Commissionned new lenses, foolish ?

[Jan Van Hove]

This is something i've been thinking about for while, and with Schneider releasing two new "monster" lenses aimed squarely at the fine arts community, with the brass engravings and surely the price tag to go along, it got me thinking...
And I know that it might spark some interest in this group...

Modern lenses are not aimed at ULF shooters, very few of them have coverage larger than 8x10, and to go larger usually requires to use process lenses or old lenses, or extremely costly modern lenses...

Now, using old lenses is fine, and in fact from the end of the 19th century there have been lenses designed to cover quite a bit more than 8x10 (mammoth plates, anyone ?) but those old lenses are now ridden with problems, after more than a century, no shutters, watherhouse stops, fungus, scratches on uncoated glass, etc, etc, etc...

What if we were to revive one of those old lens design, put it in a good shutter with coated glass, and put it on the market ? Cooke optics did it with their soft focus lens and their convertible plasmat, Wisner did it with their casket set, (and in theory with the Hypergon...), so why don't we do it with a more "conventional" lens design ? Something long enough and with moderate coverage to act as "normal" lenses for the ULFers ?

I know that many optical corporations (Jenoptics, Dokter, Cooke, Angenieux, Zeiss, Nikon, etc...) offer "on commission" lens designs and production, usually for scientific or technichal applications, but would it be possible to commission a few "old design" lenses (so no devloppment costs...), get a production line going and get ourselves new lenses for our big cameras ?

Do you think that it's feasible ? What do you think the cost of such a thing would be ? Would you be interested in getting a brand new "old design" lens ?

If people are actually interested, i might just launch a new line of lenses "Classics, by Jan Van Hove"... :p

PJ VH

[Øyvind Dahle]

The materials are different (no lead), and WE have more computing power, so there is no reason to use old formulas. Find someone who is willing to spend a few hours on his computer and programs to develop several new lenses. That is what Hasselblad almost did whit their 2x converter in 94 or 95.

I want something like a 150/1.4 on my 4x5" made from two lenses, and it should not be that difficult to find the right people.

I believe the hardest part is to design the lens in to a shutter! But what do I know? I have no expericence with:

ZEMAX runs under the current versions of Windows 98/ME/NT/2000/XP
256 MB minimum, 512 MB recommended RAM
Physical Optics Analysis may require more RAM
200 MB or more of free hard disk space
Parallel port or a USB port for hardware key depending on key option
CD-ROM drive
Minimum display resolution of 1024 x 768 pixels

Øyvind:D

[Carl Weese]

Jan,

Coated dagor lenses mounted in modern shutters would be good for short focal lengths on ULF cameras. Coated artars would be fine for "normal" focal lenghts. These designs were manufactured by many different firms--I have a 16.5" dagor made by The American Optical Company, for example. Lenses like these were manufactured in the not-too-distant past. Whether a run of such "revived" designs could be cost effective I don't know. It is interesting to see the new Schneider "fine-art" lens offerings but one problem will be the range of focal lengths different photographers will want. Even if I could afford the Schneiders, they are much too long for my work even with 12x20.---Carl

[Tadge Dryja]

I'll second the desire for a fast 4x5 lens, something like a 150/2.8 would fit in a copal 3 shutter. I think that would be a really fun lens to shoot with.

The only "old" equivalent I guess would be the xenotar 150/2.8, but I've never actually seen one in real life, they're quite rare, and I'd imagine that with todays technology a better design (well, that gave better results at the large apertures, which is the whole point of a fast lens) could be made.

Oh... I guess there are the aero-ektars as well, but you can't put those in shutters (at least, not that I know) and those are, like Jan said, often pretty beat up, and maybe not the greatest design to begin with.

Admittedly though, these are somewhat far-fetched desires... in that case, while we're at it, I want AF. 4x5 AF. Think I could get someone to build that on comission? Maybe a phone call over to SK grimes is in order?

-Tadge
http://tadge.net (http://tadge.net)

[ronald moravec]

The best chance is to have someone become an organizer of required optics who would then approach mfg firms with a proposal. It would then come back in the form of a quote to make so many at a certain cost or a different quantity at a different unit cost.

Once payment was received, the production process would be started. I am afraid that this would be a pay in advance project to insure the lensese would be sold. That means the end users would forward cash to the ordering party who would then purchase the lenses and distribute them. Actually this might be a small business opportunity.

ULF`ers need to organize.

[Bob Salomon]

"The best chance is to have someone become an organizer of required optics who would then approach mfg firms with a proposal."

Linos (Rodenstock) as well as Schneider both have OEM lens divisions.

All you need to do is contact them with requirements and quantities. They would then give you costs and delivery times.

They are not looking for 1 up orders.

Linos's OEM division in the USA is in MA. Schneider's on LI.

[Conrad Hoffman]

Fast ULF lenses will require large elements, and good optical glass is remarkably expensive. Do it as a labor of love. Get some knowledgable amateurs together with Zemax or one of the other less expensive optical design programs, and you could probably come up with a design. Have the elements made by some small custom optical shop, and housings made by some similar small machine shop. You could probably assemble something rather good for a few kilobucks each. If you have a traditional lens company do the whole job, you'll have to have a huge quantity made, relatively speaking, or the price will be way out of line. No idea how you'll shutter it- those solutions just aren't available off the shelf. It wouldn't hurt to have the job quoted by various lens manufacturers- if business is slow, or they have a photo enthusiast on board, they might offer a good deal just for the fun or PR from doing it.

