Schneider lens with Linhof logo

[Bob Salomon]

Bob Beresford is right about the de-lamination problem with some older Rodenstok lenses, particularly the Sironars, but I have heard of it happening with Grandagons too. There is a slight sign of it starting in my oldest Sironar, but my newer Sironar N and Grandagon N are fine.

I've never heard of a similar problem with Schneider lenses.

Ian

Nonsense. All lenses can separate. Old Rodenstock lenses are no more prone to do so then old Schneider lenses.

We have been the USA distributor for Rodenstock lenses since 1988. Since 1988 we have extended a lifetime warranty on all Rodenstock lenses that we import. Since 1988 we have not received one lens for service covered by our warranty with any sign of separation.

Separation occurs because of handling and storage conditions. A lens that receives an impact may develop a small pinhole in the sealant around the edge of the elements. That small hole can let moisture into the lamination between two elements. That then starts separation in lenses.

Modern lenses are very immune to this effect. All old lenses can have this happen.

[IanG]

As you've only been Rodenstock distributors since 1988 then it's highly unlikely you'd have had any of the older Sironar's sent back to you with separation anyway, as by then they would have been well out of warranty.

My lens with separation starting is quite an old Sironar 150mm, and made sometime in the early to mid 70's. My other Sironar N is Multicoated (has no problems) and is a slightly different looking lens and it also pre-dates your company's involvement with Rodenstock.

It seems the separation problems occurs mainly in very early Sironars, and as Bob says he's amazed you've never encountered the issue. It's most certainly not nonsense, its quite well known.

Ian

[Dan Fromm]

Um, Bob, I have a 58/5.6 Grandagon originally in Graflex XL mount and one of my neighbors has one still in XL mount. Both of these lenses have bad separations in both cells. I've seen other XL 58 Grandagons with the same problems, also a 100/5.6 Sironar of the same vintage with bad separations.

These lenses were all made well before 1988 and are long out of warranty. I'm glad for purchasers of newer Rodenstock lenses that these problems are now extremely rare, but there seems to have been a time when Rodenstock had problems with optical cements.

[walter23]

I'm skeptical and think this is nothing more than stupid branding games. I'm sure they did an additional quality control test if that's what they claim, but I doubt the lenses are any better. At best it probably just means they manage to screen out a few more duds before they hit the market. I'm more of a caltar guy than a Linhof-Select guy I'll take advantage of the branding silliness to get a bargain rather than pay more.

In short, the Linhof logo says that Linhof have made their own quality testing before engraving the logo onto the lens. It means that the lens is good enough for Linhof and that the lens is/was offered as a Linhof lens, nothing more spectacular.
Sinar does the same for their own branded lenses, which are Rodenstock lenses that have a second round of testing in the Sinar plant in Switzerland. This is done with a machine bought from Rodenstock, (probably) doing the very same round of tests as Rodenstock does. (I do believe that the testing protocols are the very same at the Linhof plant. Probably with a similar piece of Rodenstock equipment.)
It is also quite probable that if any type of lens from any manufacturer would have quality problems, Linhof would not even consider offering that particular lens to their customers, nor would Sinar. Both of these quite conservative companies are very much aware of their positions on the market and that everything they put their name on should be of good quality.

The logo does add a small percentage to the value, but please note "small". Of course it's a bit different with new lenses, which have quite a hefty pricetag. If the lens is below 9 to 10 in rating, i.e. it's a user lens, the logo really is of academical interest.

There is plenty of information about the Linhof engraving/logo to be found in this forum if you make a search for it.

//Björn

[Bob Salomon]

These lenses were all made well before 1988 and are long out of warranty. I'm glad for purchasers of newer Rodenstock lenses that these problems are now extremely rare, but there seems to have been a time when Rodenstock had problems with optical cements.

Any lens from that era can have separation. Nothing brand specific there. It depends on how it was treated and stored over all those decades.

[Frank Petronio]

But Walter, do you trust or like any corporation?

[IanG]

Um, Bob, I have a 58/5.6 Grandagon originally in Graflex XL mount and one of my neighbors has one still in XL mount. Both of these lenses have bad separations in both cells. I've seen other XL 58 Grandagons with the same problems, also a 100/5.6 Sironar of the same vintage with bad separations.

These lenses were all made well before 1988 and are long out of warranty. I'm glad for purchasers of newer Rodenstock lenses that these problems are now extremely rare, but there seems to have been a time when Rodenstock had problems with optical cements.

Any lens from that era can have separation. Nothing brand specific there. It depends on how it was treated and stored over all those decades.

Bob, we are talking specifically about these early Sironar & Grandagon Rodenstock lenses, it may due to the type of lens cement they were using and coincide with the change from older balsam cements to the newer types.

I have 6 or 7 Rodenstock LF lenses, and about the same no of Scneider lenses, plus various from other manufacturers - only the early Sironar shows any sign of seperation.

Sure any vintage/old lenses can suffer separation, but modern lenses are not very prone to it, except it seems the early Rodenstock Sironars and Grandagons.

Ian

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, we are talking specifically about these early Sironar & Grandagon Rodenstock lenses, it may due to the type of lens cement they were using and coincide with the change from older balsam cements to the newer types.

I have 6 or 7 Rodenstock LF lenses, and about the same no of Scneider lenses, plus various from other manufacturers - only the early Sironar shows any sign of seperation.

Sure any vintage/old lenses can suffer separation, but modern lenses are not very prone to it, except it seems the early Rodenstock Sironars and Grandagons.

Ian

Specifically

[BOB BERESFORD]

Any lens from that era can have separation. Nothing brand specific there. It depends on how it was treated and stored over all those decades.

We are now getting into a problem of a commercial bias affecting reality - exactly what was never intended on this website and why it is supposed to be closed to dealers........so at least if Bob could avoid commenting on things he distributes - especially Rodenstock lenses - the truth might shine through without angry denials ?!

It is a fact that Rodenstock were delaminating when others were not and it was apparently a question of their resins - apparently corrected by the time they went MC in 80's. I'm sure the new ones are fine.
Thanks to Ian and Dan for the the further enlightenment.
Thanks Peter for further info on lens tests.

But I'm still absolutely sure that Linhof...( and probably Sinar ) .....will not be simply retesting to the same tolerances as Top producers like Schneider and Rodenstock. They will surely have set higher standards or tolerances. That's what they effectively say - also that they reject. Certainly, any Schneider lens with a Linhof Logo is darned sharp - some guys find them unexpectedly so.

[BOB BERESFORD]

Nonsense. All lenses can separate. Old Rodenstock lenses are no more prone to do so then old Schneider lenses.

We have been the USA distributor for Rodenstock lenses since 1988. Since 1988 we have extended a lifetime warranty on all Rodenstock lenses that we import. Since 1988 we have not received one lens for service covered by our warranty with any sign of separation.

Separation occurs because of handling and storage conditions. A lens that receives an impact may develop a small pinhole in the sealant around the edge of the elements. That small hole can let moisture into the lamination between two elements. That then starts separation in lenses.

Modern lenses are very immune to this effect. All old lenses can have this happen.

These forums are not supposed to be for commercial advertising, so I'm sure it would help if Bob was not posting replies that actually read like advertisements ?