Schneider lens with Linhof logo

[Dave Saunders]

I've been offered a 58mm Super Angulon with the Linhof logo on it. the dealer says it is worth more because of the logo, does anyone know if that's correct?
Thanks in advance
Dave

[Peter K]

Every lens sold by Linhof is tested before engraved with the Linhof logo. It should be interesting how many lenses where rejected because of failing the test.

[Brian Ellis]

Presumably it's what is known as a "Linhof Select" lens. All other things being equal, they do tend to bring a little more on the used market, maybe 5% - 10%. While the things Linhof does might be valuable for a new lens, I've always questioned their worth with a used lens but people seem to think they're worth something extra. Some months ago Bob Salomon posted a message here that explained in detail exactly what Linhof apparently does. If you were really interested you could probably find the message by searching his responses here, it was about 6 - 12 months ago.

[Bjorn Nilsson]

In short, the Linhof logo says that Linhof have made their own quality testing before engraving the logo onto the lens. It means that the lens is good enough for Linhof and that the lens is/was offered as a Linhof lens, nothing more spectacular.
Sinar does the same for their own branded lenses, which are Rodenstock lenses that have a second round of testing in the Sinar plant in Switzerland. This is done with a machine bought from Rodenstock, (probably) doing the very same round of tests as Rodenstock does. (I do believe that the testing protocols are the very same at the Linhof plant. Probably with a similar piece of Rodenstock equipment.)
It is also quite probable that if any type of lens from any manufacturer would have quality problems, Linhof would not even consider offering that particular lens to their customers, nor would Sinar. Both of these quite conservative companies are very much aware of their positions on the market and that everything they put their name on should be of good quality.

The logo does add a small percentage to the value, but please note "small". Of course it's a bit different with new lenses, which have quite a hefty pricetag. If the lens is below 9 to 10 in rating, i.e. it's a user lens, the logo really is of academical interest.

There is plenty of information about the Linhof engraving/logo to be found in this forum if you make a search for it.

//Björn

[butterflydream]

It's worth for buying and selling, not for shooting.
I would trust more, a Linhof body with schneider or rodenstock logo - for sure I'm willing to pay more.

[BOB BERESFORD]

That's probably an old 58 Super Angulon ( I've got one too ) which is really a 6 x 9 lens. Certainly wouldn't expect to shift it on 4 x 5 and 6 x 12 landscape, unshifted, might be a good use. It is very sharp though does not have the multi coating and therefore colour saturation of Schneider's newer 58 XL ( got one ). All Linhof select Schneider lenses are very sharp. They set a high standard for their own tests and will be rejecting a certain number. Don't know if it matters for resale but if the same lens is branded TECHNIKA I'd definitely use that as first choice. ( Bob Salomon is an agent for Rodenstock lenses and promotes them frequently on this site, that I've noticed ) They are very good these days, though in the vintage of this 58mm , plain Rod. ' Sironar ' , many have delaminated......commonly known problem, and I have 2 examples, unfortunately.

[John Schneider]

Is it really a 53mm? There was a 53 S-A, a competitor to the 53 Biogon, and it was often Linhof-branded. But it's still a 6x9 lens. See the glennview site.

[BOB BERESFORD]

no, this is definitely the 58 Super by Schneider - for 6 x 9. Though the other 53 mm is a revelation. There seems to be a regular problem with Rodenstock agent Bob Salomon undermining the other German LF lens - Schneider however possible. The Linhof select lenses will be sharper on average - I'd always prefer one. Do be aware of the big delamination problem with Rodenstock 'Sironar' vintage.....pre N . Has Bob mentioned that ? Won't be an issue on new models.

[Bob Salomon]

no, this is definitely the 58 Super by Schneider - for 6 x 9. Though the other 53 mm is a revelation. There seems to be a regular problem with Rodenstock agent Bob Salomon undermining the other German LF lens - Schneider however possible. The Linhof select lenses will be sharper on average - I'd always prefer one. Do be aware of the big delamination problem with Rodenstock 'Sironar' vintage.....pre N . Has Bob mentioned that ? Won't be an issue on new models.

Bob,

You may have missed the fact that we have been the Linhof distributor in the USA for the past several decades, also the Wista distributor as well as the Rodenstock distributor for the US.

And we do not get separation complaints on lenses, Rodenstock or Schneider. Perhaps because we are not a retailer and only sell new lenses to camera stores. If we were in the used business then we might see lenses that are damaged more frequently. About all we see in problem lenses are those that have been dropped or damaged mechanically (shutter problems). We have been importing and distributing Rodenstock lenses starting in the mid 1980's and over that time there have been no problems with separation with any lens that we sold. We have been selling Schneider lenses since the late 70's and there again we have had no problems with separation.

