Group: Member
Post: 55 (5 liked)
Join date: March 2022
Status:
|
|
on Apr 19, 2022 23:28:30 GMT
Posted: Apr 19, 2022 23:28:30 GMT
For an article about Agfa enlarger lenses we recently tried to find out the manufacturer of some lenses sold as Agfa Magnolar and Durst Neonon. While we still weren't able to find any official source, I started looking at small details on the lenses themselves and found some pretty strong indicators for the rumor being true, that Asahi/Pentax was responsible for them: I particularly looked closer on the way the "Lens made in Japan" engraving looked, the font as well as the edges and finishing of the aperture rings. Because of the fact that Tomioka was one of the other possible manufacturers, who made a lot of enlarging lenses for different brands, I started thinking: Are there some small details on Tomioka-made lenses, that would help identifying them as such?Like - a certain font - a distinct look of the aperture numbers - a certain material or finishing - some kind of special paint - unique threads, baffles or screws - something unique on the way the aperture blades look or how they close etc. Perhaps you - as experts on Yashica/Tomioka - can think of other things to look out for. The lens I'm wondering about specifically at the moment is the Vivitar "6 Elements 50 mm f/2.8" enlarging lens. So far I couldn't find anything that I'd call a convincing distinguishing feature, indicating that it could have been made by Tomioka as well, but I'll keep looking and probably taking some shots to show the differences and similarities. Does anyone know the lens in question? And have there been rumors about it being a Tomioka-made lens, or are the close ties Vivitar had to other manufacturers enough to dismiss that as an option? I'd really appreciate your feedback on this.
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,033 (561 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Apr 20, 2022 11:17:18 GMT
Posted: Apr 20, 2022 11:17:18 GMT
I'm sorry I don't have the answer but I would be surprised if Vivitar chose Yashica/Tomioka to produce the lens as it was not a manufacturer with whom they had a prior relationship.
For their 35mm camera lenses, they worked with the following companies (the number in the first column shows the start of the serial number associated with the manufacturer): (These only work with Vivitar lenses produced between the 1970s and 1990s)
06 - Olympus 09 - Cosina Company, Ltd. 13 - Schneider Kreuznach 22 - Kino Precision 25 - Ozone Optical Co., Ltd. 28 - Komine Co., Ltd. 32 - Makina Optical Co., Ltd 33 - Asanuma & Co., Ltd 37 - Tokina Optical Company, Ltd 42 - Bauer (possibly Bauer trademark holder Robert Bosch GmbH) 44 - Perkin-Elmer 47 - Chinon Industries, Inc. 51 - Tokyo Trading (possibly a corruption of Tokyo Koki, a Tokina predecessor) 56 - Kyoei Shoji Company, Ltd. 61 - Samyang Optics Co., Ltd 75 - Hoya Corporation 77 - Kobori Mfg Co. Ltd 81 - Polar
While these do not apply to their various enlarging lenses, I would have expected Vivitar to approach someone with whom they had a proven track record or was a leading producer of enlarging lenses in Japan. I'm not sure the Tominon or Yashica lenses would have been in the running; I can't see any design/manufacturing cues to suggest the 6 element 50 f2.8 was produced by them.
Are any of the Japanese producers in the list known for manufacturing enlarging lenses? They might be a good starting point.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 55 (5 liked)
Join date: March 2022
Status:
|
|
on Apr 20, 2022 11:30:29 GMT
Posted: Apr 20, 2022 11:30:29 GMT
As mentioned before I made a couple of shots comparing the two lenses: Some of my observations so far: - the engraving has a certain resemblance, but while the font looks similar, it's not the same - the metal ripples on the rings look similar, however the ones on the Vivitar lens show an additional edge - the point marking the current aperture, has a different size - the rear lens group has a different thread size, baffle and overall size - the aperture blades and the way they close looks extremely similar I think it's safe to say that this isn't the same lens, however that doesn't mean the Vivitar lens wasn't made by Tomioka, particularly because some of the similarities are clearly there... What do you think?
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,033 (561 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Apr 20, 2022 11:47:13 GMT
Posted: Apr 20, 2022 11:47:13 GMT
I don't see enough similarities to outweigh the obvious differences.
I have just looked at my Yashica 50 f2.8 and note its closeness to the appearance of your Hoya Super EL, with the singular exception of the aperture ring which is deeper and with a rubber grip on the Yashica. I presume that can be explained by the need to show a 'house style' for different lens marques - or was the Yashica not produced in-house?
