Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Japanese Camera Mfr Lenses of the 60s and 70s
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mos6502 wrote:

I would think the planar type, six elements in four groups became the predominant type? No? The Ultron types seem to have lost popularity as time went on.


You are very right! Safest to say would have been that "Double Gauss" became the dominant normal lens design.
Ultron and Planar are very similar Double Gauss designs, the Ultron having 6 elements in 5 groups and the Planar 6 lenses in 4 groups, that's what I read, I know very little about lens designs. And I read that most later normal lenses actually have 7 elements in 6 groups, e.g. all later 50mm Takumars, but also e.g. the Carl Zeiss HFT Planar 1.4/50mm and Voigtländer Color-Ultron 1,8/50mm, and that others again have 7 elements in 5 groups. Or in other words most later normal lenses are not "classic" Planars neither, but all are, or derive from, the Double Gauss scheme. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-Gauss_lens )

Excalibur wrote:

Interesting link thanks....so my 1960 55mm f1.8 is an Ultron design ..hmmm while it's very good at getting pop in a shot, it's not my sharpest nifty fifty, maybe Voigtlander are made better to get their reputation.

As much as I know the Voigtländer Color-Ultrons would rather be qualified as "Planars"
Possibly 55mm Takumars are even rare in the sense of being "real Ultron" SLR normal lenses having the same 6/5 lens scheme as the famous 2.0/50 Ultron of the Voigtländer Vitomatik IIa. ( a befriended lens connoisseur and great photographer, for this very reason, chose to have a f2.2/55 Auto Takumar in his collection. see in German: http://www.manuelle-objektive.de/objektive/manuelle_objektive/Eintraege/2010/7/9_Asahi_Auto-Takumar_2.2_55.html )


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
Looks like my question got overlooked:

peterqd wrote:
I'm interested to know why you rate Minolta MD two steps lower than MC. Granted, the all-metal MC Rokkors are beautifully designed and built, equal to Takumars in that respect in my view, but the optical quality of the MD lenses I have outstrips the older MC versions.


Quite possibly in some cases, but not that important one way or another. We're not dealing with cream of the crop Japanese lenses either way.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Oreste wrote:

I thought it was 1974. Let me check.
It was intended to replace the Contarex in a way, which was discontinued in 1974 or so.
Yes, 1974 was when the RTS appeared.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contax


If you want absolute precision: the Contax RTS was introduced as preview at the Photokina show in September, 1974.
It was however marketed in 1975.
(source: the "Zeiss" book by Pierpaolo Ghisetti and Danilo Cecchi)
But that's just nit-picking.
You mentioned as period "the 60s and early 70s".
1975 does not fit in your period, and neither does 1974.
That is middle 70s.

P.S. the Contarex was discontinued in 1972. The remaining stock was sold until 1975, year of introduction of the Contax RTS system to the market.
(same source as above)
If you want a Zeiss system to figure in your list, that is Contarex. It was introduced in 1959 and discontinued in 1972.
So it fits perfectly in your timeframe.


I wanted to include the Contax because they were indeed made in Japan, even if they were designed in Germany and some made in Germany. It's a grey area, but if I include Olympus (1972), why not Contax (1974-75)? So, the period we are talking about is roughly 1960-1976. After that, things changed in the marketplace, and costs and prices became an increasingly important factor. 'Premium' brands like Leica and Contax could continue to manufacture lenses with less worry about prices than the lower-tier lines, such as Minolta and Pentax, and (at that time) Canon. Remember this was a time of rapid inflation. (Thank you, Mr. Carter!Evil or Very Mad) Even Nikon was not immune. Olympus was somewhere in the middle; because their smaller size set them apart in the marketplace, they faced less competition from independent lens manufacturers, whose lenses were often bulky compared to the camera manufacturers' products. A typical example is the Soligor 200mm or any zoom from about 1975.

