Zeiss versus Zeiss : the trademark dispute

July 5, 2023June 22, 2025 / spqr / Leave a comment

As cooperation deteriorated, and finally terminated in 1953, it was inevitable that eventually there were some issues with trademarks between the two Zeiss’s. I mean they were on different sides of the Iron Curtain. The East German Carl Zeiss company did not own all the rights to some of the names and brands. This would likely have been fine had they just been sold within the eastern-bloc countries, however many were made to be exported to the west (which is really somewhat ironic) – lenses were developed to sell in the West to produce hard currency. They achieved this at the beginning by resurrecting pre-war designs. Political influence over East Germany did not have any influence in how products were manufactured.

*Zeiss vs. Zeiss branding over the years*

In February 1954 Zeiss in Heidenheim fired the first shots in what would eventually become a worldwide litigation. They obtained an injunction in the District Court of Goettingen to prevent the continued sale of Jena-made, Zeiss-marked goods [1]. In April Zeiss Jena countered in West Germany by seeking an injunction and an order registering the Zeiss marks in West Germany in its name. That action was dismissed in 1960 when the West German Supreme Court ruled that there was no one in the Soviet Zone having capacity to represent the Zeiss Foundation.

In the same year Zeiss Heidenheim brought action against the Zeiss Jena to prevent them from using the Zeiss name and trademarks anywhere in the world. The Supreme Court of the Federal German Republic determined that the Heidenheim firm was entitled to exclusive use of the Zeiss name and trademarks in West Germany and West Berlin [1]. Interestingly, a CIA report from 1954 [2] suggests that should the naming issues take an “unfavourable” turn for VEB CZJ, then the plan was to change its name to VEB Ernst Abbe Werk (which they obviously never did).

There was also a long court battle in the US over who owned the rights to the Zeiss name. The litigation commenced on February 14, 1962, filed by Carl Zeiss Foundation and Zeiss Ikon AG against VEB Carl Zeiss Jena and its US distributors [1] (Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. VEB Carl Zeiss Jena). The case went to discovery from 1963-1967 and finally to trial in November 1967. On November 7, 1968, the court found in favour of the plaintiffs, deciding that the US trademarks “Zeiss”, “Zeiss Ikon”, and “Carl Zeiss Jena”, were the property of the Zeiss firm located in West Germany. As to the legitimacy of this? The courts found that the original “Stiftung” ceased to exist in Jena when it had been stripped of its assets. The Stiftung’s domicile was then changed from Jena to Heidenheim. It was not until 1971 [3] that the US Supreme Court finally settled the case of Carl Zeiss vs. VEB Carl Zeiss Jena, after a long 9½ year battle for control of the “Zeiss” trademark, siding with Heidenheim.

*Examples of Carl Zeiss Jena lens markings over the years.*

After this, Carl Zeiss marketed their lenses as “Carl Zeiss” exclusively in the United States, whereas Carl Zeiss Jena exported their lenses to the US with the marking “aus Jena”, or sometimes “JENOPTIK”, or even “JENOPTIK JENA”. The branding on these lenses was changed: “T” instead of Tessar, “B” for Biotar, “Bm” for Biometar, “S” for Sonnar, “F” for Flektogon, etc. in order not to infringe on the copyright. Therefore a lens might be labelled “Carl Zeiss Jena s”, or “aus Jena s”, and be exactly the same lens. It really depended on where the lenses were sold.

In the Eastern-bloc countries, CZJ could use the name “Carl Zeiss”. Carl Zeiss Oberkochen was not allowed to use “Zeiss” by itself, and instead used the name “Opton” or “Zeiss-Opton”.
In some western countries – namely West Germany, Italy, Greece, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Austria – CZO was allowed to use the name “Carl Zeiss”. CZJ chose to use the name “aus Jena” in the case of lenses.
The rest of the world, i.e. Commonwealth countries like England and Canada, Switzerland, Japan, both companies could use the name “Carl Zeiss”, but only if there was an indicator of origin. For example CZO used “Carl Zeiss West Germany”, and CZJ used “Carl Zeiss Jena” or the term DDR somewhere.

