Are "cherry-picked" Linhof lenses a myth?

[Paul Ewins]

I've read quite a few times the assertion that lenses labelled "Linhof" or "Sinar" were better than the regular versions, since they had been specially selected by the respective companies and represented the cream of the crop. I recently bought the Schneider production list books that Hartmut Thiele has put together and the data in them tells a different story.

The first thing to note is that lenses weren't being produced in a steady stream like cars, they were assembled in batches with weeks and sometimes months between batches of the same lens. The records show who the lenses were sold to; so a Technika-Symmar is shown separately to a Sinar-Symmar and a regular Symmar even though they were all made on the same day. Sometimes the regular Symmars outnumber the Technika-Symmars, sometimes they don't. And sometimes the entire batch is sold to Linhof (or Sinar) with nothing being produced for sale by Schneider. Even in the mixed batches it might be 50 for Schneider, 25 for Sinar and 25 for Linhof - nice round numbers. I think that the proposition that Linhof (or Sinar) took the best lenses and the ones sold by Schneider were not quite up to that standard is completely incorrect.

Two possibilities spring to mind. One is that Linhof set a standard which all Schneider lenses met, regardless of how they were badged. The other is that Linhof simply decided that Schneider knew what they were doing and just took what they were given. The first scenario would allow the company to state that all Linhof lenses were selected to met their own exacting standards. It might imply that lenses without the Linhof branding don't meet that criteria but it certainly wouldn't say that. It would however give the buyer a reason to pay more for the Linhof version. Basically it would be a marketing ploy.

To be honest, the idea that the QC at Schneider (or Rodenstock) would vary enough that there would be significant numbers of "better" or "worse" lenses seems far-fetched. I'm not saying the odd mistake wouldn't happen, but I seriously doubt that one of the premier lens manufacturers of the sixties would be anything other than utterly exacting with their top of the range lenses.

[Frank Petronio]

Bob S. has described a light projection machine that is used to evaluate each lens, and qualitative differences are measurable. Im sure there must have been some sort of minimum standard and hopefully, the companies lived up to their promise to their Linhof and Sinar clients.

There are differences between lenses, all you have to do is try two of the same model lens on a DSLR and you can readily see differences. Large format lenses may be simpler designs than zooms but I bet subtle differences still exist. Large format film enlarged 3x is pretty forgiving compared to a digital file enlarged 20x so testing and getting "the best" is probably less critical than with smaller formats, which are more demanding of their lenses.

I'll pay a little more for a Sinar/Linhof and a little less for a Caltar, although I've never had a dog with any of them.

[IanG]

There were some quality issues at Schneider way back after WWII, some lenses like the Angulons were rather variable in quality.

This was a period when there were also issues with CZJ lenses for Rollei, and probably also Linhof. We now think of the East and West German Zeiss companies as being completely separate after WWII but there was inter trading, lens from Jena being sold by the West until some time in the early 1950's.

So this was the time that Lihnof began selecting & branding Schneider lenses, they worked much more closely with Zeiss (West). At some point Schneider's QC issues were solved and so how much testing etc went on may have varied over time.

Ian

[Gudmundur Ingolfsson]

28 years ago I bought a 165 mm Super Angulon from Sinar that was very bad quality.I costed something like four grand. The negatives had low resolution and were soft. I sent it to Sinar and Sinar sent it to Schneider and they said it was "within tolerance". I avoided Schneider after that.

[Brian Ellis]

It's not a myth in the sense that at the time of purchase of such a lens when new the buyer could be assured the he or she wasn't getting a dog of a lens. But the wisdom of paying a premium for such a lens 20, 30, 40 years after it left the factory is debatable since age and use would tend to negate the effect of some things Linhof checked and did. I used to know what those things were, I've now forgotten. But if you can dig up the message from Bob Salomon (sp?) mentioned by Frank you can see what Linhof did with these lenses.

[John Schneider]

Several years back I had the opportunity to test four 210 Angulons, with a USAF test chart and all that. The best two were a late 11,xxx,xxx model and a much older 5,5xx,xxx Linhof branded-sample. Those two were indistinguishable and significantly better than the other two, in the 6-7 million range as I recall. Of course that's a very small sample and maybe not statistically significant, but I was impressed by the older Linhof lens.

