Validity of "Linhof Select"

[Duane Polcou]

When perusing Ebay, many older Schneider lenses are branded "Linhof Select", which tend to sell for more. IMHO, I think this was simply a marketing tactic on the part of Linhof to create the illusion that their branded lenses were somehow superior in performance to mere-mortal Schneiders. After all, the feeling of exclusivity is a proven marketing technique, like labelling wine "Private Reserve". If it's so private, why is it on the shelf of a supermarket? lol . Plus I find it nearly inconceivable that a representative from Linhof actually tested all Schneider lenses and said
"Set all of these aside. These meet our requirements. You can have all the others"

Is there any actual evidence to substantiate the claim the Linhof Select lenses outperform non Linhof branded lenses? Just curious is all.

[CCHarrison]

The story I have heard is that Linhof Select lenses were actually selected from batches and they didapply higher standards / quality control than "run-of-the-mill" Schneiders. I am sure someone has more definitive data...look forward to hearing too...

Dan

[Brian Ellis]

It wasn't just a marketing ploy, at least not in the sense that Linhof just stuck their name on some of the lenses and did nothing else. Linhof did a variety of things to the lenses before they left the factory none of which do I now remember. However, the relevance of these things to lenses that are 10, 20, 50 years old, long after they left the factory, is questionable at best.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Actually, back in the 1940s, 1950s and early 1960s it did make a difference. In one of my old "International Photo Technik" magazines there is an article describing the additional quality control checks Linhof did on the lenses they received from their suppliers (it wasn't just Schneider, but also Zeiss and Voigtlander). They definitely had more rigorous and stringent quality requirements than their suppliers back in those days and only the very best lenses were selected and branded as "Linhof".

Of course, companies like Schneider eventually caught up, but even if Linhof's standards are no longer more rigorous, it can't hurt to have a lens pass two sets of quality control checks, just to weed out any that squeak through the first time.

Of course, when you're talking about lenses that are 50 - 60 years old, the condition of the lens and the way it was treated and stored over the years is more important than the condition it was in when it left the factory. I generally avoid buying any used lens that has obvious defects that show it was mistreated, or otherwise damaged. I have had several Linhof branded lenses over the years, all in excellent condition with no signs of abuse, and I haven't had a single one that was not an outstanding performer.

I can't say the same about "generic" Schneider lenses, especially from the late 1940s and earlly 1950s. I've seen 90mm Angulons from that time period that were in mint condition, but were just awful performers. Yet, every Linhof Select Angulon I've tested, regardless of age, has been an outstanding performer.

What I learned was that prior to the late 1960s, Schneider quality control was a bit spotty. Most of their lenses (if in excellent or better condition with no defects or signs of abuse) were still excellent performers, but an occasional dog slipped through. The second set of more rigorous quality checks by Linhof eliminated these dogs from the lenses that were selected to bear the Linhof name.

By the 1970s, Schneider's own quality control, while not perfect, had improved to the point where the number of "dogs" leaving the factory was nearly (but not completely) eliminated. Thus making the additional Linhof testing a bit redundant.

Kerry

[Bob Salomon]

Linhof has and still does test the lenses that they sell. And they currently sell Schneider and Rodenstock lenses and over the past few decades also sold Zeiss, Nikon and Voigtlander lenses which they also tested.
Currently Linhof test their lenses on the Rodenstock Siemens Star projector in a large room where the operator is able to easily see any deviations in the lenses and can easily pick the best lenses for a specific application. That means that the lenses they select for their panoramic cameras are selected for their performance over the area that they are destined to cover where the view camera lenses are selected for performance over their entire image circle.
The lenses that pass this test are then sent to a room where testers check the lenses for internal problems like dust or dirt between elements, flaked paint internally, etc. The lenses that have passed that far are then tested for the accuracy of their shutters.
Lenses that can not be properly cleaned, have other problems or did not pass the Siems Star test are returned to the manufacturers as not up to Linhof's quality level.

Before the aquisition of the current equipment they did tests photographically which has been documented in their catalogs from those periods of time. As technology has changed the test methods have changed. But they still offer the very best lenses from both Rodenstock and Schneider today. But is it worth the extra cost to you? Well that is only something that you can decide. However, how many threads have you read where someone either bought or suggested someone else buy multiple versions of the same lens and test to find the one they prefer? The Linhof select lenses remove that need.

[Frank Petronio]

What Bob and Kerry said... never bought a bad Linhof (or Sinar) version of a lens.