*Examples of Carl Zeiss Opton lens markings over the years.*

Of course it is also easy to identify a lens if it is marked with DDR. Some lenses were made in only East or West Germany, while others had names which continued to be shared.

East German only lenses: Biometar (a modified Planar), Flektogon (similar to Distagon), Flexon, Pancolar
West German only lenses: Distagon
Shared lenses: Hologon, Biogon, Biotar, Magnar, Planar, Protar, Sonnar, Tessar, Topogon, Triotar

Why is the sky different shades of blue?

June 28, 2023 / spqr / Leave a comment

One of the more interesting aspects of photographing outdoors is the colour of the sky. You know the situation – you’re out photographing and the sky just isn’t as vivid as you wished it was. This happens a lot in the warmer months of the year.

The sky isn’t blue of course. We interpret it is blue because of light, and its interaction with the atmosphere. The type of blue also changes, but the difference is most noticeable in fall and winter, when the sky appears a more vivid blue than it does throughout the summer months (that’s why you can never expect a really vividly blue sky in summer when travelling).

*The blue of the sky is more saturated further from the sun. Note that in this image taken in Toronto in May, the right side, furthest from the sun appears more saturated.*

Firstly the blue colour of the sky is due to the scattering of sunlight off molecules in the atmosphere smaller than the wavelength of light (approximately 1/10th the wavelength). There are many gases in the atmosphere, e.g. nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen. Mixed in with these elements are particles which include dust, pollen, and pollution. The scattering is known as Rayleigh scattering, and is most effective at the short wavelength (400nm) end of the visible spectrum. Therefore the light scattered down to the earth at a large angle with respect to the direction of the sun’s light is predominantly in the blue end of the spectrum. Because of this wavelength-selective scattering, more blue light diffuses throughout atmosphere than other colours producing the familiar blue sky.

*An illustration of how Rayleigh Scattering works in the atmosphere.*

During the summer months, when the sun is higher in the sky, light does not have to travel as far through the atmosphere to reach our eyes. Consequently, there is less Rayleigh scattering. Blue skies often appear somewhat hazy, veiled by a thin white sheen. When light encounters large particles suspended in the air, like dust or water vapour droplets, wavelengths are scattered equally. This process is known as Mie scattering, and produces white-coloured light, e.g. making clouds appear white. In summer in particular, increased humidity increases Mie scattering, and as a result the sky tends to be relatively muted, or pale blue.

*The visibility of clouds can be attributed to Mie scattering, which is not very wavelength dependent.*

In the fall and winter the Northern Hemisphere is tilted away from the sun, the sun’s angle is lower, which increases the amount of Raleigh scattering (light has to travel further through the atmosphere, and the scattering of shorter wavelengths is more complete). The cooler air during this period also decreases the amount of moisture the air can hold, diminishing Mie scattering. These two factors taken in conjunction can produce skies that are vividly blue.

*Angle of the sun, summer versus winter.*

Q: If the wavelength of purple is only 380nm, why don’t we see more purple skies?
A: Purple skies are rare because the sun emits a higher concentration of blue light waves in comparison to violet. Furthermore, our eyes are more sensitive to blue rather than violet meaning to us the sky appears blue.

Q: What particles cause Rayleigh Scattering?
A: Small specks of dust or nitrogen and oxygen molecules.

Moriyama on the power of photographs

June 21, 2023June 21, 2023 / spqr / Leave a comment

“Of course, in the instant you press the shutter button, a memory of the image flashes across your mind, together with the various things you’re thinking about in that moment – aesthetic considerations, concepts, desires. But whatever’s in the photograph stands completely independent of those thoughts. That is what remains – and it’s completely independent. That is what calls to you years, maybe decades later. “Hey! What do you think?” That’s what’s so amazing. that’s why photography is so powerful.”
Daido Moriyama How I Take Photographs, Takeshi Nakamoto (2019)

The real info regarding angle-of-view on iPhone cameras

June 16, 2023 / spqr / Leave a comment

I must say, I quite like the wide lenses on the iPhone 14. It has two rear-facing cameras, an ultra-wide with a focal length of 13mm, and a 26mm wide (full-frame equiv). I don’t really want to get into reviewing these cameras, because other people have already done extensive reviews. An example of a portrait shot taken with each camera is shown below in Figure 1 (picture of the Gooderham “flatiron” Building in Toronto).

