Congo large format lenses

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Courtesy of the Wayback Machine. (https://web.archive.org/web/20180610043743/https://www.jck.net/congo/spec_e.htm)

 

[MTGseattle]

Thanks Bronson. My copy/paste was incomplete, I guess.
Mods (if watching) feel free to delete my dead link post if it's worth the time.

 

[DREW WILEY]

From the lens configurations, it does NOT appear they are the same as Osaka lenses (Ted Bromwell's brand). His were mostly 4-4 configuration.

 

[Dan Fromm]

From the lens configurations, it does NOT appear they are the same as Osaka lenses (Ted Bromwell's brand). His were mostly 4-4 configuration.

Drew, which lenses are you thinking of? I ask because the w/a Congo lenses are 4/4 double Gauss types, Tele-Congos are conventional 4 element teles, and Commercial Congos are tessar types. Ted sold all of them as Osaka.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm not going to try to dig up my old Osaka list at the moment; but I remember it well enough, and Ted Bromwell told me in person that he based most of his line (not necessarily wides) on the 4-4 airspaced configuration, with analogous 4-element Commercial Ektars as his inspiration. He even cited that in his attached ad. It was pretty much the entire line, including his teles, and not just the wide angle ones. There might have been a couple tessars on the list, but that was not the predominant formula.

Oh ... I just did find Bromwell's sheets amidst my Rodenstock lists. There is only one fast 4.5 lens, a 210, which I assume is a tessar. But overall, the list is quite a bit different from the Congo selection linked earlier. It is certainly possible that the same manufacturer was involved; but these are evidently NOT just rebranded Congo lenses per se. Whether or not Congo upgraded their own line at some point in time to be more similar, I cannot say. I'm just comparing the two lists, which are in fact quite different. The Osaka brochure and price list I have is dated Nov 1989.

Ted was a very forthcoming individual, a straight talker who stated the pros and cons of his own products honestly, whether a person was a likely purchase candidate or not. He was also the first champion of Ebony cameras in this country, which were obviously different from his own Osaka view camera line.

 

[Dan Fromm]

But Drew, Commercial Ektars are all f/6.3 tessar types, not 4/4 airspaced.

 

[DREW WILEY]

No Dan. Not at all. Both formulas were involved, depending on the specific product. The tessar design mainly (not exclusively) applied to the faster 4.5 Ektars marketed to the portrait trade. Commercial Ektars were slower and intended to be sharper. For some unknown reason, it's hard now to find other than downright ancient early 50's specs on the web, especially for the preferred 80 degree Widefield Ektars (not to be confused with true wide angle lenses). The tessar formula has a rather limited image circle instead, only around a 60 degree angle.

My own brother sold them, and always referred to Commercial Ektars as having three quality grades (the highest probably being Linhof select - he also sold Linhof gear). Osaka was not the only one to revive an airspaced 4-element 6.3 Ektar clone. There were lesser commercial entities too, less successful. But I'm not referring to the Caltar line, which simply rebranded all kinds of popular lenses,
including actual Kodak Ektars.

I don't even know who actually made the Osaka lenses. It was allegedly the same source as Congo, hence the mixup; but Congo itself was just another marketing brand, apparently offering a different selection.

I don't own any of the above. So all of this is merely academic to me. I looked at all kinds of lenses before deciding on the few I really needed.

 

[Ian Grant]

Congo was the brand name for lenses made by Yamazaki Optical Co Ltd, founded in 1924. They bought the rights to the Eastman Kodak's Commercial Ektar range designs, and some other lenses, as well as acquiring some of the tooling. They were sold re-branded as Osaka lenses for a US importer, I have an Osaka Commercial 210mm f6.3 which is a Tessar type lens.

Back in February 2000 Mr Keizo Yamazaki confirmed that his company manufactured the Osaka range of LF lenses, and the specifications were on their (Congo) website. He also said they could be bought direct from the factory.

Ian

 

[DREW WILEY]

That still doesn't mean that the full selection of respective LF lenses - Congo label versus Osaka label - was the same. Apparently it wasn't. Or they might have revised their own selection at some point in time. But specific information on Congo that isn't terribly outdated is hard to find. This is apt to become a discussion in archaeology. I've handled Osaka lenses, but never bought one. The cosmetic appearance of these lenses certainly wasn't up to that of the "big four" major makers.