[Nick_3536]

"What do you think the cost of such a thing would be ?"

How much do the Skgrimes people charge just to mount a barrel lens ? Now imagine if you asked somebody to hand make a small run of lenses. You're not going to get any of the benefits of mass production.

It wouldn't suprise me if the final cost won't be close to what Scheinder is looking for. Worse you'll have to front all the money since I doubt anybody would do this without a large deposit.

The only way I could see saving money would be to find a supplier in a low wage country. They I'd expect you to have be the QC department.

The other choice would be to put together a group of committed buyers with money in hand. Then you might be able to get a more reasonable price but even then I doubt it'll be cheap.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

I don't wish to be a nay-sayer, but the costs of one-up or small run new lenses will be prohibitive. Have you see the list prices for the Schneider "Fine Art" lenses? Several years ago in a flight of whimsy, I had a discussion with a friend, an optical engineer, about making the equivalent of a 300 f/3.5 Planar. He guesstimated the price well over $8,000, even if he were to do the design for free, have the glass ground by a Chinese firm. Instead I found a 343mm f/3.5 lens on ebay for $300. For the most part, we are far better served by the used market. Most of the lenses we are looking for--19" Dagors for instance--are uncommon, perhaps even rare, but do not sell even in mint condition in the price range of the equivalent new lens.

[David A. Goldfarb]

The last time something like this happened, I would guess, was the run of about 100 Zeiss T* 135/3.5 Planars for 4x5" aimed at the Japanese collector market.

I have one of the normal Linhof 135/3.5 Planars, and it's an outstanding lens, and I'm sure the multicoated one is even better, but it's not cheap. If you can tap the collector's market and the Japanese economy isn't in too bad shape, maybe it's a possibility.

[Jan Van Hove]

Ronald, I agree that ULFers need to organize, and it's one of the reasons for starting this discussion...
(And for the business opportunity, i'm making my market research as we speak... :p)

Bob, thanks for the info...

Carl, Dagors and Artars are the usual way to go, i agree, but they are not necessairly cheap to remount to shutter, and you have to buy a new shutter anyway...

What I had in mind was not neccessairly fast LF 4x5 lenses but longer, large coverage lenses, but if we can spark enough interest from a lens manufacturer, we might be able to get a few designs made...

I might just write to schneider, cooke and rodenstock...

Keep bringing in your suggestions, i'm taking notes...

Cheers,

Pj

[John D Gerndt]

One option not discussed is to “remanufacture” a lens already in existence. I once spoke to a firm that recoats lenses about fixing up a Heliar I owned. It was not worth it for that lens but it would be worth it for a 19 inch Dagor. I believe one of this sort was sold to the “veiwcamerclub” on Epay not too long ago for close to $2K.

About that club who seem to be buying up these rare items…a not for profit organization that does the same might be a fine idea…

Cheers,

[wfwhitaker]

I wouldn't read Ebay user ID's too literally.

[Oren Grad]

We all have our fastasy wish lists - I'd like to have a 270 Apo-Sironar-S, for example.

Based on what I see happening in the market I will hazard a guess as to what would be entailed - I hope Bob Salomon will respond if I'm way off base.

Assuming a lens design based on readily available glass types and which does not stretch the envelope of manufacturing technology, I would guess that you should expect to pay $3,000-$5,000 for a custom-manufactured lens in shutter, ASSUMING that you can place an order for at least 50 pieces.

That's the hard part. Although cost is a significant issue for most of us, I do expect you could find 50 LF photographers who are so passionate about having their ideal lens that they would do whatever it took to come up with the money. But I think the odds are that they would want 50 different lenses.

It's actually pretty remarkable that both Cooke and Schneider have been willing to take on the market risk of fronting the cost to set up production for their recent special offerings. With the triple convertible, Cooke hedged its bet by offering a versatile specification that would have wide appeal to 8x10 users, with the added feature of a design that gave people a reason to buy two sets if they could afford it - you get more focal lengths that way. The gamble paid off - they've sold out the initial run. I don't know about the PS945 - the fact that it hasn't sold out yet may or may not be a good sign, though Cooke obviously was sufficiently encouraged to give it another try with the convertible. We'll see how Schneider does with the XXLs.

[F. Arnold]

Presuming that you have some in your area, you should probably chat with your local amateur astronomers. They may know someone who would grind you a not too difficult design, which would then go to SK Grimes for mounting. I've often thought that having a modern WF Ektar design, or coated convertible Protar made with modern glass would be interesting.

Personally, when I let my mind wander down those corridors, I picture a 12" - 15" f7.7 Ektar, with the dialyte design of the 203 (which is probably my favorite lens in LF).

[Dan Fromm]

Fred, your dream is spelled Apo Ronar.

[Richard K.]

Patrick;

Didn't Doug Busch do something like this back in the eighties? Rodenstock designed (I may be wrong!), ground in Taiwan (may be wrong again!), mounted in Ilex shutters in Rochester. Huge lenses with tons of coverage....Busch has a web site where he may be reached:

http://www.superlarge.com/

He may be able to provide good first-hand information on such an enterprise...

Richard

[e]

Why not just get 50 to 100 ulf type photogs together to recommission the wonderful f 9 Computars from Kowa in Japan. Have them make them in 210/240/270/300mm configurations and design a new batch of 450/600/750mm to complete the series. Have each photog commit in full to 4 to 5 lenses each paid in full. Eliminate the wholesaler/retailer to save money and experience ULF heaven. The 210 to 300 will go just fine in Copal shutters with no redesign. If the need to develop only 1 new long focal length design arises because of monetary concerns do the 750mm to fill a market gap at a reasonable price. I'm game for this. www.deleon-ulf.com

[Jan Van Hove]

Emile, You might be on to something...

