Why did Hasselblad move away from Carl Zeiss?

[Sirius Glass]

according to a Carl Zeiss rep at Photokina, it was because Carl Zeiss was upset that Hasselblad went to Fuji for the H-system development, which meant they would get their lenses there too.

Thank you. I did not know that.

 

[itsdoable]

according to a Carl Zeiss rep at Photokina, it was because Carl Zeiss was upset thatHasselblad went to Fuji for the H-system development, which meant they would get their lenses there too.

Thank you. I did not know that.

That might have been what the rep said, and there's probably some truth in that, but one of the main design criteria for the H-system was autofocus, and Zeiss refused to make autofocus lenses. That probably had more to do with the change, plus now Hasselblad could bring the lens design in-house, generating a better value-add.

The digital system they were developing prior to UBS Capital / Cinvan canceling it in 1996 did use Zeiss lenses, but was not autofocus.

 

[Mark J]

plus now Hasselblad could bring the lens design in-house, generating a better value-add.

But wouldn't that have been done at Fujinon ?
I'm not aware that Hasselblad had any optical designers in-house in the late 90's when I worked for Zeiss - but happy to be corrected on that.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

and Zeiss refused to make autofocus lenses.

Zeiss did make a set of superb autofocus lenses for the Contax N-1, but I do not know if that technology could have extended to medium format lenses for the Hasselblad. Sadly, the N-1 only lasted from 2000-2005. I have never seen one.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That might have been what the rep said, and there's probably some truth in that, but one of the main design criteria for the H-system was autofocus, and Zeiss refused to make autofocus lenses. That probably had more to do with the change, plus now Hasselblad could bring the lens design in-house, generating a better value-add.

The digital system they were developing prior to UBS Capital / Cinvan canceling it in 1996 did use Zeiss lenses, but was not autofocus.

That sounds much more likely.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

One would not be surprised with Smith Inc. ... But I admit that I considered Voightländer a rare name. The one we talk about even is not registered in the phonebook.

phonebook searches in Germany are limited due to data security laws here. Many listings are missing.

 

[RezaLoghme]

For what it is worth, here is some of the Wikipedia entry on Voigtlander:

"Schering sold its share of the company to the Carl Zeiss Foundation in 1956, and Zeiss-Ikon and Voigtländer-Vertriebsgesellschaft integrated in 1965. Due to falling sales, on 4 August 1971 Zeiss-Ikon/Voigtländer-Vertriebsgesellschaft ended producing cameras and closed the Voigtländer factory, which employed at the time 2,037 persons. Subsequently, the company moved to the collective enterprise Optische Werke Voigtländer (Optical Works Voigtländer), in which Carl Zeiss AG, the state of Lower Saxony and the Braunschweig camera manufacturer Rollei each participated to one-third; Later Rollei took over all the shares. On the collapse of Rollei in 1982, Plusfoto took over the name, selling it in 1997 to Ringfoto.

Contemporary times[edit]​

Since 1999, Voigtländer-branded products have been manufactured and marketed by the Japanese optics and camera company Cosina, under license from Ringfoto GmbH & Co. ALFO Marketing KG."

All I can find for Voigtlander GmbH is a police investigative supply store in Blumberg, Germany: Voigtländer GmbH Polizei- und Kriminaltechnik

Legal notice - Voigtländer

www.voigtlaender.de

 

[itsdoable]

Zeiss did make a set of superb autofocus lenses for the Contax N-1, but I do not know if that technology could have extended to medium format lenses for the Hasselblad. Sadly, the N-1 only lasted from 2000-2005. I have never seen one.

Those were made by Kyocera. I don't think Zeiss proper has made any auto focus lenses.

plus now Hasselblad could bring the lens design in-house, generating a better value-add.

But wouldn't that have been done at Fujinon ?
I'm not aware that Hasselblad had any optical designers in-house in the late 90's when I worked for Zeiss - but happy to be corrected on that.

Could be - and it probably started that way. I read some paper (!) article 20+ years ago detailing Hasselblad's design criteria for their H lenses (probably published because of concerns for not using Zeiss). Among the topics were optimizing the lenses at closer focus distances for studio use, in-house optical design and the manufacture of the 2 sizes of shutters, which were shipped to Japan for inclusion into the lenses. After many moves, I no longer have that paper article, but maybe it's archived somewhere.

 

[itsdoable]

... I read some paper (!) article 20+ years ago detailing Hasselblad's design criteria for their H lenses ...

Well, not the article I originally read, (this one was published much later) - but it also addresses some of the OP's question.

Published March 2009 in Victor (online magazine).

In particular, they mention that the HCD 4/28 started it's optical design in Sweden. As it was introduced in 2006 (4 years after the H-system premièred) , that's a reasonable timeline to get their proficiency up.

The article starts on page 11

 

[Mark J]

Thanks for the article, itsdoable. Very interesting. Clearly they had someone designing after the mid-2000's. Makes sense to work out design ideas & options first before passing it over to Fuji.

 

[dokko]

Zeiss did make a set of superb autofocus lenses for the Contax N-1, but I do not know if that technology could have extended to medium format lenses for the Hasselblad.

they also made absolutely stellar AF lenses for the Contax 645, which if my quick internet research is correct, was introduced a few years earlier than the H1.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

they also made absolutely stellar AF lenses for the Contax 645, which if my quick internet research is correct, was introduced a few years earlier than the H1.

You are right! I forgot about the Contax 645. But like the N-1, the lenses may have come from Kyocera (not that it means they are inferior, superior, or anything else). It's a pity that the 645 electronics are now 25 years old.