They also made lenses for smaller cameras.

 

[Ian Grant]

We know that Mr Keizo Yamazaki did update lenses, he mentioned redesigning a telephoto, plus the company made LF lenses including a 210nn f4.5 Tessar type before they acquired the rights to manufacture Commercial Ektars an other EK lenses in the mid 1960s ^5/66)..

Eastman Kodak's Commercial Ektars and other LF lenses were not sold outside North America. Here in the UK & Europe no Kodak LF lens sold after WWI until the British made version of the 203mm f7.7 Ektar lens was produced just after WWII. These were all in #0 mount shutters, Epsilon, then Prontor SVS, and very late ones in a Copur.
So it's quite likely a link with Bromwell and Yamazaki either already existed or was quickly forged to sell the new Congo range of lenses based on the EK designs in the US.

I had heard of Congo lenses in the early 1980s, but never saw any, but then no-one ever importing and distributed Fuji LF lenses in the UK. Nikon LF lenses only became available here through two new specialist LF dealers (shops) both set up in the mid 1980s.When I ordered a 300mm f9 Nikkor M it was shipped to the dealer from Japan.

Ian

 

[DREW WILEY]

I guess we were lucky here. The main pro photo store had every single LF lens then made by Nikon, Fuji. Schneider, and Rodenstock actually in stock, and they considered the Fuji line to have the most reliable quality control. Schneider was going through a rough patch then. People knew about lower cost options like Congo and Osaka, but those weren't in the stores. Ted Bromwell told me he sold most of his lenses to schools and studios on a budget, and called them "good general purposes lenses, but not specialty lenses". If you peruse used Congo lenses on EBay, some are in older Seiko shutters; but overall, it seems there never were many of them around. I've never even seen one.

It's certainly possible that Bromwell asked Yamazaki to specially batch a selection of certain 4-4 airspaced lenses for him, then supplemented those with 4-3 tessars identical to the Congo ones. But Schneider and Rodenstock made their own budget 60-degree tessars like the Xenar line, which were a lot more popular. Fuji's later LF tessars were their L line, and Nikon had the Q, which became M with multi-coating.

 

[blee1996]

I'm new to 8x10, and for my purpose all these Tessar based lenses are more than good enough. I have the cheapest Orbit (Ilex/Caltar) 375mm f/6.3, and found it a bit too sharp for portraits even wide open. I have to go back to an uncoated Petzval 15" or uncoated Velostigmat 12" to get that 8x10 mellowness.

 

[Ian Grant]

I guess we were lucky here. The main pro photo store had every single LF lens then made by Nikon, Fuji. Schneider, and Rodenstock actually in stock, and they considered the Fuji line to have the most reliable quality control. Schneider was going through a rough patch then. People knew about lower cost options like Congo and Osaka, but those weren't in the stores. Ted Bromwell told me he sold most of his lenses to schools and studios on a budget, and called them "good general purposes lenses, but not specialty lenses". If you peruse used Congo lenses on EBay, some are in older Seiko shutters; but overall, it seems there never were many of them around. I've never even seen one.

It's certainly possible that Bromwell asked Yamazaki to specially batch a selection of certain 4-4 airspaced lenses for him, then supplemented those with 4-3 tessars identical to the Congo ones. But Schneider and Rodenstock made their own budget 60-degree tessars like the Xenar line, which were a lot more popular. Fuji's later LF tessars were their L line, and Nikon had the Q, which became M with multi-coating.

1963 was a turbulent year for the photographic industry, you had the merger of Agfa and Gevaert, Schneider and to a lesser extent Rodenstock dominated the LF lens market here in the UK and Europe, with more modern lens designs. Dallmeyer and Ross had disappeared by 1964, Wray managed to hang on until around 1970. T.T.&H (Cooke) were only making high end cine lenses.

In the US Ilex was sold in 1963 and the new management ceased shutter production. With no Acme shutters EK discontinued LF lens production, a few lenses were sleeved and sold in Compur or Copal shutters. The 203mm f7.7 Ektar in a Graphic Synchro Compur #1 (I have one) and a few 12" f6.3 Commercial Ektars in Copal 3 S shutters.