[/img]http://www.ebay.com/itm/NIKON-non-AI-fit-SOLIGOR-200mm-F-3-5-lens-with-caps-/261117630661?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item3ccbd2d8c5

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Olympus-E-Zuiko-Auto-T-200mm-f-4-Lens-138963-Free-Shipping-/290787176660?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item43b44430d4

People bought Olympus precisely because they wanted those compact Zuiko lenses. So, they had to some extent 'immunized' themselves from that sort of competition, at least for a while. Other than that, it was primarily Leica and Contax that really faced little or no competition from the independent lens makers. Nikon was by no means immune: millions of cheap independent lenses were made with Nikon mounts.

Example:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vivitar-28mm-F-2-5-Lens-Nikon-F-mount-/221141814278?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item337d144c06

So, it was primarily Contax, Leica, and Olympus that were almost unaffected by independent lens manufacturers. Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Minolta all suffered badly from them. Nikon came out with the 'E' lenses, Minolta came out with the 'Celtic' lenses; Pentax brought out cheaper lenses too. Olympus, Contax, and Leica did not.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:

The only sad thing is that damned screw-thread mount was so slow to work with, and the stop-down metering was slow too.


This is not exactly true: Fujica cameras with Fujinon lenses allow wide open metering.

Regards.




Sorry for the transaltion.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
At one time Praktica, Pentax, Fujica, Mamiya, and even Olympus all had M42 screw mounts that permitted open aperture metering with an additional mechanical connector; the problem was they all did it differently so there was no standard. Chinon had a semi-automatic rapid metering feature that did not require a mechanical interface.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
thundertwin72 wrote:
Oreste wrote:

The only sad thing is that damned screw-thread mount was so slow to work with, and the stop-down metering was slow too.


This is not exactly true: Fujica cameras with Fujinon lenses allow wide open metering.

Regards.


Sorry for the translation.


Yes, but that came rather late in the screw-thread 'era'.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
At one time Praktica, Pentax, Fujica, Mamiya, and even Olympus all had M42 screw mounts that permitted open aperture metering with an additional mechanical connector; the problem was they all did it differently so there was no standard. Chinon had a semi-automatic rapid metering feature that did not require a mechanical interface.


Yes, standardization of mounts and levers would have made an enormous difference. Why the Japanese could not agree on one mount is to me incomprehensible. It would have made a 'level playing field' for everyone. Why the different mounts for Canon, Minolta, Nikon, etc.? I can see why the Germans might want to be different (Contarex, Leicaflex, etc.) but to my mind the Japanese were foolish for not standardizing on some single bayonet.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
thundertwin72 wrote:
Oreste wrote:

The only sad thing is that damned screw-thread mount was so slow to work with, and the stop-down metering was slow too.


This is not exactly true: Fujica cameras with Fujinon lenses allow wide open metering.

Regards.




Sorry for the transaltion.

the last generation of Penax screwmount lenses ( the super multi coated takumars) also allowed open aperture metering
on the spotmatic f and es bodies.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hifisapi wrote:
thundertwin72 wrote:
Oreste wrote:

The only sad thing is that damned screw-thread mount was so slow to work with, and the stop-down metering was slow too.


This is not exactly true: Fujica cameras with Fujinon lenses allow wide open metering.

Regards.




Sorry for the transaltion.

the last generation of Penax screwmount lenses ( the super multi coated takumars) also allowed open aperture metering
on the spotmatic f and es bodies.


Yes, but by that time it was too late. Pentax went to a bayonet system within just a couple of years thereafter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_K_mount


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:
luisalegria wrote:
At one time Praktica, Pentax, Fujica, Mamiya, and even Olympus all had M42 screw mounts that permitted open aperture metering with an additional mechanical connector; the problem was they all did it differently so there was no standard. Chinon had a semi-automatic rapid metering feature that did not require a mechanical interface.


Yes, standardization of mounts and levers would have made an enormous difference. Why the Japanese could not agree on one mount is to me incomprehensible. It would have made a 'level playing field' for everyone. Why the different mounts for Canon, Minolta, Nikon, etc.? I can see why the Germans might want to be different (Contarex, Leicaflex, etc.) but to my mind the Japanese were foolish for not standardizing on some single bayonet.

