Any real difference between Rodenstock and Schneider?

[Leigh]

Talking about comparable lenses, in particular the Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S series vs. the Schneider Apo-Symmar-L.

I'm considering upgrading my lens kit, and have narrowed my choices to the two series mentioned above for medium and long FLs.

I've always considered them to be pretty comparable, but I don't have a lot of experience on which to base that opinion.

Any thoughts? (Yeah, I know... Fords v. Chevies... but please, factual comparisons of performance)

TIA.

- Leigh

[mdm]

I have never owned a Schneider but love the 2 Sironars I have, a 210 for 5x7 and a 135 for 4x5. They are all I use. They excell with colour. There is a video on YouTube of Stephen Shore wandering around with an 8x10 and guess what was on the front. His colour has a subtle muted beauty, and I have found with the little I have done that it is there. Use a different lens and it changes, not necessarily worse. I have found the 210 to be very flare prone, but have made a simple shade. If you are mostly B&W perhaps it would not be worth the cost, but if you are patient they do come around at a reasonable price sometimes.

[Lachlan 717]

No.

[John Berry]

Yes. Between the two the rodenstock will be slightly warmer. To me the schneider has a cold impersonal flavor. As far as sharp? Lachlan covered it pretty much.

[Frank Petronio]

I think the older ones are iffy, Schneiders from the 60 to early 80s had better build and quality control (except for Schneideritis) while many Rodenstocks separated and became useless. But by the 80s Rodenstock caught up and probably surpassed Schneider. With the current models I would buy whichever meets your needs for coverage, size, and, of course, price/condition.

[Richard K.]

Leigh, another question to ask is whether it's worth paying a HUGE premium to buy a new Apo Symmar L when for literally a fraction of the price and near identical performance (just slightly less IC mostly), you can buy the equivalent Apo Symmar. As an example, a new 300 mm Apo Symmar L will cost a little over $3000 whereas the Apo Symmar can be bought used for well under $1000. Their ICs are 430 mm vs 425 mm. I have the latter listed for (what I feel is) a reasonable price on this forum in 100% pristine condition condition (also a 240 mm) with no inquiries. The secondary market has definitely declined and that's to your advantage. I honestly doubt you would notice any difference in practice between those two lines of lenses. What do you currently have?

[Brian Ellis]

None worth worrying about. I buy lenses made by any of the former "Big Four" based on things like image circle, size, weight, coating, shutter brand if used, overall condition of lens and shutter, and of course price. If those things are essentially equal among two or more lenses I'm considering it's never mattered to me whether a lens is a Schneider, Rodenstock, Fuji, or Nikon. There are other things that are far more important from a technical standpoint than lens brand among these four.

[Leigh]

Those comments pretty much confirm my opinions.

My current kit includes Rodenstock Sironar-N (actually an apo design), Nikkor SW and W, and Fujinon SWD and CM-W lenses. They're all excellent. But I prefer to standardize on a single manufacturer (and as few product lines as possible) to maintain image consistency when changing from one FL to another.

Regarding Apo v. non-Apo lenses...
Although I shoot only B&W in LF, I still want the red correction of an Apo lens since the film is panchromatic. I'm striving for the absolute highest quality images I can make on 4x5 (shooting 100-speed film rather than 400, etc).

Thanks very much. Any others?

- Leigh

[ic-racer]

I'd look at it like this. In the 1920s, one may have a discussion about what was the best performing lens and likewise have concerns over which automobile would be reliable enough to make a daily 10 mile drive to work.
Presently, I'd say any modern lens will make fine LF image, just as any automobile currently on the market today will reliably make a 10 mile daily drive to work.

Like Brian posted above, I'd concern myself with image circle, maximum aperture and size/weight issues between brands.

[Leigh]

Like Brian posted above, I'd concern myself with image circle, maximum aperture and size/weight issues between brands.
I compiled a pretty detailed spreadsheet with all the various lens characteristics so I can compare them.

I've standardized on f/5.6 speed (except for long telephotos). It provides a nice bright GG image, although with the Maxwell screen that's not terribly surprising.

Thanks.