Even Voigtlander couldn't compete, their 1964 catalogue has no modern lens designs, and they merged with Zeiss the following year. In the 1963-4 period a large number of British photographic companies ceased trading unable to compete in a global market.

Ian

 

[Lachlan Young]

We know that Mr Keizo Yamazaki did update lenses, he mentioned redesigning a telephoto, plus the company made LF lenses including a 210nn f4.5 Tessar type before they acquired the rights to manufacture Commercial Ektars an other EK lenses in the mid 1960s ^5/66)..

Eastman Kodak's Commercial Ektars and other LF lenses were not sold outside North America. Here in the UK & Europe no Kodak LF lens sold after WWI until the British made version of the 203mm f7.7 Ektar lens was produced just after WWII. These were all in #0 mount shutters, Epsilon, then Prontor SVS, and very late ones in a Copur.
So it's quite likely a link with Bromwell and Yamazaki either already existed or was quickly forged to sell the new Congo range of lenses based on the EK designs in the US.

I had heard of Congo lenses in the early 1980s, but never saw any, but then no-one ever importing and distributed Fuji LF lenses in the UK. Nikon LF lenses only became available here through two new specialist LF dealers (shops) both set up in the mid 1980s.When I ordered a 300mm f9 Nikkor M it was shipped to the dealer from Japan.

Ian

From some of the information that can be found, it seems that Yamazaki also made Dialyte style 4e/4g f9.0 apochromatic graphic arts lenses. I also recall reading something to the effect that (designing? assembling?) plasmat designs were at the limits of their capabilities and that the 210/5.6 they offered was mostly subcontracted/ badge engineered (I recall reading that it might have been simply bought in from Nikon? - although that might simply be me mixing them up with Wista, who definitely did buy-in from Nikon). The telephotos were 4e/2g (some were 3g, air space between rear two elements), and the 90 & 120 wides claim to be similar to WF Ektars with a 4e/4g construction. I can see where the confusion could arise, especially if the US marketer was slightly unclear about which series was of which constuction. There is an interview that can be found with some digging from before they ceased manufacture with Mr Yamazaki which covers how the lenses were made at that point (essentially they were an assembly operation of subcontracted barrels & optical elements/ groups - though apparently polishing used to be done in house - and it might well be that the subcontractor company was the one run by Yamazaki's direct relatives that seems to specialise in repolishing/ recoating classic Leica lenses etc) and tested - which was not especially sophisticated (e.g. Linhof's testing in the 1950s was far more rigorous).

 

[DREW WILEY]

That's interesting, Lachlan. An archaeological dig indeed.

I had no direct dealings with camera lens manufacturers, but with the construction side of things, including surveying instruments. Nowadays, nearly all the optical ones come out of a single huge plant in Xian, China, which also makes many microscope brands shy
of the most expensive. For example, top end auto levels made according to specification for Nikon, Topcon, and Pentax are largely different. Then you've got the ones done for the American corporation, CST Berger, which bought out their competitor David White, but still retains both brand labels with distinctly different models. But in turn, Berger is now owned by Bosch of Germany, who rebrands the Berger version under their own label and paint color. Then you've got all kinds of lesser survey optics which are similar to one another, but with minor cosmetic tweaks, and different colors and labels. And it's even more convoluted in the marketing category of affordable microscopes, amateur telescopes, and binoculars.

 

[David Lindquist]

1963 was a turbulent year for the photographic industry, you had the merger of Agfa and Gevaert, Schneider and to a lesser extent Rodenstock dominated the LF lens market here in the UK and Europe, with more modern lens designs. Dallmeyer and Ross had disappeared by 1964, Wray managed to hang on until around 1970. T.T.&H (Cooke) were only making high end cine lenses.

In the US Ilex was sold in 1963 and the new management ceased shutter production. With no Acme shutters EK discontinued LF lens production, a few lenses were sleeved and sold in Compur or Copal shutters. The 203mm f7.7 Ektar in a Graphic Synchro Compur #1 (I have one) and a few 12" f6.3 Commercial Ektars in Copal 3 S shutters.

Even Voigtlander couldn't compete, their 1964 catalogue has no modern lens designs, and they merged with Zeiss the following year. In the 1963-4 period a large number of British photographic companies ceased trading unable to compete in a global market.

