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

those little gold passed stickers on lenses
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 4:57 am    Post subject: those little gold passed stickers on lenses Reply with quote
Does anybody know the meaning purpose of those little football shaped gold foil passed stickers found on new old stock lenses?
I don't know if all brands of lenses came with them but vintage pentax did from the seventies.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
From Wiki:
The rise of the Japanese optical industry


Japanese photographic lens production dates from 1931 with the Konishiroku (Konica) Hexar 10.5 cm f/4.5[170] for the Konishiroku Tropical Lily small plate camera. However, the Japanese advanced quickly and were able to manufacture very high quality lenses by 1950[171] – LIFE magazine photographer David Douglas Duncan's "discovery" of Nikkor lenses is an oft-told tale.[172][173][174]

In 1954, the Japan Camera Industry Association (JCIA) began promoting the development of a high quality photographic industry to increase exports as part of Japan's post-World War II economic recovery. To that end, the Japan Machine Design Center (JMDC) and Japan Camera Inspection Institute (JCII) banned the slavish copying of designs and the export of low quality photographic equipment, enforced by a testing program before issuance of shipping permits.[175][176]

By the end of the 1950s, the Japanese were seriously challenging the Germans. For example, the Nippon Kogaku Nikkor-P Auto 10.5 cm f/2.5 of 1959, for the Nikon F 35mm SLR (1959), is reputed to be one of the best portrait lenses ever made, with superb sharpness and bokeh. It originated as the Nikkor-P 10.5 cm f/2.5 (1954) for the Nikon S series 35mm RF, was optically upgraded in 1971 and available until 2006.[177]

In 1963, the Tokyo Kogaku RE Auto-Topcor 5.8 cm f/1.4 came out along with the Topcon RE Super/Super D (1963) 35mm SLR. The Topcor is reputed to be one of the best normal lenses ever made.[178] The Nikkor and the Topcor were sure signs of the Japanese optical industry eclipsing the Germans'. Topcon in particular was highly avant-garde in producing two ultra-fast lenses by 1960 - the R-Topcor 300 F2.8 (1958) and the R-Topcor 135 F2 (1960). The former was not eclipsed until 1976. Germany had been the optical leader for a century, but the Germans turned very conservative after World War II; failing to achieve unity of purpose, innovate or respond to market conditions.[179][180] Japanese camera production surpassed West German output in 1962.[181]

Early Japanese lenses were not novel designs: the Hexar was a Tessar; the Nikkor was a Sonnar; the Topcor was a Double Gauss. They began breaking new ground around 1960: the Nippon Kogaku Auto-Nikkor 8.5–25 cm f/4-4.5 (1959), for the Nikon F, was the first telephoto zoom lens for 35mm still cameras (and second zoom after the Zoomar),[182] the Canon 50mm f/0.95 (1961), for the Canon 7 35mm RF, with its superwide aperture, was the first Japanese lens a photographer might lust after,[183][184] and the Nippon Kogaku Zoom-Nikkor Auto 43-86mm f/3.5 (1963), originally fixed on the Nikkorex Zoom 35mm SLR, later released for the Nikon F, was the first popular zoom lens, despite mediocre image quality.[185][186]

German lenses disappear from this history at this point. After ailing throughout the 1960s, such famous German nameplates as Kilfitt, Leitz, Meyer, Schneider, Steinheil, Voigtländer and Zeiss went bankrupt, were sold off, contracted production to East Asia or became boutique brands in the 1970s.[187][188] Names for design types also disappear at this point. Apparently the Japanese are not fans of lens names, they use only brand names and feature codes for their lens lines.[189]

The JDMC/JCII testing program, having fulfilled its goals, ended in 1989 and its gold "PASSED" sticker passed into history.[190] The JCIA/JCII morphed into the Camera & Imaging Products Association (CIPA) in 2002.[191]

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

OH


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 7:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
thanks for the interesting information. In my dealings with pentax lenses, I came across quite a few with
the stickers still intact on the lens.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
H'mm I can't believe every lens is tested with a sticker on, I would think it's more like.... one selected out of a batch.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
H'mm I can't believe every lens is tested with a sticker on, I would think it's more like.... one selected out of a batch.