[Paul Ewins]

One of the main points here is that often *all* of one batch of lenses went to Linhof, there was no left-overs going to Schneider. So if they ordered 150 lenses, Schneider might have junked (or rebuilt) those that failed QC, but I seriously doubt that they made 1500 lenses just so that Linhof could get the best 10% (or 20% etc). Their processes would need to have been reliable enough that almost all of the lenses met the Linhof standard, whether they were badged as Linhof, Sinar, Caltar or plain Schneider.

The volumes going to Linhof were simply too great for Schneider to hold on to large volumes of rejects from Linhof for later use, they would need to get it right the first time. The Linhof QC would be there to prevent any dogs from getting through, but the idea that they were sorting through trays of lenses for the best of the best and rejecting the rest simply isn't supported by the records.

[Paul Ewins]

Frank, the Caltars show up for the first time right at the end of the book (4th December 1975) in one big batch. 100 x 65mm, 500 x 90mm, 200 x 135mm, 800 x 150mm, 600 x 210mm, 50 x 240mm, 100 x 300mm & 50 x 360mm. It appears to have taken most of the week as not much else got pushed out during that time, so these would not have been factory seconds. If they lowered the QC requirements then maybe a few more dogs would slip through, but generally they should be just as good as all of the others (as you have experienced).

[Sevo]

Two possibilities spring to mind. One is that Linhof set a standard which all Schneider lenses met, regardless of how they were badged. The other is that Linhof simply decided that Schneider knew what they were doing and just took what they were given.

Third scenario is that Linhof (and sinar with their DB barrels) bought their cells to have their in-house expert lens mounters mount and collimate them on shutter and board before shipping them to the customer, which sieves out any dogs that skipped the Schneider QC, and avoids the quality issues associated with lens mounting by some camera shop assistant...

[dave_whatever]

I always assumed that Linhof/Sinar were sent batches of lenses, and they checked them and whatever was good enough they kept, hence they got whatever from their batches that was good enough, rather than the pick of the entire Schneider output. I wouldn't expect for a minute that they had some guy from Linhof strutting around the Schneider factory with a monacle and clipboard like some sort of teutonic man-from-delmonte picking all the best gear.

[Jack Dahlgren]

I always assumed that Linhof/Sinar were sent batches of lenses, and they checked them and whatever was good enough they kept, hence they got whatever from their batches that was good enough, rather than the pick of the entire Schneider output. I wouldn't expect for a minute that they had some guy from Linhof strutting around the Schneider factory with a monacle and clipboard like some sort of teutonic man-from-delmonte picking all the best gear.

So what do you suppose they did with the linhof labeled lenses that didn't meet their standards but which met Schneider's standards? They could have thrown them away perhaps, but it would seem unlikely.

[Bob Salomon]

So what do you suppose they did with the linhof labeled lenses that didn't meet their standards but which met Schneider's standards? They could have thrown them away perhaps, but it would seem unlikely.

They return them to the factory that supplied them with a report as to why they are being returned. Many are returned simply because of dirt/dust/marks inside the lens cells that require dis-assembling rather then a simple blast of air.

[Bob Salomon]

Third scenario is that Linhof (and sinar with their DB barrels) bought their cells to have their in-house expert lens mounters mount and collimate them on shutter and board before shipping them to the customer, which sieves out any dogs that skipped the Schneider QC, and avoids the quality issues associated with lens mounting by some camera shop assistant...

Partially correct for Linhof. They select lenses that perforn, particularly well for view cameras over the required coverage. They used to also select and tune lenses for use on their aerial cameras. They select lenses and reserve them for special format cameras like the Technorama 617S III and the 612 series cameras. The lenses that do particularly well over the area a Technorama requires may have issues outside the picture area that would fail the lens for a 45 to 810 view camera but those atreas can not be used with the 617 or 612 cameras.

[Paul Ewins]

They return them to the factory that supplied them with a report as to why they are being returned. Many are returned simply because of dirt/dust/marks inside the lens cells that require dis-assembling rather then a simple blast of air.