- Leigh

[Bob Salomon]

"Although I shoot only B&W in LF, I still want the red correction of an Apo lens since the film is panchromatic. I'm striving for the absolute highest quality images I can make on 4x5 "

That is not why the apo is better with black and white. The difference would be lack of color fringing. In B&W this means that fine details in a high contrast field, like the twigs on a tree against the sky, will be reproduced with finer lines then with a non-apo lens.

[Leigh]

That is not why the apo is better with black and white. The difference would be lack of color fringing.
Hi Bob,

That's true. It's just a consequence of the lack of correction in the red portion of the spectrum for non-Apo lenses.

Just different ways of expressing the same thing. One looks at the design end of the process, the other looks at the result.

Thanks.

- Leigh

[Leonard Evens]

It depends on the lens. Each brand encompasses a fairly wide variety of lenses.

For example if you want a wide angle lens for 4 x 5 architectural photography, it is hard to beat the Schneider Super-Angulon XL 72/5.6. It has a 230 mm image circle. Compare to this my Rodenstock f/4.5 75 mm Grandagon-N's 195 mm image circle. I would clearly be better off with the Schneider lens. But it is too heavy for my camera and quite a bit more expensive.

[vinny]

I've only bought two lenses new. One being the apo symmar just before they switched to the more $$$ L series. It wasn't sharp compared to the lens I replaced it with, a fujinon. I own 4 different brands and I bet you can't tell which lens the transparencies were shot on. With b+w? forget it. When the print is hanging on the wall, does it really matter?

[Bob Salomon]

Hi Bob,

That's true. It's just a consequence of the lack of correction in the red portion of the spectrum for non-Apo lenses.

Just different ways of expressing the same thing. One looks at the design end of the process, the other looks at the result.

Thanks.

- Leigh

The definition is that the lateral chromatic aberrations of the secondary spectru have been corrected to within a very small percentage of the focal length. The practical result is a reduction of color fringing compared to non-apo lenses and that ensures that with process lenses that each color sep negative would match dimensionally when they were sandwiched and printed. The above is the specification as set and met by DIN for the optical industry for camera lenses.

The definition for microscobe lenses and systems is the Abbe definition.

[Heroique]

My current kit includes Rodenstock Sironar-N (actually an apo design), Nikkor SW and W, and Fujinon SWD and CM-W lenses. They’re all excellent. But I prefer to standardize on a single manufacturer (and as few product lines as possible) to maintain image consistency when changing from one FL to another.

Can you better describe the inconsistent results you’re getting now? Are there any?

You say you don’t have a lot of experience, so you might be “hearing” about inconsistent results on forums like this – not actually seeing them in your personal results. If so, my recommendation would be to get more experience w/ all the excellent lenses you already have, before deciding to “upgrade” to a single-manufacturer’s kit “to maintain image consistency.”

If you can describe the inconsistent results you’re getting now, the information would greatly help everyone recommend new lens purchases for you; better, people might offer useful tips on technique that might generate better consistency and save you a lot of money. That is, your concerns about “image consistency” may have little to do with lenses.

And I’d call that splendid news!

[Leigh]

Hi Heroique,

I'm really not experiencing any issues at present. I just felt this would be a good opportunity to standardize.

I've been shooting LF since 1960, so it's not exactly new to me.

I'm changing techniques, shooting landscapes and scenics with a field camera. Most of my previous work has been in-studio (product, still life, figure), and architecture.

The newness is in using a field camera as opposed to a monorail, and working in a less structured environment.

In the studio I almost never use more than one lens for a particular subject, so I'm not concerned about consistent chromatic rendering and differences between lens manufacturers and families. However, in the field I've used multiple FLs on all of the subjects I've shot, so uniformity is important.

My current lenses are all "modern", generally mid-1980's vintage or newer. No leading-edge aspherics, but several ED glass, and all multi-coated.

In the retro category I do have one very nice Swiss-made Gold Dot Dagor, but I'm keeping it in the studio.

Thanks.

- Leigh

[paulr]

If you're looking at current generation lenses, Schneider is the only the only company with technology to make aspheric elements for large format optics, so they're able to make lenses with the design advantages of their XL series ... lenses as sharp as the previous generation but in much more compact sizes and with bigger maximum apertures.

