PDA

View Full Version : What is this giant yellow beast?



austin granger
1-Feb-2011, 21:00
I am absolutely positive that someone here will know what this is:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Zeiss-Super-Lamegon-PI-5-6-64-mm-5x7-Ultra-SWC-Camera-/350433654414?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item519779368e#ht_13342wt_1141

And no, I'm not planning on buying it-just curious.

Austin
www.austingranger.com

Frank Petronio
1-Feb-2011, 21:10
It's why the Soviets won the Cold War.... wait....

Jack Dahlgren
1-Feb-2011, 21:15
I am absolutely positive that someone here will know what this is:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Zeiss-Super-Lamegon-PI-5-6-64-mm-5x7-Ultra-SWC-Camera-/350433654414?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item519779368e#ht_13342wt_1141

And no, I'm not planning on buying it-just curious.

Austin
www.austingranger.com

Survey camera. I think there was a thread on these a few months ago. Those prices are high. You can probably pick up one for maybe half the price. Has less tilt and shift than a speed graphic but it won't be easily lost.

Arne Croell
2-Feb-2011, 00:03
GDR made aerial camera. The Superlamegon covers 120°.

I think I saw the same camera and lens some weeks ago on the German or another European ebay, offered from Hungary or the Czech Republic, and it went for something like 2000-3000 Euros.

Ramiro Elena
2-Feb-2011, 04:15
Super- Lame-gon is a terrible name for a lens.

georgl
2-Feb-2011, 04:37
It's a little bit overpriced, IMHO.... ;-)

Remember that this is a GDR-made camera with standards that have very little to do with "Made in (western) Germany" - it took Carl Zeiss hundreds of million of Dollars to make their Jena-located facilities usable after reunion. They were up to 40 years behind in technology and were operating with very little resources and their most skilled employees fled into West-Germany (e.g. workign for Zeiss Oberkochen) - Soviets took everything - even the rails for the steel!

Carl Zeiss Jena != Carl Zeiss!

Arne Croell
2-Feb-2011, 05:20
It's a little bit overpriced, IMHO.... ;-)

Remember that this is a GDR-made camera with standards that have very little to do with "Made in (western) Germany" - it took Carl Zeiss hundreds of million of Dollars to make their Jena-located facilities usable after reunion. They were up to 40 years behind in technology and were operating with very little resources and their most skilled employees fled into West-Germany (e.g. workign for Zeiss Oberkochen) - Soviets took everything - even the rails for the steel!

Carl Zeiss Jena != Carl Zeiss!
Well, what you said about the quality is not quite true for this camera/lens (the price is outrageous, yes). The Soviet reparations damaged CZJ considerably, but they did not take everything. Plus this lens was developed much later, in the 1960's or 1970's when they had rebuilt. They were capable of developing LF lenses that were equal to or even ahead of the western competition - I wrote an article in View Camera about a series of 4x5 lenses developed in the 1960s that were top notch, just never made it to widespread production due to a lack of shutters (which were not made by Zeiss Jena, but Pentacon.). This camera/lens unit with the Superlamegon was offered internationally in the aerial photography field and was a direct competitor of the Wild Aviogon lenses.

Robert Hughes
2-Feb-2011, 07:38
Super- Lame-gon is a terrible name for a lens.
Ramiroelena FTW! :D

austin granger
2-Feb-2011, 12:41
I knew you guys would know! You learn something new everyday. Thanks.

Now if only all my questions on life were so easily answered...

Austin

www.austingranger.com

Robert Hughes
2-Feb-2011, 13:00
Now if only all my questions on life were so easily answered...
It's what happens while you're making other plans, of course...

rdenney
2-Feb-2011, 13:26
Interestingly, there is no production card for this lens. The nearest production card referenced a lens with serial number ...565 that was a 90mm f/5.6 Super Lamegon PI. That one was definitely built for aerial use ("Luftbild") and shows no date for when the lens was calculated. There is no date of production listed, but the next most recent dates are in 1972. The production records only show two S-Lamegon PI lenses, both 90/5.6, and both built as a single unit. Assuming an error in the production card notation, this is probably part of a very small batch, possibly for military aerial surveys.

Lamegons (without the "Super") were built in two focal lengths: 115mm f/4 and 100mm f/8 (the most common, with about 300 units shown). An un-noted number of Lamegon PI lenses were made in 150mm f/4.5. All were in the same general serial-number range, and this range may be been set aside for these lenses. The next major serial number group larger than these numbers starts at 8,000,000, and those are back to consumer camera lenses.

My experience with Jena lenses from the Communist era suggest classic designs (which could also be stated: Pre-war), with modern coatings and multicoatings and beefy, well-made barrels. Automatic apertures were a weak point. Despite centrally controlled production that had nothing to do with market demand, they seemed to maintain a high production quality. That may have been a cultural tradition more than anything. In the Second World, the East German stuff was generally the best quality available for any given manufactured item. They were prepared to make mechanical design advances, but their electronics were goofy at best. When electronics became important in cameras, the previously decent Pentacon cameras and CZJ lenses became more and more obsolete.

Rick "thinking the Jena 180/2.8 Sonnar one of the great medium-format portrait lenses" Denney

Arne Croell
2-Feb-2011, 14:07
Lamegons (without the "Super") were built in two focal lengths: 115mm f/4 and 100mm f/8 (the most common, with about 300 units shown). An un-noted number of Lamegon PI lenses were made in 150mm f/4.5. All were in the same general serial-number range, and this range may be been set aside for these lenses. The next major serial number group larger than these numbers starts at 8,000,000, and those are back to consumer camera lenses.

My experience with Jena lenses from the Communist era suggest classic designs (which could also be stated: Pre-war), with modern coatings and multicoatings and beefy, well-made barrels. Automatic apertures were a weak point. Despite centrally controlled production that had nothing to do with market demand, they seemed to maintain a high production quality. That may have been a cultural tradition more than anything. In the Second World, the East German stuff was generally the best quality available for any given manufactured item. They were prepared to make mechanical design advances, but their electronics were goofy at best. When electronics became important in cameras, the previously decent Pentacon cameras and CZJ lenses became more and more obsolete.

Rick "thinking the Jena 180/2.8 Sonnar one of the great medium-format portrait lenses" Denney
Rick, there were at least three Lamegon aerial lenses, since there was also 5.6/55mm Lamegon (I have one). Thiele's lists are not complete with respect to the specialty lenses.

In addition, there were the 4.5/65mm and 90mm Lamegon lenses developed for the Meopta "Grandina" camera, which, with a few exceptions, never made it to market, but prototypes exist and have been used.

CZJ actually had quite a few new designs after WW II. The Lamegons and related aerial lenses (Lametar, Lamegot, Lamegoron, Pinatar), as well as the Apo-Germinar and Apo-Germinar W process lenses were new (the latter never had a Western equivalent); for the regular lenses, the Biometar and Flektogon were new developments. At least the Biometar, Flektogon, and Apo-Germinars were the brainchild of Harry Zöllner, who started out as an optical designer at Voigtländer, but became head of lens design at CZJ later.

Arne

austin granger
2-Feb-2011, 14:26
It's what happens while you're making other plans, of course...

Yes, at 40, this is finally starting to sink in.