Fig.1: *Example of portrait photos using both 26mm and 13mm cameras.*

But I do want to talk briefly about the Angle of View (AOV) of these cameras. Firstly, you really have to hunt for some of this information. Apple doesn’t really talk about sensor size, or even AOV to any great extent. The most they give you is that the AOV of the ultrawide camera is 120°. But they don’t tell you the full story (maybe because most people don’t care?). It may be 120°, but only in landscape mode, and that angle describes the diagonal angle, which as I have mentioned before isn’t really that useful for most people because it is much harder to conceptualize than horizontal degrees (it’s no different to TV’s, and nobody measures a TV based on its diagonal).

Pixel count	Focal length	Sensor size	f-number	AOV landscape	Crop factor
12MP	26mm (equiv.)	Type 1/1.7 (9.5×7.6mm)	f/1.5	69° (H)	4.6
12MP	13mm (equiv.)	Type 1/3.4 (4×3mm)	f/2.4	108°(H) 120°(D)	8.6

iPhone 14 (rear-facing) camera specs

So the wide-angle camera has a horizontal AOV of 69°, and the ultrawide has an AOV of 108°. But this is when a photograph is taken in landscape mode. When a photograph is taken in portrait mode, the horizontal AOV defaults to the vertical AOV from landscape mode – this means 85° for the wide, and a mere 50° for the ultrawide. This concept is the same for all sensors in all cameras, because in portrait mode the width of the photo is obviously less than that of the landscape photo. In mobile devices such as the iPhone this does become a little trickier, because most photos are likely taken in portrait mode.

Examples of the AOV’s in portrait mode for each of the focal lengths as they relate to the photographs in Figure 1 are shown below in Figure 2 (along with the potential AOV’s for landscape mode).

Fig.2: *A visual depiction of the portrait AOV’s associated with the photographs of Fig.1*

This is really more of a specification problem, information which I wish Apple would just post instead of ignoring. Some people are actually interested in these sort of things.

Zeiss versus Zeiss : the postwar split

June 13, 2023June 22, 2025 / spqr / Leave a comment

One of the things that gets very confusing for some people is differentiating between Zeiss lenses from East and West Germany. First, let’s look at the backstory. Prior to World War II, Carl Zeiss Jena had been one of the largest suppliers of optical goods in the world. Note that Carl Zeiss was an optical company and different to Zeiss Ikon, which was a camera company formed in 1926 from the merger of four camera makers: Contessa-Nettel, Ernemann, Goerz and Ica. Both were members of the Carl Zeiss Foundation.

During the war, Jena had been pounded by allied bombing – the British bombed the Zeiss works on 27 May 1943, and the Americans repeated this twice in 1945. Mind you, there was not enough damage to put the factories out of commission but enough to slow production. Jena was captured by the American 80th Infantry Division on April 13th, 1945, and would remain in US control for two months before withdrawing in favour of the Soviet forces. As Americans departed, they took with them 122 key personnel from Jena to Heidenheim in the US zone of occupation (the personnel were from Carl Zeiss and Schott). At the conclusion of hostilities in 1945, Germany was split into differing zones, and as Jena was in the German state of Thuringia, it came under Soviet control (based on the Yalta Conference agreement).

A New York Times article in September 1946 suggested that the Russians were taking US$3,000,000 worth of finished products monthly for reparations [1]. At this stage there was very little in the way of dismantling equipment to ship back to Russia. In fact an earlier NYTimes article [2], suggested Russian occupation authorities had actually stimulated production at the Zeiss plants to pre-war levels, in order to facilitate reparations. It should be noted that the Zeiss plant produced more than just photographic optics – it also produced microscopes, medical and surgical instruments, ophthalmic instruments, geodetic instruments, electron microscopes, binoculars, etc., and military items [3].

