Vintage lenses − Interchangeable lenses were never really that interchangeable

/ spqr / Leave a comment

With SLRs becoming more common in the 1950s, so too was the idea of interchangeable lenses. It was possible to but one camera, and a myriad of lenses with different focal lengths to use with it. But the idea of interchangeable likely confused some people, as it turns out that in many cases interchangeable did not really mean interchangeable at all. Interchangeable in the SLR context of the word really just meant not fixed, i.e. the lens could be changed on a camera. But to some interchangeable might have meant the ability to use any lens on any camera.

The problem was one of standardization, or rather a lack there-of. When 35mm cameras first evolved, camera mounts evolved quite organically. Rangefinder cameras started with the 39mm screw mount of the Leica and bayonet mount of the Contax. In 1936 Ihagee released the Kine-Exakta the world’s first 35mm SLR, and also the first with a bayonet-mount, perhaps in deference to Leica’s screw mount. There were definite benefits to a bayonet-mount – they were quick and easy to change. But they were also more expensive to manufacture. In 1939 Kamera-Werkstätten would introduce the Praktiflex, which had an M40 screw mount. There was nothing to really stop any manufacturer from introducing a new SLR with a unique mount. From an economical viewpoint, a unique mount makes complete sense, because it guarantees users can only purchase system lenses, and not be able to venture into third-party lenses. It also makes life a little simpler, and there may be some benefit to lenses tailored specifically to a camera. The Praktina from Kamera Werkstätten was such a camera, debuting a new breech-lock lens mount, which meant that the lens environment was very restricted, and lenses used on previous KW systems could not be used, forcing the photographer to buy new lenses. There is also the caveat of the manufacturer actually having to provide an assortment of lenses − SLRs which are released with a limited ecosystem of lenses have historically not been very successful.

Interestingly, mounts that were patented, such as the Exakta mount could not be used by unlicensed lens manufacturers, whereas those who used screw lenses were uninhibited because it would almost be impossible to obtain a patent for what is essentially a screw thread (which is why Leica-copies all used the same screw mount). The Leica M39 mount was based on the Whitworth thread form, and while it may have been possible to obtain a utility patent on some novel use of a thread mount on a camera using 35mm film, the thread itself was not patentable, perhaps because different diameter mounts were already being used on microscopes. The concept of interchangeable lenses resonated well with manufacturers of SLR cameras with focal-plane shutters. Those who designed leaf-shutters were another thing altogether. SLR cameras like Agfaflex, Bessamatic, Contaflex, and the Retina Reflex could only use the interchangeable lenses specifically made for their cameras, because having a behind-the-lens shutters meant that the interchangeable lenses weren’t ‘complete’ lenses as a common portion of the lens system was integral to the system.

Fig.1: The Contaflex had a very limited ecosystem of lenses, i.e. some four basic lenses. In addition the fastest lens was the Tessar f/2.8 50mm.

In 1949 both Praktiflex and Contax cameras had adopted yet another mount, the M42 screw mount. For some reason there was something about the M42 that became popular, perhaps because it was not patented, and a little larger than the previous screw mounts. By the mid-1950s then, two SLR camera mounts seemed to have risen to the top: Exakta and M42. As a lot of SLRs from this period originated from East Germany, the use of common lens mounts likely made sense considering the state-owned lens manufacturers. For example lens manufacturer Meyer Optik would produce lenses for both the M42 and Exakta mounts. Of course adopting a “standard” mount did not always result in plain sailing. A M42 lens from one company did not always exactly fit the M42 camera mount of another, and those that did coupled to the camera body effectively. A good example is again the Kamera-Werkstätten Praktina. Produced from 1953 to 1960, the lenses for the system had five different diaphragm control mechanisms: manual, preset, preset with trigger release, semi-automatic, and automatic. Preset and manual lenses in Praktina mounts fit all Praktina cameras [1]. However the semi-automatic lenses made for the Praktina FX would fit, but not work on the Praktina IIa, and the fully automatic lenses for the Praktina IIa, would fit, but not work on the older Praktina FX. The reason is that on the Praktina FX the actuating pin moves forward, and on the IIa it moves backwards.