Plus those black Linhof Compur shutters with the conical face from the 1960s are so cool looking!

[Duane Polcou]

Wow, I owe the Linhof legacy an apology. I had no idea they actually went to the trouble to test every single lens to a higher set of standards before branding it Linhof.
Thank you for your responses, I knew I'd get an answer!

[BradS]

Wow, I owe the Linhof legacy an apology. I had no idea they actually went to the trouble to test every single lens to a higher set of standards before branding it Linhof.


I don't think that Linhof tested literally every single lens. Typically what is done is that a sample is drawn from an incoming lot and the sample is tested. The whole lot is accepted or rejected based upon the results obtained from the sample. This is a very standard and well documented operating procedure that is used throughout industry.

[Frank Petronio]

I doubt they test every lens Rodenstock or Schneider make. But I bet they test every lens that the manufacturer gives them before they get their select mark.

I bet you're talking hundreds of lenses, not tens of thousands. Something an individual tester might do.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Okay, so Linhof individually tested and gave their seal of approval for to every lens bearing their imprint but manufactured by others. And yes, if the manufacturer's Q/C was not up to snuff and once in awhile one or some got through not up to spec, Linhof would have rejected those by virtue of their testing every lens.

Equally plausible is that Linhofs lenses all were made for them on the very same machinery, milled or ground to the same tolerances as the original manufacturer's brand, with the very same optical designs and coatings and specifications and tolerances for error. Also plausible is that any lens failing Linhof's test would be have also been rejected by Rodenstock, Schneider, Ilex (or whomever) had the manufacturer tested that individual lens. So how big were those Q/C cracks? Did OEMs not test every lens themselves? Is Schneider or Rodenstock (or Ilex or whomever) known to have only collimated and tested every third or tenth or hundredth lens that came out of their production line?

It seems to me a stretch to think that there was one manufacturer's spec or tolerance for Linhof, and another for Rodenstock's own imprint, one for Sinar, and yet another for Calumet. To infer that Linhof was cherry picking the very best examples of lenses or that somehow failed ones went back to the factory become garden-variety Schneiders or Rodenstocks or Caltars or Sinarons or Ilexes or whatever seems absurd.

[Bob Salomon]

I don't think that Linhof tested literally every single lens. Typically what is done is that a sample is drawn from an incoming lot and the sample is tested. The whole lot is accepted or rejected based upon the results obtained from the sample. This is a very standard and well documented operating procedure that is used throughout industry.

No, they test all of the lenses that are sent to them to fill their order. They return any that don't pass their tests.

[Steve Smith]

So instead of Linhof select, it should be Linhof not rejected!


Steve.

[Lachlan 717]

Where/how do you get these (new, that is)?

[Bob Salomon]

Where/how do you get these (new, that is)?

You order them from your dealer.

[Bob Salomon]

So instead of Linhof select, it should be Linhof not rejected!


Steve.

Try selected instead.

[Frank Petronio]

I take Bob at face value, in all his years here I haven't ever gotten any mis-information or sales hype, just the facts. (He's also a valuable and welcome resource on this forum, so please play nice.) His point is a good one, that some of the fussier photographers will buy multiple lenses and select the best, returning or reselling the rest. But getting a select version saves that question, and for a critical application, if someone has the resources -- then more power to them. Someone has to make the "best" and here it is.

If you are buying used lenses, especially older ones, then the premium you pay for a Linhof or Sinar-selected lens is negligible, if there is any at all. They are considerably more expensive new or if they are in a specialized mount, such as for a Linhof pano camera.

Since I can only afford used lenses, I would opt for the selected version if choosing between two otherwise equal choices. And I wouldn't pay more than 10% or so extra.

Likewise, since Calumet offered Schneider and Rodenstock lenses under their house brand (Caltar) at slightly lower price, I expect to pay about 10% less for them as well.

Like Kerry said, the older lenses show more sample variation. Buying a post-1980s good condition Rodenstock or Schneider, whether original, select, or Caltar, is almost always going to get you a fine lens for normal use - 20x24 prints, double-page magazine spreads, etc.

I doubt you could ever distinguish much practical difference with the modern lenses unless you scan and print on a larger than average scale AND make the effort to make tests that compare results between lens. But if you're an exhibiting photographer making expensive, giant prints, I bet you could easily start to see the subtle differences between lenses, at least if given the choice from similar images made by each one. If you're not going to compare and test yourself, then you'll never know the differences -- and you might as well be happy with your choice.