*The bombing damage to the Zeiss Jena plant*

By 22 October 1946, the Soviet occupation authorities began dismantling the Zeiss plant [3] as war reparation payments agreed upon in the Potsdam Agreement. This was known as Operation Osoaviakhim, and involved many industries across Germany. It resulted in the removal of 93% of Zeiss’ equipment (including raw material, pipes, boilers, sanitary installations, etc), and 275 Zeiss specialists [4] deported to various locations in the USSR (approximately 90% of those deported would return to Jena in 1952). The taking of war “booty” was of course entirely legitimate, yet as Peter Nettl put it in a 1951 article, “Like a child long deprived of chocolate, the first Soviet ‘dismantlers’ flung themselves on all the available tidbits” [5].

A US intelligence report from July 1947 described the status of the Zeiss works at Jena [6]. In it they suggest that optical and photographic production had been least affected by the dismantling, with the plant producing lenses for the Soviets (Tessar 5cm f/3.5). The dismantling program had been completed by April 1947 [7], after which the Soviet High Command turned the plant over to the Germans, who re-established the plant. About 1000 machines remained at Jena after the dismantling, allowing for the continued production of eye glasses, camera lenses, medical glass and measuring instruments [8]. There was every hope at this time (at least from the West German side of things), that this was a temporary situation and that in 3-5 years Heidenheim staff would move back to Jena [6].

In June 1948, the Zeiss Jena plants were expropriated by the Land Expropriation Commission [9] and transferred to state ownership, becoming known as “VEB Carl Zeiss Jena”. In the American zone, Zeiss was reborn as “Opton Optische Werke Oberkochen GmbH” in 1946, becoming “Zeiss-Opton Optische Werke Oberkochen GmbH” in 1947, and Carl Zeiss in 1951. They had very little except the relocated personnel and supposedly a quantity of Zeiss documents. In 1949 Germany officially split into East Germany (Deutsche Demokratische Republik) and West Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland). Between 1948 and 1953 the two firms cooperated commercially with one another, after which cooperation deteriorated as the East German regime tightened control on VEB.

Like Zeiss, Zeiss Ikon (Dresden), best known for its Contax camera, also split in 1948. In the west, it was reformed into Zeiss Ikon AG Stuttgart. In the mid 1960s it merged with Voigtländer. It followed the Contax rangefinder line releasing the Contax IIa and IIIa cameras in the early 1950s. In the east, Zeiss Ikon became state owned, known as VEB Zeiss Ikon Dresden (ZID). ZID may be best known for its advanced SLR model, the Contax S, introduced in 1948.

Colour (photography) is all about the light

June 5, 2023 / spqr / Leave a comment

Photography in the 21st century is interesting because of all the fuss made about megapixels and sharp glass. But none of the tools of photography matter unless you have an innate understanding of light. For it is light that makes a picture. Without light, the camera is blind, capable of producing only dark unrecognizable images. Sure, artificial light could be used, but photography is mostly about natural light. It is light that provides colour, helps interpret contrast, determines brightness and darkness, and also tone, mood, and atmosphere. However in our everyday lives, light is often taken somewhat fore granted.

One of the most important facets of light is colour. Colour begins and ends with light; without light, i.e. in darkness, there is no colour. Light is an attribute of a big family of “waves” that starts with wavelengths of several thousand kilometres, including the likes of radio waves, heat radiation, infrared and ultraviolet waves, and X rays, and ends with gamma radiation of radium and cosmic rays with wavelengths so short that they have to be measured in fractions of a millionth part of a millimeter. Visible light is of course that part of the spectrum which the human eyes are sensitive to, ca. 400-700nm. For example the wavelength representing the colour green has values in the range 500-570nm.

