[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

David Seifert wrote:

> While I can't comment on the living/working conditions in and around the
> facilities in the immediate post-war era I would suggest that the quality
> of their efforts were never compromised.

With due respect, that does not seem very plausible to me.
The absolute chaos that was WW2, and its aftermath, will have had a profound
effect, perhaps not on the quality of their efforts, but certainly on the
quality of what their efforts were able to achieve.
Will it still have been a problem in the mid 1950s? I don't know; it will,
but by how much?

> Have you read Marc James Small's and Charles Barringer's history of the
> post war Zeiss-Ikon?  There was a legal dispute over the use of the
> Zeiss-Ikon brand name as well. I recommend this book to anyone interested
> in understanding the post-war incarnations of these entities.  It contains
> a thorough exposition of this Opton business as well as outlining the
> product evolutions.

I know the book, yes. Excellent book indeed.
I do know too how both Zeiss Jena and Schott fared immediately after WW2 had
ended. And i do know about the legal disputes between the two Zeiss
Funny though (but true!) that the person i was conversing with, the person
who told me about the initial inconsistent quality of Zeiss Oberkochen
products, referred to the very same book as an accurate description of the
turmoil that may/will have caused that! ;-)

>  Your suggestion that things weren't somehow "up to
> snuff" at the re-formed companies until well into the 50's just doesn't
> hold water to me.  It was 1950 when Z-I release the completely redesigned
> (by necessity, the Soviets made off with the pre-war tools) Contax
> IIa.  Most consider this one of the finest examples of precision
> manufacturing ever.  No Leica or even Rollei can compare to the fit and
> finish of these cameras.  By 1954 the 21/4 Biogon was shipping.  A
> design from CZ.

That's true. Indeed a compelling argument against the

> Sometimes a rose is just a rose.  The Opton designation was just a legal
> necessity, nothing more nothing less.

Oh, but it wasn't suggested that the Zeiss-Opton name was in any way
"responsible" for the perhaps less constant quality.
It's use happens to coïncide with the post war,
getting-our-act-together-again period Zeiss went through.
So a rose is a just rose. Yes. And even by that name, it can sometimes smell
not as sweet?