Vlad Soare Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Hello, <br><br> I'm just curious: do lens names like Skopar, Summar, Summitar, Takumar, Sonnar, Tessar, etc. mean anything? Do they designate certain lens types (for example Summitar = x lenses in y groups with z aperture blades), or are they simply just market names of specific lenses (like the car names Mustang, Punto, etc.)? <br><br> Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell_wheeldon2 Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 I believe that the Tessar name was derived from the greek word τέσσερα meaning 'four'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell_wheeldon2 Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 ...and that the name "Sonnar" is derived from the German word "sonne", meaning sun. Have a look in Wikipedia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Soare Posted April 18, 2007 Author Share Posted April 18, 2007 OK, but do they designate some lens types, or are they just market names? The name Sonnar, for example, designates a specific lens made by a specific company in a specific year, or does it designate all lenses constructed in a certain way (x elements in y groups, the first one being convergent, the second one being ... etc.)? Is it a market name or a lens type desgination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Soare Posted April 18, 2007 Author Share Posted April 18, 2007 Thanks for the Wikipedia tip. I searched Wikipedia and it seems that the names actually designate lens types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_levine Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Also be advised that names like Summilux, Summicron and others, have a maximum aperture associated with their names.(For example all Summilux lenses are F1.4, Summicrons are all F2). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew in Austin Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 The old convention of naming lenses according to their optical formulae seems to have been very much a German practice prior to the mid-1950's. Back in the day when Voigtlander was an independent optical manufacturer in Braunschweig, the names Voigtar, Skopar, Heliar, Ultron referred to different optical forumulae. With Carl Zeiss, the same was true. The photographer had some idea of what the lens design was to a particular lens with a Tessar, Sonnar, Planar or Biogon. Plus, there was a big price jump for example from a Tessar to a Sonnar. ****** On the current Cosina lens line up, the nomenclature usually does not follow this old convention. The exception that comes to mind with regards to Cosina's offerings are Cosina's 50mm Heliars. Those two Heliars are really Heliars. For most Japanese optics, Nikkor, Takumar and Canon refers to the camera maker's in house branding. Best Regards - Andrew in Austin, TX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Leica lenses started out being named for the chief designer's dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew in Austin Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 <i>Leica lenses started out being named for the chief designer's dog.</i> <p>True, if your lens is a Hektor. I heard the same was true for the Summarex, but I'm skeptical on that one.</p> Best Regards - Andrew in Austin, TX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_keir Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 The most colorful Leitz lense stories: Elmax = "E Leitz", designed by "Max Berek". The very first Leica A cameras came with this. It was soon replaced with the Elmar. Elmar = "Oops, Max designed an upgrade...well, Elmar sounds good". Elmar then became generally used to designate any Leitz f3.5 lense. Hektor = Max Berek's dog. No focus groups to pick names back in those days. Rex (Summarex) was his other dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
35mmdelux Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Mine is Lassie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaijin Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Mine is Jackson Browne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_fromm2 Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Wikipedia entries on lenses are riddled with errors. Trade names for lenses are just that, trade names. Arbitrary designators that carry no information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_w. Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Summi___, as in Summa Cum Laude, with highest praise. 'cron, as in chrono, time. 'lux, as in light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oceanphysics Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 <i>Trade names for lenses are just that, trade names. Arbitrary designators that carry no information.</i> <p> They may be trade names, but it does not logically follow that they carry no information. Some, like Tessar, are particular lens designs. Others, like Leica's names, just specify a max aperture. <p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Soare Posted April 18, 2007 Author Share Posted April 18, 2007 Thank you for your replies. It's all clear now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_halfhill Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 Modern Leica lens-naming nomenclature: <P> <UL> <LI>Noctilux = f/1.0 or f/1.2 <BR><LI>Summilux = f/1.4 <BR><LI>Summicron = f/2 <BR><LI>Elmarit = f/2.8 <BR><LI>Elmar = f/3.5 or f/4 </UL> <P> There are exceptions, such as the recent 50mm f/2.8 Elmar. By its maximum aperture, it should be an Elmarit. But I think because it's a modern version of the collapsible 50mm f/3.5 Elmar, Leica decided to keep the original name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony_brookes5 Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 I understood that the name ELMAR was the successor to the ELMAX from E Leitz Max Berek, the designer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred_c1 Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 >Trade names for lenses are just that, trade names. Arbitrary designators that carry no information. Examples are few, but they do exist. Zeiss have been using the names Sonnar and Planar interchangeably for a while, apparently dictated by marketing. The 90 ZM "Sonnar" is just the latest instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred_c1 Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 Of course the ZM lens is nominally 85mm like the real Sonnar was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimi3 Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 The Rokkor of Minolta comes from the name of german Dr. Rokko who contributed to the design of japanese lens. The same situation with Pentax` Takumar - Prof. Tacuma designed the lens. A lot of soviet lenses meant: Peace for Mir, Wave for Volna, Jupiter, Helios etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred_c1 Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 "Takuma Kajiwara, Japanese photographer for whom the Takumar lens line was named..." http://www.concentric.net/~Sherfy/special2.html Takuma also literally means "polishing" in Japanese, a process every lens element has to undergo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred_c1 Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 The "Rokkor" name was in honor of Mt. Rokko, which could be seen from the Minolta plant. http://members.aol.com/manualminolta/history.htm http://www.feedbus.com/wikis/wikipedia.php?title=Mount_Rokko Dmitry, you take after Pavel Chekov don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_marshall1 Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 Fred, Zeiss does not use the names Sonnar & Planar interchangeably. In fact, Zeiss is the only lens maker that still uses specific design types for the names which are assigned to its lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred_c1 Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 Bill, I've read what Zeiss said about the 85 ZM that was quoted repeatedly at RFF. It's just completely ad-hoc and apologetic marketing-speak, even worse than their "explanation" about the C-Sonnar's focus shift problem. If you just let go of such "Zeiss talk" for a minute, you'd see from some of the block diagrams (also quoted at RFF I think) that how unconvincing their nomenclatures have been, e.g. the immensely assymetrical f/1.2 and f/1.4 (C/Y and ZF) 85mm "Planars" complete with very Sonnar-like rear groups. OTOH, the 85 ZM "Sonnar" is much closer to the classic double-Gauss design than any of those "Planars." Nowadays, it seems the only classic Zeiss designs correctly named for every lens are Tessar and Biogon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now