It is this visible light that builds the colour picture in our minds, or indeed that which we take with a camera. An object will be perceived as a certain colour because it absorbs some colours (or wavelengths) and reflects others. The colours that are reflected are the ones we see. For example the dandelion in the image below looks yellow because the yellow petals in the flower have absorbed all wavelengths of colour except yellow, which is the only colour reflected. If only pure red light were shone onto the dandelion, it would appear black, because the red would be absorbed and there would be no yellow light to be reflected. Remember, light is simply a wave with a specific wavelength or a mixture of wavelengths; it has no colour in and of itself. So technically, there is really no such thing as yellow light, rather, there is light with a wavelength of about 590nm that appears yellow. Similarly, the grass in the image reflects green light.

*The colours we see are reflected wavelengths that are interpreted by our visual system.*

The colour we interpret will also be different based on the time of day, lighting, and many other factors. Another thing to consider with light is its colour temperature. Colour temperature uses numerical values in degrees Kelvin to measure the colour characteristics of a light source on a spectrum ranging from warm (orange) colours to cool (blue) colours. For example natural daylight has a temperature of about 5000 Kelvin, whereas sunrise/sunset can be around 3200K. Light bulbs on the other hand can range anywhere from 2700K to 6500K. A light source that is 2700K is considered “warm” and generally emits more wavelengths of red, whereas a 6500K light is said to be “cool white” since it emits more blue wavelengths of light.

*We see many colours as one, building up a picture.*

Q: How many colours exist in the visible spectrum?
A: Technically, none. This is because the visible spectrum is light, with a wavelength (or frequency), not colour per se. Colour is a subjective, conscious experience which exists in our minds. Of course there might be an infinite number of wavelengths of light, but humans are limited in the number they can interpret.

Q: Why is the visible spectrum described in terms of 7 colours?
A: We tend to break the visible spectrum down into seven colours: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet. Passing a ray of white light through a glass prism, splits it into seven constituent colours, but these are somewhat arbitrary as light comes as a continuum, with smooth transitions between colours (it was Isaac Newton that first divided the spectrum into 6, then 7 named colours). There are now several different interpretations of how spectral colours have been categorized. Some modern ones have dropped indigo, or have replaced it with cyan.

Q: How is reflected light interpreted as colour?
A: Reflected light is interpreted by both camera sensors, film, and the human eye by filtering the light, to interpret the light in terms of the three primary colours: red, green, and blue (see: The basics of colour perception).

Choosing a vintage lens – buying FAQ

May 29, 2023 / spqr / Leave a comment

This FAQ covers more of the purchasing aspects of choosing a vintage lens, and is a follow-on to a post I did on buying cameras and lenses.

Is there a price list for vintage lenses somewhere?

Providing generic price information for a genre of lenses is extremely challenging. For example if someone asks what the price of a 50mm lens from manufacture X is, it really depends on a number of different factors: availability (or rarity), the current market, lens quality, speed, and even factors such as the mount type. For example the beloved Carl Zeiss 50mm Planar f/1.4 for a Contax/Yashica mount sells for C$400-600, whereas the same lens with an M42 mount is C$800-1200.

You can find some basic info on camera and lens prices attractive Collectiblend, however not all lenses are listed. There is no one encompassing place to find prices, yet sometimes eBay provides a good cross-section of the current market.

Why are some lenses so expensive?

Some lenses are expensive, either because the lens is rare, or has some attribute that makes it more expensive, or a review by someone with a lot of followers has pushed prices up. A good example is wide aperture lenses. If you are looking for a vintage f/1.0 lens, expect to pay a lot of money for it. For example a Leitz 50mm f/1 Noctilux-M lens is C$6-8K. A Canon 50mm f/1.2 rangefinder lens (LTM) will however only cost C$-400-800. Even a Helios 40, 85mm f/1.5 lens will fetch $500, even though it’s only real virtue is that it is considered the “Bokeh King”.

Why is there so much price variability?

The price of a lens depends on many factors, the same things that afflict super-fast lenses affect all lenses: rarity, quality of optical glass, manufacturer, lens quality, desirability. You will pay less for a 50mm f/2.8 than a f/1.4 and less for a Vivitar lens than a Pentax. Consider the following list of 50mm f/1.8 lenses, and their approximate market prices.