It does seem more likely doesn't it, and yet - all Russian lenses came with a test certificate, so why not Japanese?
Maybe in those days quality control was taken more seriously and each lens was tested.
Unlike today where samples from a batch are considered sufficient.
I like to think that all lenses were tested.
The practice stopped in 1989.
Cheers
OH


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
H'mm I can't believe every lens is tested with a sticker on, I would think it's more like.... one selected out of a batch.


It does seem more likely doesn't it, and yet - all Russian lenses came with a test certificate, so why not Japanese?
Maybe in those days quality control was taken more seriously and each lens was tested.
Unlike today where samples from a batch are considered sufficient.
I like to think that all lenses were tested.
The practice stopped in 1989.
Cheers
OH


Thanks Old Hand for this illuminating information. I also suspect the Japanese only tested batches as it would have been very labour intensive. The Russians on the other hand had no commercial goal, so testing each lens, camera, video tube, etc. wouldn't have been a problem as it created work.

Cameras also had these stickers on, practically everything from Japan had them. People tended to remove them as they were considered unsightly. When I worked in photo retail anyone that returned a camera for a refund without the sticker were refused (unless it was faulty) as some customers demanded the sticker as an assurance of quality. Which it was.

If I have a piece of equipment with a sticker half off, I pot a drop of paintbrush cleaner under the lifted part and let it attack the glue. I clean and dry out the sticker and re-glue it back on - sometimes in a more practical place. I use contact adhesive. It can be removed easily and does not damage the finish.

Any glue residue can be removed using paintbrush cleaner dabbed on with a cotton bud. This includes adhesive tape, leather covering adhesive and any sticker glue


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Certainly all the Konica lenses came with the sticker.

Konica lenses were chosen by the Japanese Government as the standard to test all others by for this JCII certification.

I think there was some counterfeiting of the sticker because I've had absolute garbage lenses that had the sticker.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The idea that Russian lenses were QC inspected properly and thoroughly is somehow implausible Smile.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
The idea that Russian lenses were QC inspected properly and thoroughly is somehow implausible Smile.


Why? out of over 50, I've never had one that wasn't great.

It's a myth that Russian lenses vary a lot in quality, maybe at the end in the 80s there were some issues, but in the 50s, 60s, 70s, there is no evidence they were producing duds.

When dealing with lenses 40, 50, 60 years old, the lives they have lived makes all the difference.

If you want to see what crappy QC looks like, you need to look at the cheaper Japanese third party makers, there you can find a lot of lenses that were crap when they left the factory.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Pancolart wrote:
The idea that Russian lenses were QC inspected properly and thoroughly is somehow implausible Smile.

It's a myth that Russian lenses vary a lot in quality, maybe at the end in the 80s there were some issues, but in the 50s, 60s, 70s, there is no evidence they were producing duds.


If that is myth then the idea "Tomioka made ultimate lenses" is pure fact.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Pancolart wrote:
The idea that Russian lenses were QC inspected properly and thoroughly is somehow implausible Smile.

It's a myth that Russian lenses vary a lot in quality, maybe at the end in the 80s there were some issues, but in the 50s, 60s, 70s, there is no evidence they were producing duds.


If that is myth then the idea "Tomioka made ultimate lenses" is pure fact.


I have no idea what you're talking about.

Tomioka, like many other third party makers could produce whatever the customer wanted, whether it was cheap lower grade things or the best Contax T* lenses for Zeiss.

There's no point in making blanket statements about the third party makers because they made lenses in different price/quality levels for different customers.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ian has right, Tomioka, Cosina, Tokina etc made lenses for many different brands and in many different quality level, just like today China they make $$ priced special outdoor shoes and cheap crap in same factory.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Ian has right, Tomioka, Cosina, Tokina etc made lenses for many different brands and in many different quality level, just like today China they make $$ priced special outdoor shoes and cheap crap in same factory.


Maybe i wasn't direct enough. I was questioning his thesis:

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
It's a myth that Russian lenses vary a lot in quality, maybe at the end in the 80s there were some issues, but in the 50s, 60s, 70s, there is no evidence they were producing duds.


