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

Short lived Lens lines
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:23 pm    Post subject: Short lived Lens lines Reply with quote
My pride and joy when it comes to lenses are the original Pentax K mount SMC PENTAX(-K) lenses from the mid 70's.
They are somewhat hard to find because they were only made three years 1975-1976-1977 and were
then superseded for the most part by the smaller SMC PENTAX-M series starting in 1978. This is somewhat unusual.
Does anybody know of any other major lens series that was only made for 3 years ( or less )? Seems like poor
anticipation of the marketplace to tool up and then discontinue so quick. Question


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:49 pm    Post subject: Re: Short lived Lens lines Reply with quote
hifisapi wrote:
My pride and joy when it comes to lenses are the original Pentax K mount SMC PENTAX(-K) lenses from the mid 70's.
They are somewhat hard to find because they were only made three years 1975-1976-1977 and were
then superseded for the most part by the smaller SMC PENTAX-M series starting in 1978. This is somewhat unusual.
Does anybody know of any other major lens series that was only made for 3 years ( or less )? Seems like poor
anticipation of the marketplace to tool up and then discontinue so quick. Question


I don't see that this is particularly unusual. Most companies replace their lenses when they can. Leica, Nikon and others regularly update their lens lines, often with a view to making them smaller and lighter.

180mm Elmarit-R (1967)



180mm Elmarit-R (1979) much smaller and lighter



PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
But with Pentax there was a degradation in optical and mechanical quality when they went smaller. It wasnt an across the board "improvement" like in some cases. In your example the later lens probably is superior optically and better coatings.
This aint what happened with the pentax M series.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't understand the elmarit example. A 12 year production life of one lens is not the same as 3 for an entire series. Just an excuse to mention Leica again?

Many things can explain why lenses are discontinued. Cost of production could be the answer to this one. M series lenses are generally considered to be made with lower quality materials. Maybe Pentax at this time thought the amateur market they were trying to target would appreciate more compact, lighter designs. Because many of the K series designs were borrowed from earlier m42 lenses, maybe many did not believe Pentax was advancing in any big way. The M series look different so in terms of marketing it could represent
"advancement."


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
themoleman342 wrote:
I don't understand the elmarit example. A 12 year production life of one lens is not the same as 3 for an entire series. Just an excuse to mention Leica again?

Many things can explain why lenses are discontinued. Cost of production could be the answer to this one. M series lenses are generally considered to be made with lower quality materials. Maybe Pentax at this time thought the amateur market they were trying to target would appreciate more compact, lighter designs. Because many of the K series designs were borrowed from earlier m42 lenses, maybe many did not believe Pentax was advancing in any big way. The M series look different so in terms of marketing it could represent
"advancement."


I was pointing out that making lenses smaller and lighter does not necessarily mean they are worse. The second Elmarit is indeed a superior lens. Nikon did the same thing with many of their lenses. I [picked the 180mm Elmarit as an example because the second version is much smaller and lighter, and it is perhaps the most striking redesign of all time, as far as paring off the weight and size are concerned. The original version weighs 1325gr; the second weighs only 850 gr!

The 1967 Nikkor 20mm f/3.5



The 1977 20mm f/3.5:



Last edited by Oreste on Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:57 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:
themoleman342 wrote:
I don't understand the elmarit example. A 12 year production life of one lens is not the same as 3 for an entire series. Just an excuse to mention Leica again?

Many things can explain why lenses are discontinued. Cost of production could be the answer to this one. M series lenses are generally considered to be made with lower quality materials. Maybe Pentax at this time thought the amateur market they were trying to target would appreciate more compact, lighter designs. Because many of the K series designs were borrowed from earlier m42 lenses, maybe many did not believe Pentax was advancing in any big way. The M series look different so in terms of marketing it could represent
"advancement."


I was pointing out that making lenses smaller and lighter does not necessarily mean they are worse. The second Elmarit is indeed a superior lens. Nikon did the same thing with many of their lenses.

The 1967 Nikkor 20mm f/3.5



The 1977 20mm f/3.5:


I get your point, sometimes there is progress, but they didnt do it in only 3 years, they waited 10 years on your example. What Im getting at is the smc pentax K series was brand new in 1975 and then was replaced for the most part in 1978. Thats a short run.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Also, on your Nikon 20mm example, I would prefer the metal focus grip on the 1967 version over the later rubber version as rubber has a bad habit of drying out over the years....


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hifisapi wrote:
Also, on your Nikon 20mm example, I would prefer the metal focus grip on the 1967 version over the later rubber version as rubber has a bad habit of drying out over the years....


Quite possibly true...