If you're looking at medium format technical lenses for digital, most of what I've read suggests that the current generation of Rodenstocks has leapfrogged Schneider.

Otherwise, tossup.

[Leigh]

If you're looking at medium format technical lenses for digital, most of what I've read suggests that the current generation of Rodenstocks has leapfrogged Schneider.
Hi Paul.

I do digital in 35 (Nikon) and MF (Hasselblad), but my LF work is strictly film.

Don't know how long that will continue, but I have a large stock of film (frozen) and chemistry.

Thanks much.

- Leigh

[Frank Petronio]

It used to be that catalog shooters -- the grey background types -- would use the same lenses, as well as paying attention to minute details like flash tubes, emulsion batches, etc. all in the hopes of maintaining a nice consistent neutral grey....

But now if you have a digital workflow -- and especially if you shoot outdoors, where it's widely varying color temperatures -- it seems a bit pointless to worry about whether the Schott Glass was running a tiny tad yellower the day they made your lens ;-)

In fact, keep the catalog background neutral was a bit pointless too, since it was scanned and it would have been easy for the operator to set the background to grey even back in the 90s... but it was expected that a good photographer would deliver near perfect chromes regardless.

[pdmoylan]

Check out David Ward's recent color landscape work (UK). He uses 150mm Apo Symmar L and 210 APO Symmar. Images are wonderful with both lenses. Noone well published comes to mind who uses APO Sironar S.

After viewing many LF color images over the years, I found I liked the look, color and contrast of Nikkors and have not been disappointed with those several acquisitions. John Sexton is an example of a well known Nikon user (as is Leigh on this site). Check out his website.

Many like Fuji for brilliant sharpness in many offerings.

[mdm]

The English have a Peter Lik too.

[Bob Salomon]

If you're looking at current generation lenses, Schneider is the only the only company with technology to make aspheric elements for large format optics, so they're able to make lenses with the design advantages of their XL series ... lenses as sharp as the previous generation but in much more compact sizes and with bigger maximum apertures.

If you're looking at medium format technical lenses for digital, most of what I've read suggests that the current generation of Rodenstocks has leapfrogged Schneider.

Otherwise, tossup.

Not quite, Rodenstock has been making aspherics for decades. To see a listing of the optical componants that they supply see:
http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/en/oem/oem/components/
It is very unlikely that any lens manufacturer does not have aspheric capability at their factory.

Aspherics are not at all unusual. In the late 1980s Rollei sold their Prego P&S 35mm automatic camera which was made by Ricoh. It had an aspheric element. In fact, nearly all, if not all, P&S cameras had and still do have aspheric elements.

[onnect17]

Some differences could be noticed if:
Scanning resolution is over 3000dpi in drum AND
Not using solvent developers like Xtol AND
Using f/16, f/22 max.
Don't know of any other manufacturer besides Rodenstock combining APO and ED in their lens.

[Sevo]

It is very unlikely that any lens manufacturer does not have aspheric capability at their factory.

Aspherics are not at all unusual. In the late 1980s Rollei sold their Prego P&S 35mm automatic camera which was made by Ricoh. It had an aspheric element. In fact, nearly all, if not all, P&S cameras had and still do have aspheric elements.

Until fairly recently, pressed glass or acrylic lenses were considered unsuitable for anything better than point-and-shoots (where they did not establish themselves until the Disc cameras either). The bulk of aspherics is used for non-photographic applications, by the way - most go into car headlamps and showroom spotlights...

[engl]

Not quite, Rodenstock has been making aspherics for decades. To see a listing of the optical componants that they supply see:
http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/en/oem/oem/components/
It is very unlikely that any lens manufacturer does not have aspheric capability at their factory.

Aspherics are not at all unusual. In the late 1980s Rollei sold their Prego P&S 35mm automatic camera which was made by Ricoh. It had an aspheric element. In fact, nearly all, if not all, P&S cameras had and still do have aspheric elements.

While I do not doubt that Rodenstock are capable of manufacturing aspheric lenses (hey, the Vikings could do it 1000 years ago :) ), I don't think anyone outside the company has any idea about if they could make aspheric elements for large format lenses economically. Aspheric lenses in for example compact cameras are tiny by comparison, and the volumes are huge.