On lenses older then that there may or may not have been problems but we normally would not be involved with those as there would be no warranty expectations on them. With lenses that we have sold there have been separation claims.

[Frank Petronio]

I have and will pay more for a Sinar or Linhof select lens in good condition, all other factors being the same. At least getting one of the select lenses means you are avoiding the possibility of getting a "dog" or a "lemon." I think that the quality control of the lens manufacturers has improved over the years, so buying a 50s-60-70s vintage select lens makes a lot of sense if that is the era of lens you want to get -- since the chance of getting a dog is greater with the older lenses.

Of course if your goal is maximum sharpness and image circle, a newer lens will be better than a vintage lens, but then you'd be comparing apples to oranges.

I don't think I could really justify paying a large premium for a new select lens though, and frankly I think the quality control has gotten so much better that there are less "lemons" than their used to be.

[Void]

Is there a list what lenses were used for Technika, therefore marked 'Linhof'?

[Peter K]

Is there a list what lenses were used for Technika, therefore marked 'Linhof'?
All LF-lenses from Nikon, Schneider, Rodenstock and Voigtländer where sold by Linhof and marked after testing.

[Void]

I was rather curious what models were used with Technika, not which samples. I was surprised to see for example Symmar 300mm with such a mark.

[Peter K]

Also the lenses sold with Kardan-Color cameras are marked "Technika". In the list of 1968 the longest lens is a Repro-Claron 1:9/610mm.

BTW the Symmar 300mm can be used with the Technika V 4x5" and the Symmar 1:5,6/360mm with the Technika V 5x7". Also the Repro-Claron 1:9/420mm and the Tele-Xenar 1:5,5/500mm.

[IanG]

Bob Beresford is right about the de-lamination problem with some older Rodenstok lenses, particularly the Sironars, but I have heard of it happening with Grandagons too. There is a slight sign of it starting in my oldest Sironar, but my newer Sironar N and Grandagon N are fine.

I've never heard of a similar problem with Schneider lenses.

Ian

[Bob Salomon]

I was rather curious what models were used with Technika, not which samples. I was surprised to see for example Symmar 300mm with such a mark.

Why? Over the years the Technika was offered in 2x3cm, 4x5", 5x7" and there was even an 8x10" Technika.

In addition Linhof Kardan cameras could use long lenses as well.

[Peter K]

Why? Over the years the Technika was offered in 2x3cm, 4x5", 5x7" and there was even an 8x10" Technika.
It was a Technika 18x24 cm and used special double film-holders. This holders were much smaller as modern 8x10" filmholders.

At this time Linhof offered also lenses from Steinheil and Meyer but without the "Technika" sign. My Technika II 18x24 was equipped with a Coronar 1:4.5/300mm from Friedrich Munich.

[BOB BERESFORD]

Bob Beresford is right about the de-lamination problem with some older Rodenstok lenses, particularly the Sironars, but I have heard of it happening with Grandagons too. There is a slight sign of it starting in my oldest Sironar, but my newer Sironar N and Grandagon N are fine.

I've never heard of a similar problem with Schneider lenses.

Ian

Good comment Ian..........am amazed Bob S hasn't encountered this. Well known even in New Zealand. Rodenstock must have got their resins wrong, but probably corrected themselves before the Multi Coated ( Sironar/Grand ) N lenses happened. However, you can usually work around it because it creeps from the edges ( my big Sironar 360 5.6 is quite a sight with rainbow delaminations ) but in LF we're normally going straight through the centre of the lens at smaller apertures. So why worry ?!

[BOB BERESFORD]

All LF-lenses from Nikon, Schneider, Rodenstock and Voigtländer where sold by Linhof and marked after testing.

Hi Peter

There has been much debate here about the merits of the Linhof testing of lenses. Do you know for sure ....being closer to the factory ? My understanding ( and an old Linhof brochure actually says this ) is that Linhof set higher tolerances and would therefore reject some lenses before doing the mark/badge. That's my instinctive feel about it, too. I don't believe they would just be repeating the same tests that reputable firms like Schneider and Rodenstock were doing first.

[Peter K]

As Bob also in other threads mentioned before Linhof uses a testing projector made by Rodenstock. I don't know Schneider uses the same test. But every test has it's limits. So one can see different lens faults with different testing tools.

[Bob Salomon]

Bob Beresford is right about the de-lamination problem with some older Rodenstok lenses, particularly the Sironars, but I have heard of it happening with Grandagons too. There is a slight sign of it starting in my oldest Sironar, but my newer Sironar N and Grandagon N are fine.