I Think that it's the attitute we need to keep to keep our hobby alive, with film companies slowly closing down and lens manufacturers not seeing the ULF (and LF) community as a whortwile market, we need to take marketing and design in our own hands and create a ULFers association, guild, or whatever, that will negociate with companies in order to get special batches of films, lenses, etc...

I have a few months of not so busy time ahead of me, I might just start something...

Cheers !

PJ VH

[Michael Mutmansky]

Emile,

You are on the right track in my opinon, but I wouldn't do a direct copy of the Computar lenses. I believe they ultimately were designed optimized at 1:1 (symmetrical), which causes field curvature at infinity that requires small apertures to help compensate.

If a Computar lens were designed for infinity focus, then we would have a great wide lens, and also possibly gain a few stops in useable aperture range, too. That would equate to a win/win opportunity.

Since the Computar lenses are currently convertable, it would make an almost perfect starting point. My 240mm converts to 422, and the other focal lengths convert similarly. If a lens system were made that used the 240 and 300 lenses as the basis, with the addition of null cells for the converted conditon, you would have four lenses with only minor tinkering required to get the formulas optimized for infinity.

there is a discussion about the Schineider lenses here:

http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9494

where some of these issues have been discussed.

While I think there is great potential for a very small optics company, I don't see any of the usual suspects doing what we have discussed. There are many optics companies out there that could grind the optics for a project like this, and I do hope someone with the optics knowledge will jump into the market with offerings like we have discussed.

I'd additionally love some wide angle lenses for 8x10 that have similar characteristics to what has been discussed in this thread, maybe 180mm with room for movement, and a 150mm or so that covers, with a little room. We simply don't need the sharpness or bulk and weight of the Schneider XL lenses, we need a lens like the old Pantogonal or other similar lenses.

I'm not holding my breath, though.

---Michael

[Jan Van Hove]

Michael,

Just read the Shneider thread on APUG, and it's interesting to note that it's not the same people who spoke in both threads, and yet the conclusion to both is about the same : let's take matter into our own hands...

The suggestions so far revolve around wide angle lenses, and i agree that's a piece of the market that is not covered by modern lenses, but i was also thinking about "normal" lenses and long lenses for ULFers, lenses with 50 degree coverage, that can be made simply, and are less "high tech" than the process lenses that are used today and that frankly are overkill for contact printing....

Hand grinding optical elements might be going a little too far into taking matters in our own hands, but getting optical assemblies with only the elements made and machining the pieces needed to mount to shutters might be a simpler alternative... with symetrical designs you even get the advantage of needing half as much different elements to design and make...

PJ

[tim atherton]

Micahel - for the Kowa idea, aren't Kowa (and Computar) still out there making lenses?

[Gary Gibson]

"you are on the right track in my opinon, but I wouldn't do a direct copy of the Computar lenses. I believe they ultimately were designed optimized at 1:1
(symmetrical), which causes field curvature at infinity that requires small apertures to help compensate. "

I always had the understanding the 1:1/curvature thing was more of a myth than an actual problem? (or at most a theoretical problem, not a real world one)

[Michael S. Briggs]

I think most of you'all are underestimating the difficulty of commissioning a lens. The optical design -- which glasses to use and the shapes, etc., -- isn't the hardest part. There's also designing the mechanical mount, making the glass elements and making the parts for the mount. Making one or a few would be _very_ expensive because it would be mostly skilled hand labor. That's why Bob Salomen said "They are not looking for 1 up orders" .

Making 50 or 100 would allow the use of CNC machining, which makes the idea more realistic than it would have been decades ago. But still, 50 or 100 units at an expected cost of at least a few thousands dollars each represents alot of capital. While the ULF community is larger than a few hundred, how many will want to buy the lens? Some will be content with the lens or lenses that they have, while others won't be able to afford the price. Assuming that Cooke and Schneider are pleased with the results of their forays into niche LF optics, perhaps they could be persuaded to make the investment. If the plan is to have a group of people make deposits, your going to have to find 50 or more people willing to put up a few thousand dollars, perhaps to a stranger. I guess that you'll be lucky to see the money from one out of ten people who express an interest. Maybe find an established retailer to take the deposits, or setup an escrow account?

As Conrad said, another issue is what shutter to use. If you only make a barrel lens, your market will really shrink. The largest suitable shutter today is the Copal 3. This will either eliminate some otherwise attactive designs, or severely restrict their maximum aperture.

As others have said, there is the competition with the used market, including machining older lenses to fit into shutters.

I think your best bet is to identify one particular lens, by focal length and desired coverage, that is exceedingly hard to find on the used market and which would be very useful to users of one or more popular ultra-large formats. Then you could see how many photographers agree on your choice and strongly want this lens, then you could try interesting Cooke or Schneider, or perhaps Linos or a Japenese manufacturer.

[Nick_3536]

One of the nice things about the G-clarons is you can unscrew them and put the lens into a shutter. All without a great deal of skill. How about making a couple of barrel lenses that the end user could mount into a shutter?

It lowers the intial purchase price. It saves the cost of paying somebody else to mount the cells into a shutter.

I understand F/stop markings would be an issue.

