PDA

View Full Version : When did Schneider's quality control improve?



Steve Goldstein
17-Apr-2012, 16:47
I've read many times about Schneider's poor quality control "long ago", and their later improvement. While many speak authoritatively about this, I don't recall ever seeing an actual date cited, or even an approximate one. Any hints?

Drew Wiley
17-Apr-2012, 20:27
Depends what specific category of lenses you're referring to. There was
a relatively brief era when Rodenstock's and Fuji's facilities or tooling were updated before Schneider's were. At that time, the general purpose
plasmats put out by these other two companies seemed to be a tweak
sharper or more modern. That was around the 70's. But I'd hardly call
Schneider's lenses poor at that time, or substandard per quality control.
They were excellent, but not "state of the art". Now if you're going way
back to the 1930's or something ... can't comment there.

cdholden
18-Apr-2012, 02:34
I haven't worked with any Schneider lens newer than a Symmar-S. I can say that I've seen several of these ranging from perfect glass to some with severe "Schneideritis". When did they quit making this line of lenses?
Do any of the APO Symmar or newer designs have this problem?

IanG
18-Apr-2012, 02:47
Schneider seem to have become more prominebt when they began supplying lenses to Nagel in 1928 who'd just left Zeiss Ikon to set up on his own again. Then 3 years later Kodak bought Nagel and you see Schneiders on Kodak cameras particularly in Europe.

Quality control seems to have neen increased in the late 60's and early 70's but some issues like variations in 90mm f6.8 Angulons may well be down to poor quality of the Compur shutters affecting lens cell spacing rather than the optics themselves.

Ian

Steve Goldstein
18-Apr-2012, 03:54
Thanks Ian, that's what I wanted to know. FWIW I have a very late 90mm Angulon (11,3xx,xxx) in a Copal 0 that performs quite well, it's going onto my Ben Syverson camera once those are in production.

Frank Petronio
18-Apr-2012, 04:32
I think the paint problem that causes Schneideritis still exists or did until recent times, as I have seen a 110XL with Schneideritis. I know the explanations are fair and all that but I'd still be upset if my >$1000 was flaking paint internally.

Peter Gomena
18-Apr-2012, 09:10
All of my Schneiders are late 1970s to early 1990s. My 1970x lens does not exhibit paint problems, but a 1980x 150mm Symmar-S and a 1980x G-Claron both have problems of varying degrees. All of my other 1980s lenses are fine, as is an early 1990s 90mm SA. I have yet to find a situation where paint flaking or bubbles have caused a problem with an image.

Peter Gomena

Drew Wiley
18-Apr-2012, 09:35
I don't know if Schneideritis actually affects the image at all, since it's peripheral. And it's
not unique to Schneider. I've gotten it with severe swings in temperature or humidity over
short cycles - first time was on a long autumn backpack trip in Utah canyons where the
day/nite temps swings were literally 80 degrees. The quality variations of Angulons are
pretty well known since this series of lenses was made over several decades, until repl by
the Super Angulon.

E. von Hoegh
18-Apr-2012, 09:39
All of my Schneiders are late 1970s to early 1990s. My 1970x lens does not exhibit paint problems, but a 1980x 150mm Symmar-S and a 1980x G-Claron both have problems of varying degrees. All of my other 1980s lenses are fine, as is an early 1990s 90mm SA. I have yet to find a situation where paint flaking or bubbles have caused a problem with an image.

Peter Gomena

I have a 1960~ convertible Symmar that has minor Schneideritus. I've been telling folks that Scneideritus means you have an extra good lens, like the bubbles used to mean. When the internal haze gets a bit worse, I'll take it apart and repaint the edges.

Except for the Angulons, I wasn't aware they had any QC issues.

Bob Salomon
18-Apr-2012, 11:07
Which Schneider?

"In 1922 the name was changed to Jos. Schneider & Co., Optische Werke, Kreuznach, and in 1998 to the current Jos. Schneider Optische Werke GmbH."