Dan Fromm
2-Feb-2011, 14:30
Rick, my late friend Charlie Barringer had a small heap (>= 3) SMK 120s, each with a pair of 55/5.6 Lamegons. You can find a picture of one here: http://blogger.xs4all.nl/hkeijser/archive/2006/05/28.aspx I introduced him to Norm and Hester, through whom he bought the SMK shown.

I suspect you're quoting Arne's article in View Camera. I have seen it, so can't be sure. He knows more than I do, still less than everything.

This link http://books.google.com/books?id=FSMn1T1B-LEC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=%22super+lamegon%22&source=bl&ots=SE7cuGKiZC&sig=DO_K3frVyRglkhslIMjLrp9YbO8&hl=en&ei=4slJTcCUAoKClAfFmbAc&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22super%20lamegon%22&f=false has cross sections of a Super Lamegon, a Lamegon, and two Lametars. I'm sorry, the Lametars are respectively plasmat and tessar types but the Super Lamegon and Lamegon show, respectively, a little Aviogon and Super Angulon influence. Both have to be post-war designs.

Arne, you posted while I was writing.

rdenney
2-Feb-2011, 14:54
I suspect you're quoting Arne's article in View Camera.

No, actually Arne knew my source: Helmut Thiele's compilation of the Zeiss Jena productions cards. And, yes, he is right that the list is not complete--some lenses were made without the productions cards, and some production cards were lost. That is obviously the case, since the lens in question did not exist at all in Thiele's registry. And I know of other errors--there is a whole series of late 180/2.8 Sonnars in Pentacon Six mount that are shown as M42 in his catalog. But it is still quite a source for a lot of information. I was reporting what data points there were, and guessing the rest (hopefully it's obvious where my guessing started), but, as usual, the depth of knowledge here goes deep.

Arne, yes, there were many optical designs that Jena introduced. But they seem awfully similar to those put out by other makers. The Biometar is an example--it is almost identical to a Xenotar, both being five-element planar-style double-gauss designs. The lens diagram for the Biometar and the Xenotar that I've seen in various sources seem identical to me. Likewise the Flektogon, which was very similar to other reversed-telephoto designs of the early 50's. They did update their designs at various times, but I gather that they did so using traditional design approaches, just at the time when other lens designers were making big strides with computer-aided designs.

The Ukrainian lenses are also borrowed from pre-ware Zeiss designs (and tooling), of course. But their later designs are a little more original, reflecting the Russian optical design tradition. The Volna, for example, was a six-element double-gauss design that is not exactly like some western equivalent. The fisheye design seems to have been calculated from scratch in the Soviet Union. They updated most of their designs in the 70's, and they did use some computer-aided design, from the 10th-hand hearsay I've heard.

Of course, the use of those pre-war designs is one thing we might like about them. The residual spherical aberration in the pre-war Sonnar design is what makes the Jena Sonnars exemplify smooth bokeh. They have to be stopped down to become really sharp. This "flaw" was corrected by the western companies, and eventually the Japanese changed most of their Sonnar-like designs to double-gauss designs (the Nikkor 105 is an example, as is the Pentax 6x7 200, if I'm remembering that correctly).

Rick "making notes in his copy of Thiele" Denney

Arne Croell
2-Feb-2011, 15:00
This link http://books.google.com/books?id=FSMn1T1B-LEC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=%22super+lamegon%22&source=bl&ots=SE7cuGKiZC&sig=DO_K3frVyRglkhslIMjLrp9YbO8&hl=en&ei=4slJTcCUAoKClAfFmbAc&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22super%20lamegon%22&f=false has cross sections of a Super Lamegon, a Lamegon, and two Lametars. I'm sorry, the Lametars are respectively plasmat and tessar types but the Super Lamegon and Lamegon show, respectively, a little Aviogon and Super Angulon influence. Both have to be post-war designs.

Arne, you posted while I was writing.

Cross sections of the Lamegoron and Lamegot can be found in Sidney F. Ray's Applied Photographic Optics on p. 398 (3rd ed.). That page is unfortunately not visible on Google books. Both are 10 lens element contructions, the former (72°) with negative outer menisci, the latter (53°) with positive ones.

The 65 and 90mm Lamegons for the Meopta Grandina 4x5 camera are very similar to the f/5.6 Super-Angulons; however, they were developed a few years before the f/5.6 SA's came out!

rdenney
2-Feb-2011, 15:15
This link http://books.google.com/books?id=FSMn1T1B-LEC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=%22super+lamegon%22&source=bl&ots=SE7cuGKiZC&sig=DO_K3frVyRglkhslIMjLrp9YbO8&hl=en&ei=4slJTcCUAoKClAfFmbAc&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22super%20lamegon%22&f=false has cross sections of a Super Lamegon

What a cool source!

Yes, that pictures the ebay camera directly. I'm surprised to see it on a tripod--photogrammetry is usually done aerially. My surveying text from college mentions terrestrial photogrammetry in one sentence, and then spends the next hundred pages or so talking about aerial photogrammetry. Perhaps this camera could be configured for both. (That text, by the way, shows the cross-section of an Aviogon, 20 years after it was developed by Bertele in 1946).

And doubly cool is the designation of the camera as a "UMK", which is how one of the two S-Lamegons that Thiele does catalog is referenced. The other one is referenced "Luftbild" in the same field.

Yes, that cross-section is the Super-Angulon-style design of what Kingslake called the double-ended reversed telephoto type. Definitely post-war, but only a bit. Despite the dismantling of the Contax camera line by the Soviets, there was much in the Jena factory that continued on the sheer momentum of prior activity. The Wall wasn't built until 1961, and I think many of the lead scientists at the Jena works and at the Zeiss Foundation were still active during the 50's when most of these new designs emerged. Arne probably knows much more.

Rick "fascinated by this stuff" Denney

Arne Croell
2-Feb-2011, 15:19
Arne, yes, there were many optical designs that Jena introduced. But they seem awfully similar to those put out by other makers. The Biometar is an example--it is almost identical to a Xenotar, both being five-element planar-style double-gauss designs. The lens diagram for the Biometar and the Xenotar that I've seen in various sources seem identical to me. Likewise the Flektogon, which was very similar to other reversed-telephoto designs of the early 50's. They did update their designs at various times, but I gather that they did so using traditional design approaches, just at the time when other lens designers were making big strides with computer-aided designs.

Rick "making notes in his copy of Thiele" Denney
Rick, no question many were similar to Western designs; its more of a question who was first. And Zeiss Jena and Oberkochen kept contacts even in the cold war time (there is an interesting book in German detailing the post war history of Zeiss, by Armin Herrmann: Und trotzdem Brüder, "Brothers nevertheless"). For the Retrofocus construction, I guess Angenieux started with that, but the Flektogon might have preceded the similar Distagon. I think the Xenotar, Oberkochen Planar, and Biometar 5-element designs were all very close together timewise. If I would have to pick unique designs by CZJ, it would be the Apo-Germinar W ( an 8 element wide angle process lens), nobody else made anything that looked like it. All other WA process lenses were either 4/4 double Gauss designs, Dagors, or Plasmats. Also, those f/4.5 Lamegons 65mm and 90mm that I mentioned were ahead of anything else at the time (1962) - nobody else had f/4.5 and 105° in one lens. Zeiss Oberkochen had the Biogon f/4.5, but it was only 90°, and the Super-Angulons were f/8 and 100°. About ten years later, Rodenstocks Grandagon brought a similar combination to the market.
Btw, I know from some reading in the Zeiss archives in Jena that they had computers; Eastern ones that were about a generation or two back, but also Western units that came in through (probably) illegal channels.