[Michael Mutmansky]

Gary,

You may think that it is a non-issue, and it probably is for most LF shooters, but any shooter that has used some of these lenses for purposes which they were not designed (wide angle use on banquet cameras, etc) can tell you that field curvature is a very real issue that may be able to be addressed as part of a redesign.

Some people think that we need the small apertures to correct for lens aberrations off axis, and that is true, but only partially. It is possible with some of these lenses to focus it at the center on infinity, and the edges of the IC will be out of focus. You can also focus on the edges, and the center will be out of focus. It's not the case that the edges will never be in focus without stopping down, but that the curvature is so extreme that when the center is in focus, the edges are actualy focused beyond infinity, which is an example of field curvature.

Tim,

Computar as the LF community knows it does not exist. I understand the brand was sold to another optics company that now makes CCD optics for security equipment. However, I suspect that the model that was used for the Computar/Kyvytar brands may be an appropriate approach for this problem, as I believe they were designed in the US, and then manufactured in Japan under contract by an optics company.

I'm not an optics person, so this is well out of my realm of experience, but I think that making a lens like the Computar line would be a fairly easy and straightforward thing (in the scheme of things, that is), since there are few elements, and the designs will be quite simple.

However, I also recommend people consider other older lens designs, like the old angulons, and the Boyer and Wollensak WA lenses, and also the old (and slow) protars. These things have to fit in a #3 shutter, and size is important, so the long lenses will end up being fairly slow to meet both of these requirements.

Ultimately, when it comes to normal lenses, there are a lot of Artars out there, so I don't see that being much of a market (except for getting it in a modern shutter). It's the wide angle lenses where there is little to choose from, and almost none in a modern shutter with modern coatings.

---Michael

[Jim Galli]

My 2 cents. I'd love to see a series of f7.7 coated Dagor's beginning at 16 1/2". 420mm, 485mm, and 600mm. Those 3 would cover almost anything somebody wanted to accomplish in ULF. We don't need 14" as G-Claron's are plentiful and do a fantastic job. A Schneider 305XL would be nice. Probably cover 24X30. Is Kern still in business in Switzerland. They made the last Dagor's.

[John Kasaian]

Ah yes, an affordable f7.7 Dagor! That would be a prize!

BTW, how did Ron Wisner make out with his casket set he had Schneider build? I wonder if he realized a profit, or at least broke even on the venture?

Also, what about approaching manufacturers in the former eastern block? They make excellent optics when motivated and the exchange rate might be more attractive than what the big four(or five or six) could offer on a limited run. Just a thought.

Cheers!

[Brian Bullen]

Patrick

Although I would appreciate new lenses of either modern or classic design that would cover ULF, I think in the long run cost would be prohibitive. Creating and producing lenses of varied focal lengths for such a limited number of people would lead to a high cost per unit in the end. I can't speculate as to what that cost would be but looking at the current price of Schneiders XXL series I think most ULF photographers are pretty happy with the performance/cost ratio of older lenses. That being said if you can find a way to make a new, reliable and inexpesive lens that will cover big film I'll be first in line.

[Jeff Corbett]

Jan - the same thought has crossed my mind, more oriented toward small, light optics for 8x10 (such as the Fuji A f10/360mm). I will be watching the development of this dream with interest, and possibly $. And while not strictly a ULF wish-list item, I would second Micheal's suggestion for a 180mm lens with adequate coverage for 8x10 (with some movements).

[Michael Kadillak]

Foolish? - no. Complicated? Absolutely. If it were easy we would already be making images with these optics.

IMO the first rule is to clearly define one's objective and see if it still holds water. The way I am approaching my project to bring a ULF lens into the market means that it must meet or exceed the following criteria (in no particular order): Affordable, at least 95 degrees of coverage, correctly balanced for optical aberrations, performance and resolution, screw straight into a modern shutter and at least single coated.

I have seen many give it a good shot before walking away as I did with my first attempts at this project and I learned a tremendous amount in the process. A while back I re-grouped and reformulated a much more skilled and tactful business plan that I feel has an excellent chance of bearing fruit. I will tell you first hand that contacting a major lens manufacturer will only get you a go away price that will blow your mind. Been there and done that enough times to figure it out.

Sometime in the first quarter of 2007 I should have a go/no go answer to the business objective for a highly desirable ULF lens. Clearly like many of you I feel that the market is ripe for this product. At this time I will just keep plugging away and see where we get. Rest assured that I am engaging the correct technical skill sets to assist in this extremely complicated process but we will turn over every stone necessary to bring this project to fruition.

Anyone wants to give this a go on their own - by all means have at it. We can compare notes later.

Cheers!

[Bill_1856]

Bah! Humbug!

[Dave_B]

Folks:
In my opinion, any effort of a novice to reproduce the results of thousands of person-years of real world experience in building lenses with some book learning and computer code is likely to be an expensive failure. Lenses are very complicated technology. There are many, many details that spell the difference between a work of art and garbage. For example, the "simple" issue of AR coatings is very complicated with issues like sticking layers, changes in the index of refraction as the layers get deposited, wear layers, chemical stability, dispersion where the index of refraction changes with wavelength, etc. I have designed and built optical systems for a living and one finds that like any manufacturing process, the first few or few hundred or few thousand are crap while one works out the bugs and gets the hundreds of processes locked in and reliable. Which of your colleagues will want the dogs that you made while you were trying to get to the good stuff? The first one of anything complicated costs millions of dollars to build. The right kind of glass with low dispersion and low changes in index with temperature, good mechanical and chemical stability, uniformity of compostion, cutting and polishing, AR layers, low thermal expansion housings, low stress mounts, design of the housings to reduce flare, inside coatings of the housing to appear black, glues, the list of complicated technologies in lens building is quite long.