The M42 mount may have been the only truly interchangeable lens ecosystem which evolved. The mount was in production for decades, and a slew of camera manufacturers adopted the mount: Praktica, Zenit-E, Asahi Pentax, Chinon, Cosina, Mamiya, Fuji, Yashica, and even Olympus. To support these cameras, over fifty different manufacturers made lenses for the M42 mount, amounting to probably thousands of different lens models (a precise estimate is somewhat difficult). By the mid-1960s, many camera manufacturers had decided to move towards proprietary mounts. In many cases this was away from screw-mounts to bayonet-style mounts which allowed for: (i) larger diameter mounts; (ii) securer mechanisms for fast and reliable lens change and (iii) mechanisms to allow with aperture coupling with light meters. This might have been considered by some to be purely based on non-conformity, but likely had some underpinnings in the competitive nature of camera manufacturing. To this end, independent lens manufacturers produced single lenses with a series of adapters, which could be changed for those with multiple camera systems. Good examples of this were Kilfitt (they produced more adapters than lenses), Tamron (Adaptall) [2], and Novoflex.

Fig.2: The Tamron Adaptall/Adaptall-2 system was perhaps the personification of interchangeability. It allowed their lenses to be couples with some 25 different camera mounts

So lenses were only really interchangeable in the largest of systems, i.e. Exakta, and M42 the latter of which may have been the most successful. There was a small window of interchangeability, but only in so much that it relates to the existence of adapters, and a cameras ability to use other lenses. For example ALPA cameras had a flange-focal-distance (FFD) of 37.8mm, which means it could provide adapters for mounting systems with a FFD greater than 37.8mm (of which there were many). Many systems had a large FFD, meaning their ability to use interchangeable lenses from other systems was limited.

There has never been one all-encompassing, ubiquitous means of attaching a lens to a camera. The closest we came was the screw-mount M42, its reign yielded to that of the bayonet mount, a victim of its own limitations. At this juncture, many manufacturers went with their own proprietary mounts in part to facilitate automatic apertures and other the inclusion of electronics in lenses. True interchangeability may actually exist in the guise of specific brand biomes. A good example here is the Leica M-mount, which was introduced in 1954 and is still used on Leica cameras today, allowing even older analog lenses to be used on a modern digital camera.

NB: What is interesting is that in the rangefinder realm, so many of the clones produced just copied the L39 mount of the Leica (although in reality there were some issues with 39mm standardization as well). The lack of interest here may have had less to do with any lofty ideas of standardization, but rather providing access to a cheaper Leica, and easy access to a slew of existing lenses.

Further reading:

  1. The Praktina System
  2. Tamron: About Adaptall-2

Ultrafast lenses – The fastest ever design?

/ spqr / Leave a comment

There is a lens described in a classified CIA briefing, which was never built [1]. The lens was designed by Shoroto Yoshido, a lens designer from the Sendai Science Laboratory, who supposedly achieved a relative aperture of f/0.519 using 5 elements. The lens only had one aspheric surface. But its design was somewhat crazy, the focal plane almost touches the the extremely curved rear lens. There is very little else written about this lens.

Fig.1: The design of the Yoshido f/0.519 lens

Further reading:

  1. Merigold, P.A., “Aspheric Optical Systems”, CIA Reading Room (released Nov.21, 2005)

Understanding condition terms used to sell vintage photographic gear

/ spqr / Leave a comment

Descriptions of camera gear, regardless of the website aren’t always as truthful as they could be. People use a number of terms to mask the true condition of an item. Some unfortunately do it not knowing any better, perhaps because they don’t sell many cameras or lenses. As usual, stick with sellers that have good feedback, and test the things they sell. A listing that doesn’t really describe the functionality of the lens or camera is one to be avoided, even if it does seem inexpensive (unless it is so cheap you are willing to spin the wheel). Beware that sometimes terms are used to gloss over the fact that there are issues. For instance with lenses sometimes the issues with the optics are fully described, but focusing ability, and aperture control are ignored.

Now on to some of the terms used. Note that many of these terms can be quite subjective.

“Mint”

A term used to theoretically describe a camera or lens that is 100% like the day it left the factory, i.e. pristine or unblemished. The reality is that very few cameras or lenses are pristine. Sometimes the term is used in a roundabout way to describe the cosmetic appearance of a camera or lens with little regard to functionality. Does not guarantee a camera functions, or has even been tested. (See previous post)

“Near mint”

A term used to describe a camera or lens that is close to mint, but not quite. Often used to rate an item in terms of appearance, e.g. minimal scratches, rather than function. Does not guarantee a camera has been tested. Traditionally it describes something that looks as if it was just taken out of the box, or has been handled with extreme care. The definition can be subjective, often causing tension between buyers (expecting perfection) and sellers (who may allow minor defects).