I wonder how much disassembly, correction and reassembly of cells would add to the overall cost of a lens. That might give a clearer picture of what percentage of the non Linhof output would meet the Linhof standards. i.e. if 100% of Linhof marked lenses meet the Linhof standard, would 90% or 95% of the other lenses also meet this standard? Or do (or did) Linhof mount the cells into shutters in-house, in which case there is another QC variable.

[Bob Salomon]

I wonder how much disassembly, correction and reassembly of cells would add to the overall cost of a lens. That might give a clearer picture of what percentage of the non Linhof output would meet the Linhof standards. i.e. if 100% of Linhof marked lenses meet the Linhof standard, would 90% or 95% of the other lenses also meet this standard? Or do (or did) Linhof mount the cells into shutters in-house, in which case there is another QC variable.

Linhof receives the lenses in shutter. Cleans them if necessary and then tests them.

[Jack Dahlgren]

They return them to the factory that supplied them with a report as to why they are being returned. Many are returned simply because of dirt/dust/marks inside the lens cells that require dis-assembling rather then a simple blast of air.

Good to hear that the majority of returns are for cosmetic reasons!
I'm not that concerned with a bit of dust or a smudge, but I realize that some people are and are willing to pay to avoid them.

[Bob Salomon]

Good to hear that the majority of returns are for cosmetic reasons!
I'm not that concerned with a bit of dust or a smudge, but I realize that some people are and are willing to pay to avoid them.

Jack,

It is not exactly cosmetic. If there is some dust or a smudge on the back of the rear element or the front of the front element in either the front or rear group they are cleaned and then tested.
If the problem lies between the elements then the lens is rejected.

[Paul Ewins]

So, running back to my initial hypothesis, the idea that Linhof "cherry-picked" the best lenses is a myth, what they did is ensure that all lenses they sold met a minimum standard. Most of the Schneider branded lenses coming off the production lines would also meet this standard, but the ones with the small problems (internal dust etc.) might slip through the Schneider QC and be sold.

On the flip side, with no selection for the highest performing lenses (i.e. they weren't graded, just pass/fail) the best lenses are equally likely to be found amongst any of the brands. Which is to say that it is not that Linhof sold the best lenses, they just didn't sell any of the worst ones.

I don't know whether any of this is relevant 40 - 50 years later but the Linhof premium is is one of the bits of perceived lens wisdom and it is interesting to see how accurate that perception really is.

[Bob Salomon]

So, running back to my initial hypothesis, the idea that Linhof "cherry-picked" the best lenses is a myth, what they did is ensure that all lenses they sold met a minimum standard. Most of the Schneider branded lenses coming off the production lines would also meet this standard, but the ones with the small problems (internal dust etc.) might slip through the Schneider QC and be sold.

On the flip side, with no selection for the highest performing lenses (i.e. they weren't graded, just pass/fail) the best lenses are equally likely to be found amongst any of the brands. Which is to say that it is not that Linhof sold the best lenses, they just didn't sell any of the worst ones.

I don't know whether any of this is relevant 40 - 50 years later but the Linhof premium is is one of the bits of perceived lens wisdom and it is interesting to see how accurate that perception really is.

No, that is what you are reading in to my reply. Let's do it by the numbers.

1: Linhof, and Sinar, both purchased the Rodenstock Siemens Star lens test system.
2: Linhof purchases lenses from Schneider and rodenstock.
3: Linhof first examines lenses and rejects and returns any that have internal dust, dirt, marks, etc. that can not be removed or cleaned by simply unscrewing the front or rear group from the shutter.
4: The shutter is then tested for tolerances. Any that do not meet Linho'f standard are rejected and returned to the lens manufacturer.
5: Lenses that passed the above are then forwarded to the test projector room and tested at the limits of the format the lens is designed for. Lenses that fail this test are returned to the manufacturer.
6: Lenses that passed the above are then labeled with the Linhof logo or name and are sold by Linhof.

Over the 120+ years that Linhof has been in business there have been other types of tests performed by Linhof reflecting the state of the art at that time. So a lens that was tested in the 1950's went through different test procedures then a lens tested in the 2000's. But the lenses branded with the Linhof name do test higher then the typical lens without the Linhof name. But they also cost the user considerably more.