Maybe we will get lucky with the upcoming FF MILC bodiies having a standard mount similar to m43 mount but larger.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hifisapi wrote:
Oreste wrote:
luisalegria wrote:
At one time Praktica, Pentax, Fujica, Mamiya, and even Olympus all had M42 screw mounts that permitted open aperture metering with an additional mechanical connector; the problem was they all did it differently so there was no standard. Chinon had a semi-automatic rapid metering feature that did not require a mechanical interface.


Yes, standardization of mounts and levers would have made an enormous difference. Why the Japanese could not agree on one mount is to me incomprehensible. It would have made a 'level playing field' for everyone. Why the different mounts for Canon, Minolta, Nikon, etc.? I can see why the Germans might want to be different (Contarex, Leicaflex, etc.) but to my mind the Japanese were foolish for not standardizing on some single bayonet.

Maybe we will get lucky with the upcoming FF MILC bodiies having a standard mount similar to m43 mount but larger.


What is this you are talking about?


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
Maybe we will get lucky with the upcoming FF MILC bodiies having a standard mount similar to m43 mount but larger.


What is this you are talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrorless_interchangeable-lens_camera


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
Oreste wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
Maybe we will get lucky with the upcoming FF MILC bodiies having a standard mount similar to m43 mount but larger.


What is this you are talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrorless_interchangeable-lens_camera


Oh, I see. Well I never thought that all these competing incompatible mounts made any sense. Camera makers would have more opportunities to sell lenses if they all could compete equally. Can you imagine putting a Nikkor on your Pentax, or a Leitz lens on your Nikon, if you wanted to, without having to use any kind of modification? Can you imagine all the controls turning in the same direction? In professional cinema cameras, there is at least one standard mount called 'C' mount I believe. This is a far more sensible approach.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think the reason for incompatibility is pretty simple. Companies wanted to sell the lenses that they made, and they didn't want to share patents.

The M42 standard was probably adopted by companies because there technically was no proprietary technology involved when it first appeared, so anybody could make an M42 mount camera. It allowed Japanese companies to tap into an existing market created by German companies - but once the Japanese became the market leaders there no longer was an incentive for interchangeability.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mos6502 wrote:
I think the reason for incompatibility is pretty simple. Companies wanted to sell the lenses that they made, and they didn't want to share patents.

The M42 standard was probably adopted by companies because there technically was no proprietary technology involved when it first appeared, so anybody could make an M42 mount camera. It allowed Japanese companies to tap into an existing market created by German companies - but once the Japanese became the market leaders there no longer was an incentive for interchangeability.


Yes, but if you do this you are limited to the buyers of your cameras only. It's just stupid.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:
Mos6502 wrote:
I think the reason for incompatibility is pretty simple. Companies wanted to sell the lenses that they made, and they didn't want to share patents.

The M42 standard was probably adopted by companies because there technically was no proprietary technology involved when it first appeared, so anybody could make an M42 mount camera. It allowed Japanese companies to tap into an existing market created by German companies - but once the Japanese became the market leaders there no longer was an incentive for interchangeability.


Yes, but if you do this you are limited to the buyers of your cameras only. It's just stupid.


So everything Leica did after 1954 was stupid? Wink


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pentax tried to make the K mount universal but it didnt work. Only other companies, Ricoh and Chinon I believe make
some K mount bodies and lenses and they didnt sell well...


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I notice the original list of brands doesnt include EBC Fujinons ( M42 and Fuji X mount ). I would say they were
excellent optically but crap mechanically. Cheap and crude feeling, even when brand new.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
K mount cameras sold tremendously well. Ricoh became a major manufacturer due to its connection with Sears.
All the US retail channels, and European ones too were flooded with house brand K mount cameras. Check out ebay, they are still with us by the million.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Zenit in USSR adopted the K mount as well, not universally though.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
K mount cameras sold tremendously well. Ricoh became a major manufacturer due to its connection with Sears.
All the US retail channels, and European ones too were flooded with house brand K mount cameras. Check out ebay, they are still with us by the million.

there may be plenty third party k bodies still around but there are WAY more Pentax k bodies and lenses still around, they sold much better than the third party brands did.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mos6502 wrote:
Oreste wrote:
Mos6502 wrote:
I think the reason for incompatibility is pretty simple. Companies wanted to sell the lenses that they made, and they didn't want to share patents.