[Armin Seeholzer]

My APO Symmar 210 mm was for a very long time my reference lens re. sharpness, but since I have a Sinaron SE/Apo Sironar S 240mm this is my new reference in sharpness!

Cheers Armin

[Noah A]

I think you'd see more differences between brands with the wider lenses--for example photographs from my old 110xl and 80xl had a very different look from photographs with the 115 Grandagon and 90 Grandagon I replaced them with. (I prefer the more even illumination of the Grandagons.)

For the plasmats in the middle focal lengths they're all very similar, although I've noticed that my 210 Apo Sironar S to be slightly sharper than my old 210 Apo Symmar (NOT the L version). But the Schneider was already an amazing lens.

I think the differences between these lenses in the middle focal lengths are subtle and could mostly come down to sample variation. If you're making small or medium prints you probably won't see any difference.

If you're making 4000 dpi drum scans and printing 40x50 and larger, then you may see a difference. If you're going to that much trouble, perhaps you should do what I did and try both brands. There really isn't a difference in quality, per se, at this level. There may be small differences in color, contrast and the overall look of the image. And these are all matters of personal preference.

If you want a current lens, it seems like the Apo-Sironar S lenses come up on the used market more than the Apo-Symmar L lenses.

I tried a few Schneider and Rodenstock lenses, and in the end my kit ended up all Rodenstock. I like the even illumination and contrast on the Grandagons and there is something I can't quite define that I like about the Plasmats. I guess it's the slightly warm rendering and good contrast.

[paulr]

Not quite, Rodenstock has been making aspherics for decades. To see a listing of the optical componants that they supply see:
http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/en/oem/oem/components/
It is very unlikely that any lens manufacturer does not have aspheric capability at their factory.

Does Rodenstock make large format optics with aspheric elements?

[Frank Petronio]

The real pro way to do it is to buy three of the same best lenses, do strict film tests, and keep the best. While they all will be good lenses, there is always "best" and individual sample variation may be more significant than brand/design.

It's like Nikon or Canon long sports photography lenses, they all are excellent but you'd expect to find a subtle difference between individual samples.

[Bob Salomon]

Does Rodenstock make large format optics with aspheric elements?

They don't specify. Only state the type of glass (if ED), number of elements, number of groups, MTF, ditortion curves, color curves, etc. You know, the info that tells one how it will perform and what it will cover and how much movement is available in formats to 8x10. They do not specify glues, rings, centering techniques, paints, etc.

[paulr]

Rodenstock doesn't specify. My friend at Schneider told me two years ago that they were the only company making aspherical elements for LF lenses. Unless Rodenstock has come up with new technology since then, I'll stand by my statement.

He said the reason is simple: the R&D to create the manufacturing process for aspheric elements in those sizes was enormous. The company also faced very high failure rates for the first two years, which meant it took them a long time to recoup their investment. No one else in the optical industry was willing to take on such a high financial risk for such a relatively small market.

It was all about the $$$. He's the first to admit that none of the lens companies are able to keep conceptual secrets from each other. It's all about manufacturing technology, not design.

[Bob Salomon]

Rodenstock doesn't specify. My friend at Schneider told me two years ago that they were the only company making aspherical elements for LF lenses. Unless Rodenstock has come up with new technology since then, I'll stand by my statement.

He said the reason is simple: the R&D to create the manufacturing process for aspheric elements in those sizes was enormous. The company also faced very high failure rates for the first two years, which meant it took them a long time to recoup their investment. No one else in the optical industry was willing to take on such a high financial risk for such a relatively small market.

It was all about the $$$. He's the first to admit that none of the lens companies are able to keep conceptual secrets from each other. It's all about manufacturing technology, not design.

Paul,

All the lens manufacturers are capable of making aspherics today. In 1993 the Rodenstock catalog shows aspherical diamond turned lens elements with the following specifications:

focal length ±5%, Back focal length ±5%, outside diameter maximum 400mm min. 1mm, center thickness ±0.02mm. For precision pressed max. dia. 60mm min. dia. 7mm.

Remember, these were their manufacturing capabilities in their June 1993 catalog, almost 18 years ago.