As an example, think about the recent sad story of a currently active commercial LF lens maker. Clearly they have a small army of very smart people who have spent their entire lives doing this and their firm has done this for a hundred years. They are now recalling lots of very expensive lenses because the glue or the AR coating or the inside paint or some oils on the shutters or something else, who knows what, is causing their lenses to fog. You're going to beat these folks in your spare time? My advice, buy what you want on ebay and take some pictures.
Cheers,
Dave B.

[Mark Sampson]

Douglas Busch did this about 25 years back and lost funding, I believe, before more than a few lenses were made. They were called 'De Golden Busch" and were a collaboration with Rodenstock and Melles Griot. This information came from an article in "View Camera", or maybe LensWork; and is based on my faulty memory. But anyone really interested in this idea should contact Mr. Busch; I believe he still has a website.

[Michael Kadillak]

Folks:
In my opinion, any effort of a novice to reproduce the results of thousands of person-years of real world experience in building lenses with some book learning and computer code is likely to be an expensive failure. Lenses are very complicated technology. There are many, many details that spell the difference between a work of art and garbage. For example, the "simple" issue of AR coatings is very complicated with issues like sticking layers, changes in the index of refraction as the layers get deposited, wear layers, chemical stability, dispersion where the index of refraction changes with wavelength, etc. I have designed and built optical systems for a living and one finds that like any manufacturing process, the first few or few hundred or few thousand are crap while one works out the bugs and gets the hundreds of processes locked in and reliable. Which of your colleagues will want the dogs that you made while you were trying to get to the good stuff? The first one of anything complicated costs millions of dollars to build. The right kind of glass with low dispersion and low changes in index with temperature, good mechanical and chemical stability, uniformity of compostion, cutting and polishing, AR layers, low thermal expansion housings, low stress mounts, design of the housings to reduce flare, inside coatings of the housing to appear black, glues, the list of complicated technologies in lens building is quite long.

As an example, think about the recent sad story of a currently active commercial LF lens maker. Clearly they have a small army of very smart people who have spent their entire lives doing this and their firm has done this for a hundred years. They are now recalling lots of very expensive lenses because the glue or the AR coating or the inside paint or some oils on the shutters or something else, who knows what, is causing their lenses to fog. You're going to beat these folks in your spare time? My advice, buy what you want on ebay and take some pictures.
Cheers,
Dave B.

So in other words, why ever try?

In a pragnatic world when one defines their variables and engages positive thinkers with the correct experience, I see no reason that some very specific voids in the ULF optical arena could not be fulfilled. Do we need to enlarge to 10x? NO. Would we have 125 years of reputation to preserve? No. Do we have thousands of employees worldwide to finance with a myriad of employment benefits and corporate overhead? No. Is the infrastructure present to accomplish said objective? absolutely. It is about how you approach the process.

If the conventional lens makers are not going to sequester this need then we have no choice but to give it a go as I am doing. I make a great living doing what my competition say cannot be done. I will leave it at that.

You can come up with 20 reasons why it is impossible. I only need one to proceed - we need it.

Cheers!

[Dave_B]

If by some modern miracle you did manage to reproduce the thousands of person years of experience that the modern, big lens manufacturers have accumulated and could build lenses that others would buy, you will be guaranteed to have violated a large number of patents that cover all the viable ways to build modern lens systems. The big lens makers spend a lot of money to develop new technologies in their core, cash cow businesses and then patent the IP so that their competitors (you, maybe) can't compete with them. They typically patent the best ways to do things and then the other ways that are close so that others can't compete or even get close with other products. It's called a patent picket fence. They then hire people to agressively protect their rights. Patents are like dogs. The people who own them get mad when someone else steals them and they tend to take legal action to recover their property. What they will do is at some point realize that you are not a company with deep pockets but an individual with limited means and will then bury you with paper that you will need to hire someone costing $300/hour to deal with and respond to. They will make a lesson of you and make sure others know what will happen to them if they ever try the same thing as you. It is the same thing as would happen if you decided that you and a group of friends were going to build cars to compete with Detroit. They would sit tight, watch you spend money and time and at the moment when your expenses were at a maximum and revenues just beginning, they would hammer you. Did you miss what happened with the Blackberry IP lawsuit? It was brutal. There is an army of lawyers in this country who do that for a living, protecting the IP rights of big companies in well-established businesses and they earn a good living. I repeat, if your interest is photography, buy what you want on Ebay and take some pictures.
Cheers,
Dave B.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

If by some modern miracle you did manage to reproduce the thousands of person years of experience that the modern, big lens manufacturers have accumulated and could build lenses that others would buy, you will be guaranteed to have violated a large number of patents that cover all the viable ways to build modern lens systems.

Dave,

You incorrectly assume any new ULF lens would have to be a "modern lens system". Patents have a finite life (typically 17 - 25 years depending on the type of patent, when it was issued and in which country it was issued). There are plenty of perfectly good classic lens designs (tessar type, dagor type, dialyte, wide field guass, plasmat, etc.) whose patents expired decades ago that would be perfectly suitable for a new ULF lens design. In fact, it was two of these classic designs Schneider turned to (Dagor type double anastigmat dating to 1893 and dialyte or artar/celor type dating to 1904) for their recent Super Symmar XXL Fine Art ULF lenses - and this is Schneider who has access to much newer propietary designs. No sense in reinventing the wheel when the old round one still works fine.