Among USSR lenses of that age every 5th is a dud. Talking about mass produced models of more then million pieces. Within top lens lines like Jupiter 2.8/180mm there are practically no duds and i believe they were individually inspected. Tomioka perhaps did some crap models (not that i am aware of) but their portrait series lenses are topnotch like Konica Hexanon if you will or maybe even better (a matter of taste when differences are subtle).


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In the USSR, stuff was mass produced according to the government plan, and meeting the plan target was the priority. Numbers above all.

So the workers - who were neither well paid, nor were even remotely likely to lose their jobs regardless of performance - didn't have any incentive to produce quality product, but they and the management had every incentive to produce the required quantity. The "quality control" was probably watching for absolute nonworkable duds, not much more.

Out of 3 Soviet lenses I had, one was poor and soft, one was excellent, one was rather average optically. All built like tanks. It's a lottery, which is why I resist the urge to spend $60 on a Helios.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have at least 100 Russian lenses, I remember only 1-2 what is worst than avarage third party Japanese lenses.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
as far as testing every lens goes. back in the sixties, Pentax not only tested every lens, but they tested every
lens imported in to the usa twice. Once in the Japanese factory, and again in Colorado after Honeywell got them.
there were no dud takumars.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hifisapi wrote:
there were no dud takumars.


Well, the K mount Takumars are poor enough to not be deserving of the name, so maybe they qualify?


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
there were no dud takumars.


Well, the K mount Takumars are poor enough to not be deserving of the name, so maybe they qualify?

the k mount takumars are a bastardization of the takumar name. That was a big mistake for pentax to call those takumars,
Im sure by that point in time quality control at pentax had eased.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree, when I was at art college, they started to get K1000s to replace the Spotmatics that were wearing out, we were most dismayed at the new 'Takumars' they bought as well. In the end they ended up buying M42-K adapters so we could keep using the old Taks.

I ended up using my own Praktica MTL5B with Tessar 2.8/50 for my final work because of those shoddy new Takumars.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
Among USSR lenses of that age every 5th is a dud. .


I don't believe that for a split second. If so, where are all these duds? I've never had a dud and I've had a lot, never had one with a stuck aperture or stiff focus, the least good I had was a J8M 2/50 in Kiev mount, and that was still a good lens, just not as good as the other 5 or 6 J8s I have.

Why do nearly all old Zenit Es and Bs still work? Must have had 25 of those pass through my hands, don't remember a broken one. Only Russian camera to ever give me trouble out of many was a Zenit 412 that developed a shutter issue, but that was a very late camera made in the 2000s and by then, they were very cheap and nasty.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Not only were the kmount takuamars poor optical and mechanical quality, they didn't even have multicoating.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hifisapi wrote:
Not only were the kmount takuamars poor optical and mechanical quality, they didn't even have multicoating.


Weren't these actually a different lens, a budget line with the Takumar name put on them? They came up in the 80s IIRC, so not "real" Taks.

As for Russian lenses, I only have a J9. Performs well but about half the aperture blades became dislodged and rattled around inside the barrel. Probably more due to age and handling over the years than build quality. It was easy to fix it, however.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have now owned at least 5 Helios 44s of different types and not one has been a dud optically, though two have now got stiff focusing, probably due to age. I have 3 Zuiko 1.8/50s and 2 of those have sticky diaphragms, but again they are optically great (except a bit of fungus on one). I suspect that the reputed sample variation in Russian lenses could come from the willingness of owners to self service cheaper lenses, when they may not have had the skills necessary to but them back together accurately.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
frenched wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
Not only were the kmount takuamars poor optical and mechanical quality, they didn't even have multicoating.


Weren't these actually a different lens, a budget line with the Takumar name put on them? They came up in the 80s IIRC, so not "real" Taks....


an early budget line of Pentax K lenses stripped off SMC. Unfortunate naming, they better be referred to as non-SMC Pentax ( K ) lenses. 'Real Taks' come in M42 Very Happy

I have some lenses with the golden sticker, my first lens, a Minolta MD 1.4/50 I bought new in 1979, still has it Wink


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Those stickers which fell off, i keep them in a filter box, as they take no extra room.
But anyone can reproduce these stickers and re-glue them in old lenses.
How can you tell?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2