“Minimal traces of use”

This usually implies a camera hasn’t been used that much. But how can one really guarantee how much a 50-year old camera has or hasn’t been used. A camera could look in pristine condition cosmetically, and have been used to take thousands of photos. Unlike a digital camera, there is no way to gauge shutter activations on a film camera.

“Signs of use” / “signs of wear”

Most cameras will show some signs of use. This is a catch-all term used to say that cosmetically it won’t be perfect. Perhaps a few scuffs and scratches, perhaps peeling leatherette, or a bit dirty. It obviously means that camera has been used, and is in fair or good condition. It usually says very little about the condition of the internal components.

“As is”

This means you get it in the state it currently is, with all its faults, known or unknown. It’s a bit superfluous because that’s the same state most things are bought in. Read between the lines and this implies that it has not been tested, and likely has something wrong with it. It’s a catch-all for “buyer-beware”.

“Beautiful”

Terms like beautiful are often used to describe the overall quality of an item, especially with optics. It is such a subjective term that it is pretty meaningless. If describing a lens, then it is better to use terms that relate directly to whether or not it has defects, e.g. the presence of haze, fungus, scratches, dust. I think it is okay when being used to describe a lens whose design is aesthetically pleasing.

“It works properly”

But does it? Unless the camera has been tested using film, it is impossible to say it works properly. A cursory review of a camera may determine that things “work”, but are the shutter speeds accurate? Does the shutter work properly? Are there any light leaks? The same with lenses, which can be tested easily by attaching to a mirrorless system and actually taking photos.

“CLA’d” / “overhauled”

Supposedly the camera/lens has been serviced, CLA means “Clean, lube and adjust”. It is a comprehensive maintenance service performed on cameras (and lenses) to restore them to proper working order. Often there is very little evidence of this, e.g. a description of what was actually performed during the service. If the camera/lens seems too cheap this is a red flag, because a CLA can cost C$150-400.

“Rare”

When something is “rare” it means there are very few of them, or at least very few for sale. The term is a quite overused in the photographic realm. For example the Canon “dream” lens, the 50mm f/0.95 could be considered somewhat uncommon, because only 20,000 were produced in comparison to some (a more common lenses may have had a few hundred thousand produced). Yet they are sometimes marked as “rare” which they are not, there are a lot for sale − what they are is expensive, but expensive does not necessarily equal rare. The Meyer Optik Domiron 50mm f/2 on the other hand is a rare lens − produced for about 6 months and prized for its “swirly bokeh”.

“Not tested”

This may be code for defective. Cosmetically the camera may look fine, however functionality has not been investigated at all. Buy at your own risk. It could be a hidden gem for a good price, or something that sits on a shelf.

“For parts” / “repair”

Exactly as it presents, “for parts” means that the item has some sort of defect that prevents its use. Basically another code for defective. For a camera this might mean a defective shutter, for a lens an aperture mechanism that is stuck. It of course can be used as a donor camera to fix a camera. As very few people are likely to use it for parts, except perhaps easy to access external things, these are bought to sit on a shelf, or pull-apart for fun.

Exaggerated ratings

There a certain places which tend to exaggerate ratings, and use the term “mint”, and “near mint” a lot. There is no standardization in ratings, and some are verging on ridiculous. One I have seen had the following system for appearance: brand new (100%), like new (99%), top-mint (97-98%), mint (95-96%), near mint (93-94%), excellent (91-92%), very good (89-90%), and “for parts” (80-85%). There are also some with ratings such as Exc+ to Exc+++++, implying five levels of excellent between “near mint” and “for parts”, which is also ridiculous.

The terms used to describe a lens or camera are only good if used in context. I guess we can be somewhat lucky that people don’t use the terms “epic”, or “mythical” in their descriptions. However some people do use the term “legendary” which I think is okay to use with lenses, but only if they are truly legendary. What does a good condition description look like? Here is one for a Praktina IIa:

“Good overall condition. Some signs of wear are present. The shutter fires, but the speeds do not appear to be accurate. The shutter curtain coating is cracked and no longer light-tight. The lens’s aperture and focus rings function correctly. The lens is free of scratches, delamination, and fungus. There is some haze inside the lens. Bayonet mount lens (specifically for Praktina cameras).”

