Talk:Schneider Kreuznach/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

While some of the statements were hyperbolic, and the point well taken, some of the "ad copy removal" edits removed useful information about the topic discussed. Doing a partial revert to meet somewhere in the middle. Matt Gabriel 10:45, 24 January 2006

Some of the text still reads like ad-copy. Sure, Schneider makes some nice glass, but the level of non-NPOVness in some descriptions is really off-putting. I got rid of some of the more content-free of it, but it still needs cleaning. I did quite a bit of editing, and I think I've excised all the ad-copy, without removing any info. A lot of that text was pretty content-free anyway. Wwagner 10:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know when some of these lens lines (or individual models) were produced. For instance, the Componar enlarging lenses are no longer made, but when were they made? Is there any source of this info? And along those same lines, what's the difference between, say, the Componon and Componon-S lines? I couldn't find any real info, so I took some of S-K's ad copy and distilled something vague out of it. Wwagner 00:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

i don't want to make these edits, because i don't know the story as well as whoever wrote all this. just want to offer some suggestions:

1) why not mention that the symmar series are plasmats, and link to plasmat 2) and then mention that the super symmar xl is not actually related in any way to the symmar design, but is an all new wide angle design. 3) i don't know the answer: are the super symmar lenses superchromats? the name implies it, but i've seen nothing else on the topic. 4) how about dates for all the designs 5) how about mention of similar products by other companies (rodenstock, fuji, nikon, etc) 6) a bit of observation on the company history: didn't they start out (like a lot of lens companies) by making mostly cheap knockoffs of zeiss lenses, and then gradually evolve to largely replacing zeiss as the prime innovator in large format optics? not sure how you'd say this without editorializing somewhat, but there seems to be some truth to it. Elir 02:47, 7 April 2006

I'm the one who's added a great deal of what's in this article. I know precious little about lens designs, and could find very little of that kind of info on the web, so I didn't know what to add. I'll take it point by point:

1. Symmars are plasmats? Awesome, go ahead and add it. You do have a source you can cite that says that, right?
2. Didn't know that the Super Symmar wasn't related to the Symmar, other than by name.
3. No idea.
4. I've tried to add dates where I could find them, but most of what I've gotten was from Google translations of Schneider's German brochures - ad copy isn't usually interested in accuracy, but in "hey, look at our stuff, it's sooooo great!" Glanfield and Wright's A Lens Collector's Vade Mecum[1] and Kingslake's A History of the Photographic Lens (ISBN 0124086403) are probably great sources, but I don't have easy access to either right now.
5. I'd say that listing similar products made by other companies would be a job for the companies themselves. It just doesn't seem too encyclopedic to me. On the other hand, listing, say, the Symmar as a plasmat, and then listing all the various plasmats in the plasmat article, that would probably be the way to go there.
6. As with dates, I've tried to add company history where I could find it (the brochures again, which are all slanted toward "hey, we're the greatest company in the uuuuuuuuniverse!"). As you say, some of the evolution into the premier lens manufacturer in the world could very easily become extremely POV; if you look back through this article's early history, there was some pretty serious ad-copy-like text.

So hey, if you have more info, be WP:BOLD, add it in there! If you've got decent references to what you add, so much the better. I really should have documented each place where I found the stuff I did find. It's all accessible from the External Links, but I didn't cite each and every thing. OK, I'll admit it, I got lazy. — Wwagner 04:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

sure, i'll work on some edits. not sure what the official way is to site sources, but they're easy to come by.

a couple of other changes ... the article currently says that the super angulons are a symmetrical design, but they are in fact highly assymetrical (as are all biogon derrivatives).

and the "HM" designation of the super symmar HM does not refer to High Modulation Glass--there's no such thing. it's really just a subjective description of the lense's abilities. "high modulation" is optical engineer talk for "friggin' sharp!" these lenses did use an unusually shaped element made with fluorite glass, which i believe was a novelty for large format optics. These Super Symmars are also not based on the symmar/plasmat design. they were a new invention, and sat somewhere between the normal plasmat designs and the wide angle biogon designs.