Large format lenses, especially those with enough coverage for ULF use, evolve slowly. Unlike lenses for digital photography or smaller film formats, new product introductions are rare and often spaced several years, or even decades apart. Borrowing from existing designs once patents expire is also very common in this slow to change market. The Zeiss Tessar is the most copied lens design in history. Every major lens manufacturer at some point offered their own Tessar clones. Tessar types have been produced for all formats from subminiture through 20x24. And all of these copise were perfectly legal as they didn't go into production until after the original Zeiss Tessar patent expired around 1920. In LF lenses alone, the Kodak Commercial Ektars, the Schneider Xenars, the Fujinon L series, the Nikkor M series, and several more are Tessar clones. Since the mid-1950s, most LF lens manufacturers main product lines (Schneider Symmar, Rodenstock Sironar, Fujinon W and Nikkor W) have been based on Paul Rudolph's plasmat design. Again, not a problem as the plasmat patent expired before these lenses went into production.

Pesonally, I applaud Michael's effort. With ancient, uncoated lenses capable of covering ULF formats selling for record prices on eBay, he sees a market niche in need of filling. Schneider's new 550mm and 1100mm Fine Art XXL lenses are great, but their market appeal is limited. Not everybody can afford $5000+ for a new lens, not everybody needs a 900mm image circle and not everybody has enough bellows to focus an 1100mm lens. There is plenty of room for more affordable alternatives with more modest, but sill usable image cirlce requirements in a variety of focal lengths.

Thanks to the ULF special order film programs from Kodak and Ilford and J&Cs continued commitment to supplying a variety of affordable ULF emulsions, the ULF market is growing. With cameras, film and film holders availalble from multiple manufacturers, it's only natural that there would also be a need for lenses to cover these formats as well.

Kerry

[Christopher Perez]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dave_B]

Kerry:
As I said in an earlier post, I have built optical systems for a living in the past. I have a Ph.D in physics from a top school and have worked in this field for more than thirty years. I have more than sixty patents myself in optical systems and understand the technology in some detail. Decent lenses with even a few elements are quite complicated beasts. You as an expert on classic lenses know this well.

As an example, the fixtures for mounting the lenses with more than one optical element require optical measuring systems to get things even close to being good enough to take a decent picture. Old lens makers used a lot of tricks to do this that died with them. New lens makers use expensive technology. A person new to the field is unlikely to be able to do either.

As far as patents are concerned, most of the patents are not in the glass design or lens shape. Things like modern AR coating systems, glues, mounts, low reflection paints for the inside of the housings, etc. are all needed to build anything like a viable lens system you could sell. Wax and lampblack are poor technologies to base a new business on. Modern, low dispersion glasses are also still likely to be under patent coverage as well.

I would like as much as the next guy to get wonderful lenses for a bargain price. I have spent a lot of money on lenses and would love to get them for less. If Michael can pull this off, i will be the first one in line to buy one and offer him an apology along with the check. However, I think it very unlikely that he will make lenses, starting from scratch, that you would ever use for your photography. I just know from personal experience how hard it is to make something as simple as a decent multi-element lens system, especially if you can't use any of the off the shelf technologies that you can buy but others still own the IP for.
Best wishes,
Dave B.

[Michael Kadillak]

Thanks Kerry. I was invisioning the same line of counter rational to respond to Dave B. but you beat me to it and did an outstanding job. I thank you.

In business and life there will always be the naysayers to anything that one aspires to and over the years I have become acclimated to their style. Rather then offer positive elements to overcoming any issues that are obvious (particularly to someone within the industry) it is easier to default to fear. Such is life.....

No thanks. I would rather subscribe to optimism and connecting wants and needs particularly when it relates to my passion in LF/ULF photography. When you find the right experienced people that think alike THINGS HAPPEN.

I thrive on being told it cannot be done.

Cheers!

[Michael Kadillak]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers!

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Dave,

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

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

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

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

Kerry

[David A. Goldfarb]

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

[Dave_B]

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

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

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

[andy bessette]

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

Yo Michael,

I really like your style (honest).

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

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

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

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

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

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

best, andy

THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE

[domenico Foschi]

;) I would like a lens that takes good pictures.

[andy bessette]

Yo Dave,

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

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

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

best, andy

THERE'S MORE TO OPTICS THAN MEETS THE EYE

[Michael Kadillak]

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

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

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

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

Have a great life.

[Ed K.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's to the spirit of innovation and dreams!

[Michael Kadillak]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's to the spirit of innovation and dreams!

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

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

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

Cheers!

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

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

Dave,

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

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

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

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

Kerry

[Downix]

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

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

[Helen Bach]

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

Best,
Helen

[Bruce Watson]

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

I thrive on being told it cannot be done.

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

[neil poulsen]

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

[Dan Fromm]

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

Cheers,

Dan

[Dave_B]

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

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

[Dan Fromm]

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,

Dan

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

[Lee Hamiel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

[bartf]

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

[John Z.]

I am reading this thread and hoping someone eventually can make a 600 mm Dagor or Protar lens; I would certainly be a customer. It may be a complex undertaking, but I am sure that it could be done with the right resources.

It is interesting that Dave B. used an analogy of the auto industry to suggest you could not enter a field without massive resources and organization, but an entrepreneur in California has brought to market the Tesla electric car in the past two years, which is revolutionary. Admittedly, it was a very wealthy person, but it just shows what passion and commitment can do (and assistance from an established car company in England-Lotus). I still am amazed that the big 3 car companies are so slow to innovate and bring new products to market, wheras dreamers with passion can!