I'm happy enough with my inexpensive pedestrian lenses given what I pay for them. Sometimes I've lucked out and gotten a great lens at a bargain price. But I don't expect them to be the very best of the best at this level, nor do I do work that would greatly benefit from some extra-sharp, higher resolving/contrasting lens.... But how much do you want to bet those German art togs who sell giant prints for $100,000 are using either Linhof- or Sinar-selected lenses?

[Bob Salomon]

"Buying a post-1980s good condition Rodenstock or Schneider, whether original, select, or Caltar, is almost always going to get you a fine lens for normal use - 20x24 prints, double-page magazine spreads, etc."

Don't forget. Schneider was liquidated after their bankruptcy in the 80s. That is not always the best way to make the decision. Are you talking about pre-liquidation or post-liquidation?

[Frank Petronio]

Hmm, I don't know? I've had an excellent Linhof 150mm Symmar from 1983, several fine 1960s-era Linhof Symmars, Xenars, and Angulons in recent times. Back in the 80s when I worked in studios, the then new Schneiders were all really great. Later I switched to Rodenstocks and did most of my commercial work with new Sironar-N and Grandagon-Ns and later.

But then I haven't gone out of my way to buy any ugly, bad lenses to compare them to in order to realize what a good deal I got! ;-p

With used lenses I start by judging their overall condition. While Schneideritis is not really a terrible problem, I find it distracting and ugly, so I avoid those -- and a lot of the Symmars from that era seem to have developed it.

Likewise I check old Rodenstocks more closely for signs of separation, since you see that more often in older models of that brand.

[Brian Ellis]

Okay, so Linhof individually tested and gave their seal of approval for to every lens bearing their imprint but manufactured by others. And yes, if the manufacturer's Q/C was not up to snuff and once in awhile one or some got through not up to spec, Linhof would have rejected those by virtue of their testing every lens.

Equally plausible is that Linhofs lenses all were made for them on the very same machinery, milled or ground to the same tolerances as the original manufacturer's brand, with the very same optical designs and coatings and specifications and tolerances for error. Also plausible is that any lens failing Linhof's test would be have also been rejected by Rodenstock, Schneider, Ilex (or whomever) had the manufacturer tested that individual lens. So how big were those Q/C cracks? Did OEMs not test every lens themselves? Is Schneider or Rodenstock (or Ilex or whomever) known to have only collimated and tested every third or tenth or hundredth lens that came out of their production line?

It seems to me a stretch to think that there was one manufacturer's spec or tolerance for Linhof, and another for Rodenstock's own imprint, one for Sinar, and yet another for Calumet. To infer that Linhof was cherry picking the very best examples of lenses or that somehow failed ones went back to the factory become garden-variety Schneiders or Rodenstocks or Caltars or Sinarons or Ilexes or whatever seems absurd.

My understanding from reading descriptions of what Linhof did/does in Linhof books and literature is that they didn't "cherry pick," in the sense of testing every lens that came off Schneider or whoever's production line and keeping the best. They took a batch of lenses, performed their own tests, rejected some (which went back to the manufacturer and presumably were sold by the manufacturer if they met the manufacturer's QC standards) and kept others. Those that were kept were those that met Linhof's tighter standards than the manufacturers' standards in whatever areas they were testing. IIRC Linhof also did one or two things to the lenses besides just testing them but I've forgotten now what those things were.

I'm not sure why that seems so absurd to you but if it does then so be it.

[BradS]

... Linhof's lenses were all made for them on the very same machinery, milled or ground to the same tolerances as the original manufacturer's brand, with the very same optical designs and coatings and specifications

I have to say, I strongly agree with you on this point.

Before the dawn of modern mass production, it may have been necessary to test 100% of the incoming material. However, given modern factory automation and statistical process controls, it seems wasteful of time and money and completely un-necessary to do so. (unless manufacturing lot sizes are very small - which would be a very inefficient way to run a factory and is therefore doubtful). If process variation is small, then everything produced by the process is virtually identical.

This whole notion of Linhof cherry picking individual lenses and, by implication, tossing the (unlikely) rejects just feels like so much internet story telling...but the unlikely part is the key to it...the probability of rejecting an incoming item really is quite small and so, they only waste the time and energy of testing them all - but this they can rationalize by a marketing consideration.

In other words, they make a big splash about testing a 100% sample and let the consumer draw the conclusion that to the Linhof badged lens is somehow better than the identical Schneider or Rodenstock. Once the consumer makes this leap, they are willing to pay more for the Linhof badged optic even though it is virtually identical to the similar house brand. In this way, Linhof are more than able to recoup the expense of testing 100%. It's just a business tactic.

