the cheaper end of the scale) and a good as new lens costs less then 200$ on the used market, and using that lens with a design and ergonomics that have not really changed at all in the past 30 or more years, is just as easy (or hard) as a new one.

That being said, amateurs were never the market definers for any product segment other then 35mm film (mostly slide film), and when the pros of the world stopped shooting larger formats and moved on to digital backs, there is just no need for these lenses. Just like slide film demand disappeared when the average amateur moved to digital.

All the super hot LF camera companies of days past, like Linhof and sinar (and arca) make super cool "view" cameras designed solely for shooting on MF digital backs with short focal length lenses. They sell lots and lots of those, and surely those will stick around for a while. This thread has so many posts about the fact the rodenstock will make less LF lenses, but is there is a comparable thread lamenting the fact that soon they will not have new copal shutters to put them in even if they were still making them?

[Oren Grad]

This thread has so many posts about the fact the rodenstock will make less LF lenses, but is there is a comparable thread lamenting the fact that soon they will not have new copal shutters to put them in even if they were still making them?

Sort of. (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?101529-Copal-shutting-the-doors)

[john borrelli]

Early on in this thread I had mentioned that in my opinion the lens makers did not appreciate the change from studio LF photography to outdoor LF photography, by the time Kerry Thalmann came up with his historically significant review of lenses based on qualities most important to us modern landscape photographers, perhaps it was already too late for lens makers to adapt to this "new market". Ron Wisner came up with convertible lens sets, with some help from Schneider I believe, which was in line with these new priorities.
What a boost to the LF community, particularly here in the US, if a new "Kodak" emerged to take advantage of this market. Sure their old lens designs, would probably have needed more than a modern computer waved over them but there are plenty of lens glass manufacturers out there, and their Ektar line already had small filter sizes all they had to do was add a newer smaller shutter and some modern glass. They could have given Deardorff a call or later Wisner or Zone VI and asked for a 6 lb 4X5 and an 8 lb 8X10 and they would have been in business. Maybe a boutique business but one that would have increased not only their analog business, papers developing chemicals etc. but may have helped with selling their newer scanning technologies and perhaps their dye-sub printers as well. As a newbie, I would have loved to walk into a Kodak store and have them set me up with a modern Ektar and a 4X5, and accessories. Sure the market for this stuff is shrinking but some of the reason for that is that these companies did not change with the market. Heck, today you might have been able to walk into an REI or LL Bean and purchase a new LF outfit, if only...

[Drew Wiley]

Schneider and Rodenstock certainly marketed their LF lenses in the US more aggressively than Fuji or Nikon, but not like selling Nike or Reebok tennis shoes. And in the case of the Japanese providers, there have for a long time been very desirable fully modern small lenses for field photographers, like the Fuji A and C series, and the Nikkor M's. And in the case of the Germans, the versatility of G-Clarons in the field wasn't exactly a secret either. But good lenses last a long time, and there's simply a glut of them already out there. So much marketing success nowadays is based upon de-engineering things... cool things, but things that either wear out really fast or simply aren't cool next year, and inherently require repetitive repurchasing. What good am I to someone like that? Most of my lenses and cameras will probably last well beyond my own lifetime.

[Kodachrome25]

Early on in this thread I had mentioned that in my opinion the lens makers did not appreciate the change from studio LF photography to outdoor LF photography, by the time Kerry Thalmann came up with his historically significant review of lenses based on qualities most important to us modern landscape photographers, perhaps it was already too late for lens makers to adapt to this "new market". Ron Wisner came up with convertible lens sets, with some help from Schneider I believe, which was in line with these new priorities.

At least Schneider tried in 2008 with the 350 F11 of which production has already been discontinued, it was touted as a lightweight, compact and affordable option in that FL in the original press release (http://www.schneideroptics.com/news/110308_Apo-Tele-Xenar.htm).

