Protars- B&L vs Zeiss
Jamie H Y
protar lenses? Thanks Jamie
Richard Knoppow
>What kind of quality difference can be expected between the B&L and the Zeiss
>protar lenses? Thanks Jamie
Not a lot. Bausch and Lomb was a quality maker. However Zeiss
originated the designs, owned the Schott glass works and had better
QC than most other lens makers of the time.
I've also found that Zeiss lenses are less likely to suffer from
separationof cemented elements than B&L.
I have a Zeiss Series VIIa convertible Protar which is a very
impressive lens, even the individual elements perform pretty well.
With any of the older lenses the variation between individual lenses
is likely to be greater than the avarage difference between
manufacturers, which is to say that no-one's QC was really good before
WW-2.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
ArtKramr
>From: jam...@aol.com (Jamie H Y)
>Date: 5/8/99 11:29 AM PST
>Message-id: <19990508152909...@ng-fi1.aol.com>
>
>What kind of quality difference can be expected between the B&L and the Zeiss
>protar lenses? Thanks Jamie
>
>
The B&L lenses were made on license from Zeiss. And most of them are a lot
newer than the Zeiss Protars and they have cleaner glass with lower dispersion
although the refractive indexes are similiar but recomputed for the glass
available in the U.S. that B&L chose to manufacturer for these lenses.. I have
both and prefer the B&L Protars.
Arthur Kramer
Las Vegas NV
Richard Knoppow
Considering that B&L's deal with Zeiss dates from 1893 I don't see
how this can be true. Both B&L and Zeiss made Protars for decades. I
don't know when Zeiss stopped making them, probably after 1940 when
their production became nearly all military. B&L stopped making
consumer lenses at about the same time concentrating on government
contracts but those included the triple convertible Protar and a lot
were made to meet contract obligations.
B&L started a pilot glass plant in 1912. When the mail sources of
optical glass (Germany and England) dried up on the outbreak of WW-1
the US government started a program to establish optical glass
production capability in this country. B&L was able to expand their
production quickly. Other companies, with a history of making window
glass, like PPG, had a much harder time of it since they did not
understand the special requirements for optical glass.
At the close of the war the US had created a tremendous capacity for
optical glass of excellent quality.
However, the quality of glass from Schott, the company which
originated the "new" glass types in the late 19th century, was always
outstanding. I don't think the US caught up with them until after the
mid thirties when Kodak started commercial exploitation of the
rare-earth glasses developed at the National Bureau of Standards.
Zeiss and Schott discovered the same general glass types in the early
thirties but did not apply them to practical lenses for some time. The
Kodak glass was melted in Platinum lined pots and some special
procedures were devised for stirring it.
For other older glasses, the method of stirring with ceramic rods
helped to eliminate striations, a method devised in the late 19th
century. Bubbles were feature of the early "new" glasses, especially
teh dense Barium crown glass but by the 1940's techniques had been
developed to eliminate most of the bubbles. This has turned into an
essay on an entirely different subject. Its too late and I need to
stop.
Le Grande Raoul
> developed to eliminate most of the bubbles. This has turned into an
> essay on an entirely different subject. Its too late and I need to
> stop.
>
> ---
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, Ca.
> dick...@ix.netcom.com
Richard, you are amazing! You either:
1. Have a brain the size of the Library of Congress or
2. Are older than dirt or
3. Both.
Whatever it is, thanks for posting to the group. I find out more stuff
from your postings that I really would like to know. Ever written a book?
Jeff
--
"It's better to be shot from a cannon than squeezed from a tube,
That's why there's fast motorcycles, bubba...."
-Dr. H. S. Thompson paraphrasing Grace Slick
ArtKramr
>From: dick...@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
>Date: 5/9/99 2:39 AM PST
>Message-id: <37355e7f....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
>essay on an entirely different subject. Its too late and I need to
>stop.