Is there such a thing as a “mint” vintage camera?

/ spqr / Leave a comment

I don’t particularly like the use of the term “mint” in advertisements for camera gear, particularly vintage cameras (well and lenses as well). I mean what does “mint” really mean? Look it up in the dictionary and it means “pristine, perfect, immaculate, unblemished”. If I bought a new camera today it certainly could be described in this manner, but a vintage camera? Hardly.

The term mint originates from numismatics (coin collecting), where it was used to describe a coin that had never been in circulation and retained its original, flawless appearance. It is easy to describe things like coins, stamps, and comic books in this manner, as the term is only really associated with the cosmetic appearance. It’s a bit harder to use with things that have mechanical innards. The outside of a camera can be mint, but the inside could be decrepit. Mint in the context of cameras typically means the item shows “minimal to no signs of use”. But the problem is the a camera that isn’t used isn’t guaranteed to function. Consider a 1960s SLR that has never been unboxed. Being roughly 55-65 years old, it could have dry or gummed up lubricants, or shutters that lag. Most likely it will suffer from degraded materials: deteriorated light seals and mirror dampers, peeling leatherette, light meter decay, prism corrosion, etc.

Fig.1: One of the few cameras which is truly mint

Japanese resellers have a tendency to grade everything photographic based on condition, which is certainly laudable, considering many people selling cameras do not (some barely offer a decent description). The problem is that everyone has their own scale, which is often very subjective in nature. One I recently saw one that associated “Very Good” with 65% “works good, mostly with dings or dents”. No where in my book is 65% very good. On the same scale “mint” was described as “almost no signs of use”, below “like new” and “brand new”. So one person’s “mint” is another persons “not quite 100%”. So why do so many Japanese resellers sell so many “mint” lenses? Well, Japan has a lot of specialized retailers, and a lot of supply. That being said, Japaneses resellers are notorious for overusing “mint” in their descriptions, sometimes when the camera has minor flaws.

Let’s face it, a “mint” vintage camera may not exist, or if it does it would be in original packaging, never really opened (the new old stock). But even then, cameras in the 1950s and 60s likely didn’t come in shrink-wrapped boxes, with the camera itself wrapped in some sort of covering. As such, unless stored in a perfect environ, it would be subject to the same temperature and humidity changes as anything else. Cardboard stops nothing (although if it the camera was contained in a leather case it might be better). A good reseller will have a reasonable series of condition grades. Furthermore they would never use the term mint, because it really is too specific. If something is unused, it is better to designate it “new”, and instead use the term “near mint” to describe a camera with very light signs of wear. There is of course more credence given to a camera being sold with the original box and paperwork, because then it almost feels like some care was taken with the use and storage of the camera.

Also something that is in original condition is not necessarily mint. A mint camera implies that it works, like 100% − it has accurate shutter speeds (including slow speeds), smooth mirror actuation, clear viewfinder, a light meter that functions properly, no degraded parts… the whole shebang. Sometimes you have to be careful, as an ad may use the term mint in the title, yet only define the cosmetic condition as mint in the item description. Even the use of the term near mint can be very subjective, ranging from average to excellent. I mean how near is near? And don’t even get me started on “rare” cameras.

A mint camera or lens should be one which truly is pristine, and therefore a term that is used extremely sparingly. It is the sort of gear found at photographic purveyors such as Coeln (Vienna).

What’s inside (and outside) a modern lens?

/ spqr / Leave a comment

If you look at a advertising from a modern lens manufacturer you will notice that most lenses have offer a lens diagram outlining what the internal design of the lens is, and whether there are special lens elements in it. For most people what’s inside a lens is of little interest, as long as the lens does what it’s suppose to do, however it is a little interesting only because many modern lenses are quite complex inside. What often separates modern digital lenses from vintage film ones is the internal mechanics. While film lenses, and some less-expensive digital lenses had mechanical means of focusing, digital lenses are often auto-focusing, requiring small motors to drive the focusing mechanism. Some manufacturers also produce lenses that have image stabilization mechanisms inside. So there can be a lot going on inside a lens beyond the optical system.

