Re: [Leica] Duncan and Mydans and Nikkor Lenses

[Jay Kumarasamy <jayk@cisco.com>]

After reading this analysis by Marc,  I wonder, if it was EVER possible
by ANYBODY, to make lenses equal to, if not better than, ZEISS :-) ???? 

- - Jay

> 
> A friend suggested I review Duncan's comments in THIS IS WAR, and,
> amazingly, I listened and did so.
> 
> Duncan states, quite clearly,  of the Nikon lens offerings that "their
> three standard lenses for 35mm cameras were far superior, in our opinions,
> to any standard 35mm lenses available on the open market -- British,
> American, or German".  I might quibble with "far superior", but not by much.
> 
> Duncan says that he and Bristol found this out "prior to the outbreak of
> the Korean War".  He doesn't date this exactly, but we can presume he meant
> a brief window prior to June, 1950.  And remember those words:  "standard
> 35mm lenses" and "available on the open market".  Duncan was speaking of
> the sort of 50mm lens which could be had from the average photo store.
> 
> In early 1950, there were simply no Zeiss lenses for 35mm cameras
> "available" on the market.  None.  The Jena lenses were barely "available",
> in quite limited numbers, though only through Zeiss USA, and that over the
> stringent objections of the Zeiss Foundation;  in any event, the normal
> lenses were designs twenty years old at the time Duncan writes of.  There
> were no Oberkochen 35mm lenses of any sort available at this time:  regular
> production of the improved 1.5/5cm Sonnar does not commence for another
> year.  I am fairly certain no British 50mm lenses were then in production,
> and Kodak was no longer manufacturing the fine Ektar lens line.  Hence, the
> competition could only be with Leitz' designs.
> 
> I have no doubt the Nikkor lenses were superior to the Leitz lenses of the
> era.  If Duncan did a comparison of Prewar, and probably uncoated Zeiss
> lenses, against new, coated, Nikon lenses, the test was not a fair one.  If
> he compared a new Nikon lens with, say, a battered and worn,
> fifteen-year-old Jena Sonnar, the test would depend on whether the Zeiss
> lens had been checked over for alignment and cleanliness.  Duncan speaks
> not of this, so we can only presume he took his own lenses out of his bag
> and used those for the comparison.
> 
> No authority of any standing would suggest even a Summitar can perform as
> cheerfully well as could a 2/5cm Sonnar, and the Summar is way off in left
> field, somewhere.  Duncan mentions the 1.5/50 Nikkor, 2/85 Nikkor, and
> 3.5/135 Nikkor.  Now, if the comparison was like to like, that means a
> Nikkor versus a Summarit, and the honours would clearly go to the Nikkor,
> as it is a clone of the much superior (pace, Erwin!) Sonnar.  Leitz did not
> make a 2/85 of any sort, though it did produce the rather soft 1.5/8.5cm
> Summarex and the 4/9cm Elmar:  here, again, the Zeiss design for their
> 2/8.5 Sonnar would clearly win in almost any optical terms.  And the
> 4.5/13.5 Hektor, fine as it may be, and I have used and loved every one I
> have owned, cannot hold a candle to the 4/13.5cm Sonnar on which the Nikon
> 3.5/135 is based.
> 
> So, the test was either Zeiss Prewar and uncoated and professionally
> battered lens versus new Nikkor lens, or it was new Leitz versus new Nikkor
> and, in that regard, given the Zeiss heritage of the Nikkor lenses, I would
> suspect Duncan evaluated them properly, though, again, over-stating his
> case quite a bit, as Dr Bauer was to advise Pop in 1951, but in terms of
> spluttering German insistence on fair tests.
> 
> To my knowledge, Duncan never tested any British or American lenses against
> the Nikkors, though he says the Nikkors are superior.  I would like to know
> the basis of his statement.
> 
> I am continuing my efforts to get Mydans and Duncan to confirm this
> analysis.  As it stands now, Duncan's statements, and the interesting
> article by Arthur Goldsmith ("How the West Was Won".  Popular Photography,
> March, 1991, pp 34 et sequentes), do not provide the precise exemplars in
> the Bristol & Duncan shoot-off, but I suspect his basic statement -- that,
> of "normal lenses" available in early 1950, the Nikkor lenses were superior
> -- was correct.  Zeiss was simply not in the running at that time.  (Carl
> Mydans was sent to cover the Korean War.  In transit, he lost his camera
> gear.  When he arrived in Tokyo, the ONLY lenses he could find AT ANY PRICE
> were the Nikkor bunch, so he converted, making a virtue of necessity.
> Hence, Nikkor lenses were, at least in Tokyo in 1950 ALL that was
> available!  Duncan seems to misinterpret what caused Mydans to use Nikkor
> lenses.)
> 
> And Duncan concedes that this analysis ONLY held for the 50mm to 135mm
> range -- in other focal lengths, he specifically states that "we thought
> the German lenses to be still superior".
> 
> Duncan also discusses the distaste stateside editors had for 35mm cameras
> in this piece, incidentally.
> 
> Marc
> 
> msmall@roanoke.infi.net  FAX:  +540/343-7315
> Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!
> 
>