I've never heard of a similar problem with Schneider lenses.

Ian

Nonsense. All lenses can separate. Old Rodenstock lenses are no more prone to do so then old Schneider lenses.

We have been the USA distributor for Rodenstock lenses since 1988. Since 1988 we have extended a lifetime warranty on all Rodenstock lenses that we import. Since 1988 we have not received one lens for service covered by our warranty with any sign of separation.

Separation occurs because of handling and storage conditions. A lens that receives an impact may develop a small pinhole in the sealant around the edge of the elements. That small hole can let moisture into the lamination between two elements. That then starts separation in lenses.

Modern lenses are very immune to this effect. All old lenses can have this happen.

[IanG]

As you've only been Rodenstock distributors since 1988 then it's highly unlikely you'd have had any of the older Sironar's sent back to you with separation anyway, as by then they would have been well out of warranty.

My lens with separation starting is quite an old Sironar 150mm, and made sometime in the early to mid 70's. My other Sironar N is Multicoated (has no problems) and is a slightly different looking lens and it also pre-dates your company's involvement with Rodenstock.

It seems the separation problems occurs mainly in very early Sironars, and as Bob says he's amazed you've never encountered the issue. It's most certainly not nonsense, its quite well known.

Ian

[Dan Fromm]

Um, Bob, I have a 58/5.6 Grandagon originally in Graflex XL mount and one of my neighbors has one still in XL mount. Both of these lenses have bad separations in both cells. I've seen other XL 58 Grandagons with the same problems, also a 100/5.6 Sironar of the same vintage with bad separations.

These lenses were all made well before 1988 and are long out of warranty. I'm glad for purchasers of newer Rodenstock lenses that these problems are now extremely rare, but there seems to have been a time when Rodenstock had problems with optical cements.

[walter23]

I'm skeptical and think this is nothing more than stupid branding games. I'm sure they did an additional quality control test if that's what they claim, but I doubt the lenses are any better. At best it probably just means they manage to screen out a few more duds before they hit the market. I'm more of a caltar guy than a Linhof-Select guy :) I'll take advantage of the branding silliness to get a bargain rather than pay more.


In short, the Linhof logo says that Linhof have made their own quality testing before engraving the logo onto the lens. It means that the lens is good enough for Linhof and that the lens is/was offered as a Linhof lens, nothing more spectacular.
Sinar does the same for their own branded lenses, which are Rodenstock lenses that have a second round of testing in the Sinar plant in Switzerland. This is done with a machine bought from Rodenstock, (probably) doing the very same round of tests as Rodenstock does. (I do believe that the testing protocols are the very same at the Linhof plant. Probably with a similar piece of Rodenstock equipment.)
It is also quite probable that if any type of lens from any manufacturer would have quality problems, Linhof would not even consider offering that particular lens to their customers, nor would Sinar. Both of these quite conservative companies are very much aware of their positions on the market and that everything they put their name on should be of good quality.

The logo does add a small percentage to the value, but please note "small". Of course it's a bit different with new lenses, which have quite a hefty pricetag. If the lens is below 9 to 10 in rating, i.e. it's a user lens, the logo really is of academical interest.

There is plenty of information about the Linhof engraving/logo to be found in this forum if you make a search for it.

//Björn

[Bob Salomon]

These lenses were all made well before 1988 and are long out of warranty. I'm glad for purchasers of newer Rodenstock lenses that these problems are now extremely rare, but there seems to have been a time when Rodenstock had problems with optical cements.

Any lens from that era can have separation. Nothing brand specific there. It depends on how it was treated and stored over all those decades.

[Frank Petronio]

But Walter, do you trust or like any corporation?

[IanG]

Um, Bob, I have a 58/5.6 Grandagon originally in Graflex XL mount and one of my neighbors has one still in XL mount. Both of these lenses have bad separations in both cells. I've seen other XL 58 Grandagons with the same problems, also a 100/5.6 Sironar of the same vintage with bad separations.

These lenses were all made well before 1988 and are long out of warranty. I'm glad for purchasers of newer Rodenstock lenses that these problems are now extremely rare, but there seems to have been a time when Rodenstock had problems with optical cements.


Any lens from that era can have separation. Nothing brand specific there. It depends on how it was treated and stored over all those decades.

Bob, we are talking specifically about these early Sironar & Grandagon Rodenstock lenses, it may due to the type of lens cement they were using and coincide with the change from older balsam cements to the newer types.

I have 6 or 7 Rodenstock LF lenses, and about the same no of Scneider lenses, plus various from other manufacturers - only the early Sironar shows any sign of seperation.

Sure any vintage/old lenses can suffer separation, but modern lenses are not very prone to it, except it seems the early Rodenstock Sironars and Grandagons.