So what features are associated with a modern lens? There are two types of modern digital lens per se. One is bristling with electronics, to deal with apertures, focusing and perhaps stabilization; the other is manual, in such that both focusing and aperture control and done by hand. Why manual? Because it allows lenses to be made in an expensive manner. Fully coupling a lens to a digital camera, which requires electronics, is an expensive venture.

First are the things that have always been on the outside of a lens, namely the aperture ring and focus ring. Now it should be mentioned that some lens makers, e.g. Sigma, produce lenses that are only auto-focus, and as such they don’t offer any sort of manual focus, because there is no focus ring and no ‘manual/auto’ switch. In addition to these are a bunch of features on the outside of a lens that won’t exist on analog lenses. These are usually features specific lens manufacturers have decided would be good for users.

  • focus range limiter (Sony) − saves time by limiting the focusing range, some are user specified range.
  • aperture click switch (Sony) − allows the aperture ring clicks to be engaged or not (smooth)
  • aperture/iris lock (Sony) − prevents unwanted exposure changes while shooting.
  • zoom rotation selection switch (Sony) − change zoom direction to match user preferences.
  • focus mode (Sony, Sigma) − switch between manual and auto focus
Fig.1: Some of the external accoutrements on a digital lens (Sony FE 16mm F1.8 G)

The next component, and perhaps one of the more interesting is the characteristics of the internal lens elements. Lens element diagrams have been a staple of lens brochures since the 1930s. They illustrate the shape of the lens elements, and how they are positioned inside the lens. The difference between digital and analog lenses is that it was very rare to describe the type of glass used for specific elements in vintage lenses. Now things are different. I honestly don’t know why the glass functionality has become so interesting for manufacturers to include, but there you have it.

Consider Figure 2, which shows the elements inside a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG DN lens. The diagram highlights four different types of glass lenses: one type is the aspherical (2 elements), and the remaining types are various forms of low dispersion lens (4 lenses in total). This can be a bit bewildering to the average user − what is the difference between “F” low (FLD), extraordinary low (ELD), and special low dispersion (SLD) glass? It’s almost like worrying about the physics behind an SLR sensor. Oh, by the way, FLD means the glass has optical characteristics that mimic flourite (which is low dispersion).

Fig.2: The elements inside a modern autofocus digital lens (Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG DN)

Every manufacturer has its own potpourri of element glass types, it isn’t only restricted to low dispersion. For example Sony’s lenses use the XA Extreme Aspherical (XA) for high resolution and bokeh; Advanced Aspherical Lens (AA) and ED Aspherical Lens (ED Aspherical) made from Extra-Low Dispersion glass.

The simpler digital lens designs (and also the cheapest) are those that are manual, and really aren’t that different from their predecessors externally, except for perhaps interesting aesthetics. Internally there are no motors, but they often still have lens diagrams associated with them, albeit simpler, as they are simpler lenses. Consider the TTArtisans 35mm f/0.95 shown in Figure 3. The style of the outside somewhat mimics the “striped” German lenses of the 1960s. The only external artifacts are the aperture and focusing ring. Internally, the lens has two ‘high index’ lenses, to allow for the fast f/0.95 aperture.

Fig.3: The elements inside a modern manual ‘digital’ lens (TTArtisan 35mm F/0.95)

There is also some interest in the type of motor driving the focusing mechanism. Why this is important I don’t really know. The Sigma lens above has a ‘Hyper-Sonic Motor’ (HSM), which is just a piezoelectric motor powered by ultrasonic vibrations (note not hypersonic, as in super fast). Every manufacturer has their own name for this. Canon calls it Ultrasonic Motor (USM), and Nikon Silent Wave Motor (SWM).

Finally some lenses also have built-in image stabilization, based on some form of optical stabilization. The technology uses internal gyro sensors to detect camera shake (pitch & yaw) and shifts lens elements in real-time to counteract it. Each manufacturer has their own name for Fuji OIS (Optical Image Stabilization), e.g. Sigma OS (Optical Stabilization), Tamron VC (Vibration Compensation), Sony OSS (Optical SteadyShot), Nikon VR (Vibration Reduction).

There is a lot of technology in a modern digital lens, but we shouldn’t let the tech overwhelm the aesthetic characteristics of a lens, because the image it helps produce is what really counts.

P.S. I will be covering the basics of aspherical and low-dispersion lenses in a future post.