>
>---
>Richard Knoppow
>Los Angeles, Ca.
>dick...@ix.netcom.com
>
>
The Protars were not consumer lenses. The B&L Tessars were consumer lenses. B&L
made Protars even after the war ended. They were in the professional/
induistrial/etchnical category. I have a series VII Protar from B&L which B&L
dates as being made in 1946. I think you are confusing newer Rare earth
glasses with oridanry glasses that were produced before clean room
techniiques were developed..in other words the old "dirty" glasses. The newer
rare earth glasses were all clean. And the stuff Schott made pre WW II were
filthy by todays standards. The modern clean room techniques came purely out
of Japan, Nikon in particular. Sleep tight :-)
Richard Knoppow
>>Subject: Re: Protars- B&L vs Zeiss
>>From: dick...@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
>>Date: 5/9/99 2:39 AM PST
>>Message-id: <37355e7f....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
>>
>>artk...@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>
>>>>Subject: Protars- B&L vs Zeiss
>>>>From: jam...@aol.com (Jamie H Y)
>>>>Date: 5/8/99 11:29 AM PST
>>>>Message-id: <19990508152909...@ng-fi1.aol.com>
>>>>
>>>>What kind of quality difference can be expected between the B&L and the
>>Zeiss
>>>>protar lenses? Thanks Jamie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>The B&L lenses were made on license from Zeiss. And most of them are a lot
>>>newer than the Zeiss Protars and they have cleaner glass with lower
>>dispersion
>>>although the refractive indexes are similiar but recomputed for the glass
>>>available in the U.S. that B&L chose to manufacturer for these lenses.. I
>>have
>>>both and prefer the B&L Protars.
>>>
>>>Arthur Kramer
>>>Las Vegas NV
>>>
My long post snipped...
>>
>
>The Protars were not consumer lenses. The B&L Tessars were consumer lenses. B&L
>made Protars even after the war ended. They were in the professional/
>induistrial/etchnical category. I have a series VII Protar from B&L which B&L
>dates as being made in 1946. I think you are confusing newer Rare earth
>glasses with oridanry glasses that were produced before clean room
>techniiques were developed..in other words the old "dirty" glasses. The newer
>rare earth glasses were all clean. And the stuff Schott made pre WW II were
>filthy by todays standards. The modern clean room techniques came purely out
>of Japan, Nikon in particular. Sleep tight :-)
>
>Arthur Kramer
>Las Vegas NV
>
This is splitting hairs. Protars were sold for use on large and
medium format cameras as were both series of Tessars made by both
companies. The point is that both Zeiss and B&L made the bulk of their
lenes for their respective governments during the war years. Both
companies also made some of their older types after the war. B&L built
Protars for a short time but got pretty much out of the photographic
lens business fairly rapidly after the war except for professional
motion picture lenses.
Clean glass simply isn't a factor in the comparison of most of the
lenses built by both Zeiss and B&L, they are too old. We are
discussing lenses mostly built between about 1895 and 1940. Although
B&L Protars may have been recalculated from the Zeiss version the
difference would not have been a big one and there is no guarentee
that the quality was any different. B&L did have a couple of patents
on Tessar designs. Their Tessar lenses seem to have a somewhat
different compromise of higher order aberrations but I don't know if
this carried over to the Protar line. Protars were expensive lenes and
I doubt that either company sold them in great numbers.
As far as manufacturing quality I think the edge has to go to Zeiss
although B&L was certainly always a quality house.
There is little unknown about either Zeiss or Schott manuracturing
techniques. All was investigated thoroughly after WW-2 by the
intelligence units of both the US and the British. The results were
published in extensive reports. They are hard to find now. Some years
ago, when I was doing research into the manufacture of condenser
microphones I was able to get copies of some pertinent reports from
the Library of Congress but was told then that the archives were being
moved. I have no idea where they are now but the L of C is always a
good place to start. I have some material on the Zeiss plant which
were in the LA public library.