I got tired of looking for one used at it's usual selling price of $700-$800 and paid $950 new, a move I am increasingly glad I made as these companies leave analog LF lens manufacture behind.
Honestly, there is little chance I could possibly improve on my current lens lineup, the only LF lens I don't own that I am remotely interesting in trying is the 110XL. Other than that, I understand how these lens makers can nix models in the lineup, I got 7 out of 8 of my LF lenses used.

I will now put on a pair of sweats and running shoes and exercise my shutters, LOL!

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

all of this news provides opportunity. surely outstanding LF lenses could be made in the U.S. couldn't they? We have sand here too.
Just a matter of those who want these lenses banding together with their investment dollars to make them.

[Kodachrome25]

all of this news provides opportunity. surely outstanding LF lenses could be made in the U.S. couldn't they? We have sand here too.
Just a matter of those who want these lenses banding together with their investment dollars to make them.

Who is your customer?

There is no market, the ratio of used to new sales of analog based, modern and highly corrected LF lenses has got to be 100:1. One of the reasons LF is popular is that you can easily find more than adequate to outstanding quality lenses for $200-$500 used, often being less than 1/3rd the cost of new.

[StoneNYC]

all of this news provides opportunity. surely outstanding LF lenses could be made in the U.S. couldn't they? We have sand here too.
Just a matter of those who want these lenses banding together with their investment dollars to make them.

I'm really surprised, canon being one of the largest optical companies on the world, that they don't make LF lenses at all and never did (though they make some massive lenses, just not ones for Large format cameras...)

This is there largest 35mm camera... Imagine what they could have done for LF...

Canon 1200mm f/5.6 (goes for $100,000 and up... Used!)

106568

Leica if course made one (yes just one) 1600mm f/5.6 for a Sheik... But really Canon is the one who I would choose to make LF glass they are good and large enough to do it.

That 1200mm canon takes 2 years to make, they grow some of the glass as a crystal in the lab (so it takes a while for crystal to grow) and for you old school guys the lens comes in both the EOS EF lens mount AND the older FD mount with manual focus. There's at least 10 confirmed in existence but probably a few more.

Anyway, if they can make glass that big, they could do LF no problem...

[Kodachrome25]

Stone, Nikon made some fabulous LF lenses, I have three of them. They got out of that market because sales plummeted and the used market flooded to where it is at today. For example, when B&H was closing out Nikon LF glass, they significantly marked down (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?22821-Why-Did-YOU-Buy-299-Nikon-Macro-120mm-f-5-6-Nikkor-AM(ED)-Lens-with-Copal-0) the Nikkor Macro 120mm 5.6 from it's normal price to below cost just to move stock as the lens was not as popular as other LF Macros because it does not cover 4x5 at infinity.

Canon will never do this, they are already getting hit hard in the financial rear with sagging DSLR sales. Maybe one day when the used market starts to dry up, there will be a different kind of market for new lens sales, but right now, there are just thousands of great LF lenses out there to be had used, it's hard to tell where it will all end up....

[Drew Wiley]

Making fine lenses requires special glass types, some of which are no longer feasible due to environmental, cost, or labor issues. It's also a slow, expensive process to properly cool or cure the glass before machining. It might be the case that expensive limited or prepaid runs pop up from time to time, much like Cooke does. But I
simply don't see the financial incentive anymore for all these redundant general-purpose plasmats, when there's already a glut of used ones out there. Heck - some
people here will buy hundred-year-old view lenses that are still perfectly functional. These things don't just decompose on their own. Maybe if the big manufacturers
would resort to biodegradable glass and shutters, they'd get more repeat sales.

[Amedeus]

Rodenstock has been at it a bit longer then indicated above. They started making the Imagon in 1931 after taking it over from the original maker.



Rodenstock was founded in 1877 ... they made optical instruments of various kind prior to engaging in photography lenses.

[john borrelli]

I agree with others that the market really isn't there, my only point was that if the companies that were into large format handled things differently maybe there would still be a viable market today.