Dan Fromm
2-Feb-2011, 16:11
Arne, Taylor Hobson made retrofocus lenses for three strip Technicolor cameras in the 1930s. The original Technicolor process shot color separations in camera, required a lot of space between the lens mount and film planes. Hence the need for inverted telephoto lenses, which TTH filled. Yes, Retrofocus is an Angenieux trade name but TTH took the idea to market first.

The VM, not always the best source, says, a propos of CG Wynne's Unilite, another 5/4 Double Gauss "[The idea of the simplified Gauss was not totally new as prewar Zeiss had patented but were forbidden to publish the design of the Biometar, and lost priority as a result; and Leitz did patent a simplified version of a lens like a 'Summitar' with a single glass component, though this is a fairly obscure patent]." The Biometar design never left Jena.

Re computers, one of Wynne's many important contributions to optical design was the method of damped least squares. It was used by lens optimization programs from the late '50s on. On computers more primitive that those used in the East Bloc just a few years later.

Rick, there are a fair number of -MKs for terrestrial photogrammetry. Both Zeiss firms and Wild made them. They're used in archaeology, urban planning, study of car crashes (that's the SMK-120), recording crime scenes, ... Helmut Singer has had a Wild 265 on offer for a couple of years now, I keep deciding that I don't need one at his price.

Stereo cameras didn't fly. A stereo camera , even one with the lenses 120 cm apart, doesn't have enough separation between the lenses (there were a couple of UK-made two lens aerial cameras, the two shutters fired alternately) to shoot stereo from high altitude. When aerial stereo images are needed aircraft movement provides the separation needed.

georgl
3-Feb-2011, 04:23
I've seen several production sites shortly after reunion in GDR - sometimes it was just crowded and inefficient but mostly it was pathetic.
I highly doubt that Zeiss Jena could have competed on any level with Oberkochen - I've handled several CZJ-lenses as well as cameras (Praktica, Pentacon or Ukrainian Kiev) and they were miles apart.

Just take a look at the poorly centered screws on the "giant yellow beast" ...

The didn't had access to advanced computers, glass (Schott is owned by Zeiss and located in West-Germany) or the basic mechanical engineering necessary to machine high-quality, precise elements and barrels - East-German lathes or machining centers are hideous compared to those made in West-Germany, "robust" pre-war standard at best! Just worked on one of these GDR-machines, what a mess...

Don't forget that life-quality was vastly different and Oberkochen operated for over 10 years besides Jena while the borders were at least partly open - the most skilled and educated employees have left Jena long before the Berlin wall.

Zeiss Oberkochen made aspherical cine-lenses with T1.3 in the early 70s! "Classic" designs like the 1954-Biogon 38mm are not a good example of the skill and know-how in design and production of Oberkochen.
This East vs. West discussion created lots of "urban myths" like the Trabant (the GDR-made car) was competitive when it was new - because they compared it to a western car that was designed in the 1930s - the "Käfer" or Beetle. In truth, the West-German automotive industry was already lightyears ahead (up to the Mercedes 600 which was introduced in the same year).

Some optic-sellers use these myths to import/ market Russian-lenses ("they had the best mathematicians!") till today (e.g. anamorphics of hideous quality) - I would be very careful.

Dan Fromm
3-Feb-2011, 04:40
georgl, Lamegons and Super Lamegons have passed USCGS certification. There's no doubt that they're as good as comparable lenses from Zeiss (BRD) and Wild.

Russian mapping lenses are something else again. See http://web2.ges.gla.ac.uk/~gpetrie/Petrie_Kalao_Testing_Russar_SWA_Photography_fulltext.pdf

Ash
3-Feb-2011, 04:45
CZJ actually had quite a few new designs after WW II. The Lamegons and related aerial lenses (Lametar, Lamegot, Lamegoron, Pinatar), as well as the Apo-Germinar and Apo-Germinar W

Do all the Piñatars have dents in them? :D

GPS
3-Feb-2011, 06:05
...

The didn't had access to advanced computers, glass (Schott is owned by Zeiss and located in West-Germany) or the basic mechanical engineering necessary to machine high-quality, precise elements and barrels - East-German lathes or machining centers are hideous compared to those made in West-Germany, "robust" pre-war standard at best! Just worked on one of these GDR-machines, what a mess...

...

Georgl, you're talking complete nonsense here. The "basic mechanical engineering" was there on the same level as in the West - at least that they didn't loose after the war.


georgl, Lamegons and Super Lamegons have passed USCGS certification. There's no doubt that they're as good as comparable lenses from Zeiss (BRD) and Wild.

Russian mapping lenses are something else again. See http://web2.ges.gla.ac.uk/~gpetrie/Petrie_Kalao_Testing_Russar_SWA_Photography_fulltext.pdf

Absolutely right. What could have been done without the digital revolution tools was kept on very comparable levels - if they wanted (for their political purposes) that is...

rdenney
3-Feb-2011, 07:45
I've seen several production sites shortly after reunion in GDR - sometimes it was just crowded and inefficient but mostly it was pathetic.
I highly doubt that Zeiss Jena could have competed on any level with Oberkochen - I've handled several CZJ-lenses as well as cameras (Praktica, Pentacon or Ukrainian Kiev) and they were miles apart.

The camera production at Pentagon and Arsenal and the lens production at CZJ cannot be compared. The Pentagon works in Dresden were largely destroyed in the war and rebuilt from what was left of the Ihagee works. Arsenal in Kiev was created from scratch using machines (but not expertise) pilfered from Zeiss in Jena.

Remember that Jena was the original Zeiss factory, and retained much of what was good about Zeiss from before the war. And the Zeiss Foundation was separate from both the Jena factory and the Oberkochen works.

For example, Rollei used Jena lenses up through the early 50's, when the Zeiss Tessar (Jena) was every bit the equal, and perhaps better, than the Zeiss Opton Tessar (Oberkochen). Oberkochen pulled away, of course, but it certainly didn't happen instantly.

And you can't compare conditions in 1990 or 1991, when the Jena works were all but closed down, with that factory in the early 50's through the early 60's, when their technology was still fresh and current, and before centralized planning ruined their good sense. Their stuff was old-fashioned in many ways, but not in all ways. The Praktica was obsolete in 1990 but still quite current when it was first introduced. Likewise the Pentacon Six (and, sadely, it's replacement, the Exakta 66). These cameras share an obsolete design but they were still very well made.

Arsenal's production in the 50's was not that bad, but it steadily got worse over the decades and by the 1990's their cameras showed a range of production faults. But their engineering was newer and in many ways better than Pentacon--their cameras were designed to work even with lower production quality standards, in the same way an Ilex shutter was made like a cheap alarm clock but still works fine.

Also, consider prices. Zeiss Jena lenses were priced at a fraction of their Oberkochen counterparts in the couple of decades before unification. I paid under $300 for a NOS CZJ Sonnar 180/2.8 at a time when a similar lens (even used) for a Hasselblad F-series camera would have cost ten times that. Even their cheapie 135/3.5 Sonnar in M42 small format is an outstanding performer compared to most competition, and even cheap 135mm small-format lenses tend to be decent.