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
At the end of 70 many manufacturers got into cost saving race. Minolta too chopped off elements from some perfectly good lenses to make them cheaper and less good in MDIII series. 3 years for the series in the end of 70 is nothing special. Minolta MD I series was introduced in 77, replaced by MD II in 1978, replaced by MD III series in 1981.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
At the end of 70 many manufacturers got into cost saving race. Minolta too chopped off elements from some perfectly good lenses to make them cheaper and less good in MDIII series. 3 years for the series in the end of 70 is nothing special. Minolta MD I series was introduced in 77, replaced by MD II in 1978, replaced by MD III series in 1981.


They were also feeling the heat from the cheapo lenses (Vivitar, etc).


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
At the end of 70 many manufacturers got into cost saving race. Minolta too chopped off elements from some perfectly good lenses to make them cheaper and less good in MDIII series. 3 years for the series in the end of 70 is nothing special. Minolta MD I series was introduced in 77, replaced by MD II in 1978, replaced by MD III series in 1981.

Now Im thinking with high inflation and heavy pressure to reduce production costs, the smck series was probably cut short for cost reasons and that is why the smc-m series is not as high quality overall.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think I agree with the supposition that the cheaper brands were forcing them to cut costs to compete,
After all why buy a lens for $500 when you can get the same thing(same FL & f-stop but with lower IQ) for $300.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
There was the Edixa Rex mount... not really a "lens line" since Wirgin didn't make lenses. But it flopped, was dead and gone in under five years. How long did the Exakta Real last? I know they continued for a bit after the (German made) camera line died, so it may have actually been around for more than a couple years.

There are a lot of lenses that were in production for short times, but line revisions is a different thing.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Miranda camera normal lens went through some rapid changes between 1955 and 1963:

approximate dates:

- 1955 -- All chrome preset lens
- 1957 -- All chrome, PAD lens (automatic, but with Exakta-like arm)
- 1959 -- All black, PAD lens
- 1960 -- Black and Chrome, PAD lens, more compact
- 1963 -- Automatic lens -- no PAD (internal coupling with camera)

The Topcon cameras also used lenses with Exakta-like arms for a few years, maybe 1960 to 1963 ?


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lightshow wrote:
I think I agree with the supposition that the cheaper brands were forcing them to cut costs to compete,
After all why buy a lens for $500 when you can get the same thing(same FL & f-stop but with lower IQ) for $300.


Yes, because most photographers don't care that much about the subtler aspects of image quality.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:


Yes, because most photographers don't care that much about the subtler aspects of image quality.


And this is from the survey you carried out right? Wink


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
maxcastle wrote:
Oreste wrote:


Yes, because most photographers don't care that much about the subtler aspects of image quality.


And this is from the survey you carried out right? Wink


You'll note I did not say 'all', but 'most'. Especially when these subtle improvements cost $$$$$$$.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:
maxcastle wrote:
Oreste wrote:


Yes, because most photographers don't care that much about the subtler aspects of image quality.


And this is from the survey you carried out right? Wink


You'll note I did not say 'all', but 'most'. Especially when these subtle improvements cost $$$$$$$.
I did note that you said "most" but even "most" i assume is based on some sort of study/ survey?


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:
Lightshow wrote:
I think I agree with the supposition that the cheaper brands were forcing them to cut costs to compete,
After all why buy a lens for $500 when you can get the same thing(same FL & f-stop but with lower IQ) for $300.


Yes, because most photographers don't care that much about the subtler aspects of image quality.

Or maybe with typical automated processing and 70's film there wasnt as much visible difference as we see now with hi
rez digital sensors.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hifisapi wrote:
Oreste wrote:
Lightshow wrote:
I think I agree with the supposition that the cheaper brands were forcing them to cut costs to compete,
After all why buy a lens for $500 when you can get the same thing(same FL & f-stop but with lower IQ) for $300.


Yes, because most photographers don't care that much about the subtler aspects of image quality.

Or maybe with typical automated processing and 70's film there wasnt as much visible difference as we see now with hi
rez digital sensors.

I also meant to mention small 3.5 x 5" prints too


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hifisapi wrote:
Oreste wrote:
Lightshow wrote:
I think I agree with the supposition that the cheaper brands were forcing them to cut costs to compete,
After all why buy a lens for $500 when you can get the same thing(same FL & f-stop but with lower IQ) for $300.


Yes, because most photographers don't care that much about the subtler aspects of image quality.

Or maybe with typical automated processing and 70's film there wasnt as much visible difference as we see now with hi
rez digital sensors.


Right. Most people did not shoot Kodachrome and have Leitz Pradovit projectors. Those who used projectors usually owned Kodak machines, whose lenses (if you can call them that) left everything to be desired. Most people indeed used colour negative film after C-41 films came out, especially when the faster films of ASA400 appeared (first from Fuji, I believe), and when 'cheap' one-hour or overnight processing became commonplace, it got even worse. By about 1985, the quality had dipped rather steeply. I remember when newspapers came stuffed with mailers for processing labs with extremely cheap processing offers.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1