Vintage lenses − Interchangeable lenses were never really that interchangeable

March 17, 2026 / 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:

Understanding condition terms used to sell vintage photographic gear

February 13, 2026February 13, 2026 / 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).”

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

January 8, 2026January 11, 2026 / 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.

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.

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:

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

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

December 22, 2025 / 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;

Vintage lens makers − Novoflex (Germany)

October 9, 2025 / spqr / Leave a comment

Novoflex is a German maker of lenses and camera accessories (macro bellows, tripods, tilt-shift bellows, etc.). It was founded in 1948 by photographer Karl Müller Jr. In 1949 the company produced the reflex housings for Leica, which allowed SLR lenses to be modified for use on Leica cameras. These were initially marketed under the name Reproflex, until being changed to Novoflex in 1950. From 1954 housings were also made for Contax cameras.

*_{Fig.1: The basic Novoflex Follow-Focus lens system}*

In 1956 they started production of their first lenses, the Novoflex Follow Focus lenses. The Follow Focus lens system was interesting because it included a pistol-grip focusing device that allows the user to go from infinity to minimum focus in a split second. Essentially it provides one-handed focusing. According to the company this was useful for “wildlife subjects in full flight, sports, the fleeting moment, the unexpected are unusual picture opportunities that must be taken at peak-action.”

*_{Fig.2: The telescoping lens and Noflexar}*

This was followed in 1960 with nesting telephoto lenses, advertised as ‘telescopic tele lenses’. These were designed in order to make telephoto lenses easier to transport, being able to collapse to half their size. The focusing unit could be equipped with lens heads for 400mm and 640mm. In 1962 the company introduced the ‘2-in-1 lens’, 35mm f/3.5 Noflexar, a macro wide-angle lens with a focusing range from infinity to 2.75”, and a reproduction ratio of 1:2. In 1969 the company started making automatic bellows devices. The company had an extensive range of ancillary products for many camera systems. This included a wide-angle macro lenses, bellow units, follow-focus lenses, slide copiers, and associated coupling adapters.

*_{Fig.3: Vintage ads for Novoflex lenses}*

Novoflex is still an active company, producing photographic accessories such as auto-bellows, tripods, macro systems and camera-lens adapters.

A visual guide to vintage 35mm SLR lenses on APS-C

August 10, 2025 / spqr / Leave a comment

The image below shows some classic vintage focal lengths in terms of use on APS-C cameras. It shows the original 35mm SLR angle-of-view (AOV) and focal length (in black), and the converted AOV (blue) and the equivalent full-frame focal length (orange).

Vintage lens makers − Kinoptik (France)

August 3, 2025 / spqr / Leave a comment

Kinoptik was founded in Paris in 1932 by Georges Grosset and Georges Perthuis. Grosset began by creating 35mm camera optics with a series of Apochromat lenses in 1939 (lenses with better correction of chromatic and spherical aberrations), all with the same double-gauss optical structure.

The workshop was destroyed by the RAF in March 1942. Production resumed in the summer, however during the German occupation they were forced to produce Askania camera sights. However this didn’t stop Grosset from designing two new lenses, the Fulgior 50mm f/1.3 (which was used on the Rectaflex), and the Apochromat-C 32mm f/2.8. Postwar, French cinema boomed and Kinoptik concentrated its efforts on the cinema business. It designed numerous lenses for 16mm, Super-16 and 35mm cine cameras.

In the early 1950s they also diversified into optical systems for microfilm, medical radiology, and control of industrial furnaces. The company bore the Japanese competition in the 1960s better than most of its European counterparts due to its business in professional cinema equipment. From a 35mm perspective, Kinoptik produced a number of lenses for ALPA, as well as Leica, Nikon, Canon and Minolta. Examples include the Apochromat 100mm f/2 and the Aplanat 500mm f/5.6. The Apochromat 100mm f/2 was described as having exclusive correction of all primary colours, critical sharpness and highest contrast, even at full aperture.

After the death of Georges Grosset, his wife Marie-Louise Grosset took over running of the company, and hired French optician Edgar Hugues (1915-2004) who became technical director of the company from 1957-1964. He designed the 75mm f/1.1, 100mm f/1.3 as well as the Lynxar 60mm f/0.7, arguably the fastest French lens ever created. He also designed the Tegea rectilinear “fish-eye” lenses (130° angle-of-view for 24×36mm). One such lens, the Tegea 9.8mm f/1.8 was used by the likes of Stanley Kubrick in films like A Clockwork Orange (1971) and The Shining (1980).