Whether or not that significant added cost is worth the added cost is up to the buyer. For most shooters the work that they do does not require the extra performance that the Linhof branded lenses will deliver. But when your living depends on that extra bit of performance, across the coverage of the lens, that extra cost becomes very small. Especially if that extra performance is the difference in getting the job or not.

[Paul Ewins]

Actually Bob that is how I understood it, it it just that without knowing the actual numbers that Linhof rejected it is hard to state things clearly. The point is that the Schneider QC would have to be good enough that most lenses (65%, 80%, 95%??) would pass the Linhof QC. Call it 80% for want of a real number. If 80% of the lenses supplied to Linhof pass the tests first go, then 80% of the Schneider branded lenses sold should also pass that test (and obviously 20% are below Linhof quality).
If the reject rate is too high then Schneider are losing money fixing them or junking them and that is probably costing Linhof extra too as they retest returned lenses.

I can understand the point of charging extra for a Linhof lens as that gives a guarantee that the lens you buy will perform at a certain standard. The cherry-picking myth is that Linhof chose the best lenses, leaving the lesser ones to be sold by Schneider when in fact a reasonably large proportion would have been just as good as the Linhof branded ones. It also means that the very best lenses (those well past the Linhof standard) are just as likely to occur in a batch of lenses sold to Linhof as a batch sold by Schneider.

Putting it into (probably exaggerated) numbers:
A batch of 100 lenses sold to Linhof might (after rework) contain 80 excellent lenses and 10 super-excellent lenses and maybe 10 were junked.
A batch of 100 lenses sold by Schneider might have 20 average lenses, 70 excellent ones and 10 super-excellent lenses.

[Darin Boville]

It sounds like Bob is trying to say--please correct me if I'm wrong--is that the Linhof lenses are 100% tested whereas the regular process by the manufacturer may spot tested. That is to say, the standards aren't higher per se but that each lens is checked to see if it meets those standards. I believe Zeiss does this, too, for many of their lens lines (I know that my ZFs came with little signed cards).

If that is the case it would certainly be worth extra $$$ if you are skilled enough where the last bit of sharpness etc from your lens will be noticed.

--Darin

[Jack Dahlgren]

It sounds like Bob is trying to say--please correct me if I'm wrong--is that the Linhof lenses are 100% tested whereas the regular process by the manufacturer may spot tested. That is to say, the standards aren't higher per se but that each lens is checked to see if it meets those standards. I believe Zeiss does this, too, for many of their lens lines (I know that my ZFs came with little signed cards).

If that is the case it would certainly be worth extra $$$ if you are skilled enough where the last bit of sharpness etc from your lens will be noticed.

--Darin

The myth here is that Linhof took the best lenses out of the batch - implying that ALL the Linhof lenses are better than the others. Whereas the reality is that the best of the lenses are the same, but that a screening process is in place to remove the worst of them. These two things are similar but not the same.

Without knowing the magnitude of the amount of rejects and reworked lenses it is impossible to say whether this has a material effect on the lens quality. As Bob has pointed out, many of the rejects are for things like dust which is more of a cosmetic issue (in my opinion). So we can guess that maybe a few percent had more serious issues. Bob also mentioned shutters. Is avoiding that percentage worth the additional premium? Especially after 40 or 50 years of use? An initial screening of shutter accuracy means very little after that long. The advantage is likely gone after the shutter needs its first cleaning. Likewise with lens cleanliness.

The advantage of the Linhof selected lens is highest when new, but down the road I think a premium assigned to a lens based on it is not justifiable from a performance point of view. But from a resale point of view, it may be reasonable.

[Frank Petronio]

Well, (excluding dinged up or separated elements, obvious damage, etc.) I've never had a bad Linhof or Sinar lens. Nor have I heard of anyone ever getting a dog. When buying a used, older lens, that is reassuring.

[BrianShaw]

Well, (excluding dinged up or separated elements, obvious damage, etc.) I've never had a bad Linhof or Sinar lens. Nor have I heard of anyone ever getting a dog. When buying a used, older lens, that is reassuring.