It would be interesting to have a history of optical glass making
post 1940. A great deal of development of new types took place over
that period as well as improvments in manufacture.
I did not BTW, confuse the rare earth glasses with other special
types. The manufacture of modern optical glasses with characteristics
outside of the "old" glass line was started by Ernst Abbe of Zeiss who
employed Otto Schott to develop glasses which would make better
microscope objectives possible. Schott came up with several glasses
with the necessary indexes and dispersions in the late 1880's. The
development of anastigmat lenses by Paul Rudolph and others followed
very quickly. These glasses employed materials such as the Borates and
Phosphates. Rare earth glasses were evidently developed independently
at Zeiss/Schott and at the US National Bureau of Standards begining in
the early 1930's. Zeiss appears not to have applied then to other than
military optics. In the US these types were commerciallized by Kodak,
who began to use them in high quality camera lenses starting around
the late 1930's. Kodak's records are no longer available so finding
out exact dates for things like the use of certain glass types, or the
use of vacuume coating would take a lot of digging a and the
cooperation of RIT, who seems to have all the Kodak archives.
In any case, modern low-dispersion glasses are a direct decendent
from these glasses.
There is likely some additional history in publications such as the
Journal of the Optical Society of America and the Journal of Applied
Optics. It is diffucult for me to find time to do the sort of
historical research I would like to do about several issues in optics
due to my work schedual. A bummer:-)
F. Hayashi
<<After another on-line book on photo lenses by Richard>>
> There is likely some additional history in publications such as the
> Journal of the Optical Society of America and the Journal of Applied
> Optics. It is diffucult for me to find time to do the sort of
> historical research I would like to do about several issues in optics
> due to my work schedual. A bummer:-)
> ---
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, Ca.
> dick...@ix.netcom.com
What do you do for work, anyhow?
With all you write, I'll be surprised if you don't write books about
photography.
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Fumitaka Hayashi - hay...@u.washington.edu |
| http://macrophage.immunol.washington.edu/~fumi/index.html |
| Aderem Lab - Dept. of Immunology - University of Washington |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
ArtKramr
>From: dick...@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
> Clean glass simply isn't a factor in the comparison of most of the
>lenses built by both Zeiss and B&L, they are too old. We are
>discussing lenses mostly built between about 1895 and 1940.
B&L was cleaning up theor optical act while Zeiss and Schott were smoking ruins
in Germany ( Iwas on eof the bombardiers in the USAAC that hit the plants) and
the Germans got their glass and many optcal instrumenbts fron Switzerland,
which is how the Alpa cameras and Switar lenses were developed.
> I did not BTW, confuse the rare earth glasses with other special
>types. The manufacture of modern optical glasses with characteristics
>outside of the "old" glass line was started by Ernst Abbe of Zeiss who
The point is that there was absolsutely no rare earth glasses used in Protars.
Right? So why bring it up? It just isn't relevant and only confuses the issue.
Richard Knoppow
>>Subject: Re: Protars- B&L vs Zeiss
>>From: dick...@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
>
>> Clean glass simply isn't a factor in the comparison of most of the
>>lenses built by both Zeiss and B&L, they are too old. We are
>>discussing lenses mostly built between about 1895 and 1940.
>
>B&L was cleaning up theor optical act while Zeiss and Schott were smoking ruins
>in Germany ( Iwas on eof the bombardiers in the USAAC that hit the plants) and
>the Germans got their glass and many optcal instrumenbts fron Switzerland,
>which is how the Alpa cameras and Switar lenses were developed.
>
>> I did not BTW, confuse the rare earth glasses with other special
>>types. The manufacture of modern optical glasses with characteristics
>>outside of the "old" glass line was started by Ernst Abbe of Zeiss who
>
>The point is that there was absolsutely no rare earth glasses used in Protars.
>Right? So why bring it up? It just isn't relevant and only confuses the issue.
