PDA

View Full Version : Specially made Technika lenses



Bert Hillebrand
2-Mar-2008, 02:48
The Technika 70 could be ordered with specially made Technikon lenses, apparently made by Rodenstock. I am wondering what was unique in these lenses apart from the fact that the 3 lenses - 65, 100 and 180 mm were made with the exacct same lens coating. Were these lenses replicas of the Grandagon, Ysaron or which other and was the optical quality on a par with the Schneider and Zeiss sets listed for this camera Was their original list price higher than the Schneider and Zeiss?
Bert

Peter K
2-Mar-2008, 03:39
In the Linhof price list from 1968 was no Rodenstock lens listed. But Zeiss lenses where always the higher priced lenses. E. g. the Technikon 1:2,8/100mm was DM 543,11, the Planar 1:2,8/10mm was DM 782,- and the Schneider Xenotar 1:2,8/100mm DM 372,-.

Dan Fromm
2-Mar-2008, 08:16
Not specially made, engraved to order. The 58 is a rebadged Grandagon, the 100 is a rebadged Heligon, the 180 is a rebadged Rotelar. The same lenses were offered for Graflex XL.

Bert Hillebrand
2-Mar-2008, 15:46
Thanks Peter, Dan and David for your replies. However, I am still curious as to the quality of these Heligon and Rotelar lenses when compared to Planar, Xenotar and Symmar; also how many glass elements in them?

Peter K
2-Mar-2008, 16:32
All this lenses are great lenses. The number of glass elements isn't a criterion for the quality of a photographic lens.

Dan Fromm
4-Mar-2008, 07:36
Bert, they all work well for their intended purposes. What are you trying to accomplish?

Don't be so damned coy. Tell us what you're trying to do. Don't just ask whether a lens is any good or how it compares to another. You'll get the information more rapidly that way, you won't look like a fool, and you'll learn more too.

Bert Hillebrand
6-Mar-2008, 09:55
Dan, "Their intended purposes" is I assume to take sharp photos. What other purpose would you have in mind? What I was trying to accomplish, and without any coyness, was to find out if the above mentionned specially engraved lenses are on a par or even superior to their originally engraved counterparts. It seems to me that the LFPh Forum also exists for this type of question, judging by the many similar threads, and without anybody looking like a fool!
Regards,
Bert

Dan Fromm
6-Mar-2008, 10:47
Bert, if we can believe Linhof's propaganda, they reject all lenses that don't meet their standards. Interesting idea that a camera maker's QC standards should be higher than a lens' makers. There may be some "non-Linhof" lenses around that would fail to pass Linhof's acceptance testing. Whether this matters at all hasn't, as far as I know, been tested.

If you aren't sure about Rodenstock's lenses -- avoid 58/5.6 Grandagons, most, including mine, have bad separations that Rodenstock won't do anything about, as do some early Sironars -- then don't buy them. For all practical purposes a Rodenstock lens in good order is as good as the equivalent (focal length, maximum aperture, circle covered) Schneider or Zeiss lens. There's no rational basis for choice among 'em except price.

No matter who made it, each newly-acquired lens, be it brand new or used, should go through acceptance testing. If you don't believe this, ask Chris Perez.

I hope this and a visit to Chris' site (http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html) will help you understand why I view discussions of lenses' performance in the abstract as pointless. The only way to know what a lens on offer will do is to ask it. If you're averse to the risk of getting a clinker, buy only with the right of return.

Cheers,

Dan

Bert Hillebrand
16-Mar-2008, 15:11
Dan, thanks for your advice and particularly steering me away from any 58 Grandagons. After reading the Perez/Thalmann test results which list some vast differences in identical (and some very expensive) lenses, I can really appreciate your adage of " Ask It" !
Regards, Bert

Dan Fromm
17-Mar-2008, 02:48
Bert, I'm glad you found my advice helpful.

Cheers,

Dan