[C. D. Keth]

I still am amazed that the big 3 car companies are so slow to innovate and bring new products to market, wheras dreamers with passion can!

Unfortunately for the average person, the larger a company is, the more rigid and slower to change their business plan is.

[Jim Galli]

I always get tickled when an old thread get's resurrected and I'm reading along and come across what I said 2+ years ago. I think this is a solution looking for a problem. I just opened a box that came in the mail today that had an 8 3/8" lens that will cover 16X18". It cost me $58. Sorry, I just don't have a need.

[Kirk Fry]

John Z

"an entrepreneur in California has brought to market the Tesla electric car"

The Tesla is a lot of HOT AIR. When R and T road tests it on their track the car will be brought to "market". Sorry about the detour, I coundn't let that one go. I agree with Jim, the world does not need another 600 mm for ULF. (It does need an all eletric car run by solar power).

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

the world does not need another 600 mm for ULF.

Agreed. There are quite a few 24"/600mm process lenses floating around that cover ULF formats just fine and can be had for a relative song (barrel mount APO Artars, APO Ronars, APO Nikkors, APO Germinars, etc.). If you want something smaller, lighter, multicoated and in a modern shutter, the excellent 600mm Fujinon-C is a bargain in new ULF lenses.

However, nobody here said anything about making yet another 600mm ULF lens. What the world does need (IMHO) is shorter ULF lenses in the 210mm - 360mm range that are compact, affordable (by ULF standards) and capable of covering 85 - 95 degrees. 30 year old used Computars that fit this description are going for outrageous prices on eBay on the rare occasions when one turns up for auction. A 240mm Germinar-W - that doesn't even cover anything bigger than 8x10 (with movement) recently went or over $1600 on eBay. Check Glennview's price on his 305mm Computar "mystery lens" ($3300) to get an idea what some people think such a lens is worth.

Kerry

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

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

Dave,

Sorry about that. I did try to suggest alternatives to some of the obstacles you presented, but ultimately I agree it would not be easy to pull off. At some point, whether or not it gets done comes down to who's doing the doing. With the TMAX 400 ULF program, Michael proved he had the stick-to-itness to accomplish what others said was impossible. That doesn't mean this is a slam dunk, but I think the right person is on the job.


As I said earlier, if he can succeed in building very low cost, high quality ULF lenses I will be among his customers.

Nobody said they would be "very low cost". When talking ULF, very few things qualify as "very low cost". To me, it seems Michael's goal is to produce a lens that is more affordable than current alternatives that will allow more people to get into ULF photography without taking out a second mortgage. I also think he's targeting a market segment (wide or semi wide angle lenses for ULF) not currently being served by other current manufacturers. Yes, the new 550mm and 1100mm Schneider Fine Art XXL lenses are fabulous, but they are also ~$5000 each and are longer and cover more than many people need/want. It seems to me that there is a huge gap for new ULF lenses of shorter focal length that are compact, reasonably affordable and readily available. I won't speak for Michael, but I believe it is that gap he is targeting.

Kerry

[Michael Mutmansky]

I won't speak for Michael, but I believe it is that gap he is targeting.

Kerry

This is also the specific gap that I alluded to in the review of the Schneider 550XXL lens this past spring. WHile there is a need for lenses that cover 20x24, and the 550XXL is a great lens for that application, it is expensive for a 7x17 shooter to be considering, and the rear element is large enough to cause some problems with some cameras.

This is where I see the real market for ULF lenses, and I am hopeful that Schneider will enter that market with a lower cost lend that competes with the Computar-style lenses that are being used currently. I see a real value for lenses like that in 180mm, 210 or 240mm and 300mm focal lengths. These will work for 8x10 and up contact printers primarily.

---Michael Mutmansky

[John Z.]

Although I did find a 240mm Computar and also a 10 3/4 inch Dagor, both for under 300 dollars each. Both cover 11x14 format with room to spare. The real expensive lenses are the 305mm Computar, or any Protar over 300mm.

Just curious; if someone made a Dagor or Protar equivalent today, could you use they name, or is it trademarked?

[Lee Hamiel]

As of now the mark for Dagor appears to be a dead mark in the USA as filed by Schneider

See:

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=doc&state=plpgva.2.1

[Lee Hamiel]

I have to add that this was a quick search & that this is in no way a legal opinion as to the validity of the mark for "Dagor" but rather what I found quickly based on my normal search parameters.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

As of now the mark for Dagor appears to be a dead mark in the USA as filed by Schneider

See:

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=doc&state=plpgva.2.1

In this case, Schneider = Schneider U.S.A. NOT Schneider-Krueznach, the German lens manufacturer.

Schneider U.S.A. was the company that purchased the rights to the Goerz names and designs and some remaining inventory from Kollmorgen in the early 1970s (I believe 1972). Around that same time period, Schneider U.S.A. (now known as Schneider Optics) also became the official US distributor for Schneider lenses made by Schneider-Kreunach in Germany. At some point during the mid-1970s, the rights to the Goerz legacy products seems to have been transferred from Schneider U.S.A. to Schneider-Kreuznach. Perhaps that's why Schneider U.S.A. allowed their US trademark on the name Dagor to lapse in 1975.

In any case, Schneider-Kreuznach continued use the Dagor name on their lenses (produed under contract by Kern in Switzerland) through the mid-1980s when the 14" multicoated Dagors were manufactured.