Cartier-Bresson on landscapes

/ spqr / Leave a comment

“For landscape, you often need a telephoto (I usually use the 135mm) so that you can rid of the uninteresting foreground. The depth of field of a telephoto lens in minimized for action pictures. I don’t work much with a wide-angle lens. There are so many things in the same plane that it makes it difficult to compose.”

‘Photography Is Very Difficult, Interview with Richard L. Simon (ca. 1952)’ in Henri Cartier-Bresson, Interviews and Conversations 1951-1998, p.22 (2017)

Ultrafast lenses − the ‘dream’ Canon 50mm f/0.95

/ spqr / Leave a comment

In August 1961, Canon released the 50mm f/0.95, designed as a standard lens for the Canon 7 rangefinder camera. At below f/1.0, it was the world’s fastest 35mm lens. It was created by lens designer Mukai Jirou, who also created several other rangefinder lenses for Canon (35mm f/1.5, 35mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8, and 100mm f/2). The Canon f/0.95 was often advertised attached to the Model 7, the first rangefinder Canon with four projected, parallax-compensating field frame lines.

Fig.1: The Canon 7 and the f/0.95

It was supposedly given the name “Dream Lens”, by British photojournalists, a term soon picked up by Canon’s astute marketing department (the exact source of the term is a mystery). The advertising generally touted the fact that it was “the world’s fastest lens, four times brighter than the human eye” (how this could be measured is questionable). In addition it was advertised as giving “least-flare edge-to-edge sharpness, and is ideally corrected for aberration”. Despite the hype, there are no reviews in photographic magazines of the period beyond a quick summary paragraph of the camera.

Fig.2: An ad for the Canon 7, and illustrating the obscured windows.

The lens incorporated rare-earth Lanthanum glass in four of the seven lens elements (there were no elements containing Thorium). However the entire lens design took some compromises. This chunky 605g, 79mm diameter lens was so large on the Canon 7 that it obscured a good part of the view in the bottom right-hand corner of the viewfinder, and partially obscured the field-of-view. However the rear lens element had to have about 10mm removed from the top to clear the interlocking roller associated with the rangefinder coupling mechanism, and a metal collar with four protruding feet had to be added to the back section to protect the rear element if the lens was placed on a flat surface with the front element facing up.

Fig.3: Lens specifications

It is Gauss type lens with 7 elements in 5 groups. In it is suggested that while there are many six-element Gaussian lenses, most suffer from some degree of oblique spherical aberration, with significant flare when used at maximum aperture.

There seems to be one Japanese patent of 1962, No.35-3550, [1] that may form the basis of this lens, although the lens diagram in the patent is not the same as that portrayed for the actual lens. The lens described also appears in a U.S. patent [2] where it is specified as an f/1.2 lens. The work has its underpinnings in an earlier Japanese patent, No.205,109 (Publication No.6,685/1953 corresponding to a US patent of 1954 [3]) which showed that spherical aberration could be reduced by selecting the appropriate arrangement of the refractive indices and radii of curvature at the cemented surfaces of each element. The purpose of the design was to create a lens that produced a high quality image.

How do users view the lens today? Overall it could be described as having a lot of vignetting, spherical aberration and quite a bit of softness [7]. Some suggest the soft-focus effect contributes to the lens’ ‘ethereal quality’, and the rendering has an impressionistic quality [4]. Some suggest that it isn’t very sharp wide open [7], having a ‘razor thin depth of field’ [7]. Bokeh is described as ‘Nisen-bokeh’ [5], and a ‘very retro, swirly’ bokeh [7].

Fig.4: Original lens diagram specifications from the Japanese patent [1], and the actual lens diagram (right)

Some 20,000 copies of this rangefinder-coupled lens were produced between May 1961 and September 1970. Between 1970 and 1984, Canon continued to manufacture a version of this lens for TV cameras and cinematography which had no rangefinder coupling. Of these, about 7,000 copies were produced. When released the lens cost 57,000 yen. The average yearly salary in Japan in 1961 was ¥294,000, so this lens was the equivalent of one-fifth of a years salary. In the US the Canon 7 was sold under the guise of Bell & Howell/Canon, and in 1962, with the body and lens retailing for $499.95, and the 50mm f/0.95 lens by itself for $320, with the f/1.2 at $210. To put this into context, $320 in 1962 is worth about $3430 today, and a Canon 7 with a f/0.95 lens in average condition sells for around this value. Lenses in mint condition are valued at around C$2200-5000.