In between they went into liquidation, that was when Isco was spun off, and the company was bought by Mandermann.

graywolf
13-May-2012, 13:44
Actually, the only quality improvement I could find was to reduce the advertised coverage of the lenses in the early 1960's. For instance that famous/infamous 90/6.8 was at one time claimed to cover 100 degrees, and later only 80 degrees. Since there was no change to the lens, that would indicate that people wanted sharper lenses so they made them sharper by disinheriting the un-sharp portion of the image circle.

Lenses that did not need extended coverage were always great. My long gone Rolleiflex 2.8 E2 Xenotar (1957 vintage) was a sharp as one could ask for, but notice that when they went from the f/3.5 to the f/2.8 version of that lens they also went from 75mm to 80mm which indicates that the 75mm would not quite have sharp corners in that format. My opinion was that the Xenotar was a little bit more contrasty than the Planar.

What I am saying here is that I have never seen any quality control issues in Schneider lens if they were in "as new" condition. By "as new" I mean in the mechanical/optical condition they came from the factory in, not cosmetic condition. Remember, a lot of old lenses have been FIXED by IDIOTS.

Lynn Jones
15-May-2012, 14:57
The Symmars shown as "convertible" were very low contrast and not very sharp except as converted where they were pretty good. When the Symmars as Symmar S with conventional coating showed up they were truly excellent, and from then on.
Lynn

E. von Hoegh
16-May-2012, 06:50
The Symmars shown as "convertible" were very low contrast and not very sharp except as converted where they were pretty good. When the Symmars as Symmar S with conventional coating showed up they were truly excellent, and from then on.
Lynn

The convertible Symmars were and are excellent, sharp, contrasty lenses when used at their prime focal length. They do not of course have as much contrast as the multicoated non-convertible versions, however the difference is not great.

IanG
17-May-2012, 15:05
The convertible Symmars were and are excellent, sharp, contrasty lenses when used at their prime focal length. They do not of course have as much contrast as the multicoated non-convertible versions, however the difference is not great.

I think Lynn's statement was the wrong way around, as a whole the lenses are very good, decent contrast etc.

Ian

E. von Hoegh
18-May-2012, 06:56
I think Lynn's statement was the wrong way around, as a whole the lenses are very good, decent contrast etc.

Ian

I should hope so. If I have been using a very low contrast and unsharp lens without realising it these past 25 or so years, there is something seriously wrong....

Ole Tjugen
21-May-2012, 06:18
Actually, the only quality improvement I could find was to reduce the advertised coverage of the lenses in the early 1960's. For instance that famous/infamous 90/6.8 was at one time claimed to cover 100 degrees, and later only 80 degrees. Since there was no change to the lens, that would indicate that people wanted sharper lenses so they made them sharper by disinheriting the un-sharp portion of the image circle. ...

Except that there IS a slight change in the lens. Pre-1960's Angulons do have a larger image circle, if the purpose is contact prints. The design tweak gave more even sharpness over the advertised coverage, at the cost of a more abrupt loss of sharpness beyond 80.

I believe most of the "poor" Angulons have been affected by cement creep through improper storage. Since the inner elements in each cell are only held in place by the cement, storing an Angulon "on edge" in high temperatures might cause centralisation to be lost.

IanG
21-May-2012, 09:57
I believe most of the "poor" Angulons have been affected by cement creep through improper storage. Since the inner elements in each cell are only held in place by the cement, storing an Angulon "on edge" in high temperatures might cause centralisation to be lost.


Dean Jones (Razzledog) posted on this forum that he'd found that there were significant variations in the cell spacing caused by the Compor shutters (usually too great) and that when he corrected this (by machining the shutter) lenses that had previously been poor performers improved significantly. This would indicate a quality issue with the Compur shutters which was over looked by Schneider.

Ian