>
>
>
>Arthur Kramer
>Las Vegas NV
>
Because you stated that B&L Protars were so much newer than Zeiss
Protars. Actually they were made over about the same period from
essentially the same glass so the difference is mainly in the quality
control. I think there are some very fine B&L lenses, I have some,
but nearly all of the Zeiss types made by both companies were made
before extra clean glasses were available to anyone.
I mentioned the rare earth glasses because you suggested I confused
them with the barium and other glasses developed starting in the late
1880's and used universally thereafter.
Richard Knoppow
>On Sun, 9 May 1999, Richard Knoppow wrote:
>
><<After another on-line book on photo lenses by Richard>>
>
>> There is likely some additional history in publications such as the
>> Journal of the Optical Society of America and the Journal of Applied
>> Optics. It is diffucult for me to find time to do the sort of
>> historical research I would like to do about several issues in optics
>> due to my work schedual. A bummer:-)
>> ---
>> Richard Knoppow
>> Los Angeles, Ca.
>> dick...@ix.netcom.com
>
>What do you do for work, anyhow?
>With all you write, I'll be surprised if you don't write books about
>photography.
>
>
Nope, don't write books. I am mostly involved with digital and high
definition TV for one of the networks. Requires very hard running to
keep up with.
>+-------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Fumitaka Hayashi - hay...@u.washington.edu |
>| http://macrophage.immunol.washington.edu/~fumi/index.html |
>| Aderem Lab - Dept. of Immunology - University of Washington |
>+-------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
---
ArtKramr
>From: dick...@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
>I have some,
>but nearly all of the Zeiss types made by both companies were made
>before extra clean glasses were available to anyone.
Then let's agree to disagree.
Richard Knoppow
Lets. I think whatever disagreement is not ver great and certainly
not worth any harshness.
Netcom has managed to break its e-mail system big time (according to
a message from them). I will reply via e-mail also when I can get
connected to the world again.
ArtKramr
>From: dick...@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
> Lets. I think whatever disagreement is not ver great and certainly
>not worth any harshness.
Harshness? Never! I never met a man with a Protar I didn't like. :-)
Davidlindq
(Richard Knoppow) writes:
(snip of a lot)
>...both Zeiss and B&L made the bulk of their
>lenes for their respective governments during the war years. Both
>companies also made some of their older types after the war. B&L built
>Protars for a short time but got pretty much out of the photographic
>lens business fairly rapidly after the war except for professional
>motion picture lenses.
(snip of more)
I have a May 1950 issue of Popular Photography which includes an extensive
buying guide. For Bausch & Lomb it lists the "Convertible Protar VIIa", a 12
inch f/7 lens, front lens is 23 1/2 inch, back lens, 19 inch. It was available
in either a Betax or an Acme shutter. Price was $417.47. I don't know what that
would be in 1999 dollars, I wouldn't be surprised if it made the price of a 150
Super Symmar XL look paltry in comparison :-). This is the only VIIa Protar
listed. Ten years earlier (May 1940), a Pop Photo buying guide lists 16 B&L
VIIa Protars in focal lengths (combined) from 5 1/8 to 13 1/2 inches.
In addition to the 12 inch Protar, the May 1950 buying guide shows B&L offering
several Tessars and a 4 1/2 inch wide angle Protar. Also by this time German
production of camera lenses evidently had resumed. The guide lists a number of
Schneider lenses including the Angulon and Xenar (but not the Symmar) and a few
Voigtlander large format lenses. For Carl Zeiss forty-eight (!) different
Tessars are listed with various focal lengths and maximum apertures, no other
Zeiss lenses are listed. The next buying guide I have is from 1956. It shows
B&L only offering motion picture camera lenses. Perhaps someone has information
more precisely showing when the B&L view camera lens line came to an end.