I mentioned Rodenstock not adapting their lenses to the new landscape market, and Kodak seemed to have no vision on how to become a boutique, but perhaps still viable, LF company.

Well, let's mention one more, Calumet. At one time Calumet had the resources to have supported the analog LF market. This may sound funny but that limited monorail they came up with the Cadet maybe did as much to bring people into landscape LF photography as any company. Yes the bellows was prone to pinholes, and it was hard to lock down the standards and keep them parallel, but it was a good example of a company that made a lot of studio-type monorails making an effort to adapt to a new,evolving market.

If people are thinking about a company that could begin production of new LF lenses, I don't think it would be Canon, I will make a prediction, without any inside info at all, that in the next couple of years Cosina will get into the LF market. Cosina will make two lenses to choose from under the Voigtlander name. The lenses will be their versions of some of the aging bokeh-kings that people are still using today. The lenses will have a lot of lens character while used at lower apertures and they'll sharpen up for a more modern look with good bokeh at higher fstops. They won't be large lenses. Prices will be on the higher side.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

Who is your customer?

your stockholders, who are all large format photographers that are complaining that they can't buy new large format lenses anymore.

[StoneNYC]

I agree with others that the market really isn't there, my only point was that if the companies that were into large format handled things differently maybe there would still be a viable market today.

I mentioned Rodenstock not adapting their lenses to the new landscape market, and Kodak seemed to have no vision on how to become a boutique, but perhaps still viable, LF company.

Well, let's mention one more, Calumet. At one time Calumet had the resources to have supported the analog LF market. This may sound funny but that limited monorail they came up with the Cadet maybe did as much to bring people into landscape LF photography as any company. Yes the bellows was prone to pinholes, and it was hard to lock down the standards and keep them parallel, but it was a good example of a company that made a lot of studio-type monorails making an effort to adapt to a new,evolving market.

If people are thinking about a company that could begin production of new LF lenses, I don't think it would be Canon, I will make a prediction, without any inside info at all, that in the next couple of years Cosina will get into the LF market. Cosina will make two lenses to choose from under the Voigtlander name. The lenses will be their versions of some of the aging bokeh-kings that people are still using today. The lenses will have a lot of lens character while used at lower apertures and they'll sharpen up for a more modern look with good bokeh at higher fstops. They won't be large lenses. Prices will be on the higher side.

It amazes me some times that people can't get together and discuss things and kind of make a plan everybody's always out to get the other person.

I proposed an idea while ago that Kodak and FOMA and Ilford and Rollei/AGFA and FUJI and whoever else I'm forgetting, get together on a combined funded ad campaign to bring people back to film, to remind them that film still exist, after the whole Kodachrome ending thing, many people believe that film in general is gone, they have no concept of the difference between Kodak film and Kodachrome and all they remember is that the last of the film is gone, so people need to be reminded that film still exists and then they be more prone to maybe adventure into it... But these companies are so much out to get each other, that they completely missed the point of a combined effort to increase the sales of all of their films by combining resources.

I would think that the same kind of idea would be good for all the large-format lensmakers, get together and say which of our lens lines are the best of the best and which ones can we drop because the sales are low, compare the focal lengths of these lenses and their various capabilities, and see if they can together drop off various different focal lengths while keeping others so that the full range is available to all customers but would have to go to different companies for each of the focal length ranges. Then there is no competition between each other, and only the used market is their competition.

It seems pretty simple to me, but of course they would never think of such a thing...

[Kodachrome25]

your stockholders, who are all large format photographers that are complaining that they can't buy new large format lenses anymore.

I doubt there are many who are complaining about paying $600-$900 for a 210 Apo Sironar S in mint condition used not being able to pay the new price of $2,400. Your stock holders are likely to be counted on one hand.

[Amedeus]

Drew is dead on.

