Osaka Lensses

[Mahler_one]

I wonder if any of our members have used, or have good working knowledge of, the Osaka line of LF lenses. Such lenses tend to be very cost effective, and the price of a spanking new Osaka lens will often be less then a used lens of equivalent focal length from the "name" manufacturers. I know that Osaka often uses older 4 element Tessar designs on their lenses, and I am told that their 8x10 lens offers the same design as the esteemed Ektars. I will only be enlarging 4x5 negatives up to 11x14, and will probably be contact printing my 8x10...so super large enlargements are currently not contemplated. Thanks for any advice.

Edwin

 

[Ole]

Just going by http://www.bromwellmarketing.com/lenses.htm , I would guess that the "normal 4-element" lenses are Tessars based on the coverage. Also, the coverage of the "normal 6-element" lenses could be Plasmats, and the "wide 4-element" a double Gauss.

The Tele lenses seem similar to the (very) old Tele-Xenars, but with reduced aperture to fit in smaller shutters.

Just guesswork, of course.

Seems like they might be made by Congo - http://www.cosmonet.org/congo/index_e.html

 

[Dan Fromm]

Yes, Ole, they're made by Yamasaki Optical. Their brand is Congo.

I have one of their 210/6.3 Commercial Congos, badged Prinz. Not at all a bad lens even though its front coating looks horrible, but then well-made f/6.3 tessar types are usually good. More seriously, Yamasaki has a poor reputation for quality control.

 

[JG Motamedi]

As Dan writes, one of the common complaints about Congo/Yamasaki is their (lack of) quality control. So one Congo lens might be excellent and the next only so-so. I had a 210 Congo Tessar type which had been poorly centered and had a fair amount of focus shift and some spherical aberration open wide. A friend had an identical lens which was a brilliant example of how fantastic Tessars can be. Kodak's lenses were excellent not only for their designs--which were older and well proven just like Congo's--but also for their increadible quality control.

 

[Roger Hicks]

More seriously, Yamasaki has a poor reputation for quality control.

Dear Dan,

Yes, but I know Ted Bromwell, and (a) I think QC is better than it used to be and (b) Ted will replace unsatisfactory lenses. He says he's had to replace very few over the years. Most people are well impressed.

It may of course be that he insists on better QC for the lenses they send him.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Nick Zentena]

I think prices must have gone up lately.

http://www.bromwellmarketing.com/prices/lenses.htm

The 360 is close to 1K. With luck for a 1/3 of that you could pickup a Fuji L 300mm. The L was supposed to be Kodak inspired also. Or for a little more the Fuji-W plasmat.

FWIW all the big fast 360mm are likely cheaper then what a new Congo will cost.

 

[Peter De Smidt]

My Fuji 420L is very good.

 

[JG Motamedi]

My Fuji 420L is very good.

Fujinon is a completely different company. Nobody (to my knowledge) has ever accused Fujinon of having bad QC.

 

[GeorgesGiralt]

Hi !
When i get into large format, I looked at Congo lenses at Badger Graphics.
The thing that decided me was the new shutter compared to an unknown state shutter found in old lenses.
So I take my decision to go for a Congo. When I emailled Badger Graphics, I was told they were sick and tired of Congo lenses going back and forth from customer to Japan and stopped selling them. They advised to buy a second hand lens instead. I bought a Schneider Xenar 150 mm F:4.5 in a Synchro Compur. I send the shutter for a CLA and, for less than the price of a 150 mm Congo, I got a perfect example of 4 element lens, with a warranted shutter !
YMMV ;-)