I have a lot of respect for what CZJ accomplished, mostly on the strength of their own leftover work ethic.

Rick "noting that for a long while, CZJ was a much larger operation than Oberkochen" Denney

NicolasArg
3-Feb-2011, 08:09
And speaking of west german quality, I had a chance to work with a very expensive Leica made theodolite and the mechanics were a complete piece of wobbling crap compared to a vintage (from the 70s) soviet made one. Nothing against leica, just to keep things leveled.

georgl
3-Feb-2011, 11:55
Remember that Jena was the original Zeiss factory, and retained much of what was good about Zeiss from before the war

That's the point, pre-war-standards. Zeiss Oberkochen (or basically the whole west-German industry) started to invest heavily in R&D from the 1950s on - within a few years, their technology was ahead.


Georgl, you're talking complete nonsense here. The "basic mechanical engineering" was there on the same level as in the West - at least that they didn't loose after the war.


Again, pre-war-standards. Crucial components for high-precision machining (e.g. Heidenhain) are located in west-Germany. Siemens (yes, also west-German) introduced the first CNC-control in 1960! Modern drive technologies (up to hydrostatic technology), tools (cemented carbide) and measurement technologies allowed machining of lenses or mechanical elements with much higher precision with more advanced materials.


Nothing against leica, just to keep things leveled.

The Leitz-family sold the company in the 1960s, since then more and more sub-standard products (or components) are offered from outsourced production-sources - I'm not a Geologist but Leica Microsystems for example buys cheap chinese Microscopes and sells them under the Leica-lable - I suspect the same behaviour from Leica Geosystems - bless shareholder value!
Therefore I cannot comment the USCGS-certification - I can only say how different standards between Jena and Oberkochen were already in the 1960s.

rdenney
3-Feb-2011, 12:43
The Leitz-family sold the company in the 1960s, since then more and more sub-standard products (or components) are offered from outsourced production-sources - I'm not a Geologist but Leica Microsystems for example buys cheap chinese Microscopes and sells them under the Leica-lable - I suspect the same behaviour from Leica Geosystems - bless shareholder value!
Therefore I cannot comment the USCGS-certification - I can only say how different standards between Jena and Oberkochen were already in the 1960s.

Leica Geosystems was bought by Wild-Heerbrug in the late 80's as I recall. Wild made very nice stuff in those days. They had also acquired Kern-Aarau, who also made good stuff. When Wild bought Leica, they bought all of it (including the camera business, which they later spun off). maybe 6 or 8 years ago, the remaining combined company was bought by Hexanon. Leica Geosystems has therefore been separate from the camera group since the mid-90's or so, but they were together up until that time.

Back in my surveying days, I never handled Leica or Zeiss theodolites, but I did handle Wild, Dietzgen, Topcon, and K&E theodolites, and Wild made the best of those from what I recall. But it has been 30-odd years.

As far as the use of Schott glass is concerned, there is nothing particularly magic about it. They were an early manufacturer of glass with specific properties, and Zeiss helped in their founding (in Jena). After the war, Schott (son of the founder) migrated to Mainz, but the Jena works continued producing glass for Soviet optics. And the Soviets certainly knew how to make optical systems. The Jena factory that was the original Schott is now part of Schott again. As part of VEB Carl Zeiss Jena, the old Schott works in Jena supplied all the glass for CZJ lenses.

You are right that the western companies soon outpaced the eastern companies in technological advancements. But that is not to say that the eastern companies did not also make high-quality stuff when motivated to do so, and technological advancements did not always produce increases in quality, at least in what people like us think of as quality.

And they could also be innovative. The East German company B&S (now a part of Voigtlandishe Musikinstrumenfabrik) in Kliengental completely transformed the design of the bass tuba in F for orchestral use with their Symphonie model introduced in the 70's. It was a significant improvement over Alexander of Mainz or Miraphone of Waldkraiburg, and still sets the standard for many performers. B&S tubas from the 70's were better made than current models, too. Western musicians often enough smuggled them into their own countries.

Rick "who would never buy Soviet-era electronics, however" Denney

Armin Seeholzer
3-Feb-2011, 13:03
Leica Geosystems was bought by Wild-Heerbrug in the late 80's as I recall. Wild made very nice stuff in those days. They had also acquired Kern-Aarau, who also made good stuff. When Wild bought Leica, they bought all of it (including the camera business, which they later spun off). maybe 6 or 8 years ago, the remaining combined company was bought by Hexanon. Leica Geosystems has therefore been separate from the camera group since the mid-90's or so, but they were together up until that time.

As a Swiss guy I have to say it was the other way round if I remember correctly and I'm quite sure on this Leica they bought Wild Heerbrugg and not long bevor Wild bought Kern, Wild was much smaller then Leica!

Cheers Armin

rdenney
3-Feb-2011, 14:00
As a Swiss guy I have to say it was the other way round if I remember correctly and I'm quite sure on this Leica they bought Wild Heerbrugg and not long bevor Wild bought Kern, Wild was much smaller then Leica!

Cheers Armin

You're right that Leitz came before Kern, but not that Leitz was the acquirer. Wild was the owning company in the merger, and though it was smaller in revenue was more profitable. They became the Wild Leitz Group, and the name of E. Leitz disappeared (along with the last family member on the board). That was in 1986. After the Kern acquisition, they merged with Cambridge Instrument and changed the name to Leica Holding, because of Leica's brand presence in the market. That was in 1990. The holding company created three independent subsidiaries, Leica Camera (Solms), Leica Microsystems (Wetzlar), and Leica Geosystems (Heerbrugg). Leica Camera AG split off and went public in 1996. Microsystems and Geosystems split in 1997. Geosystems was bought in 1998 by Investcorp and then went public in 2000. They were bought by Hexagon (a Swedish company) in 2005. Their products are more Wild than Leitz, even now, and certainly more Swiss than German. (With a bit of Kern thrown in to strengthen the Swiss influence.)

Rick "suspecting that each of these license the brand to third-party manufacturers at lower price points, same as Leica Camera did to Panasonic for my D-Lux 4" Denney

Arne Croell
3-Feb-2011, 14:04
Again, pre-war-standards. Crucial components for high-precision machining (e.g. Heidenhain) are located in west-Germany. Siemens (yes, also west-German) introduced the first CNC-control in 1960! Modern drive technologies (up to hydrostatic technology), tools (cemented carbide) and measurement technologies allowed machining of lenses or mechanical elements with much higher precision with more advanced materials.

Certainly, the majority of GDR manufacturing was well below Western standards, but their top producers like Zeiss got better equipment and more money than others - including West-German machines! This is one reason you really cannot compare Pentacon consumer quality (to stay within the LF category, their Prestor LF shutters were plain bad) with Zeiss specialty products like the aerial lenses. To give an example, here is a quote, translated from the German original, from the book by Armin Herrmann ("Und trotzdem Brüder") that covers the history of both Zeiss companies from 1945 to 2002, commenting on the time shortly after the wall came down. At that time, delegations of Carl Zeiss Oberkochen management visited Jena frequently. The excerpt is about the visit of Dieter Kurtz, who was the developer of the West German Zeiss DSM digital electron microscopes and who became CEO in 2002 ( he retired a few month ago), from p. 432-433: "In vacuum technology, Dieter Kurtz saw the latest western technology, state of the art, machines that should have never made it to Jena according to the US embargo lists. Areas where they were not that capable were plastic and glue technology. His travel report was signed with his acronym DKu as usual: "During a 1.5 hour tour of the factory the VEB electron beam inspection systems was shown to me in detail. The "production" was limited to two pieces. This was supposedly caused by a low number of orders due to a lack of hard currency in the RGW (Eastern block economies) and a general lack of investments in the semiconductor market. The mechanical and vacuum parts were solid and precisely made (practically all done in-house). The electronics used, including the Russian controllers, represented a 15-20 year old western standard".