In 1981 the company was sold to Société de Fabrication d’Instruments de Mesure, after which it underwent numerous integrations, mergers, and acquisitions before closing in 2003. The lenses were by no means inexpensive. In 1980 prices, the 50mm f/2 Macro-Apochromat sold for US$999, and the 100mm f/2 Auto-Apochromat for US$799. Vintage Kinoptik lenses are still vogue in the film industry, often rehoused in new bodies. The Apochromat 100mm f/2 sells for anywhere from US$5000-7000 on todays market.

Where have all the lens names gone?

July 23, 2025 / spqr / Leave a comment

There was a time when lens manufacturers gave their lenses names − the likes of Pancolar (Zeiss Jena), Noctilux (Leica), Biotar (Zeiss), Switar (Kern). In some cases the names were derived from Latin words, which were meant to describe some intrinsic characteristic of the lens. For example Leica’s Summilux. The combination of ‘summi’ (meaning ‘highest point’) and ‘lux’ (Latin for ‘light’) results in the intimation of ‘maximum light’ – referring to the enhanced light-gathering abilities of these lenses. The name appeared in 1959, and has been a staple ever since.

But in the modern era, few companies do this anymore. There seem to be three exceptions: Leica, Zeiss, and Voigtländer, although to be honest, most Japanese companies did not give names to individual lenses. Asahi was the exception with the Takumar line, although it signified a time period and technology more than the characteristics of an individual lens. Leica still use names for historical families of lenses. Some of this may be tradition, helping users to identify certain characteristics of a lens just by reading the name. Zeiss is another company that still names its family of lenses, e.g. Touit (a small Brazilian parrot). Giving lens families names makes things a lot simpler, and also provides a better brand association. That’s why people still remember Zeiss’s Pancolar lenses, or Asahi’s Takumars.

Names existed to invoke some sort of an emotion. Like giving a lens a name gave it a sense of power. It is more likely to be remembered than the modern trend of adding a string of incomprehensible hieroglyphs of abbreviations – something most people forget in quiet quickly. But once you have heard of the legend that is the Pancolar, you are unlikely to forget it. The likes of Pancolar and Flektogon bring memories of lenses with exceptional background blur (aka bokeh), from East Germany. There are of course the classics of German lens design: Zeiss’s Tessar, Planar, Sonnar, or Voigtländer’s Ultron.

*Fig.2: What’s in a name? The Voigtländer* *Nokton*

Perhaps because there are always new lenses, and it would be hard to keep up with new names? Perhaps in the information age, names have been supplanted by acronyms, and abbreviations? It’s no different to cameras, which no longer have names anymore either. The Ricoh GR series was (supposedly) named after two of the first cameras marketed by Riken Kōgaku Kōgyō, the predecessor of Ricoh, namely Gokoku, and Ricohl. But without digging for it, nobody actually seems to know what GR means.

*Fig.3: Some naming ideas for TTArtisan’s 35mm f/0.95 lens*

I would like to see lens manufacturers look at giving lenses actual meaningful names. Not all of them of course, but perhaps families of lenses. Perhaps a line of lenses named after prominent lens designers, like Willi Merté who designed the Biotar for Carl Zeiss in 1927. Or a fish-eye series named after physicist Robert W. Wood who coined the term ‘fisheye lens’ in 1906. TTArtisan has a few lenses with a vintage striped aesthetic, why not give them a name that pays homage to the 1960s lenses? Or perhaps a name associated with the abilities of the lens. Two name suggestions for the TTArtisan 35mm f/0.95 are shown in Figure 3. I’m not suggesting that coming up with viable names will be easy, but once established they will help strengthen brand association.

Vintage lens makers – Feinmess (Germany)

July 11, 2025 / spqr / Leave a comment

Feinmess was founded by Gustav Heyde (1846-1930) in Dresden (1872) as Gustav Heyde – Mathematical-Mechanical Institute & Optical Precision Workshop (Feinmess roughly translates to “fine measurement”). The company produced astronomical and geodetic precision devices: binoculars, domes and refractors for observatories, telescopes, theodolites (land surveying devices), hand-held rangefinders for aerotopography, and actino-photometers (light meters). From 1931 the company was converted to a limited partnership and concentrated on arms production. In 1945 the company operated under the name Gustav Heyde GmbH. After the war the company was expropriated by the state of Saxony operating as Optik, VVB für feinmechanische und optische Geräte. Finally in 1948 it changed its name to Optik – Feinmess Dresden VEB.