Ian

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, we are talking specifically about these early Sironar & Grandagon Rodenstock lenses, it may due to the type of lens cement they were using and coincide with the change from older balsam cements to the newer types.

I have 6 or 7 Rodenstock LF lenses, and about the same no of Scneider lenses, plus various from other manufacturers - only the early Sironar shows any sign of seperation.

Sure any vintage/old lenses can suffer separation, but modern lenses are not very prone to it, except it seems the early Rodenstock Sironars and Grandagons.

Ian

Specifically

[BOB BERESFORD]

Any lens from that era can have separation. Nothing brand specific there. It depends on how it was treated and stored over all those decades.

We are now getting into a problem of a commercial bias affecting reality - exactly what was never intended on this website and why it is supposed to be closed to dealers........so at least if Bob could avoid commenting on things he distributes - especially Rodenstock lenses - the truth might shine through without angry denials ?!

It is a fact that Rodenstock were delaminating when others were not and it was apparently a question of their resins - apparently corrected by the time they went MC in 80's. I'm sure the new ones are fine.
Thanks to Ian and Dan for the the further enlightenment.
Thanks Peter for further info on lens tests.

But I'm still absolutely sure that Linhof...( and probably Sinar ) .....will not be simply retesting to the same tolerances as Top producers like Schneider and Rodenstock. They will surely have set higher standards or tolerances. That's what they effectively say - also that they reject. Certainly, any Schneider lens with a Linhof Logo is darned sharp - some guys find them unexpectedly so.

[BOB BERESFORD]

Nonsense. All lenses can separate. Old Rodenstock lenses are no more prone to do so then old Schneider lenses.

We have been the USA distributor for Rodenstock lenses since 1988. Since 1988 we have extended a lifetime warranty on all Rodenstock lenses that we import. Since 1988 we have not received one lens for service covered by our warranty with any sign of separation.

Separation occurs because of handling and storage conditions. A lens that receives an impact may develop a small pinhole in the sealant around the edge of the elements. That small hole can let moisture into the lamination between two elements. That then starts separation in lenses.

Modern lenses are very immune to this effect. All old lenses can have this happen.


These forums are not supposed to be for commercial advertising, so I'm sure it would help if Bob was not posting replies that actually read like advertisements ?

[E. von Hoegh]

We are now getting into a problem of a commercial bias affecting reality - exactly what was never intended on this website and why it is supposed to be closed to dealers........so at least if Bob could avoid commenting on things he distributes - especially Rodenstock lenses - the truth might shine through without angry denials ?!

It is a fact that Rodenstock were delaminating when others were not and it was apparently a question of their resins - apparently corrected by the time they went MC in 80's. I'm sure the new ones are fine.
Thanks to Ian and Dan for the the further enlightenment.
Thanks Peter for further info on lens tests.

But I'm still absolutely sure that Linhof...( and probably Sinar ) .....will not be simply retesting to the same tolerances as Top producers like Schneider and Rodenstock. They will surely have set higher standards or tolerances. That's what they effectively say - also that they reject. Certainly, any Schneider lens with a Linhof Logo is darned sharp - some guys find them unexpectedly so.

I have a 1960-ish ST IV, 3 lens factory cammed outfit. 90, 150, and 270. I don't use the 270 much because I dislike teles on LF, but all the lenses are excellent. The 150 convertable Symmar is just superb. I agree that Lihof "high-graded" the lenses. I used a 150 non Linhof Symmar from the same era that was not quite as good as mine(but I would have been perfectly satisfied with it, if not for the comparison).

[IanG]

Schneiders suffer Schneideritis which is no big deal as it doesn't affect image quality. All my Schneider lenses are as good as the day they were made :D

It's interesting that I started a separate thread about the de-lamination of Rodenstock lenses and Bob Salomon - HP Marketing hasn't bothered to reply. He'd rather turn a deaf ear to these problems, although to be fair they pre-date his involvement with Rodenstock.

He did ask me for specific details which I've put in this thread (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=38301).

Ian

[Bob Salomon]

Schneiders suffer Schneideritis which is no big deal as it doesn't affect image quality. All my Schneider lenses are as good as the day they were made :D

It's interesting that I started a separate thread about the de-lamination of Rodenstock lenses and Bob Salomon - HP Marketing hasn't bothered to reply. He'd rather turn a deaf ear to these problems, although to be fair they pre-date his involvement with Rodenstock.

He did ask me for specific details which I've put in this thread (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=38301).

Ian

No deaf ear. I answered several times.

Rodenstock or your local distributor is not going to be able to repair those lenses on lenses that old.