Funny you should say something like that as I've read this thread. I've been thinking the same about run-of-the-mill Schneider lenses. I've never had a symmar-s mc that was a dog... even with just the plain-ole Schneider name on it.

(Even when 'Schneideritis' is present. Maybe I'm just not discrimiating enough!)

[Jack Dahlgren]

Funny you should say something like that as I've read this thread. I've been thinking the same about run-of-the-mill Schneider lenses. I've never had a symmar-s mc that was a dog... even with just the plain-ole Schneider name on it.

(Even when 'Schneideritis' is present. Maybe I'm just not discrimiating enough!)

I think this is the point. It isn't that Linhof aren't good (they certainly are) it is just that the others can be and often are just as good.

[Oren Grad]

I've never had a bad Linhof or Sinar lens. Nor have I heard of anyone ever getting a dog. When buying a used, older lens, that is reassuring.

I had a '50s-vintage Linhof-select 90 Angulon that was a dog. I can't conclude anything from that, though, because there's no telling what happened to it in the years between when it was made and when I bought it.

[Oren Grad]

5: Lenses that passed the above are then forwarded to the test projector room and tested at the limits of the format the lens is designed for.

How much movement does this allow for?

Example: Rodenstock described the Apo-Sironar-W series as follows:

>> The Apo-Sironar-W with its large field angle of 80 degrees offers such a large image circle diameter that the lens can serve as a medium wide-angle unit for the next larger format and still permit reasonable shifts. <<

The 210 W was specified as being recommended for 5x7, but also has a specified image circle of 352mm, which is more than enough for 8x10. What image circle would Linhof have tested?

[Jack Dahlgren]

I had a '50s-vintage Linhof-select 90 Angulon that was a dog. I can't conclude anything from that, though, because there's no telling what happened to it in the years between when it was made and when I bought it.

Sure you can. Plato taught us how:

angulons are dogs
linhofs are angulons
linhofs are dogs

:-)

[Oren Grad]

Sure you can. Plato taught us how:

angulons are dogs
linhofs are angulons
linhofs are dogs

:-)

And Socrates is mortal! :)

[BrianShaw]

But Linhof angulons were the best-of-breed, so they were still the best of a bad design.

[Jack Dahlgren]

But Linhof angulons were the best-of-breed, so they were still the best of a bad design.

I was joking about the dog part. Angulons can be a good choice for a number of situations.

[rknewcomb]

Since I like dogs much better then cats, can we call bad lenses cats please? I wonder where that expression came from anyway!

[BrianShaw]

OK, Jack. I maybe overstated the situation by calling it a bad design. Good clarification!

[Oren Grad]

I don't doubt that a well-made 90 Angulon was a good lens for its time and can still be very usable. I just happen to have gotten a bad one.

[Ole Tjugen]

I had a '50s-vintage Linhof-select 90 Angulon that was a dog. I can't conclude anything from that, though, because there's no telling what happened to it in the years between when it was made and when I bought it.

Any 50's (or older) Angulon which has been stored on edge in warm climates is suspect - they have a sad tendency to "slip" as the balsam softens in heat, causing decentering. All my Angulons have been wonderful and super sharp; even the uncoated 1936 210mm I use on 8x10". Angulons should be kept flat ion the face when not in use.

[Brian Stein]

Any 50's (or older) Angulon which has been stored on edge in warm climates is suspect - they have a sad tendency to "slip" as the balsam softens in heat, causing decentering.
Ole thats interesting. As a "warm climate" living individual I had previously thought that a melting point of 150C for Canada Balsam would be sufficient to protect me from realistic temperatures [usual use, but not leaving it in the car at 50-60C], but it seems not.

[Lynn Jones]

Yes guys, it is a myth. I was in a discussion with the "export manager" of Schneider some years ago when the subject came up (we were the largest buyer of LF Schneider lenses in the world at the time). With regard to pre-selected lenses, he said, "Sure, when customer "L or S " orders 25 lenses to be pre-selected, we "pre-select" the first 25 off the line and ship them". After a good laugh, his view was that we make every effort to produce fine quality optics, if we knew that some were not very good, they wouldn't be offered for sale. Our customers are free to reject any optic that they have a problem with and we will replace it.