Ian

Ilex made shutters well beyond 1963. I bought a new No. 5 Universal in 1975. From my collection of Calumet catalogs, they still offered the 12 and 14 3/4 inch Ilex Caltars in Ilex shutters (No. 4 Acme and No. 5 Universal) in 1978. In his rigorous treatise on Ilex, especially their later large format lens line, Dan Fromm notes that Melles-Griot took on manufacturing of the Ilex shutters (branding them as "Melles-Griot") in the early 1980's as Ilex faded away, see: https://www.galerie-photo.com/ilex-lenses.html

As far as Eastman Kodak lenses, I've seen examples of Commercial Ektars made as late as 1967, serial numbers OS 108 and OS 119, both 10 inch, both in No. 4 Acme shutters.

As for the 203 mm f/7.7 Ektar of U.S. production mounted in the No. 1 Compur, I've seen statements that these were made for Graflex to be sold for use on the Graphic View II (hence the "Graphic" on the shutter's face). My example was made in 1959. Earlier Kodak mounted these in the Supermatic shutter. I don't know when production of the Supermatic ceased. I have a 1961 catalog "Kodak Products for the Professional". The only lens shown mounted in the Supermatic shutter is the 127 mm f/4.7 Ektar.

David

 

[Lachlan Young]

Ilex made shutters well beyond 1963. I bought a new No. 5 Universal in 1975. From my collection of Calumet catalogs, they still offered the 12 and 14 3/4 inch Ilex Caltars in Ilex shutters (No. 4 Acme and No. 5 Universal) in 1978. In his rigorous treatise on Ilex, especially their later large format lens line, Dan Fromm notes that Melles-Griot took on manufacturing of the Ilex shutters (branding them as "Melles-Griot") in the early 1980's as Ilex faded away, see: https://www.galerie-photo.com/ilex-lenses.html

As far as Eastman Kodak lenses, I've seen examples of Commercial Ektars made as late as 1967, serial numbers OS 108 and OS 119, both 10 inch, both in No. 4 Acme shutters.

From what I recall, those Melles Griot/ Ilex shutters (possibly only in electronic form) were still effectively available until very recently - I am also puzzled as to exactly what the nature of any deal between Yamasaki and Kodak could have been as the Congo lenses are effectively standard issue f4.5 or f6.3 tessars - and the WF Ektar design was hardly unknown either - it probably just wasn't as popular with the big LF lens manufacturers as the Super Angulon was closer to what more of the market (or at least the more profitable bit of the market) was demanding at that point in time. Yamasaki/ Congo was very much artisan rather than industrial - and their lenses reflect that.

 

[DREW WILEY]

WF Ektars were 80 degree, achievable in an air-spaced 4-4 dialtye design (like the Fuji C series, nominal 70-ish deg, but actually quite a bit more stopped down), while Super Angulons were true wide-angle, needing a more complex design. I don't know if it's possible to do that with a tessar design at all. But as you pointed out, Lachlan, the Yamazaki/Congo/Osaka wides sure didn't resemble the Kodak/Caltar Ektar Wides. Was it really a rehash of the Ektar line at all, or just utilizing what was already common knowledge in order to fill a perceive market niche?

 

[Ian Grant]

Ilex made shutters well beyond 1963. I bought a new No. 5 Universal in 1975. From my collection of Calumet catalogs, they still offered the 12 and 14 3/4 inch Ilex Caltars in Ilex shutters (No. 4 Acme and No. 5 Universal) in 1978. In his rigorous treatise on Ilex, especially their later large format lens line, Dan Fromm notes that Melles-Griot took on manufacturing of the Ilex shutters (branding them as "Melles-Griot") in the early 1980's as Ilex faded away, see: https://www.galerie-photo.com/ilex-lenses.html

As far as Eastman Kodak lenses, I've seen examples of Commercial Ektars made as late as 1967, serial numbers OS 108 and OS 119, both 10 inch, both in No. 4 Acme shutters.