Vivitar M42 50mm f/1.8 − C$65-80
Asahi Takumar 50mm f/1.8 − C$80-120
Carl Zeiss Jena 50mm f/1.8 Pancolar − C$200-400
Meyer-Optik Görlitz 50mm f/1.8 Oreston − C$150-250
Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.8 − C$200-400 (M42 mount C$500-800)

Should I take a risk on a cheap item?

Sometimes there are sellers who are selling a piece of camera gear without knowing what they have, usually because it was part of an estate, and not something they normally deal with. If the item is cheap enough, there is likely very little risk, but if it seems too expensive, avoid it. This is especially true if the item is marked “rare”. A good reseller will mark the item as “untested”, or elaborate on the problems with the lens, e.g. sticky aperture, presence of fungus on the lens.

How do you know a lens will be in good condition?

You don’t, unless you buy from a reputable dealer. Someone who has been dealing in vintage photographic equipement for a long time, and sells a good amount of it will provide a good insight into a particular lens, including providing a quality rating.

If a lens physically looks good, it should be okay right?

Probably, but you just never really know. Unless a lens has some sort of provenance, it’s hard to know where it has spent its life, and what it was used for. Was it used by a photojournalist? Was it ever dropped? It is possible to drop a lens and see no external changes, yet it might cause minor misalignment of some internal working. Was it kept in cupboard in a damp room? So many possibilities. That’s the benefit of buying a lens in-person versus online.

How do I know if a shop is good?

This is tricky, but I suggest searching for reviews on the shop. There are a couple of online stores that have extremely bad ratings. Good shops will have an active social media presence, and often a physical store. The larger the store, the larger the amount, and scope of stock. Smaller stores tend to focus more on specialized or rare cameras/lenses. It pays to do some research.

*Two of the best vintage camera stores are Kamera Store (Finland), and West Yorkshire Cameras (UK). They both have quality vintage cameras and lenses, and provide exceptional customer service.*

Are there red-flags for buying lenses online?

Yes – if a listing somewhere only has 1-2 images, and offers no real description, then stay well clear – unless of course it is a $1000 lens selling for $10, and even then you have to wonder what is wrong with it.

Is eBay any good?

Like anything, it really depends on the reseller. Some sell only camera gear, and have been doing it for a while, or have a physical shop and use eBay as their storefront. Always check the resellers ratings, and review comments.

There are a lot of lenses available on eBay from Japan – are they trustworthy?

In most circumstances yes. There are a lot of physical camera stores in Japan, so its no surprise that there are a lot of online stores. Japanese resellers are amongst the best around, because nearly all of them rate every aspect of a lens, cosmetic and functional. If something seems like a bargain it is likely because there are a lot of vintage cameras and lenses in Japan.

What should lens ratings include?

If we take the example of Japanese resellers, there are normally four categories: overall condition, appearance, optics, and functionality. Appearance deals with aesthetics of the lens, and indicates any defects present on the lens body, e.g. scratches or scuffs. Optics deals with the presence of absence of optical issues: haze, fungus, balsam separation, scratches, dust. Finally functionality deals with the operation of the lens, e.g. aperture stiffness.

What’s with all the 3rd party ultra-wide and fisheye lenses?

May 25, 2023 / spqr / Leave a comment

Most large camera manufacturers don’t really make a lot of sub 20mm (FF eq.) lenses. Why? Mostly the cost involved, and likely the lack of sales potential – not many people want to spend a lot of money on a lens that provides a circular fisheye image. I mean these are fun lenses to play with, but in reality aren’t really that practical for everyday use. This may be why 3rd party manufacturers have taken up the mantra, producing low-cost, often reasonable quality sub-20mm lenses. Let’s look at some for Fuji-X.

Let’s divide this into two APS-C categories, the 9-13mm ultra-wide group, and the fisheye group <=8mm. Fisheye lenses can be further categorized into circular and full-frame fisheyes. With regard to focusing MF=manual, AF=auto. Angle-of-view is shown in degrees on the diagonal.