So your friend at Schneider may have been taking some license with other company's technologies.

Oh yes, in that same catalog Rodenstock also shows that these aspherics could be single sided with the other side of the element spherical or both sides aspherical. In addition it also lists Rodenstock's diamond turned aspherical mirrors.

But again, the shape of the elements isn't the question. The results on film or onto a digital sensor or array is the answer. And that you see in the MTF curves, fall off curves, distortion curves and the longtitudinal chromatic aberration curves. That is what will tell you how well the image will be catured at the image plane.

[paulr]

I don't know Bob. I don't see Rodenstock making the kinds of LF designs that are made possible by aspherics. Nothing like the XL lenses, which perform like the last generation wide angle lenses but weigh half as much and have wider maximum apertures.

Rodenstock may have the technology to make aspherics of a certain type, but they don't seem able (or willing?) to make these same advanced designs that Schneider is implementing with their aspherics.

You're right that the shape of the elements isn't the question. It's the characteristics of the end design (and it goes beyond optical quality ... Schneider's designs don't seem to substantially improve optical performance, but they improve everything else).

I dont have any of these lenses. I'm happy with the optical performance of my older design wide angle, and don't mind carrying around its cinder block form factor. I have a Super Angulon and am sure I'd be equally happy with a Grandagon. But if I were backpacking with the thing, or needed a brighter focusing image, I'd be turning to the XLs, as a lot of other people on the forum have.

[Bob Salomon]

I don't know Bob. I don't see Rodenstock making the kinds of LF designs that are made possible by aspherics. Nothing like the XL lenses, which perform like the last generation wide angle lenses but weigh half as much and have wider maximum apertures.

Rodenstock may have the technology to make aspherics of a certain type, but they don't seem able (or willing?) to make these same advanced designs that Schneider is implementing with their aspherics.

You're right that the shape of the elements isn't the question. It's the characteristics of the end design (and it goes beyond optical quality ... Schneider's designs don't seem to substantially improve optical performance, but they improve everything else).

I dont have any of these lenses. I'm happy with the optical performance of my older design wide angle, and don't mind carrying around its cinder block form factor. I have a Super Angulon and am sure I'd be equally happy with a Grandagon. But if I were backpacking with the thing, or needed a brighter focusing image, I'd be turning to the XLs, as a lot of other people on the forum have.

Of course you saw some. Remember the W series. The 150 and the 210 were rather small, but heavy. The 300covered a 490mm circle without the need for a center filter. Neither did the shorter ones need a center filter. Even though the 210 covered a 352mm circle and the 150 covered a 252mm circle.

Have you checked out the 23mm and 32mm? Although these are for digital but they are the latest technology.

[John Schneider]

If a lens (or any other technology) gives you the result you want, what does it matter how it does it? This is beginning to sound like digisnap mavens comparing megapixel count to the exclusion of everything else.

And Germany has been making aspheric elements since about 1943 (Zeiss binocular oculars), so it's been doable in some fashion for many decades.

[Gem Singer]

Good point, John.

Many of us were standing by to see who eventually wins this pissing contest.

"Just because you are able to argue the other guy down, doesn't necessarily mean that
you won the argument."

[paulr]

I apologize for the pissing contest. I was trying to provide some even-handed pros and cons that represented minor exceptions to general rule that both brands make equally great lenses.

It's degraded to tit-for-tat over minutiae because of what strikes me as deliberate obfuscation by one of the lens companies' sales reps.



Of course you saw some. Remember the W series.

Yes. These are old lens designs that are not equivalent to the ones in question. You could likewise point out that the old Angulons were very compact and light.


Have you checked out the 23mm and 32mm? Although these are for digital but they are the latest technology.

Yes. And as I said in my original post, I think Rodenstock has leapfrogged Schneider in digital lenses. If I had the money to buy a digital technical camera system today, I'd almost certainly go with these.

[Armin Seeholzer]

I think the weak factor will not be the lens anyway it will be:
1. the man behind the camera
2. the registration of the groundglass and film
3. are the standards of the camera 100% exatly as they should be
4. the wind!

Cheers Armin

[Leigh]

I think the weak factor will not be the lens anyway it will be:
Hi Armin,

Of course that's true. There are myriad factors which can enhance or degrade any particular image.