As for the 203 mm f/7.7 Ektar of U.S. production mounted in the No. 1 Compur, I've seen statements that these were made for Graflex to be sold for use on the Graphic View II (hence the "Graphic" on the shutter's face). My example was made in 1959. Earlier Kodak mounted these in the Supermatic shutter. I don't know when production of the Supermatic ceased. I have a 1961 catalog "Kodak Products for the Professional". The only lens shown mounted in the Supermatic shutter is the 127 mm f/4.7 Ektar.

David

There's a big difference between ceasing manufacture and assembling what's left from stock. A more recent example is Schneider who had a large over-stock of unsold late Xenar cells, that's the 150 f5.6, 210, f6.1., & the 300mm f6.3, as well as G-Clarons. These were assembled and 2000 and sold at discount prices, these had contemporary serial numbers, bu tit's known the cells were made some years earlier.

Then there's lenses like the 184mm f4.5 Wray Lustrar introduced in 1953 and fitted in a Dial-set Compur #2 with flash sync. Were these shutters surplus stock ?

Ian

 

[Lachlan Young]

the Yamazaki/Congo/Osaka wides sure didn't resemble the Kodak/Caltar Ektar Wides.

The Congo 90/6.3 & 120/6.3 are both straight-up WF Ektar 4e/4g in layout - except Yamasaki needed them to go into standard Copal/ Seiko shutters and Kodak was using Supermatic/ Ilex shutters (and specific push-on filter/ hood compatibility will have mattered too), so the barrels end up being quite different - cf. the Supermatic and Prontor versions of the Ektar 203/7.7 (I know it's a more traditional dialyte, but the point stands). The rest of the regular Congo branded lenses (90-420mm) were 4.5/6.3/6.8 tessars (often appearing to exist as variants to split differences between fitting into #0/1 or #1/#3 shutters - with anything over 360 barrel only) with the exceptions of the telephotos (a mix of speeds, but all clearly labelled as 'tele-'), the 3 graphic arts lenses (f9.0 dialytes) and the one plasmat.

it's known the cells were made some years earlier.

Was this why the Xenars and G-Clarons never got multicoated glass?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Again, I have to go with what a German Schneider Rep told me in person at a trade show in the 90's. They didn't multi-coat GC's because they simply didn't need to. They got all the outstanding optical performance they wanted with a single coating only. They were deliberately engineered that way. This has no relation to Xenars, which were a lower priced line. Their late GC's in shutter were actually classified as superior to their general purpose multi-coated plasmat series. Maybe they had some surplus cells from the slower selling 150's and 270's laying around for awhile afterwards, but that was wholly unrelated to the question of coatings.

Yes, GC's in shutter were specifically marketed for studio tabletop photography where flare is easily controlled. But people like me used them in the high mountains in all the glimmer of ice and bright glacial rock polish with no flare issue whatsoever, given a common sense lens shade system. And the only difference I get between a single-coated 240 GC and a very similar but multicoated Fuji 250 A is a tiny bit more contrast with the Fuji version. I use them almost interchangeably; but at one time, the slight difference in contrast did factor into rendering high contrast chromes onto even higher contrast Cibachrome print medium without needing the very heaviest masking sledgehammer on the shelf. Otherwise, I depended so very much on that 240 GC that I wanted a fresh backup if needed.
Now that well-aged GC is napping on the rocking chair most of the time, and only occasionally opens its Schneideritis eyes.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I have to go with what a German Schneider Rep told me in person at a trade show in the 90's. They didn't multi-coat GC's because they simply didn't need to.

They didn't multi-coat G-Clarons because they simply didn't need to make any more of the optical components might be closer to the truth.

Assembling obsolete overstock (possibly from before the Schneider bankruptcy - so they might have cost Mandermann nearly nothing, other than warehouse space) of graphic arts lenses into shutters & making some profit selling them off to a willing market who wanted them for their compactness and coverage rather than graphic arts capabilities will have seemed like a win-win - that rep sounds like they were wanting to get those things shifted.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I doubt that. G-Clarons were hardly a mass market item calling for a surplus of component manufacture, but only a small niche. Symmar S probably outsold those a hundred to one. And by that point in time, when Schneider turned the corner trying to play catch up, G-Clarons were already way back in the rear view mirror as far as graphics arts and enlarging applications were concerned. We're talking about another era; and the final series in shutter were all basically highly refined plasmats very well close-range corrected, tailored to the studio tabletop market. The fact that they were also capable of huge image circles, and worked superbly at infinity too was hard ice to break even among the LF community because Schneider never promoted that themselves, at least not in this country. Everyone seemed skeptical of them. A "sleeper"line. It was all word of mouth.