Assume that the Linhof badged lenses are in actual fact produced in the same factory, by the same machines and to the exact same specs as the Manufacturers' "house brands" (ie Rodenstock or Schneider). Both brands are subject to and pass the exact same factory tests. it follows that...the only real difference is cosmetic (and clever marketing).

[ic-racer]

The "Linhof" branding may be of some value if the lens was RECENTLY passed through the QC Bob pointed out. Otherwise, on a used lens you don't even know if all the lenses in a cell came that way from the factory.

[GPS]

...

Equally plausible is that Linhofs lenses all were made for them on the very same machinery, milled or ground to the same tolerances as the original manufacturer's brand, with the very same optical designs and coatings and specifications and tolerances for error.
...


If you somehow deduct from the fact of the "same machinery etc." that all same lenses made are the same you are not only technically naive but ignorant also. With your incorrect logic technical QC would become unnecessary - all is saved by "the very same machinery...etc."

[Ivan J. Eberle]

They took a batch of lenses, performed their own tests, rejected some (which went back to the manufacturer and presumably were sold by the manufacturer if they met the manufacturer's QC standards) and kept others. Those that were kept were those that met Linhof's tighter standards than the manufacturers' standards in whatever areas they were testing. IIRC Linhof also did one or two things to the lenses besides just testing them but I've forgotten now what those things were.

I'm not sure why that seems so absurd to you but if it does then so be it.

Now that's not just absurd--it's preposterous. You presume to know that the lenses tested and rejected by Linhof's additional testing somehow DID meet Rodenstocks or Schneiders or Voigtlander's internal testing standards and specifications. Or that there was any quantity of rejects (As if all the second-tier 105mm APO Lanthars got mounted to a run of Bessa II's that week?!!)

Provided these lenses were manufactured alongside others, they must have the same manufacturing tolerances. Other than randomly cherry picking the best examples within those tolerances, they can't be "better" since they were not made to some tighter tolerance.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

GPS, I can do without the ad hominem attack.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Did the manufacturers Q/C check each and every lens that came off the end of their line? I don't know, but it would be surprising to learn that they haven't at least tested collimation of each LF lens prior to shipping since the late 70's. Consider too that these venerable lens manufacturers initially designed, prototyped and developed most (all?) of these lenses themselves. Likely they sold many times the volume under their own name versus the relatively few sold under Linhof's badge. OEMs had nothing to gain and much to lose by being shoddy and not making the very best lenses they could possibly make, with every single lens.

And it's a huge stretch of the imagination to think that if Rodenstock suddenly discovered something out of spec via a batch of rejects from Linhof or Sinar, that they didn't tighten up or replace worn tooling in their manufacturing process and revisit their own collimation procedures and Q/C protocol. Any such improvements would have applied equally for all the lenses that subsequently came off that line.

If indeed Linhof's testing was performed on every lens (and I will take it at face value that this is the case) it would have ensured that none fell through the Q/C cracks. Bully for them, that's laudable. And when new, that would provide a form of quality assurance guarantee, a wonderful marketing tool. It might also be expected since wealthy collectors and connoisseurs of the very best camera gear gravitated to Linhof, that these original owners also had their "kit" CLA'd on an annual or semi annual schedule by Linhof (or their approved counterparts), rather than taking them to the neighborhood corner shutter repair guy or taking matters into their own hands with the RoboGrip pliers and Ronsonol.

But 30-50 year old used lenses on eBay have no such guarantee beyond a 7 day money-back, if so stated. Common problems of old lenses (balsam separation, Schneideritis, gummy shutters, de-centered elements from heat damage), are mostly going to be condition issues related to storage and abuse or lack thereof.

Caveat emptor, Linhof Selected or not.

[Bob Salomon]

"they didn't "cherry pick,"

In some cases they do. Lenses for Technoramas are cherry picked as were lenses for speciality cameras like the Aero Technika and the Aerotronica. The Technoramas are current product but since the aerials are out of production they no longer pick lenses for them.

[BradS]

No, they test all of the lenses that are sent to them to fill their order. They return any that don't pass their tests.

This is interesting Bob.

Are Linhof lenses supplied with the unique test results corresponding to each individual lens?

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

I think it's invalid to assume lenses rejected and returned by Linhof were then sold under the manufacturer's own brand name. One would hope that the manufacturer would do a complete failure analysis on the small sample of failing lenses and use that data to improve their manufacturing and QC process.