Note: The lens is also often rehoused as a cine lens by companies such as Whitehouse Optics (the cost is €6,500, not including the cost of the optics).

Further reading:

  1. Canon, Utility Patent Japan, “High Photography Lens”, 35-3550 (1962)
  2. Hiroshi Ito, US2,836,102, “High Aperture Photographic Lens”, (Jun.14, 1956)
  3. Hiroshi Ito, US2,681,594, “Photographic Objective of Gauss Type”, (Jun.29, 1951)
  4. Living with the Canon 50mm f0.95 “Dream Lens”, (Jan.30, 2023)
  5. Canon 50mm f0.95 – A Lens has Emotional Character, (Jul.18, 2020)
  6. Canon 50mm f0.95 Review, James Fox-Davies (Nov.12, 2015)
  7. The Canon 50/0.95 TV ‘Dream Lens’ review, Joeri (Nov.21, 2017)

Cartier-Bresson on using a flash

/ spqr / Leave a comment

“Oh, definitely no flash! That is not the light of life. I never use it, I do not want to use it. Let us remain within the real, the authentic! Because authenticity is perhaps the greatest virtue of photography.”

‘A Reporter, Interview with Daniel Masclet (1951)’ in Henri Cartier-Bresson, Interviews and Conversations 1951-1998, p.11 (2017)

Vintage lens makers − E. Ludwig (Germany/DDR)

/ spqr / Leave a comment

Ernst Ludwig Optisches Werk Weixdorf Objektive was established in 1924 in Lausa near Dresden by Ernst Ludwig. The town of Lausa merged with the neighbour town of Weixdorf in 1938. Pre-war lenses are usually marked with Ludwig Lausa Dresden. The company made cameras for various types of cameras, e.g. 35mm viewfinders and SLRs. After the war, production resumed quickly, as the factory was undamaged, with Ernst Ludwig still at the helm.

Fig.1: The most famous Ludwig lens, the Meritar 50mm

The company produced a number of different, inexpensive lenses, but is likely best known for the Meritar 50mm. With the introduction of the EXA camera in 1951, Ludwig became an original supplier, along with Carl Zeiss Jena, and Meyer Optik. The Meritar was a cheap lens using three air-spaced elements, i.e. the Cooke triplet. Lenses were produced with the Exakta mount for the Ihagee cameras, and some in the M42 mount. The Meritar 50mm f/2.9 was derived from the Victar could be manufactured inexpensively and therefore harmonized very well with the new, inexpensive Exa SLR. It was initially a manual lens, but eventually upgraded to preset diaphragm (1957).

The Meritar was a cheap lens. To put this into context, in the late 1950s the f/2.9 sold for 52 DM, whereas a basic Tessar 50mm f/2.8 was 139 DM, the Biotar 58mm f/2 305 DM. In fact the 3-lens Meritar was considered to be the cheapest lens outfitted on the EXA. In fact EXA + Meritar always offered the cheapest combination until production of these lenses ceased in the early 1970s. Although by 1961, there were eight standard choices for 50mm lenses for the EXA (II), all of but of which were faster.

Fig.2: Ludwig produced few advertisements, and produced a lot of inexpensive lenses for the likes of viewfinders cameras

Prior to the Meritar series, the company produced other lenses including the Victar 5cm f/2.9 (Exakta, Praktiflex), Victar 75mm f/2.9 (Reflex-Korelle) and Peronar 50mm f/2.9 (Exakta). Victar and Meritar were also used in cameras with central shutters (Beier Precisa, Beirax). In 1959 the East German state ‘acquired’ a small stake in the company, with Ludwig still at the company until 1968. In 1972 the company became the state owned VEB Optisches Werk Weixdorf, and in 1980 it was absorbed by the VEB Pentacon.

Notable lenses: Meritar 50mm f/2.9;

Cartier-Bresson on which lens and aperture to use

/ spqr / 1 Comment

“Naturally I take full advantage of the possibilities of different lenses, but I don’t carry a suitcase full of them: an Elmar 50mm, a wide-angle 35mm, and an 85mm − these are my tools, with, of course, the latest, the f/1.5, for night photography. I take advantage of these various depths, I open or close the shutter, or I leave a full aperture: it depends on my needs.”

‘A Reporter, Interview with Daniel Masclet (1951)’ in Henri Cartier-Bresson, Interviews and Conversations 1951-1998, p.13 (2017)