I have no idea if Schneider-Kreuznach still owns a valid trademark on the name Dagor. However, it is interesting that the new 550mm Fine Art XXL lens is a Dagor type construction (6/2), but they chose not to use the name Dagor for this product.

Kerry

[Carsten Wolff]

I have to agree with most posters here: basically, everything you need you can find on the used market; even if you rebuilt an old dagor (no, I don't mean YOU, Andrew) :) or whatever from scratch - re-coating, new shutter, even new cementing; STILL cheaper than a new lens job... e.g. a while back I got a 19" Apo-Artar multicoated (quite cheaply overseas mind you), and then front mounted it in an Alphax shutter: All that just because I couldn't afford a 450 Fujinon-C. (And I'm about to make the same "mistake" ;) again with my 10" Conley (minus the coating job)).
....also cost realms would equal that of a decent digital back.....IMHO, why bother.....
Donate some money to make your house/car more environmentally friendly instead, buy yourself a new 610 Fuji and feel better already.....

[Toyon]

Mr. Solomon, what is the minimum order Linos will accept for a production of spec lenses?

[Gene McCluney]

If "I" were going to comission a small run of a needed or desired lens, I would seek out the almost idle optical houses in the Ukraine or Russia. Once high volume producers of LF, MF and 35mm format optics. Arax in the Ukraine (a dealer of reworked MF gear manufactured by Arsenal) seems to have some connection where he can get lenses repolished and multicoated for very reasonable fees. therefore he seems to have an "in" at the Arsenal optical plant there. This would be the direction I would go, with final costs being a consideration. Arsenal is still around because they make military optics as well as consumer optics and are still a state-run company.

[Iain McClatchie]

Just to add a data point to this discussion.

I've recently had a run of 40 lenses built. After the first few lenses, production quality was good and the lenses deliver better than 40% MTF resolving 350 megapixels. That is not a typo. This lens resolves an order of magnitude more information than most lenses.

Cost was around $60k. All engineering was done for free, and that is the typical business model for optical shops like this. The shop I went with was American, lens grinding, polishing, and coating was Japanese, and final assembly was American.

These lenses did not have shutters (they go in front of electronic sensosrs that have electronic shuttering). If I needed a shutter, I would buy an off the shelf shutter (Copal or UniBlitz) and have the lens designed to fit. In fact, I have done that in the past.

The lens also does not have a focus mechanism you would want to use on a handheld camera. It is focussed once and set in place with Loctite, after which focus is maintained by having the entire lens body temperature compensated over a wide range of temperatures.

A word of caution however. This was the fourth lens I've commissioned. The first two did not work out well, once for supplier design reasons and once on my end.

[Michael Kadillak]

A while back I went after this objective full throttle and came back and learned several things.

First while there are many optical engineers that have software that can aid in the "optimization" of a design formulation the simple fact is that this is as much an art form as much as it is science. Plus there are a myriad of different glass specifications as well as coatings that give you a headache in short order. It comes down to simple business risk. Lets say that you come up with a simple Artar design with modest cost glass and coatings overseas and have them assembled and collimated and optimally your cost for 100 lenses is $1200 each, you start asking about the size of the market as to what can really be sold. A 35% profit margin takes the retail price to a bit over $1600. Total at risk project cost before profit cost is $120,000 and you see someone selling an Artar in the focal length you want for $1,000. I believe that one could sell maybe 20 lenses - and in that situation the costs go up to over $2,000 which is a deal breaker.

Factor in the fact that the quality of the glass and the expectations of the coatings are realistically not guaranteed to be as good as what was produced in years past and you have a situation that will keep you up at night if your dollars are at risk.

I talked to Kowa that assembled the Computar lenses on contract early on in my research and they were completely uninterested in taking this on.

At the end of the day I learned that this is a very complicated and risky business venture to consider. Experience and a large bank account should be considered as necessary prerequisites to down this road.

It is what it is......

[Bob Salomon]

In this case, Schneider = Schneider U.S.A. NOT Schneider-Krueznach, the German lens manufacturer.

Schneider U.S.A. was the company that purchased the rights to the Goerz names and designs and some remaining inventory from Kollmorgen in the early 1970s (I believe 1972). Around that same time period, Schneider U.S.A. (now known as Schneider Optics) also became the official US distributor for Schneider lenses made by Schneider-Kreunach in Germany. At some point during the mid-1970s, the rights to the Goerz legacy products seems to have been transferred from Schneider U.S.A. to Schneider-Kreuznach. Perhaps that's why Schneider U.S.A. allowed their US trademark on the name Dagor to lapse in 1975.

In any case, Schneider-Kreuznach continued use the Dagor name on their lenses (produed under contract by Kern in Switzerland) through the mid-1980s when the 14" multicoated Dagors were manufactured.

I have no idea if Schneider-Kreuznach still owns a valid trademark on the name Dagor. However, it is interesting that the new 550mm Fine Art XXL lens is a Dagor type construction (6/2), but they chose not to use the name Dagor for this product.

Kerry

And that German Schneider company that existed then went into the German equivelent of bankruptcy in the early 80s. The company was closed and then Heinrich Mandermann purchased the assets, spun off some companies like Isco which was a Schneider company and then became a separate company. The current Schneider, and its' subsidiaries like Schneider divisions in the USA are the successor companies that Mandermann bought. The companies that he owned besides Schneider included Rollei, B+W and the company that remanufactured an East German camera into the Exacta 66.