Lynn

[Bob Salomon]

Lynn,

It is a shame that you were misled. But I have stood in the factory and watched the lenses being tested, approved and rejected at Linhof and the lenses are very much tested and approved by Linhof. In fact, more Schneider lenses, by percentage, failed the day that I was there then Rodenstocks. And most were rejected for dirt, smudges, etc. in the lens where the lens had to be fully taken apart to clean it.

Also, bear in mind, the Schneider company that you bought from was liquidated and a new company was formed in Bad Kreuznach 20 plus years ago by Heinrich Mandermann who also consolidted Rollei (as it existed back then) and B+W (that he purchased from the trustees back then). That liquidation was when Isco was spun off as well.

[Armin Seeholzer]

I have somewhere in a very old brochure of Linhof a picture from the testing room from Linhof, so its not a myth!

Cheers Armin

[Vaughn]

I think we all are talking about the same thing -- sounds like the lenses were not selected at the Schneider plant, but inspected at the Linhof plant. Six of one thing, a half dozen of something else.

[IanG]

It's highly unlikely Schneider would have told a competitor to Linhof how Linhof, Sinar, Durst etc tested & selected their lenses.

As Vaughn says it's six of one half a dozen of the other. So the half truth told to Lynn is not wrong it just omits the fact that lenses were checked & tested and some returned.

Ian

[Brian Ellis]

Yes guys, it is a myth. I was in a discussion with the "export manager" of Schneider some years ago when the subject came up (we were the largest buyer of LF Schneider lenses in the world at the time). With regard to pre-selected lenses, he said, "Sure, when customer "L or S " orders 25 lenses to be pre-selected, we "pre-select" the first 25 off the line and ship them". After a good laugh, his view was that we make every effort to produce fine quality optics, if we knew that some were not very good, they wouldn't be offered for sale. Our customers are free to reject any optic that they have a problem with and we will replace it.

Lynn

That's about the fifth time I've heard that joke. And it is a joke.

[CarstenW]

28 years ago I bought a 165 mm Super Angulon from Sinar that was very bad quality.I costed something like four grand. The negatives had low resolution and were soft. I sent it to Sinar and Sinar sent it to Schneider and they said it was "within tolerance". I avoided Schneider after that.

Once I was walking down the street, and suddenly the air was kinda foul. Since then I have tried not to breathe too much.

[Greg Miller]

Some people are suggesting that all Linhof lenses should be better than all Schneider lenses. To do this, someone would have to test ALL Schneider lenses, and give ONLY the best of the best ONLY to Linhof. That doesn't seem like a very realistic thing to do from a manufacturing and logistical perspective, and I doubt many could afford a Linhof lens if this were the case. Having a minimum standard for Linhof seems much more reasonable to me; "minimum standard" does not imply "low standard".

[Jack Dahlgren]

Some people are suggesting that all Linhof lenses should be better than all Schneider lenses. To do this, someone would have to test ALL Schneider lenses, and give ONLY the best of the best ONLY to Linhof. That doesn't seem like a very realistic thing to do from a manufacturing and logistical perspective, and I doubt many could afford a Linhof lens if this were the case. Having a minimum standard for Linhof seems much more reasonable to me; "minimum standard" does not imply "low standard".

Exactly. Many of the Schneider lenses met the Linhof requirements. Bob has said that some needed additional cleaning and a smaller number may have needed disassembly and were sent back. So the odds are pretty good that that the Schneider lenses that weren't set to Linhof had the same quality. Thus the best lenses from Schneider are as good as the best from Linhof, but the worst lenses from Schneider may be worse than Linhof.

If Linhof was sending back a substantial number of lenses, then they probably would have gone to a different manufacturer or Schneider might have eventually said "enough is enough" so since the relationship continued for many years, it was likely good for both sides.

Rather than "cherry picking" I think it is more like lemon picking, where Linhof got rid of the lemons, rather than only selecting the best.

[Sevo]

Thus the best lenses from Schneider are as good as the best from Linhof, but the worst lenses from Schneider may be worse than Linhof.