I have never heard any evidence that these rejects were sold to the general public under the Schneider, Rodenstock, Zeiss, Voigtlander or Caltar brand names. None of these manufacturers want subpar lenses associated with their brand names. It would meke no sense for them to agree to accept someone else's rejects.

So, unless someone here has evidence that the Lihof rejects were subsequently sold under different brand names, claiming they are is completely unfounded speculation.

Kerry

[GPS]

...

Provided these lenses were manufactured alongside others, they must have the same manufacturing tolerances. Other than randomly cherry picking the best examples within those tolerances, they can't be "better" since they were not made to some tighter tolerance.

Indeed, it is technical ignorance that is the reason of your wrong conclusions.
Modern lenses have often a great number of lens elements, separated by a number of distance rings. Think of this - each element has its own dimension, even if in its own tolerance. Put together, their optical performance is a result of multiplied imprecisions - a result that is not possible to predict as the real dimensions have different effect depending on the mutual position in the assembled lens. Add to it the tolerances in the distance rings etc. and you can see why there is a technical control at the end of the manufacturing chain. Some lenses have their optical performance in given tolerances, some are slightly off, some are lemons. That's why an assembled lens can differ from others depending on its own optical identity resulting from the sum of the changes in the real dimensions of all of its elements, optical and mechanical ones.

All this happens even if the lenses (their elements and the mechanical parts) are manufactured to the same tolerance - but surely not with the same result.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

By the point they were tested, they'd also have been assembled into cells with Linhof engraving, in Linhof badged shutters, wouldn't they? I'm curious about the process of how Linhof could have "cherry picked" these, besides than rejecting some quantity of defective lenses? Any verification of what % of lenses OEM'd for Linhof got rejected?

[BradS]

I think it's invalid to assume lenses rejected and returned by Linhof were then sold under the manufacturer's own brand name. One would hope that the manufacturer would do a complete failure analysis on the small sample of failing lenses and use that data to improve their manufacturing and QC process.

I have never heard any evidence that these rejects were sold to the general public under the Schneider, Rodenstock, Zeiss, Voigtlander or Caltar brand names. None of these manufacturers want subpar lenses associated with their brand names. It would meke no sense for them to agree to accept someone else's rejects.

So, unless someone here has evidence that the Lihof rejects were subsequently sold under different brand names, claiming they are is completely unfounded speculation.

Kerry


Obviously, Schneider and Rodenstock cannot simply resell the Linhof rejects as their own. The Linhof lenses have "Linhof" engraved in the barrel - don't they? Very likely, the manufacturers rework the rejects and reship them to Linhof.

[GPS]

..

Common problems of old lenses (balsam separation, Schneideritis, gummy shutters, de-centered elements from heat damage), are mostly going to be condition issues related to storage and abuse or lack thereof.
...

Ivan, you talk about something you don't have knowledge of. Schneideritis is not caused mostly by conditions "related to storage". There has never been a case of an accumulated number of Schneider lenses kept in bad atmospheric conditions. Their illness was due to the chemical composition of their balsam. That was lately corrected - end of Schneideritis.

[BradS]

Ivan, you talk about something you don't have knowledge of. Schneideritis is not caused mostly by conditions "related to storage". There has never been a case of an accumulated number of Schneider lenses kept in bad atmospheric conditions. Their illness was due to the chemical composition of their balsam. That was lately corrected - end of Schneideritis.

Seems like you may have confused the corrective action with the root cause. Changing balsam was the corrective action. We don't really know what caused the problem. Could be that environmental factors had an effect.

[GPS]

Obviously, Schneider and Rodenstock cannot simply resell the Linhof rejects as their own. The Linhof lenses have "Linhof" engraved in the barrel - don't they? Very likely, the manufacturers rework the rejects and reship them to Linhof.

One can intelligently assume that the engraving comes after the QC, not before...:rolleyes:

[GPS]

Seems like you may have confused the corrective action with the root cause. Changing balsam was the corrective action. We don't really know what caused the problem. Could be that environmental factors had an effect.

Schneider knew where the problem was. They changed the balsam chemistry.

[BradS]

One can intelligently assume that the engraving comes after the QC, not before...:rolleyes:

Uh...no. No way. Machine the lens after QC is complete? ...and thereby invalidate all of the QC testing? No. I don't think that would be intelligent at all.

[GPS]

Uh...no. No way. Machine the lens after QC is complete? ...and thereby invalidate all of the QC testing? No. I don't think that would be intelligent at all.