IMPORTANT. This information in no way *proves* that B&L was still making
Protars in 1950. Production could have ceased already with only lenses
remaining in inventory being available for sale. I think we need to be cautious
about extrapolating too much historical fact from old advertisements and
catalogues.
David Lindquist
David...@aol.com
ArtKramr
>Date: 5/10/99 3:17 PM PST
>Message-id:
In 1948 I was working for an advertising agency in New York called Benton &
Bowles. B&L was a major client and I made many trips up to that old brick
building in Rochester,. And Protars and Tessars were still in production then
and using thecleaner glass. However, don't take my word for it, believe what
you like.
Richard Knoppow
B&L must have built Protars up to at least the mid fifties. At some
point the market would have fallen off enough to stop making them.
These late lenses must have been very fine and would have been coated.
My argument with Art really was splitting hairs about the older
lenses.
B&L built an enormous amount of lenses for the government during
WW-2, including many Protars and Tessars. They also were the prime
contractor for binoculars and naval telescopes and a lot of more
specialized stuff like gun directors and rangefinders. They certainly
had the capabilities to make extremely good optics.
I don't know for sure when they discontinued LF lenses but it must
have been in the early or mid sixties when the demand fell off.
B&L continued to make lenses for professional motion picture cameras
and projectors for many years. They made all the lenses for
Cinemascope.
ArtKramr
>Date: 5/10/99 10:41 PM PST
>>Subject: Re: Protars- B&L vs Zeiss
>>>From: david...@aol.com (Davidlindq)
>>>Date: 5/10/99 3:17 PM PST
>>>IMPORTANT. This information in no way *proves* that B&L was still making
>>>Protars in 1950. Production could have ceased already with only lenses
>>>remaining in inventory being available for sale. I think we need to be
>>>cautious
>>>about extrapolating too much historical fact from old advertisements and
>>>catalogues.
>>>
>>>
>>>David Lindquist
>>>David...@aol.com
Not quite.
When a company discontinues a product, it doesn't run magazine ads for that
product. The first thing done is to try to clear it out at a bargain price to
their main outlets. Failing that they would run retail ads at bargain prices
to move them out fast. The fact that you saw a magazine ad is a good sign that
these lenses were in proiduction and B&L intended to keep producing them for a
reasonable time to come. It is good marketing and advertising practice to do it
that way. It is bad marketing practice to run magazine ads on a dead product
and a waste of money.
Richard Knoppow
>On Tue, 11 May 1999 06:41:09 GMT, dick...@ix.netcom.com (Richard
>Knoppow) wrote:
>
>>artk...@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>
>>>>Subject: Re: Protars- B&L vs Zeiss
>>>>From: david...@aol.com (Davidlindq)
>>>>Date: 5/10/99 3:17 PM PST
>>>>Message-id:
>
Long previous thread snipped...
>>
>> B&L must have built Protars up to at least the mid fifties. At some
>>point the market would have fallen off enough to stop making them.
>>These late lenses must have been very fine and would have been coated.
>
>Which raises the question. Can these late lenses be id'ed by serial
>number or by model?
>
More snipping...
>
>Peter Mikalajunas
>---
>Remove the _NO_ _SPAM_ to reply via email.
B&L seems to have changed their system of numbering at some time
post 1945. The older system was just numbers, the later system was
somthing like Kodak's with a two letter code followed by numbers.
I don't have the key to the letter code but assume its a date code as
Kodak's is.
Art Kramer may know when this system was adopted, and perhaps the
key word for the code.
I have tried for some time to get serial number information for
Bausch & Lomb lenses. The company is now so far removed from its
previous owners and products that its simply not available from them.
I have a few clues from B&L lenses I have which I can approximately
date by means other then the serial numbers.
I sould hasten to point out that Art is a _very_ well known photo
writer and I did not mean to impugn him in any way. The argument about
B&L vs: Zeiss is an old one and not worth generating any bad feelings
whatever over.