I've always subscribed to the philosophy that I use the best products available.

That way when something goes wrong, I need only look in the mirror to place blame. ;)

'Tis a poor craftsman indeed who blames his tools. :rolleyes:

Thanks.

- Leigh

[paulr]

I think the weak factor will not be the lens anyway it will be:
1. the man behind the camera
2. the registration of the groundglass and film
3. are the standards of the camera 100% exatly as they should be
4. the wind!

Cheers Armin

5. usually the things I photograph refuse to fall into a single plane of focus.
Stupid 3-dimensional world.

[Lynn Jones]

They are equivalent manufacturers, although over the years Schneider has probably made more lenses and more money.

While they have both made some real dogs, mostly they have made good stuff.

Lynn

[Bob Salomon]

They are equivalent manufacturers, although over the years Schneider has probably made more lenses and more money.

While they have both made some real dogs, mostly they have made good stuff.

Lynn

Which Schneider? The current company formed in the early 80's or the bankrupt and liquidated comany that included Isco projection and movie lenses for 8 and Super 8mm that was liquidated and then purchased by Mandermann?

[rdenney]

5. usually the things I photograph refuse to fall into a single plane of focus.
Stupid 3-dimensional world.

Uh, yeah. And that's the issue with many of the vastly blown-up images used for comparison on the Internet.

It's also why sharpness is a buzzword. People use it to discuss fine effects while missing gross effects, like any of these 5 points from Armin and Paul.

Rick "sharpness is a state of mind" Denney

[Armin Seeholzer]

I just qoute a german gent in a german photogforum:
My wife is sharper then your lens anyway;--))))

Cheers Armin

[Leigh]

Which Schneider? The current company formed in the early 80's or the bankrupt and liquidated comany that included Isco projection and movie lenses for 8 and Super 8mm that was liquidated and then purchased by Mandermann?
Since I asked specifically about competing Apo product lines, one might reasonably assume that the question focused on the manufacturer thereof. :p

- Leigh

[Bob Salomon]

Since I asked specifically about competing Apo product lines, one might reasonably assume that the question focused on the manufacturer thereof. :p

- Leigh

This was a question to Lynn Jones not to you.

[Sevo]

Which Schneider? The current company formed in the early 80's or the bankrupt and liquidated comany that included Isco projection and movie lenses for 8 and Super 8mm that was liquidated and then purchased by Mandermann?

What do you believe to be the difference? The current company (owned by Mandermann) is not only the successor of the (once insolvent, but never liquidated) Jos. Schneider Optische Werke Kreuznach, but it is actually the same, complete with buildings, staff and all assets - Mandermann did not re-found Schneider, but acquired them out of the German equivalent of chapter 11.

ISCO, by the way, has only become a part of Schneider about three years ago, when Schneider bought them. It started as a formally independent company, supposedly to make projection lenses, but in reality it was a smoke screen to allow A.W.Tronnier to develop aerial recon optics - the assumed reasons being somewhere between Schneider protecting their international reputation against negative publicity over such a breach of the Versailles treaty, and the arrangement allowing Tronnier to work based upon both Zeiss and Schneider patents without leaking them to the respective other. What was left of ISCO after the war eventually was taken over by the local management and lost the remaining already loose tie to the Schneider family as a minority shareholder.

[paulr]

Which Schneider? The current company formed in the early 80's or the bankrupt and liquidated comany that included Isco projection and movie lenses for 8 and Super 8mm that was liquidated and then purchased by Mandermann?

To be perfectly honest, this demonstrates why I bought Schneider lenses. The MTF curves from both companies looked practically identical. When I called Schneider for more information I got a technician who gave me a patient and impartial education about optics. When I called Rodenstock I got Bob.

[Bob Salomon]

What do you believe to be the difference? The current company (owned by Mandermann) is not only the successor of the (once insolvent, but never liquidated) Jos. Schneider Optische Werke Kreuznach, but it is actually the same, complete with buildings, staff and all assets - Mandermann did not re-found Schneider, but acquired them out of the German equivalent of chapter 11.