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 55 (5 liked)
Join date: March 2022
Status:
|
|
on Apr 20, 2022 12:12:13 GMT
Posted: Apr 20, 2022 12:12:13 GMT
I don't see enough similarities to outweigh the obvious differences. I have just looked at my Yashica 50 f2.8 and note its closeness to the appearance of your Hoya Super EL, with the singular exception of the aperture ring which is deeper and with a rubber grip on the Yashica. I presume that can be explained by the need to show a 'house style' for different lens marques - or was the Yashica not produced in-house? I think you‘re probably right! I guess it‘s not very likely. Can you think of any general manufacturing clues pointing towards a Tomioka make? The Hoya, Yashica, Bogen, Osawa Tominon lenses show very clear similarities in construction, material, sizes of lens elements for example but they also show some different features, apart from the inscription and font size. Other Tomioka lenses (like the E36 series) look very different and even among those there‘s a certain variety in design. The same is true for their taking lenses, where the variety is even greater… That‘s why I‘m trying to look at details like engravings or aperture blades, because they can reveal things even if the lenses themselves are intentionally made to look completely different.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 770 (71 liked)
Join date: August 2016
Status:
|
|
on Apr 20, 2022 15:06:30 GMT
Posted: Apr 20, 2022 15:06:30 GMT
One thing to keep in mind is that lenses frequently evolved over time -- even in the same series. Typically, these are small, internal changes that you can't see, or minor external changes that are easy to miss. I've seen this with Minolta and Fujinon lenses where the optics might change but the external appearance is exactly the same -- or the size, color, or locations of the lettering differs, but the guts don't.
A good example is the Yashinon-DX 500mm f8 CAT which evolved in several ways under the Yashica label (before the final, very different, ML version), and had an off-shoot with the Spiratone Minitel 500mm f8 CAT which evolved in several ways under the Spiratone label (before the final, very different, Mintitel-M version).
If you compared the original Yashinon-DX 500mm f8 CAT to the final Spiratone Minitel 500mm f8 CAT you would never think they were really the same lens.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,369 (301 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Apr 20, 2022 15:40:19 GMT
Posted: Apr 20, 2022 15:40:19 GMT
When there's no published and attributable details from a maker and receiver it's difficult to assign 'ownership' of who made what with many optical companies when it comes to photo gear. There's a certain degree of secrecy in particular for Japanese makers, and I'm unsure what motivated that kind of posture, but there are times that the only way to know with anything close to surety is to find something internal that's unmistakable. It still might be wrong to assume, even then, but that's often the only way to help confirm any guesses.
Cosmetically it's too easy for any maker to mimic the design style of someone else to go by general eyeball comparisons. I think there's some things to be seen by close - and even, magnified inspection - that can provide some core details and clues. I'll make some assumptions that I think aren't unreasonable, and some criteria for sleuthing out some possible answers. Manufacturers set out to execute mechanical designs around the actual/physical tools and skill set they have in-house, and they advance their capabilities based on what they know, and what has a proven track record. It also helps to keep in mind the budget mindset of those in charge, i.e., Leica's bean counters are least likely to care what the sales price and cost factors are, where Vivitar is always chasing the budget conscious buyer.
If you consider the way individual pieces are made, some production 'trends' become more apparent. On the first 2 close-up photos I can see a number of subtle but very different techniques that say volumes about their maker. The Durst lens is machined 'down' from a raw tube or billet, and the Ashai was cast first, and then machined for the fine details, like the ribbing on the grip. The Durst shows the concentric lines of tooling marks on the barrel flats, where the Ashai still has it's sand casting 'speckles'. That means there's a major marker about the capabilities in each plant, and the methods used to make the base parts before they get their makeup applied for final finishings. The lasting quality of paint and even some chemical treatments (black oxide or 'bluing', versus plain or baked enamel) can hinge on the prepped surface it's applied to, and longevity of finish can translate to a maker's reputation. To magnify the simple choice of process, it seems that some makers in Japan just wouldn't compromise on the perceived quality, and wouldn't use processes that let it slide... even when they weren't ultimately the name brand the end user would be buying.
And speaking of finishing, most makers invested in a certain type and tend to stick with that choice for the obvious reason of a return on investment when it's all done in-house. Trust me that sending out metal parts for coatings, heat treatment, and finishing, is most certainly not cheap, plus the regulatory issues when using some processes can be mind-boggling when it goes wrong. There are hidden financial costs that some makers just can't take on, or afford to have someone else take on for them.
I can see the similarities in the type styles too, but one thing I've noticed is that most makers probably didn't make their own dies for lettering and serial number stampings - nor the machinery that stamps them - so the tendency to only have one particular font style seems pretty consistent over a very long time period, for anything/everything that rolled off the assembly line. That's not to say that they couldn't have outsourced the stamping to an outside vendor, but that seems less likely when they've already invested in the tooling to do it in-house.