Please note that I can't get e-mail at the moment due to a system
failure at Netcom. You can get to me as rkno...@dejanews.com
temporarily.
ArtKramr
>Date: 5/11/99 12:14 PM PST
>Message-id:
> B&L seems to have changed their system of numbering at some time
>post 1945. The older system was just numbers, the later system was
>somthing like Kodak's with a two letter code followed by numbers.
> I don't have the key to the letter code but assume its a date code as
>Kodak's is.
> Art Kramer may know when this system was adopted, and perhaps the
>key word for the code.
> I have tried for some time to get serial number information for
>Bausch & Lomb lenses. The company is now so far removed from its
>previous owners and products that its simply not available from them.
> I have a few clues from B&L lenses I have which I can approximately
>date by means other then the serial numbers.
Buddy of Professional Camera Repair in New York had all the serial numbers and
what is more important, he had all the SPACINGS for all the Protars. Zeiss and
B&L. The spacings are terribly important because when you take a lens out of
its barrel to remount it in a shutter, you have to measure the barrel. But the
barrel is made to tolerences. And you measurements are also made to
tolerences. Are these tolerences on tolerences additive or compensating? Having
the original spacing helps a lot and an optical bench or autcollimator to
tweak the spacing is essential. But Buddy is gone now. And as far as I know so
are the Protar serial numbers and spacings. (sob and sob again)
Steve Shapiro
Zeiss Protar triple that fits into one the the adds for one of the three
triples, but is mounted in a Volute shutter. What would that do to a) date
the lens, and b) geographically connotate where it was applied for sale.
Interrum: It was stated that B&L wouldn't advertise their lens stock if the
product was no longer a production item. Who placed the adds? We don't
know if that add wasn't run by a retailer.
No, Jamie, I'm not selling, yet. But, it is about to go onto that fabulous
lensboard you made and sent to me.
Steve Shapiro, Carmel, CA
Richard Knoppow
The Volute shutter makes it pretty old. I am not sure of the date
the Volute was discontinued but it must have been in the early
thirties. It was useful for Wide Angle Protars and similar lenses
because the distance between the inside surfaces of the cells is less
than probably any other shutter. The Volute shutter has no separate
diaphragm; the shutter blades open to the f/stop setting. The blades
ar hinged differently than in other shutters, more like iris blades,
so the opening is approximately round rather than star-shaped. Volutes
are _very_ complex shutters and hard to work on but excellent
performers.
B&L placed corporate ads, but there is also catalogue data
indicating that convertible protars were offered at least into the mid
fifties.
I don't know when Zeiss discontinued convertible Protars but most of
their production was military after 1941. B&L, OTOH, built Protars for
the government. The spec was also met by Dagor and Turner-Reich
lenses. For a convertible the protar is easily the best of these.
They were often used as part of a kit consisting of an 8x10 camera
like a Kodak 2-D and a combination horizontal copy stand/ horizontal
enlarger. All contained in a large trunk which became the support
table for the rig.
The truth is that there was probably more difference between
individual lenses than between makes. B&L made excellent lenses.
ArtKramr
>From: dick...@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
> The spec was also met by Dagor and Turner-Reich
>lenses. For a convertible the protar is easily the best of these.
The Turner Reich was so bad (decentered) that is was virtually unuseable for
any critical work. Afte the war I was classified as a Group Photo Officer (I
was a Bombardier during the war) and actually used that Turnber Reich on a
Kodak 2D 8x10 view camera. It was about the worst lens I have ever seen.
Richard Knoppow
They probably varied quite a bit from lens to lens. I have one of
WW-2 vintage which is not too bad (which is not to say really good,
its not). The individual cells have pretty bad color fringing.
Kingslake has quite a bit of history of the various companies
started by Ernst Gundlach in his book on lens history and in the one
on Rochester, N.Y. companies. He also wrote an article in Photo
History about Gundlach, who seems to have been a quite strange man.