ISCO, by the way, has only become a part of Schneider about three years ago, when Schneider bought them. It started as a formally independent company, supposedly to make projection lenses, but in reality it was a smoke screen to allow A.W.Tronnier to develop aerial recon optics - the assumed reasons being somewhere between Schneider protecting their international reputation against negative publicity over such a breach of the Versailles treaty, and the arrangement allowing Tronnier to work based upon both Zeiss and Schneider patents without leaking them to the respective other. What was left of ISCO after the war eventually was taken over by the local management and lost the remaining already loose tie to the Schneider family as a minority shareholder.

Isco was a part of Schneider prior to Mandermann buying the company. The company was closed, Isco was spun off, and employees were reduced. He then re-opened as a new company with a different name.

Isco may have since been re-acquired by the current Schneider but not by Heinrich Mandermann. He died several years ago. His acquistions included B+W, Rollei as well as Schneider.

[Sevo]

Isco was a part of Schneider prior to Mandermann buying the company. The company was closed, Isco was spun off, and employees were reduced. He then re-opened as a new company with a different name.


It may well be that Schneider represented them in the US, but that is a different matter. As companies they were (at least formally) separate entities from the start until at least the seventies - if Schneider really owned them at the time they went bankrupt, they must have purchased them shortly before.



Isco may have since been re-acquired by the current Schneider but not by Heinrich Mandermann. He died several years ago. His acquistions included B+W, Rollei as well as Schneider.

It may have escaped you, but the Manderman estate, represented by his daughter, still owns Schneider...

[Bob Salomon]

It may well be that Schneider represented them in the US, but that is a different matter. As companies they were (at least formally) separate entities from the start until at least the seventies - if Schneider really owned them at the time they went bankrupt, they must have purchased them shortly before.



It may have escaped you, but the Manderman estate, represented by his daughter, still owns Schneider...

It was part of the factory, as was the USA division of Schneider. There was quite a bit of news about them spinning it off because of the percipitous drop in the use of lenses for super 8 lenses at the time they went under.
And yes, I know that his daughter in Israel is still involved. I believe she still owns a or some hotels there (Red Lion)? When we represented Rollei and B+W for him in the states he had invited us to go there but never had the chance and then we switched from B+W to Heliopan (he was not happy that the Rodenstock lens distributor sold B+W in the States and that the Schneider division in the USA did not) and then he sold Rollei to Samsung and we no longer worked with him but are still friendly with some of the Schneider management in Bad Kreuznach still. We worked with some of them in our Rollei and B+W days.
The least time we sold Rollei though was in 1996, since we started representing Rollei the last time in 1986 when it was part of United Scientific in the UK and stopped after it became part of Samsung we were there for all of Manderman's ownership. We were also involved with Rollei's involvement with Agfa for the development of the automatic school camera/lab that was developed out of the Dresden Practika factory that he was involved in as well as their original attempt at digital imaging with the ScanPacks digital backs for the 6xxx system in the 80's and early to mid 90s..

[Leigh]

This was a question to Lynn Jones not to you.
But this is "my" thread, and it's not about the companies.

Have the common courtesy to start your own if you want to discuss OT company history.

Don't hijack mine.

- Leigh

[John Kasaian]

I think you'l find as many variations between lenses put out by the same company (Schneider, or Rodenstock) as you will among like lenses between the two firms.
Unless your willing to have a dozen or so examples of each manufacture inspected by an independent lab in order to root out a "winner" I wouldn't think that there is much of a point in making a distinction between the two. IMHO, unless you're shooting from a space platform the issue is more of an exercise in frustration than anything practical---and even if you did find a "winner" any of the variables Armin listed would immediately toss it out of the winner's circle.

No sheet of film has ever lost any sleep worrying about who made the lens or camera. My 2-cents anyway.

[Leigh]

I think you'l find as many variations between lenses put out by the same company (Schneider, or Rodenstock) as you will among like lenses between the two firms.
No sheet of film has ever lost any sleep worrying about who made the lens or camera.
Hi John,

I agree. I wanted to investigate the possibility that there were differences I didn't know about.

I've done a fair amount of shooting over the last 50 years, but I don't have the budget to invest in a bushel basket full of lenses, then spend months and $$$ comparing them.

Thanks much.

- Leigh