How does engraving invalidate "all of the QC testing"? Or do you think that when Schneider engraves buyers name on their Art lenses they produced that lens with the name on it from the beginning??

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

The Linhof lenses have "Linhof" engraved in the barrel - don't they?

Not until they pass the Linhof QC checks. Until then, they are unengraved in standard Copal/Compur shutters and look just like any other lens from the manufacturer.

Back in the 40s, 60s and 60s Linhof had special decorative faceplates for the Compur shutters than replaced the standard generic faceplates. They also had special trim rings labeled "Technika" around the front element. And, then, they engraved the wors "Linhof" on th eoutside of the front lens barrel.

These days, they no longer have the decorative face plates or trim rings. They just engrave "Linhof" in a thin, cursive font on the outside of the front barrel.

Kerry

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Uh...no. No way. Machine the lens after QC is complete? ...and thereby invalidate all of the QC testing? No. I don't think that would be intelligent at all.

Engraving lightly on the outside of the lens barrel, if done properly, will have no detrimental affect on the equality of the lens.

I'd need to dig out my old "Grossbild" and "International Photo Technik" magazines to site a definitive reference, but I'm 99.9% certain the engraving takes place after the lens has passed the Linhof QC requirements.

Perhaps Bob can confirm.

Kerry

[Ivan J. Eberle]

GPS, go fill out your profile so I know who I'm about to personally address.

You have over 2200 posts but apparently only 4 were started by you. A preponderance of your postings are follow-on to threads that swiftly escalate into nasty personal attacks.

Are you a unique poster here or someone's sock-puppet alter ego?

[back on Ignore list]

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Kerry, at least the Linhof Select APO Lanthars I've seen have the word "Technika" engraved and filled with red paint, on what appears to be the front cell retaining ring.

As an example:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Linhof-Technika-APO-LANTHAR-21cm-210mm-f-4-5-MINT-/250833497192

Surely this engraving and painting could not have be something casually undertaken after the lens was final assembled and tested, particularly since checking for dust and metal shards was part of the testing.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Kerry, at least the Linhof Select APO Lanthars I've seen have the word "Technika" engraved and filled with red paint, on what appears to be the front cell retaining ring.

As an example:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Linhof-Technika-APO-LANTHAR-21cm-210mm-f-4-5-MINT-/250833497192

Surely this engraving and painting could not have be something casually undertaken after the lens was final assembled and tested, particularly since checking for dust and metal shards was part of the testing.

That's the metal trim ring I was refering to in my post. I suspect the trim rings were engraved off the lens and then swapped for the unengraved ring. Or perhaps, they were engraved in place before the final inspection for dust/dirt. Maybe Bob can let us know for sure.

Kerry

[Bob Salomon]

Yes, lens are marked with the Linhof name after it has passed the tests. And front rings can be replaced by a lens manufacturer anyway. In addition the logos are not traditionally engraved today. Some are screened and some seem to be laser.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Regarding "Schneideritis," this usually refers to flaking opaque paint from the edges of lens elements, not deterioration of canadian balsam cement used between lens elements. The fault was never unique to Schneider, but it was particularly visible on lenses like the Super-Angulon, because of the sharply angled sides of the lens elements that were visible when looking at the front of the lens. If Schneider had set their wide lenses in cylindrical bezels instead of conical bezels, no one would have noticed the flaking paint without very careful inspection.

[GPS]

Well, David, to my knowledge, to be more precise, the problem was caused by the balsam glue (or glue, if you prefer) separating from the black paint of the rings. Surely, it was not a problem of the glue between lens elements holding them together, I agree.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Also, didn't most lens manufacturers switch to synthetic UV curing cements in the 1940s and 1950s, if not sooner? Balsam is much more likely to separate, discolor or chrystalize and went out of favor as soon as better performing synthetic cements became available.

Kerry

[GPS]

Kerry, light curing materials (LCM) to my knowledge are from the 60' of the last century. The material that succeeded optical balsam were resins and they started to be available about the WWII, I think.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Kerry, light curing materials (LCM) to my knowledge are from the 60' of the last century. The material that succeeded optical balsam were resins and they started to be available about the WWII, I think.

Sounds right. I knew balsam fell out of favor after WWII when better, more modern adhesives became readily available.

Kerry

[Arne Croell]

Sounds right. I knew balsam fell out of favor after WWII when better, more modern adhesives became readily available.

Kerry
Between the use of balsam and the UV-curing cements, there was an intermediate stage where the companies used heat-curing cements, in the 1950's to 1960's. These did not recrystallize like balsam, but had more shrinkage than the later UV-curing ones. They are the ones that are most prone to show separation.