T-R lenses seem to have been built by at least three different
entities. The late ones, built by a resurected company especially for
government contracts seems to be the most common, at least in 8x10
focal lengths. Kingslake makes no bones about saying that the design
was a way around the Zeiss patent for the Protar. Gundlach, who
probably designed the lens, left the company after it was named for
his business partners.
It would be interesting to know how the quality varied over the
years the lens was in production. A five element cemented lens is no
joke to center so my guess is that most of them of whatever age are
pretty awful.
ArtKramr
>Message-id: <373cd06e....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
no need in the world to produce a lens with 5 elements per cell. It had no
optical advantages, was very hard to produce and center, and considering the
pressure applied by the USAAC to get these lenses in quantity, there was no
time for anything approaching good quality control. The result was
overdesigned, underproduced garbage. They could have produced a Dagor type
with three elements per cell, turned them out faster and better and more
profitably. Yeah, as you said, Gundlach was a very strange man.
Steve Shapiro
> > The spec was also met by Dagor and Turner-Reich
> >lenses. For a convertible the protar is easily the best of these.
>
> The Turner Reich was so bad (decentered) that is was virtually unuseable
for
> any critical work. Afte the war I was classified as a Group Photo Officer
(I
> was a Bombardier during the war) and actually used that Turnber Reich on a
> Kodak 2D 8x10 view camera. It was about the worst lens I have ever seen.
>
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> Las Vegas NV
>
mine. Of course, I use a yellow filter, as did he, and pro-rate my film and
over develop, too.
Mine has a little age marks and may be one of the less attractive I'd ever
seen, though too.
I was classified as a photo-journalist in the US Navy.
S. Shapiro
Richard Knoppow
I think it depends a lot on the individual lens. Those made under
government contract would have had to undergo at least minimal quality
testing which likely eliminated the total dogs. My T-R is one of
these. It is reasonably good lens but not a great lens. Mine is an
8x10 size. My Zeiss Protar is for 5x7, 185mm combined FL so is not
directly comparable but, especialy for the individual elements, the
aerial images appear to sharper and the Protar has much less color
fringing. My T-R was made in Fairport N.Y., the location of the
reconstituted Gundlach-Manhatten Optical Co organized to make former
Gundlach lenses for the US government.
For a pretty complete history of the various companies started by
Ernst Gundlach and their eventual fate see _The Photographic
Manuracturing Companies of Rochester, New York_ Rudolph Kingslake,
1997, Rochester, The George Eastman House, ISBN 0-935398-22-8 This is
still in print and available AFAIK.
ArtKramr
>Date: 5/16/99 8:51 AM PST
>Message-id: <92687377...@news.remarQ.com>
>
>>
>> > The spec was also met by Dagor and Turner-Reich
>> >lenses. For a convertible the protar is easily the best of these.
>>
>> The Turner Reich was so bad (decentered) that is was virtually unuseable
>for
>> any critical work. Afte the war I was classified as a Group Photo Officer
>(I
>> was a Bombardier during the war) and actually used that Turnber Reich on a
>> Kodak 2D 8x10 view camera. It was about the worst lens I have ever seen.
>>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> Las Vegas NV
>>
>On Edward Weston's Kodak 8X10 the Turner Reich performed well; as it does on
>mine. Of course, I use a yellow filter, as did he, and pro-rate my film and
>over develop, too.
>
>Mine has a little age marks and may be one of the less attractive I'd ever
>seen, though too.
>
>I was classified as a photo-journalist in the US Navy.
>
>S. Shapiro
In Weston's book, " Edward Weston and the West" he states that he bought a
brand new Turner Reich pusu a Ford with money he was awarded to photogrpah the
West. He said that the lens was so bad, he thought he was losing his eyesight
and had his eyes tested. When his eyes tested fine, he talked to Ansel Adams
who said, "If I told you once I told you a thousand times. I said Zeiss Protar.
Protar...."