Fisheye lenses: 4-8mm (6-12mm FF)

7artisans Photoelectric 4mm f/2.8 Circular Fisheye (225°) MF US$149
Venus Optics Laowa 4mm f/2.8 Circular Fisheye (210°) MF US$199
Meike MK-6.5mm f/2 Circular Fisheye (190°) MF US$130
7artisans Photoelectric 7.5mm f/2.8 II Fisheye (190°) MF US$139
Pergear 7.5mm f/2.8 (179°) MF US$130
TTArtisan 7.5mm f/2 (190°) MF US$149
Meike 7.5mm f/2.8 Fisheye (180°) MF US$165
Tokina SZ 8mm f/2.8 (180°) MF US$299
Samyang 8mm f/2.8 Fisheye II (180°) MF US$299

Ultra-wide lenses: 9-12mm (13.5-18mm FF)

Venus Optics Laowa 9mm f/2.8 Zero-D (119°) MF US$399
Venus Optics Laowa 10mm f/4 Cookie (109°) MF US$299
Meike 10mm f/2 (107°) MF US$449
ZEISS Touit 12mm f/2.8 (99°) AF US$999
Samyang 12mm f/2.0 NCS CS (99°) MF US$399
7artisans Photoelectric 12mm f/2.8 (102°) MF US$149
Meike MK-12mm f/2.8 (99°) MF US$170
Pergear 12mm f/2 (97°) MF US$160

So which one to choose? It’s really hard to know. It really depends on what you want to do. All these lenses will have some sort of distortion, with the notable exception being the Laowa 9mm, which is described as “Zero-D”. The circular fisheye lenses are nice from an artistic point-of-view, but don’t have that many practical applications (well they are actually used in scientific applications such as assessing forest canopy cover).

Why are these lenses so cheap? Firstly nearly all of the inexpensive lenses, bar the Zeiss 12mm, are manual focus, because obviously incorporating auto-focus mechanisms into any lens is expensive. Another reason may be competition, but it may also be the notion that many of these focal lengths are more for use in an artisanal manner. If these lenses become too expensive, they push themselves out of the market. But inexpensive doesn’t mean a cheap lens. The Laowa 9mm has 15 elements in 10 groups, likely needed to reduce the lenses distortion – so it doesn’t lack good design. Is the Laowa glass inferior to that of Fuji? Possibly, but it’s impossible to tell.

Should you buy an ultra-wide, diagonal fisheye, or even a circular fisheye lens? Well, for the cost involved many of these lenses certainly won’t break the bank, and if you are interested in exploring some artistic photography then it may be a good fit. Which one? Well that’s a bit of a conundrum. Of the six 7.5-8mm lenses, it’s hard to know which is really the best. I would suggest checking out some online reviews, and see what people think of the various lenses.

The smartest camera?

May 23, 2023May 23, 2023 / spqr / Leave a comment

People tend to believe that the more intelligent a camera they have, the better the resulting photographs will be. And there may be an air of truth to that, particularly in the realm of smartphones brimming with algorithms to produce reasonably good pictures. But the thing it that the subject of the photographs, and characteristics like the perspective of the shot are not decided by the camera – they are decided by the artistic-process of the person behind the camera.

It is a combination of the human brain, visual system and intrinsic aesthetic abilities of the photographer that decides what to photograph. The camera is but a tool. You can have the most expensive Leica, with the sharpest lenses, but all that is moot if you cannot take good photographs. Sure, everyone thinks they are a photographer these days. The ubiquity of cameras in mobile devices means that photography is all around us, but apart from a documentary purpose, very little of this is meaningful or even artful photography.

The reality is that human intelligence is much smarter than the artificial intelligence found in digital cameras. Yes, such AI can efficiently process photosites into pixels, and apply intelligent “improvement” algorithms in the process, but they cannot decide what to photograph.

Choosing a vintage lens – which brand?

May 18, 2023 / spqr / Leave a comment

In this post we’ll talk briefly about lens brands and manufacturers. When it comes to vintage analog lenses, people either choose a brand first, and then a focal length, or vice-versa. There are as many different brands as there are historic camera and lens manufacturers. Typically most vintage lenses come from East and West Germany, and Japan, largely because that is where the camera industry was focused. Choosing a brand can be a matter of personal interest, cost, or more often than not – popularity.