[Paul Ewins]

Strong sense of deja vu here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=67822

Anyway, the eventual conclusion was:
1. Linhof labelled lenses were all tested and those that didn't make the grade were returned to be fixed or replaced.

2. Lenses are ordered and manufactured in batches. In some batches all of the lenses were sold by Schneider. In some batches lenses were also delivered to Linhof and/or Sinar. Some batches went entirely to Linhof or Sinar, so there was no large pool of lenses from which to choose the best.

3. While some lenses may have passed the Schneider QC but failed the Linhof QC, most lenses would have passed both QC tests. (i.e. a reject rate of 50% or more from Linhof would not have been sustainable).

So some (probably most) Schneider branded lenses would meet the Linhof spec and of course all Linhof lenses would meet the Linhof spec.

[pdmoylan]

Never found a QC issue or a case of Schneideritis with Nikkors (or Fujis for that matter). Don't want to bet the barn on a label? Buy Japanese glass. On the other hand, Schneider and Rodenstock have clearly eclipsed the designs of the 80s.

[Duane Polcou]

Strong sense of deja vu here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=67822



Thanks Paul. I missed this thread when I did my initial search before posting.

[Brian K]

Okay, so Linhof individually tested and gave their seal of approval for to every lens bearing their imprint but manufactured by others. And yes, if the manufacturer's Q/C was not up to snuff and once in awhile one or some got through not up to spec, Linhof would have rejected those by virtue of their testing every lens.

Equally plausible is that Linhofs lenses all were made for them on the very same machinery, milled or ground to the same tolerances as the original manufacturer's brand, with the very same optical designs and coatings and specifications and tolerances for error. Also plausible is that any lens failing Linhof's test would be have also been rejected by Rodenstock, Schneider, Ilex (or whomever) had the manufacturer tested that individual lens. So how big were those Q/C cracks? Did OEMs not test every lens themselves? Is Schneider or Rodenstock (or Ilex or whomever) known to have only collimated and tested every third or tenth or hundredth lens that came out of their production line?

It seems to me a stretch to think that there was one manufacturer's spec or tolerance for Linhof, and another for Rodenstock's own imprint, one for Sinar, and yet another for Calumet. To infer that Linhof was cherry picking the very best examples of lenses or that somehow failed ones went back to the factory become garden-variety Schneiders or Rodenstocks or Caltars or Sinarons or Ilexes or whatever seems absurd.


Anyone who has ever tested multiple lenses of the same manufacturer, focal length, design and even the same run, can tell you that lenses vary. One 150mm Rodenstock might be better than another. Same goes for Schneider, Nikon, Zeiss, Fuji, etc. In my studio days I would buy multiple lenses, test them and keep the best one.

For a company like Linhof or Sinar, and I own many Sinaron lenses, to buy a bunch, test them and reject the ones that are not in say the top 25 or 50% performance of the lot, and charge a premium for that is not unrealistic. And it is not unrealistic for the lens manufacturers to allow Linhof and Sinar to do so because they buy a fair amount of their lenses and the manufacturer gets back the ones, that while still good, don't match the higher specs required by Linhof and Sinar. If Rodenstock did not allow this, or vice versa, then Schneider would get exclusive sales access, and the status of being the Linhof and Sinar selects.

Those Sinaron lenses I said I own, they each came with a test report and MTF charts specific to my actual lens. The serial numbers on the test matching those of my lens. Could Sinar have faked that? It's possible, but given what little they have to gain and what they have to lose, it is very unlikely.

[Brian K]

I think it's invalid to assume lenses rejected and returned by Linhof were then sold under the manufacturer's own brand name. One would hope that the manufacturer would do a complete failure analysis on the small sample of failing lenses and use that data to improve their manufacturing and QC process.

I have never heard any evidence that these rejects were sold to the general public under the Schneider, Rodenstock, Zeiss, Voigtlander or Caltar brand names. None of these manufacturers want subpar lenses associated with their brand names. It would meke no sense for them to agree to accept someone else's rejects.

So, unless someone here has evidence that the Lihof rejects were subsequently sold under different brand names, claiming they are is completely unfounded speculation.

Kerry


Kerry the Linhof or Sinar rejects could still be very good lenses. No one is saying that they're rejected because they're crap, they're rejected because they are not the best of the lot. If they were crap do you think they'd ever pass Schneider's or Rodenstock's
own QC? It's just a matter of standards.