And unlike Fuji and Nikon, Schneider seemed outright oblivious to the fact outdoor photographers wanted smaller lighter lenses.

Even the spec sheets (which I still have) still only showed their image circle and angles of view in relation to very stringent graphics standards. I don't know if they ever updated those for sake of the general market. I've dealt a LOT with German manufacturers, and it's remarkable how conservative they can be about their own products sometimes.

It's similar to the mistaken claim that Fuji L tessars were only single-coated in order to make them cheaper. No. Their target market was commercial portrait studios who simply didn't want or need the uber-contrast of their other lines. And it stayed that way right up until the last of the L series was just the 210 in a late Copal 1 shutter. They weren't even trying to compete with the multicoated Nikon 200 M, which was parallel in time; they had their own tessar following, and for a different reason.

But I should stop here. I can be like a kid in an ice cream shop. There are just too many good flavors to choose from.

 

[Ian Grant]

Was this why the Xenars and G-Clarons never got multicoated glass?

No, with a big but.. The term Multi Coating came into our use with Pentax Super Multi Coated lenses with greatly improved Zeiss coating techniques, but LF lenses from Schneider & Rodenstock were already well coated with more than one coating layer from 1963 (roughly). In fact the Zeiss Patent for two coating layers was not long after the one for a single layer.

So around 1963/4 you see coatings better balanced for colour photography, like the Color Skopar and even CZJ in East Germany with their Pancolar 50mm lens which was essentially the Flekton with more advanced coatings. These have 2 or 4 coating layers.

The reality is lenses were being Multi coated before the term came into use, Super Multi Coating was essentially a more efficient way of applying a even more effective coatings. I had a Rodenstock 150mm Sironar (pre N or S) and made before MC but the coatings were as good as my MC 150mm Sironar N

So now to the but, the Xenars & shutter mounted G-Clarons in latter years were budget lenses, they were coated with a single layer presumably to cut cost, but it's an advanced and balanced coating layer, it's not simple like EK Blooming, and nothing like the post WWII CZJ Tessar coatings with their blue bias.

And unlike Fuji and Nikon, Schneider seemed outright oblivious to the fact outdoor photographers wanted smaller lighter lenses.

Schneider did make and sell smaller lighter lenses, they redesigned the f4.5 Xenar range by 1978 to be smaller and lighter with improved optical performance, while still being budget lenses. The 150mm f5.6 Xenat was in a Copal #o shutter, the older 150mm f4.5 was ina Compur #1, the 210mm f6.1 Xenar was in a Copal #21, the 219mm f4,5 had been in a Compound or Compur #3, the lslightly ater 300mm f5.6 Xenar was in a Copal #3, the f4.5 version had been in a Compound #5. Just the reduction in shuttersize alone greatly reduced the cost.

Schneider were also selling the smaller f9 G-Clarons in shutters as taking lenses. However Schneiders marketing literature was poor as you alluded to, post WWII they are essentially just data sheets with short three language dscriptions of the lens with copious technical specifications. When I was looking for additional lenses in the late 1980s the Rodenstock and Nikon sales literature were full colour brochures with photographs illustrations and way better descriptions of each lens range.

De Vere were the impoters and distributors of Schneied and Rodenstock lenses for many years here in the UK and at the main annual photographic tradeshow the lenses would be in a display cabinet, they had no literature. I should add later Schneider marketing literature was way better and on a par withtheir competitors.

The only time I saw good marketing for Schneider lenses was online when the ompany sold off the surplus stock of Xenar, & G-Claron lenses, and also Centre filter. These were sold to Robert White in the UK, and Badger Graphic in the US, there may have been a second US dealer involved.

Ian

 

[Lachlan Young]

The reality is lenses were being Multi coated before the term came into use, Super Multi Coating was essentially a more efficient way of applying a even more effective coatings.

I was aware of this - especially with Pentax, as the difference between SMC and the immediate predecessors seems not to have been single vs multi-coating, but rather multicoating vs an evolutionary step in multicoating.