The M42 standard was probably adopted by companies because there technically was no proprietary technology involved when it first appeared, so anybody could make an M42 mount camera. It allowed Japanese companies to tap into an existing market created by German companies - but once the Japanese became the market leaders there no longer was an incentive for interchangeability.


Yes, but if you do this you are limited to the buyers of your cameras only. It's just stupid.


So everything Leica did after 1954 was stupid? Wink


Just think of the greater sales potential of selling lenses to everyone!


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
Looks like my question got overlooked:

peterqd wrote:
I'm interested to know why you rate Minolta MD two steps lower than MC. Granted, the all-metal MC Rokkors are beautifully designed and built, equal to Takumars in that respect in my view, but the optical quality of the MD lenses I have outstrips the older MC versions.


I'm not sure to whom you were posing this question, but it generally agrees with what I said earlier:

dnas wrote:
Lenses that I've used myself, primes only, not zooms, and in my opinion:

Optical quality(sharpness, both centre and corner, contrast):
1) Canon FD SSC
2) Minolta MD
3) Canon (new) FD
4) Minolta MC
5) Asahi Pentax (SMC Takumar)
6) Nikon
7) Olympus
8.) Canon FD
9) Asahi Pentax (super Takumar)
10) Konica AR
11) Canon FL

Build quality:
1) Canon FL
2) Canon FD SSC
3) Canon FD
4) Minolta MC
5) Asahi Pentax (super Takumar)
6) Asahi Pentax (SMC Takumar)
7) Konica AR
8.) Nikon
9) Olympus
10) Minolta MD
11) Canon (new) FD


I rate the MD build quality quite lower because of the mainly plastic construction. Also, the lens elements, rather than positioned and retained with screw in rings, most of the lens element groups are plastic molded together, so any fungus on the inside elements are impossible to access.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hifisapi wrote:
luisalegria wrote:
K mount cameras sold tremendously well. Ricoh became a major manufacturer due to its connection with Sears.
All the US retail channels, and European ones too were flooded with house brand K mount cameras. Check out ebay, they are still with us by the million.

there may be plenty third party k bodies still around but there are WAY more Pentax k bodies and lenses still around, they sold much better than the third party brands did.


Not true in Europe, here there are a lot of others by Ricoh, Cosina, Chinon etc.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:
Mos6502 wrote:
Oreste wrote:
Mos6502 wrote:
I think the reason for incompatibility is pretty simple. Companies wanted to sell the lenses that they made, and they didn't want to share patents.

The M42 standard was probably adopted by companies because there technically was no proprietary technology involved when it first appeared, so anybody could make an M42 mount camera. It allowed Japanese companies to tap into an existing market created by German companies - but once the Japanese became the market leaders there no longer was an incentive for interchangeability.


Yes, but if you do this you are limited to the buyers of your cameras only. It's just stupid.


So everything Leica did after 1954 was stupid? Wink


Just think of the greater sales potential of selling lenses to everyone!


I'm sure Leica hate other makers producing M mount lenses.

Leica's strategy since the days of the CLE has been to offer a very expensive niche product, there hasn't been a cheaper priced Leica option since the CLE. Therefore I'm sure Leica were not happy at all about the rangefinder renaissance that occurred when Cosina starting making Voigtlander branded kit.

Leica seem to be going further and further into a hyper expensive niche there days with stupidly expensive mono only digicams and insanely priced exotic lenses, that leaves the field wide open in the rest of the price range for people like Cosina. Zeiss even saw a gap in the market and released the Ikon.

For various reasons, Leica can't compete selling lenses large scale, Zeiss can't either, German labour costs are one factor. Cosina are able to make larger volumes at lower prices, but they are still a niche sector of the market, as are all film cameras and high end rangefinders are a niche within the film niche.

Zeiss are trying to sell lenses to everyone these days, no idea how financially successful it is, I think most of their business is still in pro cine and industrial optics rather than the consumer lenses.

I doubt we'll ever see Leica make lenses in any mount other than their own.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 5 of 9