This was in 1990. To sum up: They were behind in electronics and plastics technology, but fine in the mechanical department (not in an economical way, but that is not the point here).

Arne Croell
3-Feb-2011, 14:14
To go back to the original lens, here is the auction I remembered for the exact lens, it was on the Austrian ebay: http://cgi.ebay.at/SUPER-LAMEGON-PI-5-6-64-JENA-HIGH-RES-LENS-/250746878262. It sold for € 3310. It is the same lens, the serial number is the same. Thats a markup of about 400% if I am not mistaken....

rdenney
3-Feb-2011, 14:27
To go back to the original lens, here is the auction I remembered for the exact lens, it was on the Austrian ebay: http://cgi.ebay.at/SUPER-LAMEGON-PI-5-6-64-JENA-HIGH-RES-LENS-/250746878262. It sold for € 3310. It is the same lens, the serial number is the same. Thats a markup of about 400% if I am not mistaken....

That really is a slick piece of machinery. How cool would it be to make a box camera from that beast! But certainly not at that price, heh.

Rick "not seeing any uncentered screws in these pictures" Denney

GPS
3-Feb-2011, 15:04
That really is a slick piece of machinery. How cool would it be to make a box camera from that beast! But certainly not at that price, heh.

Rick "not seeing any uncentered screws in these pictures" Denney

Cool it would be, I agree. But difficult too - with these lenses if you want to translate all their optical qualities on the film you have to do so with mechanically a very precise "box" otherwise you loose a lot from the goodies. Very precise parallelism, an exact flange focal distance (best if capable of fine calibration), a vacuum film back... If not you end with an excellent lens that cannot give an excellent result on your box and all you have is just a sleeping beast.
In the end you easily realise that a good lens in a box camera will probably give you the same picture quality for much less money and effort... Unfortunately, these special babies also need a special cradle... :(

Nathan Potter
3-Feb-2011, 15:55
Folks. This is a fascinating discussion. I agree with Rick; if you study the image of the LAMEGON it appears that the lighting used for exposure is somewhat unidirectional, giving the impression that the machine screws are de-centered. Postwar Jena instruments that I've handled and used appear to exhibit every bit of precision machining as was found in the west.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

engl
3-Feb-2011, 15:57
Cool it would be, I agree. But difficult too - with these lenses if you want to translate all their optical qualities on the film you have to do so with mechanically a very precise "box" otherwise you loose a lot from the goodies. Very precise parallelism, an exact flange focal distance (best if capable of fine calibration), a vacuum film back... If not you end with an excellent lens that cannot give an excellent result on your box and all you have is just a sleeping beast.
In the end you easily realise that a good lens in a box camera will probably give you the same picture quality for much less money and effort... Unfortunately, these special babies also need a special cradle... :(

Well, if he "made a box camera from that beast", the lens (apparently optimized for F9.5) would no longer be on there, so no higher need for precision than any other camera.

Making a box camera from the camera+lens would be difficult, as it already pretty much is a box camera...

Dr Klaus Schmitt
3-Feb-2011, 18:38
GDR made aerial camera. The Superlamegon covers 120°.

I think I saw the same camera and lens some weeks ago on the German or another European ebay, offered from Hungary or the Czech Republic, and it went for something like 2000-3000 Euros.

Good memory Arne!!

GPS
4-Feb-2011, 03:56
Well, if he "made a box camera from that beast", the lens (apparently optimized for F9.5) would no longer be on there, so no higher need for precision than any other camera.

Making a box camera from the camera+lens would be difficult, as it already pretty much is a box camera...

What did you smoke before writing this??:confused: If you invent artificial quotes and react on them, my advice is - stop smoking that stuff. :rolleyes:

rdenney
4-Feb-2011, 11:58
Cool it would be, I agree. But difficult too - with these lenses if you want to translate all their optical qualities on the film you have to do so with mechanically a very precise "box" otherwise you loose a lot from the goodies.

Much evil starts with "wouldn't it be neat if...".

I would try to machine the back of the box for a standard film holder, maybe the back from a Cambo view camera, for example. I suspect the focus screen shown in the pics is replaced by a roll magazine, but that's a guess. Most aerial stuff I used professionally way back when was done on 9" rolls, but this looks smaller.

I see two control rings on the lens, probably one for fine focus and the other for aperture.

But mostly it would just be fun to walk up to other LFers at some meeting with that big yellow box. The joy of that is only worth about two minutes worth of internet speculation, though.

Rick "wouldn't it be neat if..." Denney

GPS
4-Feb-2011, 13:20
Much evil starts with "wouldn't it be neat if...".

I would try to machine the back of the box for a standard film holder, maybe the back from a Cambo view camera, for example. I suspect the focus screen shown in the pics is replaced by a roll magazine, but that's a guess. Most aerial stuff I used professionally way back when was done on 9" rolls, but this looks smaller.

I see two control rings on the lens, probably one for fine focus and the other for aperture.

But mostly it would just be fun to walk up to other LFers at some meeting with that big yellow box. The joy of that is only worth about two minutes worth of internet speculation, though.

Rick "wouldn't it be neat if..." Denney

Yes, the controls look that way. The format is smaller than 9'' I think they had their own standard in the East block. The seller is known with overpricing his stuff...

Dan Fromm
4-Feb-2011, 15:13
It is 5x7 -- sorry, 13x18 -- and uses its own single sheet film holders. A few of the holders are offered with the camera and lens.

rdenney
4-Feb-2011, 15:33
The seller is known with overpricing his stuff...

No need to warn me about that. His price is orders of magnitude more than I would be willing to pay.

Rick "tempted to make a box camera from a 65/8 SA, a Cambo back, and a cigar box" Denney

David Lindquist
5-Feb-2011, 12:18
Rick, there were at least three Lamegon aerial lenses, since there was also 5.6/55mm Lamegon (I have one). Thiele's lists are not complete with respect to the specialty lenses.

In addition, there were the 4.5/65mm and 90mm Lamegon lenses developed for the Meopta "Grandina" camera, which, with a few exceptions, never made it to market, but prototypes exist and have been used.

CZJ actually had quite a few new designs after WW II. The Lamegons and related aerial lenses (Lametar, Lamegot, Lamegoron, Pinatar), as well as the Apo-Germinar and Apo-Germinar W process lenses were new (the latter never had a Western equivalent); for the regular lenses, the Biometar and Flektogon were new developments. At least the Biometar, Flektogon, and Apo-Germinars were the brainchild of Harry Zöllner, who started out as an optical designer at Voigtländer, but became head of lens design at CZJ later.

