Rodenstock's iconic lenses

[genotypewriter]

Rodenstock has been around since 1877 and they still make some of the best lenses but I'm trying to figure out which of their designs are truly unique or iconic.

For example Zeiss has their Tessar, Biogon, Topogon, etc. to talk about. Schneider has their aspherical Super Symmar XLs, fast Xenotars, APO Tele-Xenars and modern incarnations of very desirable older designs like Fine Art XXLs. Voigtlander made Universal Heliar, Ultragon, etc.

Even when looking at sold ebay items, Rodenstock lenses that pick up high prices are mostly their modern digital lenses. I'm sure a 1000mm+ Apo-Ronar will sell for a lot of money but so will an Apo-Planar or a long Apo-Nikkor. I'm also not saying that every lens manufacturer must have some really special lens... but this is about Rodenstock in particular. What unique lenses did they make? Or did their popularity come from making a wide range of high quality lenses instead?

Thanks!

[IanG]

Eurynar.

Ian

[genotypewriter]

Eurynar.

Ian

Seems like a budget lens and they were literally giving them away:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/4956185889/

They sell for any where between $25-$170 on the bay as well.

[IanG]

Seems like a budget lens and they were literally giving them away:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/4956185889/

They sell for any where between $25-$170 on the bay as well.

Rodenstok's budget lens was the Trinar, the Eurynar is a dialyte and has significantly better resolution than a Tessar across the full aperture scale, and focus range, it's similar to a Goerz Celor and later 203mm f7.7 Kodak Anasigmat/Ektar (also Dialytes).

The downside to all Dialytes is the 8 air/glass surfaces compared to a Tessar's 4 which makes them more prone to flare. There were a few Eurynars made post WWII which were coated and they'd be a good as the 203mm Ektars.

In comparing historic prices it's worth noting that certain brands commanded premium prices, people would pay more for a lens with the Zeiss name.

Ian

[genotypewriter]

Imagon

A doublet with fancy stops... but fair enough

Rodenstok's budget lens was the Trinar,

Interesting to hear. The particular advertisement I linked to also suggests that the Eurynar was aimed at value buyers.

In comparing historic prices it's worth noting that certain brands commanded premium prices, people would pay more for a lens with the Zeiss name.

Where did Rodenstock rank, historically? Right now they seem to be making lenses that are just as good and if not better than comparable Schneider lenses.

[IanG]

Where did Rodenstock rank, historically? Right now they seem to be making lenses that are just as good and if not better than comparable Schneider lenses.

From a UK viewpoint of the German manufcaturers Rodenstock were behing Zeiss, Meyer, Voigtlander, Shneider but better than Steinheil, then there were a few other smaller companies. But then that's in terms of the sheer range of lenses they made not necessarily quality. By the early 1930's Zeiss and Meyer had large ranges of lenses, Schneider seem to become better known when Nagel split from Zeiss Ikon and initially his cameras where fitted with Schneider lenses, when Kodak bought Nagel they began using Zeiss lenses as well. It's at this point though (mid 30's that Schneider seemed to become better known, selling LF lenses in the UK.

Zeiss subcontracted some of their cheaper lenses and Rodenstock made many of the Novars, after WWII Zeiss Ikon used Scheider lenses on some of their cameras (Ikontas for instance) because they couldn't make enough lenses due to war damage.

Rodenstock seem to have remained quite small in comparison to their competitors and only really became better known after Zeiss (West germany) and Voigtlander had left the LF market.

I have a 1920's Rodenstock camera with a 135mm Eurynmar lens, and I've seen the lens alone sell for £130 ($165). The advert you listed is from a US distributor and advertising hype isn't always too accurate.


Ian

[dap]

A doublet with fancy stops... but fair enough

Yeah - nothing all that special about a doublet, but the fancy stops have been copied by at least two other lens manufacturers - so at least it can be considered innovative in that respect. In any case I think it can be considered one of their "signature" lenses ( for better or worse depending on your opinion of soft focus lenses).

[Bob Salomon]

Yeah - nothing all that special about a doublet, but the fancy stops have been copied by at least two other lens manufacturers - so at least it can be considered innovative in that respect. In any case I think it can be considered one of their "signature" lenses ( for better or worse depending on your opinion of soft focus lenses).

Which two use the disks in front of the lens rather then inside the lens?

[dap]

Which two use the disks in front of the lens rather then inside the lens?

Your right - Mamiya and Fuji both place the strainer inside the lens rather than on the outside rim. Knock the Imagon off the influential lens list - I'm sure both companies came up with the idea for using a strainer disc aperture in their soft focus lenses independently without any consideration to what Rodenstock was doing at the time.

[dap]

Imagon