[Leica] A Sad Tale of Woe: E Leitz 1945 - 1960 was, something else

[marcsmall at comcast.net (Marc James Small)]

At 03:13 PM 12/12/2008, Seth Rosner wrote:
 >Interesting story, Larry. What lengths we go to for an image! Of course it
 >is a half-stop difference twixt 2,8 and 3,5. But I'll take your bet on the
 >older 2,8s being really 3,5s. That's not the way E.Leitz worked then or
 >Leica Camera works now. The 2,8 was introduced in 1958 simultaneously with
 >the first 8-glass 35/2 Summicron and the 90/2 Summicron and Leitz was
 >justifiably proud of these three ground-breaking lenses. There would have
 >been no sense in introducing a warmed-over, inferior performing
 >stretched-diaphragm lens with a brand-new 35mm 2,8 lens in the offing.  
 >Take
 >a look at the lenses physically and you'll see the differences. And while
 >both are six-glass Gauss formulas, their cross-sections are visibly
 >different.

Seth

With all respect, at the time, E Leitz Wetzlar 
was only beginning to recover from the economic 
horrors caused by the Second World War and by the 
extraordinary cost to develop and produce the M 
film cameras which so many of the LUG, so they 
would do anything at all to stay afloat.  But I 
do believe that you are correct and none of my 
literature suggests otherwise than that you have 
set out the true story with regard to the 3.5cm (NOT 35mm, mind you!) 
Summaron.

I believe that Larry confused this lens with the 
3.5/5cm and 2.8/5cm Elmars.  Apocrypha has it 
that ELNY technicians attended a  major chess 
championship match in your burg around 1950 (I 
can dredge the details:  while I play the games, 
I follow neither championship Bridge nor 
Chess.)  The tale has it that the lighting was 
dim and that Eisie told the technicians that he 
was having problems getting images suitable for 
publication, and that the technicians then told 
him that the lens would work well at f/2.8 and 
opened it up one-third of a stop (not half a 
stop, Larry) by adjusting the f-stop 
detents.  They reported this to Wetzlar, who 
followed up by opening the Elmar to f/2.8 in production.

There has been a lot of ink spilt on this 
matter.  Is the tale true?  Eisie said so but 
others have dissented.  I discussed it once with 
Jim Lager who said that we will probably never 
know.  Bob Schwalberg told me that the story must 
be true, as Eisie never inflated any of the 
accounts of his life.  Ed Meyers has backed this 
up.  I do not know but the optical design of the 
f/3.5 and f/2.8 versions of the 5cm Elmar appear 
identical, so it might well be.

I acknowledge that Leitz/Leica has always been a 
company with a dedication to the utmost 
quality.  At the same time, it is a commercial 
concern and simply has to make money to ensure 
that its creditors are paid and that its 
employees got their paychecks.  The fat days were 
between 1958 and 1968, when the Leitz family 
earned a hefty income from the success of the M 
cameras, monies which they lost in the 1970's as 
they tried to keep the firm afloat.  If there are 
memorials in heaven for moral and committed 
capitalists, the Leitz family certainly deserves 
a plaque, right alongside those for Heinz 
K?ppenbender and both Franke and Heidecke.

Post-War Germany was POOR and the "Economic 
Miracle" was a decade away.  We in the US cannot 
understand this.  Take one example.  Following VE 
Day, the management of the KdF-Wagen plant in 
Wolfsburg (now, VW) were most uncertain of their 
fate.  Senior management had fled as most were on 
the War Crimes List.  The Allies had indicated 
that the plant was to be seized and its machinery 
turned over to the Soviets.  There was no money 
coming in.  There were bills to pay.  There was 
no money in the bank.  VW sirvoved through some 
sagacious decisions by the remaining 
management.  The plant had been bombed and they 
worked a deal iout with the British Army, 
Wolfsburg then being in the British Zone, for 
some tentage, which they used to block the holes 
it the roof.  The swap was for maintenance of 
British trucks.  Industrial machinery is not 
easily damaged by bombing:  aerial recon shots of 
Tokyo show this well, with a drill-press or lathe 
appearing in every fourth house, the houses being 
burned to the ground.  Then they began swapping 
steel and the like in return for KdF-wagens for 
the British Army of the Rhine, as it came to be 
called.  That kept the company afloat in terms of 
income and outgo but what about the 
workers?  Management went to the extent of going 
to the local banks and guaranteeing the debts of 
its employees.  For four years, the employees 
were paid in British Army rations together with a 
statement of the monies owned them.  In 1947, VW 
exported three cars to the US.  By 1948, VW was 
making enough to allow it to pay off all that 
promised money to the banks and to begin 
investing in a new roof for its principal factory.  The rest is history.

E Leitz and Franke und Heidecoe received a pass 
from the Allies due to their Warttime resistance 
to the use of slave labor, as did the Carl Zeiss 
Foundation folks -- their head, Heinz 
K?ppenbender, both was charged by the Nazis as 
being delinquent in sending folks to the death 
camps -and by the Allies as a war criminal, all 
chres being dismissed -- ,  Lesson Two will 
involve the imact of the friendly deal with the PX system.

Marc


msmall@aya.yale.edu
Cha robh b?s fir gun ghr?s fir!