[rollei_list] Re: AW: Re: Color Ultron AR 1.4/55 Made in Germany?

  • From: CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 13:17:13 -0300

Dear Dirk:
               Your comments are interesting, thank you very much, I
have some points anyway:

2012/5/4 Dirk-Roger Schmitt <Dirk-Roger.Schmitt@xxxxxx>:
> Dear Carlos,
>
> thank you very much for your anwer,
> I have the following comments:
>
> 1) Well, the 1.4/55 seems to have an interesting story. So I was not aware
> that this was licensed from Zeiss to Japanese Manufacturers.
> It is true, that Rollei overtook the Voigtländer factory including
> equipment. However, this took place in 1972 or a bit later. The factory was
> completely closed down. Rollei did not manufacture anything there. At least
> not 1977 or later. Of course they took personal, toolings and designs to the
> factory at Salzdahlumer Straße.
> I must admit I was never aware that Rolleinar Lenses were also made in
> Singapore. Interesting pictures form Jan Böttcher.  Anyway, these must be
> complete designs from Mamiya including tooling which where brought to
> Singapore. At this time this was a very strange thing, having a Zeiss line
> of lenses made in Singapore (50 mm, 2.8/35, 135 mm, 200 mm etc.) with a
> barrel quality say "not been from the best quality considering tolerances
> etc." and then launching a parallel line from Mamiya with excellent optics
> and very good and tolerance free barrels. O.k, you might say, the Zeiss line
> from Singapore, performance of production not to be the best, and then the
> other  line from Japan. Even that decision shows that at that time at Rollei
> no real agreement in the management how to proceed did exist. One wanted an
> attractive line of lenses and realized, they could not come from Singapore.
>  So there must have been some kind of conflict between the Singapore
> management and the "to buy in Japan" fraction. Even worse, later to start to
> make the Mamiya lenses in Singapore shows the confusion of management at
> that time. This must have ended in disaster as it did with the bankruptcy...."

In 1972 Zeiss-Ikon shut down the Voigtländer optical factory they had
bought previously, that year Carl Zeiss Oberkochen, Rollei and
the Gemeinwirtschaft Bank had an agreement to found the "Optischen
Werke Voigtländer GmbH" to keep alive the VO lenses production and
considering the Rollei decision for large scale production. The OWV
GmbH was dedicated to manufacture more common Zeiss lenses  for the
Rollei cameras (TLR lenses were not included) keeping the Zeiss lenses
name but replacing "Carl Zeiss" by "made by Rollei" (and some Japanese
lenses aferwards), this arrangement afterwards reached Zeiss lenses
made by the Rollei Optical Co Singapore too (perhaps under the
circumstances you commented in your post);  the  more difficult lenses
to manufacture were made at Carl Zeiss Oberkochen anyway, with the
name Carl Zeiss in the lens ring of course but with the Rollei term
"HFT" (High Fidelity Transfer) for the T* multicoating process to keep
the same name for this significant feature (at the time) regarding the
Zeiss lenses made by Rollei. Rollei - CZ Oberkochen agreement was a
bit beyond a simple license, it was a joint venture, at least
initially, it allowed Rollei to use CZ lenses designs even for lenses
with Voigtländer names for Voigtländer cameras made by Rollei.

I have the Planar 1.8/50mm made by Rollei Singapore and it still is a
great lens producing excellent results and looking very well and
pristine and similar comment for my Rollei 35 Tessar 3,5/40 made by
Rollei in Singapore. In spite of similar design for the external lens
barrel cover, the color for the numbers are different regarding the
Rolleinar Japanese lenses and you "feel" the construction is different
someway, but I couldn't say that one is better than the other one.
Rollei production in Singapore had high quality standards and the
designs, prototypes and manufacture tooling were tried in Germany
previously while the workers were trained by German instructors,
(except for a few cases like the Rollei 35 LED). Problem with some
Rollei Singapore products was that they had no time enough for a right
pre-production devolopment for the models and problems for the quality
control due to the massive production _sometimes_.

Rollei found in the Rolleinar Japanese lenses (Mamiya several of them,
but Kiron, Tokina, Sigma, Yabe too) a cheaper line of  lenses than the
CZ line, with modern designs in general and high optical quality and
zoom lenses that were a strong sales point for the 35mm Japanese
cameras. Claus Prochnow wrote that these Japanese lenses were as good
as the CZ lenses in general, or with perfomance very close to them
despite of the cheaper price, and he talked about the CZ lenses made
in Oberkochen and Braunschweig, not only about those ones made in
Singapore.  Labour costs were cheaper in Singapore than in Japan and
this was the reason they were made in Singapore afterwards, the Mamiya
lenses specially. According the Rollei Report IV, the only reason for
the Rolleinar Japanese lenses was the cheaper price for similar
quality and some modern designs like the zooms, Singapore lenses
quality had nothing to do with the decision, in fact Rollei Optical
Co. Singapore manufactured lenses for lenses manufacturers like
Schneider for no Rollei products. The famous Sonnar 2.8/40 HFT for the
Rollei 35S was made in Singapore only after a few production
prototypes were made in Germany initially.

 > 2) Considering the multicoatings: MC, HFT, Zeiss T*..... All these are only
> trademarks and do not say anything about the type of coating or the quality.
> The multicoatings are  all quite similiar. The  difference is just the color
> of the remaining rest reflectance. This might be green, red, or red/blue.
> The color of rest reflectance has been selected only for marketing reasons,
> not for technical reasons. So Zeiss wants this dark/red colour as a
> "branding".  Even at that time, the coating designs have not more been
> developed by the optics manufacturers but just bought together with the
> coating machines from the coating machine industry like Balzers of Leybold.
> So you buy a machine for multicoating, and the supplier asks you: What
> colour of rest reflectance  you prefer? Then you get the process  with the
> machine...

They are trademarks and the same name could be applied for different
multicoating processes indeed, however  there are  technical
consequences for the multicoating predominant color reflectance, as
Marc wrote,"...If there is a difference in the indicated color of the
coating, then that shows that the peak effectiveness of the lens
coating will also be different... " and then the coating will be more
or less effective according the light wavelength. The _predominant_
general color reflectance can be different, multicoatings could show
some minor similar reflectances. For example, the MC Mamiya and SMC
Pentax multicoatings have a similar greenish general color
reflectance, Tokina MC multicoating has a strange light blue
predominant reflectance; CZ T* and Rollei HFT multicoating for CZ
lenses made by Rollei have a dark red predominant color reflectance. I
never saw the predominant color reflectance for the Rolleinar Japanese
lenses marked "HFT" in the lens ring manufactured from 1984.

Carlos
---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: