Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/05/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 02:54 PM 5/3/98 EDT, Larry Zeitlin wrote: >If Japanese lenses were the >performance equivalent of German lenses at significantly lower prices than the >value of those lenses to the photographer was appropriately higher. And while >it is true that the German optical industry was responsible for many >innovations in design, an equal number were copied from French and English >designers. Indeed, the mose significant small camera lens design of all, the >anastigmatic triplet, the precursor of the Tessar, the Xenar, and even the >Sonnar (and ubiquitous on most P&S cameras to this day) was invented by a Brit >(H.D. Taylor, 1893). Obviously the British patent had expired when Leitz so >shamelessly exploited the concept in manufacturing the Leica. :-) Mr Zeitlin Again, sir, I urge you to consult the Archives. This issue has been hammered out, ad nauseam, on the LUG over the past four years. And, unfortunately, Stephen Gandy seems to have left our number, a man quite knowledgeable on early Nikon products. a) The Leitz Elmar did not infringe on any English patent. It was a variant of the Zeiss Tessar and, as such, Leitz paid royalties to Zeiss and honoured their name requirement (it had to be called an "Anastigmat") until the Zeiss patent expired in 1922, at which time Leitz renamed the optic the "Elmax" (for "Ernst Leitz Max Berek"), later changed to "Elmar". b) None of the Japanese lenses used by Duncan, et al, were copied from French or British originals and such would not have been permitted. Nikon began to copy Carl Zeiss designs around 1947; when Zeiss protested, the Allied Control Commission, wishing to encourage the growth of the Japanese optical industry (which the Allies wanted to make mass-market cameras instead of rangefinders and bombsights), the Allies told Zeiss to go mind its knitting. Canon then began to copy both Zeiss and Leitz designs. Had either copied a British or French design, the Allies would have made them stop. Thus, Nippon Kogaku and Canon simply stole designs without let or hindrance or, for that matter, payment then or later, to Zeiss or Leitz. c) No one questions the wisdom of the US combat photographers in Korea in using inexpensive Japanese lenses. But the US-based editors would have raised the roof had these lenses started appearing in photo credits without more -- most editors were exceedingly unhappy with the use of ANY 35mm gear, and felt even MF gear yielded a questionable negative. So, Duncan and his cronies arranged this cozy little "discovery" that these Japanese lenses were so incredibly good. They WERE good, as good as their Zeiss originals, but not better, and that was the claim made, that the Japanese lenses were dramatically BETTER than the German originals which is, of course, logically absurd. I believe Duncan was operating in relatively good faith, and I do not believe he ever thought his endorsement would get beyond the newsrooms of the journals who purchased his shots. But it did, and the American press began to deluge an unsuspecting people with a warped tale that "Japanese lenses are better than German". d) The head of Carl Zeiss USA (then a US-Government owned entity seized at the beginning of the Second World War under the Alien Properties Act) at this time was Dr Karl Bauer (who, incidentally, was one of the developers of lens coatings). Thus, Bauer, an employee of the US Government but with strong ties to Zeiss, had been negotiating frantically with the US authorities since 1947 to stop this drain of Zeiss designs. When Popular Photography called him to ask his opinion of the report that Japanese lenses were "better", Bauer, well knowing that the Japanese lenses were probably identical in performance but were certainly no better, but bound, as he was, by confidentiality and divided loyalties, simply tried to explain without breaching the cloud of secrecy which then covered the activities of the Allied Control Commission. Pop then ran a sneering report denouncing Bauer, most unfairly, as an apoplectic and stodgy German. It was quite untrue and exceeding cruel, to boot, but Bauer, a decent man, allowed the insult to pass in silence. Again, Mr Zeitlin, please consult the Archives and you can read perhaps 200 messages this topic has generated in the past. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!