Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/12/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Marc, I haven't seen any record whatever of Eisenstaedt making this remark, only 'hearsay' by Emil Keller reporting it. I'd be interested in any other apochrypha you may have found. That said, I am extremely skeptical that either AE or Leitz would go to this trouble and expense to get just one-third of a stop [to f/2,8] when AE had such easy access to everything Leitz made, including the 50mm f/1,5 Summarit, an improvement of 1 1/2 full stops. He was too much a professional to have gone to such a potentially low-light shoot without adequate preparation. My guess - it's a guess only - is that in such low light he would have taken and used a Summarit or at least Summitar or early Summicron (depending upon when in the 50's this purported event took place) to be certain to get his photographs, foregoing the wider angle of a 35mm. As well, it strains credulity to think that on the spot, at the tournament, he would have had the time to get a lens to Leitz/New York, had them get permission from Wetzlar to do the 'fix' (without which ELNY would not have dred to commit such a sacrilege!), have them do the fix and get back into the room to complete his shoot. I don't think so. Rather think it is all very cute whimsy Further, Leitz did not 'open-up' the 50mm 3,5 Elmar to 2,8. While both are Tessar triplets, they are different optical designs, as you will see by looking at the drawings in Lager's, Puts' and Rogliatti's books. Jim reports that the first 50/3,5 Elmar was introduced in1926 and produced continually until at least 1954 when the first M-mount 50/3,5 Elmar was made. The f/2,8 was introduced in 1957 using what appears to be a mount similar if not identical to the f/3,5 except for the glass retaining rings but with an improved optical design employing the newer Leitz and Schott glasses that permitted not only greater speed but much better correction of aberrations. My last on this thread. Seth ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marc James Small" <marcsmall@comcast.net> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 9:29 PM Subject: [Leica] A Sad Tale of Woe: E Leitz 1945 - 1960 was, something else > 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! > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.17/1846 - Release Date: 12/12/2008 6:59 PM