In the 1950s, Welta (Freital) requested a lens for their Belfoca 1 and 2, medium format cameras. There was so much demand for lenses that Feinmess accepted the order, never having produced lenses before. The optical design office was set up by Ihagee, and work on the design of the lens was taken over by Claus Lieberwirth is August 1953. From 1954 the Bonotar was created as a 105mm, f/4.5 lens. A second lens, the 105mm f/6.5 Bonar was derived from the Bonotar. Both lenses were simple in construction, and inexpensive. About 20,000 M42 and 4,000 Exakta mount Bonotars were produced. The lens established itself as a cheaper alternative to the popular Meyer Optik Trioplan. In 1960 production of both lenses was halted, and the optics department was eventually merged into VEB Carl Zeiss Jena.

Interestingly, VEB Feinmess was used in the 1950s as “shield” company, especially for patent applications related to VEB Zeiss Ikon, due to the issues with Zeiss-Ikon Stuttgart. This is why camera patents for well known GDR products are the property of VEB Feinmess, until the founding of VEB Kamera-and-Kinowerk in 1959. There are literally hundreds of patents for lenses, viewfinder systems, motor winding systems, and viewfinder cameras (to name but a few) − all products that Feinmess did not manufacture.

The company still exists today, recently renamed from Feinmess Dresden GmbH to Steinmeyer Mechatronik GmbH, and makes various measuring instruments, positioning systems and optical devices. Bonotar 105mm lenses can be found for between €60-90.

Notable lenses: Bonotar 105mm f/4.5

What happened to the Zeiss lens collection?

March 14, 2025June 22, 2025 / spqr / Leave a comment

When Carl Zeiss Jena was still under US control in June 1945, the US Army Signal Corp’s Pictorial Division expropriated the “Zeiss lens collection”, which consisted of approximately 2000 sample lenses, and associated documentation. The collection was handed over to Colonel Tebov on May 12, 1945 in Jena.

The collection represented not only Zeiss lenses, but optics from other manufacturers, and was used in research and production control. The lenses were transferred to the Signal Corps laboratories at Fort Monmouth, and the documentation to Dayton-Wright Army Air Field in Ohio. At Fort Monmouth, chief of the photographic branch (Signal Corps Engineering Laboratories) Dr. Edward F. Kaprelian, studied the lenses, attempting to understand and recreate the optical designs in many of the prototype Zeiss lenses. Supposedly the lenses were to be analyzed, in particular several hundred experimental lenses that were never sold. None of these historically and technically significant lenses had been clearly documented as part of the appropriation. Willy Merté, head of optical computation at the former Carl Zeiss Jena was apparently languishing in a refugee camp in Heidenheim before Carl Zeiss could begin operation in Western Germany. Merté would go on to catalogue the collection.

In April 1947, Popular Photography was the first major US publication to give a two page sneak peek [1]. Example lenses described include:

The Spherogon, a 1.9cm f/8 lens with a plano (flat) front element 3” in diameter, with an AOV of almost 160°.
The R-Biotar, was the fastest commercially produced lens in the world, at 4.5cm with an aperture of f/0.85. It was used for 16mm movies of fluorescent x-ray screens.
The Bauart BLC, a 20cm f/6.3 objective used by the Luftwaffe for aerial mapping.
The Perimetar 2.5cm f/6.3 for 35mm cameras, covering a 90° AOV with a deeply concave front element.

Probably the best description of some of the more unusual lenses comes from a June 1947 article by Kaprelian himself [2]. In it he describes some of the V (versuch) or experimental lenses. He describes lenses like the V1940, a 7.5cm f/2.8 lens with a 70° AOV, with little astigmatism or coma, and very little in the way of distortion. Or the V1935, 10cm f/6.2 lens whose front element is strongly concave. Another lens already produced in certain quantities was the Sphaerogon, available in focal lengths from 1.6 to 12cm and f/7, f/8 apertures. Other lenses include experimental aspherical surfaces, telephoto, and wide-aperture lenses.

Where are these lenses today? Perhaps stuck in a storage locker somewhere in the vast storage facilities of the US Army? Well, actually no. In an article in Zeiss Historica in 2016, the fate of the collection is documented [3]. Stefan Baumgartner bought a number of lenses from the collection in 2006, and as he tells it, this is when a major portion of the collection was put up for sale on eBay, a legacy of the estate from American photographic businessman Burleigh Brooks. Apparently after Kaprelian’s release from his military service the collection was left in the custodianship of Burke and James in Chicago, occupying warehouse space for about 20 years. It was later disposed of as military surplus, which is why Brooks probably acquired some of the lenses (as he owned Burke and James).

Crafting Pixels

Vintage lenses, photography and digital imagery

vintage lens