... assuming that Schneider did the same testing for direct distribution as for Linhof.
I consider it unlikely that Schneider did a final QC for the Linhof lenses, given that they were cooperating partners and the labour cost at Linhof and Schneider (both in Bavaria) will be (and have been) quite similar. A pre-check to similar standards would be poor economy for both sides, and if either had any level of administration outside their engineering departments, they will doubtlessly have negotiated a staging that avoided duplicating labour and associated cost.

[Bob Salomon]

... assuming that Schneider did the same testing for direct distribution as for Linhof.
I consider it unlikely that Schneider did a final QC for the Linhof lenses, given that they were cooperating partners and the labour cost at Linhof and Schneider (both in Bavaria) will be (and have been) quite similar. A pre-check to similar standards would be poor economy for both sides, and if either had any level of administration outside their engineering departments, they will doubtlessly have negotiated a staging that avoided duplicating labour and associated cost.

It should be pointed out that Linhof sells both Linhof tested Rodenstock and Schneider lenses and the test equipmant used is designed and made by Rodenstock (a Bavarian company also). When they were still made Linhof also tested the other lenses that they sold like T-Nikkor Tele lenses (the only Nikon made lenses that they sold) as well as the Lenses from Zeiss and others when they were being manufactured.

Essentially the test that Linhof performs basically duplicates the final QC test used by Rodenstock.

[Jack Dahlgren]

It should be pointed out that Linhof sells both Linhof tested Rodenstock and Schneider lenses and the test equipmant used is designed and made by Rodenstock (a Bavarian company also). When they were still made Linhof also tested the other lenses that they sold like T-Nikkor Tele lenses (the only Nikon made lenses that they sold) as well as the Lenses from Zeiss and others when they were being manufactured.

Essentially the test that Linhof performs basically duplicates the final QC test used by Rodenstock.

Thanks, that is useful information.

[Arne Croell]

It feels like we've been through this discussion a dozen times...
Anyway, I was at a Linhof Seminar in 1990 or 1991, and they showed us and demonstrated the setup for their acceptance testing. Apart from checking for dust etc., the main instrument was the Rodenstock-built Siemens star projector that Bob alludes to. They also had a few bad examples to demonstrate problems, like a decentered lens. From what they said, it was essentially the way Jack Dahlgren mentioned, weeding out the lemons. They did not give any statistics of the rejection rate although the question was asked. They did share an anecdote, that by accident one of the suppliers sent back a lens already rejected by Linhof and it had a handwritten sticker on it, "not for Linhof" (no information who it was and when it happened).

As an aside, Bad Kreuznach, where Schneider is located, is NOT in Bavaria, but in Rhineland-Palatinate (Rheinland-Pfalz). Labor cost would be similar to Bavaria though, that much is true.

[Lynn Jones]

Hi Bob,

What I said was true, of that particular company and several others. I understand that Linhof, and various other companies often test a certain percentage of the incoming optics, rarely all of them, but that is their perogative. In three of the companies with which I was involved, I tested hundreds of lenses coming in, most of which were within the specified performances. During that time in my life, I had grave questions regarding the quality of certain leaf shutters. If pre-selected means by the buyer/re-seller I agree completely with you, if by the optics manufacturer then their own quality control holds forth.

Lynn

[Bob Salomon]

Hi Bob,

What I said was true, of that particular company and several others. I understand that Linhof, and various other companies often test a certain percentage of the incoming optics, rarely all of them, but that is their perogative. In three of the companies with which I was involved, I tested hundreds of lenses coming in, most of which were within the specified performances. During that time in my life, I had grave questions regarding the quality of certain leaf shutters. If pre-selected means by the buyer/re-seller I agree completely with you, if by the optics manufacturer then their own quality control holds forth.

Lynn

Lynn,

Linhof does a 100% check on every lens that they sell. Schneider or Rodenstock.

Bob

[Lynn Jones]

I presume that you are correct, Bob, and I wouldn't disagree with you on that subject, you are very knowledgeable regarding your product line.

Regarding 100% evaluating, I know that for certain lenses, certain individual lenses or lens groups were all checked checked, but I'n not aware of any of the major companies that checked 100% of fully completed optics. However, in standard statistical evaluations, if a lens was found to be defective in any way, then all from the previous evaluation point would be checked 100%, but of course that is standard on many products.

Lynn