When looking at the type of vintage lens, you have to understand that there are different families of lenses, usually focused on a particular brand from a specific epoch. In order to choose a vintage lens it is important to obtain a basic understanding of the brand of interest – dates of manufacture, basic lens information (e.g. construction, materials, potential issues), and reviews. A particular 50mm lens from one manufacture may have evolved over many years, often with differing characteristics. For example the Asahi Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 appeared in 1964 as an 8-element lens, and evolved into a 7-element lens containing some elements which incorporated Thorium. It then became the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar, and finally the SMC Takumar. All have differing characteristics, although fundamentally they are all 50mm f/1.4 lenses.

These days there is quite a lot of digital material online, including scanned brochures, and lens reviews. The aim here is to just cover some of the more common manufacturers. Brands of lenses are generally divided into three major categories – (i) the core companies that produced cameras and lenses, (ii) companies with smaller 35mm impression, and (iii) independent companies that just produced lenses for many different manufacturers (not all camera makers produced lenses). To make it even more confusing, some camera companies rebranded lenses from other companies on their cameras. Many major manufacturers offered an extensive array of interchangeable lenses from extremely wide angle to mammoth telephoto lenses. In addition there were companies that specialize only in the development of lenses, including special purpose lenses.

Note that I have not included very small companies, e.g. Wrayflex, or companies who just produced cameras, and very few of their own lenses, e.g. ALPA (they used lenses from a number of manufacturers), Exakta (they only made/rebranded a couple of their lens as Exakta), or KW (makers of the Praktica line of cameras).

Landmark brand lenses

The first category involves milestone manufacturers who got into the 35mm game early, and focused heavily on SLRs. This means manufacturers like Asahi Pentax, Minolta, Yashica, Nikon, Canon, Leica, Zeiss Ikon, and Zeiss. These companies often may have started producing 35mm rangefinder cameras, and then transitioned to 35mm SLRs, and associated lenses (Asahi was the only one of these that did not produce a rangefinder camera). The exception here is Carl Zeiss, who did not make camera’s but was one of the largest optical lens manufacturers. They often designed a broad range of lenses to suit the needs of their cameras. These companies did not rely on 3rd party lens makers (although they did not prevent other companies making lenses for their cameras), and set the standard for many of the lens mounts used. Exakta, while manufacturing many cameras, and the bayonet-mount, designed few of their own lenses.

Second-tier brand lenses

Next are the companies that I consider second tier, i.e. they had a smaller footprint, made only SLRs or got into the game late. That’s not to say they didn’t make good lenses, but their lenses often don’t have the same character as the older lenses. They may have made cameras for other formats, or dabbled in the 35mm SLR market (because they thought they could compete), so the lenses available might just be an effect of short-lived cameras. This includes Konica, Fuji, Olympus, Topcon, Petri, Mamiya, Miranda, Ricoh, Rollei, Voigtländer. For example, Olympus did not introduce it’s first full-frame 35mm SLR, the Olympus OM-1 until 1972. Fuji first interchangeable lens SLR was the Fujica ST701 from 1970. Some of these manufacturers uses rebadged 3rd party lenses. For example Miranda initially used lenses from Zunow or Ofunar, and by the late 1950s had moved to Soligor.

Independent (i.e. 3rd party) brand lenses

The final level of brands are those companies who really just produced lenses. They essentially produced lenses for the cameras of other brands (or more commonly for specific camera mounts). They were 3rd party suppliers, and some were experts in lens design, having been in the business since the 19th century. This included a long list of German and Japanese companies, e.g. Meyer-Optik, Tokina, Soligor, Enna-Werk, Heinz Kilfitt, and Astro-Berlin. Some of these manufacturers produced a broad range of lenses for many different brands, while others produced specific types of lenses such a telephoto lenses. As they often focused solely on lenses, some of these manufacturers produced exceptionally good lenses.

Crafting Pixels

Vintage lenses, photography and digital imagery