Arne

A 1979-1980 photography supply house catalogue I have lists for the manufacturer "aus JENA" (distrbuted in the U.S. by Ercona) the Biometar, Lamegon and Tessar lenses. The f/4.5 Lamegon is shown in focal lengths of 65 and 90 mm; both lenses are described as available in either a Copal 1 or a "Copal 1 Electric" shutter.
The Biometar is listed as a 135 mm f/4 and a 210 mm f/5.4 lens and available in the same Copal shutters as the Lamegon. Incidentally the price of the 90 mm Lamegon in the Copal 1 shutter is $975 while the 90 mm f/5.6 Super Angulon in a No. 0 Copal is $1200.00.

Tessars are listed in focal lengths of 50, 75, 105, 135, 180, 210, 250, 300 and 360 mm, all are f/4.5 maximum aperture and are only shown available in a barrel mount. In addition there is listed an f/8 270 mm Tessar mounted in either a Copal 1 or a "Copal 1 Electric."

I think this is the only place I've ever seen reference to a "Copal 1 Electric" shutter. Neither the Schneider nor the Rodenstock listings in this catalogue show a "Copal 1 Electric" as an option.

Given their apparent rarity, I have to wonder how many (if any) Copal shutter mounted Lamegons and Biometars were actually produced.
David Lindquist

Arne Croell
5-Feb-2011, 13:50
A 1979-1980 photography supply house catalogue I have lists for the manufacturer "aus JENA" (distrbuted in the U.S. by Ercona) the Biometar, Lamegon and Tessar lenses. The f/4.5 Lamegon is shown in focal lengths of 65 and 90 mm; both lenses are described as available in either a Copal 1 or a "Copal 1 Electric" shutter.
The Biometar is listed as a 135 mm f/4 and a 210 mm f/5.4 lens and available in the same Copal shutters as the Lamegon. Incidentally the price of the 90 mm Lamegon in the Copal 1 shutter is $975 while the 90 mm f/5.6 Super Angulon in a No. 0 Copal is $1200.00.

Tessars are listed in focal lengths of 50, 75, 105, 135, 180, 210, 250, 300 and 360 mm, all are f/4.5 maximum aperture and are only shown available in a barrel mount. In addition there is listed an f/8 270 mm Tessar mounted in either a Copal 1 or a "Copal 1 Electric."

I think this is the only place I've ever seen reference to a "Copal 1 Electric" shutter. Neither the Schneider nor the Rodenstock listings in this catalogue show a "Copal 1 Electric" as an option.

Given their apparent rarity, I have to wonder how many (if any) Copal shutter mounted Lamegons and Biometars were actually produced.
David Lindquist
David, those 5 in shutter are the ones in that were originally developed for the Meopta "Grandina" camera in the mid-1960's but never made it to market (Lamegons 65 and 90mm, Biometar 135 and 210mm, Tessar 270mm) because of problems with the Prestor shutters. In 2005 I wrote an article in View Camera about them. Apparently they gave it another try later; that necessitated a small mechanical redesign for the Western shutters since the Prestor 1's had different measures than the Copal/Compur/Prontor equivalent. The 90mm Lamegon in Copal 1 electric I found some years ago on the US ebay, but it was the only one I ever saw. I have seen more of the 1960's prototypes on the German ebay and on Westlicht, even though only 5 were made of each lens at the time.

Just out of curiosity, what was the name of the company offering them?

Arne Croell
5-Feb-2011, 14:16
A 1979-1980 photography supply house catalogue I have lists for the manufacturer "aus JENA" (distrbuted in the U.S. by Ercona) the Biometar, Lamegon and Tessar lenses. The f/4.5 Lamegon is shown in focal lengths of 65 and 90 mm; both lenses are described as available in either a Copal 1 or a "Copal 1 Electric" shutter.
The Biometar is listed as a 135 mm f/4 and a 210 mm f/5.4 lens and available in the same Copal shutters as the Lamegon. Incidentally the price of the 90 mm Lamegon in the Copal 1 shutter is $975 while the 90 mm f/5.6 Super Angulon in a No. 0 Copal is $1200.00.

Tessars are listed in focal lengths of 50, 75, 105, 135, 180, 210, 250, 300 and 360 mm, all are f/4.5 maximum aperture and are only shown available in a barrel mount. In addition there is listed an f/8 270 mm Tessar mounted in either a Copal 1 or a "Copal 1 Electric."

I think this is the only place I've ever seen reference to a "Copal 1 Electric" shutter. Neither the Schneider nor the Rodenstock listings in this catalogue show a "Copal 1 Electric" as an option.

Given their apparent rarity, I have to wonder how many (if any) Copal shutter mounted Lamegons and Biometars were actually produced.
David Lindquist

As an aside, "Aus Jena" ("From Jena") was the name that Zeiss Jena had to use in most (not all, the UK was an exception) Western markets, since Zeiss Oberkochen held the rights to the Zeiss name. Conversely, Zeiss Oberkochen lenses sold in the Eastern block market were sold as "Opton Oberkochen", which was the name of the Oberkochen plant immediately after the war. I have a 180mm f/4.8 Sonnar for the Baby Linhof with the Opton designation, and the 90mm Lamegon "Aus Jena" with the Copal electric. Another, but much rarer designation for Carl Zeiss Jena lenses in Western countries was "Ernst Abbe Jena"; "CZJ", and just "Jena" were also used.

David Lindquist
5-Feb-2011, 15:50
David, those 5 in shutter are the ones in that were originally developed for the Meopta "Grandina" camera in the mid-1960's but never made it to market (Lamegons 65 and 90mm, Biometar 135 and 210mm, Tessar 270mm) because of problems with the Prestor shutters. In 2005 I wrote an article in View Camera about them. Apparently they gave it another try later; that necessitated a small mechanical redesign for the Western shutters since the Prestor 1's had different measures than the Copal/Compur/Prontor equivalent. The 90mm Lamegon in Copal 1 electric I found some years ago on the US ebay, but it was the only one I ever saw. I have seen more of the 1960's prototypes on the German ebay and on Westlicht, even though only 5 were made of each lens at the time.

Just out of curiosity, what was the name of the company offering them?

Ah, so there is not only a concrete example of a shutter mounted 90 mm Lamegon, but it's in a Copal electric. Does the shutter have a separate controller as was often the practice with other electric/electronic shutters?

I think you must be referring to your article in the July/August 2003 (not 2005) issue of View Camera magazine. I just dug out my copy. Back when that came out I remembered that I had seen some reference in my archives listing the Lamegon and found it in the 1979-1980 catalogue I've referred to. In fact at the time I e mailed you about my finding (and got a nice reply back from you).

The catalog was from Alpha Photo Products, a photography supply house headquartered in Oakland California. I think this is probably a sort of generic catalog that was printed up in large numbers and then bound with a cover and perhaps additional enclosed pages specific to the particular supply house that was handing them out. My next newest one (1974) only lists Tessars; I don't have any following 1979-1980.

Ercona was the name of the company that imported/distributed Carl Zeiss Jena/ Aus Jena (and possibly other photo products from what was referred to back then as the "Eastern Bloc") in the U.S.

What sort of camera was the "Grandina"? I'm imagining a metal bodied base board type view camera.
David

Sevo
5-Feb-2011, 16:32
Ercona was the name of the company that imported/distributed Carl Zeiss Jena/ Aus Jena (and possibly other photo products from what was referred to back then as the "Eastern Bloc") in the U.S.