You have to see the amount of equipment needed to make those lenses, glue them, laser align them, coat, package them, QA etc, etc in to fully grasp what the real cost is. Not even talking about all the resources needed for proper design. The used market lenses are at a fraction of BOM cost. Designing "new" old lenses for an extremely small market in the big scale of things is not going to happen any time soon as those same resources are fully utilized reveling industrial grade optical systems for money making businesses.

I personally believe that there's possible room for some specialty runs and I'm talking about this with the powers at Excelitas/QiOptic to find out how much appetite there is for small ventures similar to what Cooke has done for 2 specialty lenses.


Making fine lenses requires special glass types, some of which are no longer feasible due to environmental, cost, or labor issues. It's also a slow, expensive process to properly cool or cure the glass before machining. It might be the case that expensive limited or prepaid runs pop up from time to time, much like Cooke does. But I
simply don't see the financial incentive anymore for all these redundant general-purpose plasmats, when there's already a glut of used ones out there. Heck - some
people here will buy hundred-year-old view lenses that are still perfectly functional. These things don't just decompose on their own. Maybe if the big manufacturers
would resort to biodegradable glass and shutters, they'd get more repeat sales.

[Amedeus]

There's hardly anyone complaining ... sure, there's some noise on bulletin boards but that hardly reaches the business managers at the lens manufacturers. All they have is hard numbers of declining lens sales, E&O stock, distributors not buying any because they still have NOS on the shelves. Once the fixed overhead cost to maintain a production line is significantly higher than the sales of the product line, shut down decisions are being made. Makes Euro/Yen sense.


your stockholders, who are all large format photographers that are complaining that they can't buy new large format lenses anymore.

[Jac@stafford.net]

We have all the LF lenses we can possibly wish for. That is the final statement, the Bottom Line.

Any wishes to 'revive' LF through the introduction of new lenses or the re-manufacturing of classics is just silly. The market is not there.

[john borrelli]

I am not saying I disagree with others, but Cosina is known for making series of lenses that are geared toward a small market.

Cosina presently sells under the Voigtlander name and has helped Zeiss manufacture lenses that are sold under the Zeiss name. They are apparently profiting from a model where they can produce these small runs of lenses. These lenses have been geared toward 35mm, but they did also recently work with Fuji to produce two medium format folder film cameras, one with a wide angle and one with a normal focal length lens. These may still be in production today.

They also have been able to compete with Leica by producing competitive lenses at 50-75% of new Leica prices. In fact, Cosina's new lenses are even less than used Leicas.If you look at what some of the classic LF lenses are going for on Ebay these days, I'm guessing a company like Cosina could sell a new lens in the $1000.00 range.

[angusparker]

Those Cosina MF cameras - the Fuji GF670 / Bessa III and wide versions of the same are great cameras. But I imagine the last new MF camera to be made. I think the production run is over but you can still buy new in some places.


I am not saying I disagree with others, but Cosina is known for making series of lenses that are geared toward a small market.

Cosina presently sells under the Voigtlander name and has helped Zeiss manufacture lenses that are sold under the Zeiss name. They are apparently profiting from a model where they can produce these small runs of lenses. These lenses have been geared toward 35mm, but they did also recently work with Fuji to produce two medium format folder film cameras, one with a wide angle and one with a normal focal length lens. These may still be in production today.

They also have been able to compete with Leica by producing competitive lenses at 50-75% of new Leica prices. In fact, Cosina's new lenses are even less than used Leicas.If you look at what some of the classic LF lenses are going for on Ebay these days, I'm guessing a company like Cosina could sell a new lens in the $1000.00 range.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Your stock holders are likely to be counted on one hand.And it's unlikely you'll need to use a majority of the fingers. :D

[koh303]

And it's unlikely you'll need to use a majority of the fingers. :D
+1 (i was going to say you will have enough fingers left to make coffee...:)

[Kirk Fry]

Have a look at this outfit. I have one of their 303.53mm lenses. Clearly if you want a small run of lenses made they can do it. All you need is $$$$$. www.jmloptical.com