Re: [Rollei] Why the 6-element lens for 3.5Fs

["bill rowland" <browland >]

Hello all.

It should be noted that the first mention of a 50% rejection rate was
prescribed by Mr. Jangowski at the batch level, not to overall production.
And while 50% rejection of any particular batch may be somewhat unusual
given an overall 5% rejection rate as noted by the esteemable Mr. Small (a
little bootlicking for Jerry's sake), it is certainly plausible.

Please note that while I am trying to clear up the origin of the "50%
rejection" remark, I am in no way certifying its validity. Also, being
familiar with manufacturing processes, it would NOT be unusual to see
product rejected by one customer passed to another with different quality
standards. I can personally attest to this in the fiber optic manufacturing
industry. I am surprised to hear that rejected lenses were destroyed, unless
of course, they were not appropriate for any other customers.

Warmest regards,
Bill "Xenotar 6440530" Rowland    :)


>
> Franke & Heidecke did NOT reject 50% of Zeiss Planars.  The rejection rate
> for both Planar and Xenotar was less than 5% and the lenses were returned,
> as appropriate, to Zeiss or Schneider, who destroyed the glass and reused
> the mounts, for the most part.
>
> Linhoff found that they rejected around 5% of Zeiss lenses and 3% of
> Schneider lenses, but that was when Zeiss was swamped with orders and was
> winding up its LF lens operation.
>
> Marc
>
> msmall    FAX:  +276/343-7315
> Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!
>

------------------------------