[Frank Petronio]

It's like doctors, someone has to be top of the class but most 50-percentile ones are going to be more than fine.

Just don't visit Dr. Caltar, lol.

[Allen in Montreal]

I take Bob at face value, in all his years here I haven't ever gotten any mis-information or sales hype, just the facts......


+2

Just the facts, and decide for yourself.

[Bob Salomon]

Kerry the Linhof or Sinar rejects could still be very good lenses. No one is saying that they're rejected because they're crap, they're rejected because they are not the best of the lot. If they were crap do you think they'd ever pass Schneider's or Rodenstock's
own QC? It's just a matter of standards.

Brian,

To be more specific, the lenses sent to Linhof by the lens manufacturers had passed all of the lens manufacturer's QC tests before being sent to Linhof. When a lens was rejected and sent back there was no reason why the lens manufacturer would not sell them, after all, they passed the factory's tests, they just did not pass Linhof's tests.

This is no different then you stating "In my studio days I would buy multiple lenses, test them and keep the best one.". Those that you returned were still sold to someone else. You just had higher standards or different needs. Linhof just has more complex ways of measuring some things then you have and then use a light and a loupe to test for others. The biggest reason for lenses not passing the tests seem to involve dust or artifacts in the lenses themselves that can not be cleaned by the user or the camera manufacturer. Most lenses pass the Siemens Star test procedure today.

[Brian K]

Brian,

To be more specific, the lenses sent to Linhof by the lens manufacturers had passed all of the lens manufacturer's QC tests before being sent to Linhof. When a lens was rejected and sent back there was no reason why the lens manufacturer would not sell them, after all, they passed the factory's tests, they just did not pass Linhof's tests.

This is no different then you stating "In my studio days I would buy multiple lenses, test them and keep the best one.". Those that you returned were still sold to someone else. You just had higher standards or different needs. Linhof just has more complex ways of measuring some things then you have and then use a light and a loupe to test for others. The biggest reason for lenses not passing the tests seem to involve dust or artifacts in the lenses themselves that can not be cleaned by the user or the camera manufacturer. Most lenses pass the Siemens Star test procedure today.

Bob, what you're saying is in complete agreement with what I stated. These are all lenses that passed the lens manufacturer's own QC and are therefore good lenses. The additional testing by Linhof and Sinar is just about getting the best of the best.

[Allen in Montreal]

..... The additional testing by Linhof and Sinar is just about getting the best of the best.

The practice is called Cherry Picking.
:-)
Happens in all trades. It is said that inspectors from Japan sail on large Canadian salmon fishing trollers and pick the best of the catch and pay a premium for the rights to do so.
I don't see any difference here.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Better performance via cherry picking or testing would require that a significant percentage of lenses be returned for failing the optical test. That question has been asked but not answered directly, nor in the affirmative.

The most definitive responder, Bob Salomon, has said that in the recent era most lenses do indeed pass the optical test, and that the optical standards and tests are essentially equal.

[Bob Salomon]

Better performance via cherry picking or testing would require that a significant percentage of lenses be returned for failing the optical test. That question has been asked but not answered directly, nor in the affirmative.

The most definitive responder, Bob Salomon, has said that in the recent era most lenses do indeed pass the optical test, and that the optical standards and tests are essentially equal.

But I also said that lenses fail and the main reason is foreign matter.
The test projector that both Linhof and Sinar uses is the one made by Rodenstock and used in their own tests.

[Paul Ewins]

The practice is called Cherry Picking.
:-)
Happens in all trades. It is said that inspectors from Japan sail on large Canadian salmon fishing trollers and pick the best of the catch and pay a premium for the rights to do so.
I don't see any difference here.

The difference is that Linhof didn't get access to a huge pool of lenses and then take all of the good ones, they were sent a batch of lenses and then rejected the not-quite-as-good ones. The absolute best-of-the-best are just as likely to be Schneider branded as Linhof branded but any dogs will just be Schneider branded. FWIW this probably only applies to the big selling lenses - 90 & 120 Angulon/Super Angulon and 135, 150, 210, 240 Symmar or Xenar - where the batch sizes were large enough (100+) that QC might be a bit a little less rigorous. Batch sizes of 5 or 10 were normal for the 500/5.5 Tele Xenar and 10 - 20 for the 165 and 210 Super Angulons so you can bet that they all made the grade. Another anomaly appears to be the 127/4.7 Press Xenar which for most of its life was only sold by Linhof leaving nowhere for the dogs to go.