Iris assemblies and blades for aperture adjustments can easily be sourced from a 3rd party supplier in bulk and to a specific specs, so unless it's large or complex or with an excessive numbers of blades, I don't think I'd make too many assumptions about whether they were OEM parts. The same applies to non-descript rubber grips and appliques, but coloring on barrel markers does seem to become a signature of some makers. Kiron/Kino used blue and that's almost a dead giveaway for their involvement when you see that coloring used. Deep orange versus red, or yellow versus light orange on distance scales can point to different makers. Buying tankers full of paint colors makes one want to use it on LOTS of parts made for everybody they'd sell to when the lettering it fills is teeny-weeny and you have a 10 year supply on hand.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 55 (5 liked)
Join date: March 2022
Status:
|
|
on Apr 20, 2022 20:56:15 GMT
Posted: Apr 20, 2022 20:56:15 GMT
Thank you all so much for the input - that's some valuable information and good thoughts on the matter.
It's true that many lenses/lens families evolved over time, particularly ones that were made over a long period of time or even in different plants. But I think in general many manufacturers like to stick to things that already work - particularly when it comes to smaller details (like serial-number or "made in" markings) as they're not that essential in comparison to everything else.
Of course I agree that it's not possible to tell with any certainty which manufacturer was responsible, particularly when certain parts could be outsourced: I wasn't aware that this was frequently the case for aperture mechanisms or parts for example... it just shows I'm not that familiar with how things are manufactured in reality.
I still think such a specific engraving (in the case of the Asahi and Durst lens) in the exact same font, spacing and the same style shows at least a high probability of some kind of connection. Would you agree on that in this case or do you think that an outsourcing is equally realistic here?
I clearly need to learn and consider a lot more in my approach to this, so thanks again for the opportunity!
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,369 (301 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Apr 22, 2022 3:42:27 GMT
Last Edit: Apr 22, 2022 3:53:53 GMT by lumiworx
... I still think such a specific engraving (in the case of the Asahi and Durst lens) in the exact same font, spacing and the same style shows at least a high probability of some kind of connection. Would you agree on that in this case or do you think that an outsourcing is equally realistic here? ... I'd tend to think they are similar, but not the same and from the same maker. To point out 2 things that look suspect... the "M" and "A" are very close between both lens barrels, but the cross-bar on the A isn't in the same position, so the 'triangles' are different sizes, plus the topmost sloping point on the M's and A's legs are rather 'sharp' and pointy on the Ashai, while the Durst looks like they're fatter and rounder overall. They might both be based on the same generic sans-serif font/type style, but the individual stamped letters looks too different to my eyes. They seem to have been struck with different dies from separate manufacturers. An example of the machines they'd use for roll stamping... www.pannier.com/stamping/roll-rotary-marking/roll-marking-machines/The machines are likely to be the same ones they'd use for serial number indexing. Part of the stamping marks don't change, (the 'Made in..." text and logos or distance markings), so they can be complex for single pass 'stamping' and are probably not cost effective when it comes to changing setups on the various number/letter assemblies for indexing up by one number while on a production line. It would also seem the costs involved for multiple type styes could be prohibitive for these tasks, when they repeatedly wear out and need occasional replacements from high pressure use. I'm sure I'd get in trouble for saying it, but how many shoes can one woman wear before the count is considered excessive and far too expensive to be reasonable. :) I doubt that the lens makers fabricated their own number/letter dies, and purchased them to perfectly fit the machines they use. I can't imagine that a maker who buys and maintains these single-purpose machines would choose not to use them and outsource the job to a 3rd party - just for the sake of looking different on the repetitive/common markings. As mentioned before, it's usually a case of using what you know, and what you have -but- more importantly might be a case of the least important design detail to help with brand recognition or the presenting of overall quality that doesn't get any undue attention or extra expenditures.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 770 (71 liked)
Join date: August 2016
Status:
|
|
on Apr 22, 2022 11:54:39 GMT
Posted: Apr 22, 2022 11:54:39 GMT
I guess this points out that two lenses that appear to be different might in reality be the same, while two lenses that look very much alike might in fact be different.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 55 (5 liked)
Join date: March 2022
Status:
|
|
on Apr 22, 2022 23:08:28 GMT
Posted: Apr 22, 2022 23:08:28 GMT
Thank you very much for your take on this and the great obserations. Sounds very reasonable and I'll definitely take this into consideration.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 770 (71 liked)
Join date: August 2016
Status:
|
|
on Apr 23, 2022 16:33:52 GMT
Posted: Apr 23, 2022 16:33:52 GMT
Isn't this where Sherlock Holmes makes his appearance -- STAGE RIGHT!
|
|