Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/08/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 01:59 PM 8/13/03 -0700, Jerry Lehrer wrote: >To the best of my knowledge, Kodak would never have had any >interest in buying Wollensak. Why should they lower themselves? > >I have compared WOC binoculars with other WW2 manufacturers >and have found that even Univex made better ones. Of course the >best was Bausch and Lomb. Jerry In the Interwar period, Wollensak routinely out-performed Kodak and Bausch & Lomb on both the War Department's Ordnance Department and the Navy Department's Bureau of Ordnance trials. Wollensak also supplied the RF gear for both of the Argentinian battleships and was installed on board the single Chilean dreadnought during its refit in the 1930's. In the Postwar comparison of US Navy fire-control gear against those from Japan and Germany, the Wollensak gear was evaluated as optically excellent and mechanically on par with Nikon and Zeiss rangefinders, though both Nikon and Zeiss RF's were optically clearer. Wollensak RF's, I believe, were brighter and more useful in low-light conditions than was Axis gear. During World War II, all binoculars were built to a single specification for their power and size. These designs were almost always B&L for both the Army and Navy, and all were tested to the same standard before being purchased by the military. Thus, a Wollensak military binocular ought to perform identically with one from Univex or B&L. To my fairly certain knowledge, however, Wollensak was a very minor player in the binocular world. Marc msmall@infionline.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bąs fir gun ghrąs fir! - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html