a lot of this information can be found right on the schneider usa website (schneideroptics.com) in the pdf files for individual lens models. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elir (talk • contribs) 15:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

also: i agree strongly about avoiding anything smacking of ad copy. my point about schneider replacing zeiss as the leader in large format innovation is based on a couple of factual points: zeiss dropped out of the game entirely several decades ago. and schneider is the only company that has introduced new large format designs of any kind in the last fifteen or so years (these dates would need to be confirmed). also, for the first time in the company's history, they now have technology that no one else in the world has, specifically the ability to produce aspheric glass elements in sizes large enough for LF optics. this is what's behind the super symmar xl lenses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elir (talk • contribs) 15:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the Cine-Xenon is a taking lens, NOT a projection lens. I don't know the exact difference between a regular Xenon and a Cine-Xenon.

I own a Xenon 35mm f/2.0 in a modern style (black) barrel mount. I find a 28mm f/2.0 in the same style barrel mount for sale on eBay. I would guess that other focal lengths also exist. This is a standard barrel mount which means that the two (front and rear) lens cells are removable and could be installed on the appropriate size shutter. So, these Xenon lenses could have been sold in shutters but I don't know if they ever were. I also have no idea what the original purpose of the lens I own was since I purchased it used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrerj (talk • contribs) 09:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A couple changes

A couple changes that probably should be made:

1. The article should probably be moved to "Jos. Schneider Optische Werke", since that's actually the name of the company. Redirects can certainly be left at the article's current title.
2. This article is awfully long, and should probably be split up somehow. I'd suggest making each of the major lens groups into its own article, and just linking them from here. Perhaps the following sub-articles:
   • small/medium format and digital (these are all relatively small sections)
   • large format
   • cine
   • copy/macro
   • enlarging

Comments, please. — Wwagner 23:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There is an inherent problem here that these categories overlap because some formulas were produced in a wide range of focal lengths and put to multiple uses -- currently the best enlarger lenses are sold for macro.

I found another odd lens on ebay. This is a Apo Artar HM 75mm f/4.0. This is in a new style preset enlarger barrel -- the barrel appears to be the same as the current Componon-S lenses. This can NOT be the same as the long focal lengths (it does have the HM suffix which indicates that it is made with new glass formulations) because it was supposedly impossible to make a 4 element APO lens with an aperture greater than f/9.

IAC, I presume that this lens was sold for either macro or enlarging use since 75mm is rather short focal length for repo use. Tyrerj 05:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This text in the description of M-Componon:

The lenses are designed in such a way that the minimum magnification is based on the minimum flange-to-film distance which will allow the lens to cover the film format being used. The lenses are intended for use with 6×9 cm, 4×5 inch, and 5×7 inch formats.

makes little sense and appears to be inaccurate. The minimum flange-to-film distances are simply the minimum needed to cover a given size of film and these distances result in a minimum magnification. I have not been able to find information on the optimum magnifications for these lenses except that they are for 1:1 and greater magnification. Tyrerj (talk) 06:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

M-Componon:

Optimum reproduction ratios found here:

http://www.cameraeccentric.com/img/info/schneiderb/p9.jpg

Tyrerj (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the items about the Variogons. The figure of 19 different moutns comes right from a brochure / manual I have for the two lenses (and can be found on the Schneider site). The numbers on the mounts come from direct observation of several copies of the lenses (I have 2 each of the Alpa and M42 mounts myself) and some research on the net. I held a lieca R mount in my hands once, but didn't get the number, and knew someone who had a Nikon F. Arriflex I have seen on E-bay a couple times, but never clear enough to get the number. I am trying to track the numbers, because I am looking for a particular type of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycroft 514 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Xenon

There is a long list of instances of Xenon under Motion picture lenses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrerj (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

PC-SUPER-ANGULON

I have a Schneider Kreuznach PC-SUPER-ANGULON 2,8/28 which is not mentioned in the list. It's a shift lens, without tilt, for 135. It was available in the Eighties in several mounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.25.51.210 (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)