Ercona was the brand name they gave the GDR made Ikonta successor after they had to drop all Zeiss Ikon brandings. I had not heard so far that that brand had a wider scope in the US.

David Lindquist
5-Feb-2011, 16:53
Ercona was the brand name they gave the GDR made Ikonta successor after they had to drop all Zeiss Ikon brandings. I had not heard so far that that brand had a wider scope in the US.

Thank you, I just found that out earlier today when I googled "Ercona" to see if it still existed as a U.S. company. There is an Ercona Corp. located in Florida; it distributes electrical/electronic components. No idea if it is a descendant of the photo equipment distributor. Back in the early 1970's Ercona Corp (distributor of Zeiss Jena) was located in Bellmore, New York.
David

Arne Croell
6-Feb-2011, 02:00
Ah, so there is not only a concrete example of a shutter mounted 90 mm Lamegon, but it's in a Copal electric. Does the shutter have a separate controller as was often the practice with other electric/electronic shutters?

I think you must be referring to your article in the July/August 2003 (not 2005) issue of View Camera magazine. I just dug out my copy. Back when that came out I remembered that I had seen some reference in my archives listing the Lamegon and found it in the 1979-1980 catalogue I've referred to. In fact at the time I e mailed you about my finding (and got a nice reply back from you).

The catalog was from Alpha Photo Products, a photography supply house headquartered in Oakland California. I think this is probably a sort of generic catalog that was printed up in large numbers and then bound with a cover and perhaps additional enclosed pages specific to the particular supply house that was handing them out. My next newest one (1974) only lists Tessars; I don't have any following 1979-1980.

Neither lens serial no. shows up in Thiele's lists, btw. The serial number of the one in Copal electric fits in a gap 0f 55 numbers in the list. Based on how Zeiss Jena assigned their numbers, I could speculate that they made 11 units each of the 2 Lamegons, the 2 Biometars, and the 270mm Tessar in Copal/Copal electric. But this is pure speculation.

Ercona was the name of the company that imported/distributed Carl Zeiss Jena/ Aus Jena (and possibly other photo products from what was referred to back then as the "Eastern Bloc") in the U.S.

What sort of camera was the "Grandina"? I'm imagining a metal bodied base board type view camera.
David
The Copal electric 1 does not have a separate controller (fortunately), it is much closer to the Compur electronic 1 with the battery housing on top. Picture three below shows it. Different than the Compur, the battery housing is solid metal, not plastic, and also solidly attached. It takes a 6V 28L battery which is common. Therefore there is no rigging required as with the near obsolete batteries for the Compur electronic.
The first two images below show the 90mm Lamegon f/4.5; in each image the left one is the original prototype from 1964 in Prestor 1, the right one the later version sold with Copal electric. Note that the back cell mount is different; this is due to the fact that the Prestor shutter is 23.5mm thick (instead of 20mm) and has an M40x0.75 thread at the back (the same as the front thread), whereas the Western no.1 shutters have M36x0.75 at the back and M40x0.75 only at the front. This necessitated a redesign of the mount for the Copal shutters.
My article I was referring to appeared in View Camera Sept/Oct 2005, p.34-38. You looked at the earlier one that covers the general Zeiss Jena lenses. In 2003, when the first article came out, I did not have that much information about the Grandina lenses. I visited the Zeiss Jena archives in 2004 reading the original internal reports and the result was the 2005 article.
I have never seen the Grandina camera or a drawing of it. The internal Zeiss reports only mention it as large format camera in 9x12cm without further details. Since the lenses were not forthcoming (because Pentacon stopped the shutter production in 1964), Meopta never produced it except for prototypes, I assume. In auction lists on the web, there is one sale listed a few years ago, but no images are available. It could have been a metal technical camera like their earlier 5x7 Technika copy, but it might have been a monorail, too - It had to accomodate the 65mm Lamegon.

For scale, the filter thread of the 90mm lenses is 120mm!

None of the lens serial numbers show up in Thiele's lists. The serial number of the Copal electric one fits into a gap of 55 numbers. Knowing how Zeiss Jena attributed their numbers, I could speculate that they made 11 units each of the 2 Lamegons, the 2 Biometars, and the 270mm Tessar in Copal/Copal electric (for the Prestor shutter versions in 1964 they planned 25 prototypes each, but eventually only made 5 each due to the lack of shutters).

Arne Croell
6-Feb-2011, 04:15
Ercona was the brand name they gave the GDR made Ikonta successor after they had to drop all Zeiss Ikon brandings. I had not heard so far that that brand had a wider scope in the US.

Sevo is right about the camera name, of course. Following David's information, a little digging showed that the Ercona company was formed as a subsidiary of a company called Steelmasters, who imported Carl Zeiss Jena goods into the US after WWII, see: http://openjurist.org/277/f2d/94/rogers-v-ercona-camera-corporation. Its a long document - the important information is in paragraph 7.

Arne Croell
6-Feb-2011, 04:25
Since the lenses were not forthcoming (because Pentacon stopped the shutter production in 1964), Meopta never produced it except for prototypes, I assume.
Correction: Prestor shutter production stopped in 1966, not 1964.

David Lindquist
6-Feb-2011, 10:43
Thank you very much for the additional information, especially the Sept/Oct 2005 View Camera reference. I got out my copy; for the life of me I don't remember seeing that article nor can I understand how I would have missed it. Look forward to reading it today.

For all its turgid legal prose, the Ercona Corp. case link you supplied looks like it could be interesting too.
David

rdenney
6-Feb-2011, 18:31
Knowing how Zeiss Jena attributed their numbers, I could speculate that they made 11 units each of the 2 Lamegons, the 2 Biometars, and the 270mm Tessar in Copal/Copal electric (for the Prestor shutter versions in 1964 they planned 25 prototypes each, but eventually only made 5 each due to the lack of shutters).

Those production cards were issued at the time a group of lenses was authorized, not when they were actually produced, as I understand it. It could be that they set aside those numbers but never actually made all the lenses. You had speculated in your article (which I read--thanks for the PM) that they would have had internal political trouble using western shutters in those days, and I think that sounds quite right to me.

By the way, as I'm sure you know, Opton was the name used for lenses coming from the new Oberkochen plant in Rolleiflex TLR's of the later 40's and very early 50's. By the time the Rolleis started using Planars and Xenotars instead of Tessars and Xenars,, which was somewhere in the 1954 time range, the branding issue had been sorted out between them, at least for Rolleiflexes. But I seem to recall that legal troubles were being sorted out for some decades, not reaching final conclusion until 1971.

On of the projects on my "goofy" list, even goofier than turning the Giant Yellow Beast into a box camera, is finding a way to mount the (heavy!) Zeiss Jena Sonnar on my Speed Graphic and shooting 6x9 with it. I would just crop to whatever coverage it provided, but I believe it has adequate coverage for 6x7 at least. I have no idea why I want to do this, of course. Utterly irrational. (I do know of several of these that have been remachined for the Pentax 6x7 mount, but the one I saw on ebay was just too expensive to consider). F/2.8 is quite fast for a 180mm lens in medium format, and the bokeh of that lens wide open is a wide, smooth brush. It's one of my favorite portrait lenses, but the cameras on which it fits are not even as dependable as a Speed Graphic.

