"hand- picked" lenses

[david o'connor]

I have seen used lenses for sale that are described as "hand-picked" by Linhof, or whomever, indicating that these lenses meet higher standards than off the she lf versions. Is this practice still in place anywhere? For instance, does Sinar test their rodenstocks, or just engrave the lens hood. I think I read of a lab t hat tested ten apo-sironar S lenses and found 2 that they felt were adequate for thier purposes. Thank you.

[Bob Salomon]

Yes Linhof still tests. They use a Rodenstock Siwmens star projector and they re peat Rodenstock's QC tests. If a lens passes it is marked on the front or the rear ring with the Linhof name.

[david o'connor]

Thank you, Bob. Any idea on Sinars practices?

[Bob Salomon]

They also bought the Rodenstock test projector

[david o'connor]

Well, Linhof sure is very proud of thier testing. A "linhof" 150mm N 5.6 Rodenstock is about $1500. more than an off the shelf 150mm N 5.6 (B+H) wow-wee.

[Bob Salomon]

How did you determine the difference in costs?

Currently we offer to dealers a Linhof tested 150mm Apo Sironar N with a cam cut for it mounted on a 001016 Linhof recessed lensboard and with infinity stops and focus scale.

We sell to B&H a Rodenstock 150mm Apo Sironar N with front and rear caps and no lens board, no cam, no coupling, no infinity stops and no focus scale.

[david o'connor]

On the B+H site, a rodenstock apo sironar N 240mm 5.6 copal 3 is $1349.00 The Linhof-tested rodenstock apo sironar N 240mm 5.6 copal 3 is $2926.00 a difference of $1577.00 The 150mm is double the cost for Linhof-tested vs straight Rodenstock. Cams and infinity stops and focus scales are wonderful, if you need them. Are these trinkets incorporated into the cost? If so, would thier value be deducted if you dont use a rangefinder and focus scale? If you're in the market for optics, surely they would have cams etc. as an accessories option.

[Bob Salomon]

They are if they are offering the special and if so their price is far out of li ne if your quote is accurate.

Any professional camera store would sell the Linhof 159 Apo N special for many h undreds less then your quote.

As pointed out many times before their web site is not the most accurate.

[Bob Salomon]

Sorry see you switched to the 240 for comparison from the 150.

The 240 is not on special. Only the 150

[Gudmundur Ingolfsson]

I once bought a 165 Schneider Super Angulon for my 8x10" from SINAR/Schaffhausen. It may have been "hand picked" at least it had the SINAR name engraved on the front cell. I sent it back to Sinar and they sent it to Schneider and they both agreed it was OK. What I did not know was that the 165 Super Angulon was born a lousy lens and no one dould change that and when I had had the lens for some 14 years wthout using it I sold it to somone that knew wat he was buying for about one fifth of what i had paid for it. I now know that Schneider has made a mense by making a 150 Super Symar XL that costs only a little more than what I got for my old unused havy and unsharp 165 SA. The new lens is small sharp and 5,6 and much cheeper and was hand picked by LINHOF which means I bought it from them and they engraved their name on it. But lenses are like wifes: you better try to live with for a while before you make a commitme

[Geoffrey_1456]

"But lenses are like wifes: you better try to live with for a while before you make a commitme " Does anyone see any USED "wifes" for sale lately? Not all Schneider 165 SAs are unsharp. But they are heavy! Cheers,

[william blake]

I have my own "hand picked" system. I buy what lenses I can when I can. I shoot with them, sometimes 100s of times, and then decide if I want to keep them. I currently have lenses from several manufacturers -- about 1/2 of them are older than I am -- including a Goerz, a Kodak Ektar and a Linhof Angulon.

I think I read of a lab that tested ten apo-sironar S lenses and found 2 that they felt were adequate for thier purposes.

Perhaps I will be accused of being a blind fool, but I can't imagine shooting with 10 near identical lenses and seeing much of a difference in my still life or landscape shots.

Honestly, if 2 Rodenstocks out of 10 delivers a slight advantage in edge sharpness when shooting at a given aperture, are you going to see it in the kind of pictures you want to take? (I'm not talking test charts). To me, I wouldn't waste the time or film doing all that testing -- I just don't need a level of performance that I don't think anyone will be able to see in one of my prints.