Rick "whose 1953 Rolleiflex MX Type 2 has an f/3.5 Xenar, avoiding the branding issue" Denney

Arne Croell
6-Feb-2011, 23:51
Those production cards were issued at the time a group of lenses was authorized, not when they were actually produced, as I understand it. It could be that they set aside those numbers but never actually made all the lenses. You had speculated in your article (which I read--thanks for the PM) that they would have had internal political trouble using western shutters in those days, and I think that sounds quite right to me.

.... But I seem to recall that legal troubles were being sorted out for some decades, not reaching final conclusion until 1971.


Rick "whose 1953 Rolleiflex MX Type 2 has an f/3.5 Xenar, avoiding the branding issue" Denney

Yes, that is how the numbers work- they assign a number group to a planned batch and then they are used up as they are produced. This batch of 55 numbers would have been assigned around 1974; Davids catalog is from 1979 (btw, 55 could also mean 15 Biometars 135mm and 10 each of the others -they had planned more of the 135mm for the production in the 1960's). You mention 1971, which is correct, that is the year when Zeiss West and East finally signed a worldwide agreement on name rights. Which could be a hint why they had trouble securing Western shutters before, Zeiss West owned both Compur and Prontor and I am not sure how widespread Copal shutters were in 1966. I would normally assume that they would not produce single lenses as the orders come in, but do batches, otherwise it would be extremely uneconomical - and we have at least one lens. However, of the 25 prototypes made in 1964 at least 10 have surfaced on the German ebay and Westlicht in the last seven years, whereas only 1 of the 1970's speculative batch showed up (I have standing searches for these lenses on the German and US ebay). Statistically, about 20 should have popped up if they really had produced 55 units then.

Joerg Krusche
7-Feb-2011, 09:54
Arne,

that camera was made for photogrammetry (correct spelling ?) .. and the body was offered with 4 different focal lengths .. the one in discussion has the widest lens of them .. all for 13x18(5x7) .

best regards

joerg

Arne Croell
7-Feb-2011, 11:02
Arne,

that camera was made for photogrammetry (correct spelling ?) .. and the body was offered with 4 different focal lengths .. the one in discussion has the widest lens of them .. all for 13x18(5x7) .

best regards

joerg
Jörg, yes, I realized that when I reread the description of the "yellow beast" in the original ad on the Austrian ebay, where it says that the focus is fixed to 8m. Nevertheless, the original use of the Super Lamegons was as aerial lenses.

Arne

Dan Fromm
7-Feb-2011, 13:05
Um, Arne, I think the yellow beast is a UMK. FWIW, the 55/5.6 Lamegon goes on the SMK-120 which is for terrestrial photogrammetry.

Arne Croell
7-Feb-2011, 13:07
Um, Arne, I think the yellow beast is a UMK. FWIW, the 55/5.6 Lamegon goes on the SMK-120 which is for terrestrial photogrammetry.
But then why the fixed focus at 8m? If the original seller was correct about this....

Dan Fromm
7-Feb-2011, 14:37
Didn't these beasts have extension tubes for precise focus?

Joerg Krusche
7-Feb-2011, 14:51
Arne,Dan

UMK 6,5/1318 the one with fixed focus at 8 meters is made for very limited room/space .. while UMK 10/1318 .. the one with either 8/100A or B does allow continuous focussing over a wide range .. whatever that means ?

These lenses appear to be optimized for "Verzeichnungsfreiheit" and resolution .. photogrammetry applications .. though original design may also be aerial photography (?) of the more demanding type.

joerg

Arne Croell
8-Feb-2011, 04:59
Arne,Dan

UMK 6,5/1318 the one with fixed focus at 8 meters is made for very limited room/space .. while UMK 10/1318 .. the one with either 8/100A or B does allow continuous focussing over a wide range .. whatever that means ?

These lenses appear to be optimized for "Verzeichnungsfreiheit" and resolution .. photogrammetry applications .. though original design may also be aerial photography (?) of the more demanding type.

joerg
Here is the 8/100mm regular Lamegon version of the yellow beast on ebay: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270682832677&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT

In the books by Sidney F. Ray (Applied photographic optics) both the Superlamegons and the Lamegons are listed as aerial lenses.

Joerg Krusche
8-Feb-2011, 05:28
Arne,

don't you think you need one ?

joerg

Joerg Krusche
8-Feb-2011, 05:31
Arne,

btw... the UMK1318 with longer focal lengths for photogrammetry application are equipped with Lametars.

joerg

Dan Fromm
8-Feb-2011, 05:32
Joerg, I need one. Please send money.

Cheers,

Dan

Joerg Krusche
8-Feb-2011, 06:39
Dan,

wish I had some .. there are beautiful toys out there ,

cheers,

joerg

Arne Croell
8-Feb-2011, 09:40
Arne,

don't you think you need one ?

joerg

Yes, its preciousssssss.

Actually, I have the 100mm/f8 Lamegon as well as the 55mm one-just as (bulky) lenses, not in the fancy yellow beast housing. The 65 and 90mm Lamegons in regular shutters are much more practical though.

Joerg Krusche
8-Feb-2011, 10:14
Arne,

Whouwwww!,

did you ever shoot LF with it ??? .. we need to talk about next time..what is the tread ? .. it does have the shutter ?,

joerg

Allen in Montreal
8-Feb-2011, 10:16
Dan,
.. there are beautiful toys out there ,


joerg

Agreed, way too many!
Temptations every where you look these days! :( :(

Arne Croell
8-Feb-2011, 11:23
Arne,

Whouwwww!,

did you ever shoot LF with it ??? .. we need to talk about next time..what is the tread ? .. it does have the shutter ?,

joerg
No I haven't used it. Its one of those projects for the time I'm able to slow down....
Some pics to wet your appetite are attached. Yes, it has the electric shutter (1s-1/400s, T, B), you can see the wires in one picture, connected to a PC socket on the front. I assume it may run on 28V DC (thats what regular aircraft like Airbus have), but I am not sure. For scale, the filter size is about 112mm, but the thing is HEAVY, about 9-10lbs (4-4.5kg). Sizewise, it might fit onto a Linhof Kardan plate, but the weight is one of the problems.

FlashThat
8-Feb-2011, 20:10
This is one great gadget for photography..Thanks for sharing! :)

Superzeiss
9-Feb-2011, 16:33
I just want to say this :

If necessary, the Jena- guys topped the Oberkochen-guys easily. And here they did !

Compared with its performance, the price of this camera is a real bargain !

Thomas

Arne Croell
9-Feb-2011, 23:49
Does anybody know what the difference between the "A" and "B" model is for the 100mm/f8 Lamegon?

Asher Kelman
12-Jun-2011, 10:39
No I haven't used it. Its one of those projects for the time I'm able to slow down....
Some pics to wet your appetite are attached. Yes, it has the electric shutter (1s-1/400s, T, B), you can see the wires in one picture, connected to a PC socket on the front. I assume it may run on 28V DC (thats what regular aircraft like Airbus have), but I am not sure. For scale, the filter size is about 112mm, but the thing is HEAVY, about 9-10lbs (4-4.5kg). Sizewise, it might fit onto a Linhof Kardan plate, but the weight is one of the problems.


Arne,

9-10 lb is so heavy that these become impractical for hiking, LOL! However, for copying artwork might be spectacular.

Asher

Asher Kelman
13-Jun-2011, 11:28
Do we know whether or not all the Lamegons are built with the same high resolution characteristics?

Asher