110mm super symmar linhof brand value

[mike odell]

<p>Used to be....a lens branded with the Linhof tag meant best of breed. I have a 110mm Super Symmar with the Linhof tag. What is it worth these days? It's never been used. Bought it with wishful hopes that never materialized. Any replies appreciated.</p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>I'd say maybe a $100-200 premium over normal asking prices. You might be able to get $1500-1600 for it on the used market.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Despite the lore, the tag is not worth much at all. A Super Symmar is a Super Symmar.

[mike odell]

<p>Ok thanks, I appreciate your replies.</p>

[bob_salomon]

<p>The Linhof logo indicates that the lens, that had passed all of Schneider's (or Rodenstock's) QC tests had been tested to Linhof's quality standards for performance, shuuter accuracy, cleanliness of the lens, etc. Those lenses that pass this additional testing are then marked with the Linhof logo and are then sold by Linhof.<br>

Those lenses that fail any part of the test are rejected by Linhof and returned to either Schneider or Rodenstock unless the reason for failing can be corrected by Linhof. For instance dust that can be simply blown out will pass. Dust or paint flakes or fingerprints between the elements are returned to their respective factories.<br>

So the Linhof logo indicates that the lens meets the highest standards of Rodenstock or Schneider and also the very strict standards of Linhof.<br>

Yes you can buy a lens without Linhof's logo and also be of equal quality to a lens with Linhof's logo. But frequently that can mean that you have to test a few to match the quality of the lens with Linhof's name on it.<br>

It is not lore. It is what you pay for - the highest quality levels.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

You could get the same lenses with Sinar's name on it, indicating that they "meet the highest standards of Rodenstock and Schneider and also the very strict standards of " Sinar.<br>People who bought the same lenses without Linhof or Sinar or whoever's name on it never complained about "fingerprints between the elements" and such, because those would not meet "the highest standards of Rodenstock and Schneider" either, and no such lens ever left their factories.<br>It's a marketing thing.<br><br>And now, many years on, with who knows what happening to these lenses, it says absolutely nothing at all. All that remains is lore.

[bob_salomon]

<p>Sinar primarily sold Rodenstock lenses under their own name. But yes, Sinar purchased the same Rodenstock test equipment as Linhof did. While I have been at Linhof and watched their test procedure, I have not seen Sinar's test rooms and procedures. But since they have the same equipment it should be similar to Linhof's and similar in result.<br>

As a lens distributor we have received new lenses on our very first shipment with fingerprints. We also received one lens that was missing a rear group. But that was a long time ago and was trans-shipped to us by the distributor that we replaced in the mid 80s.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Selling lenses under their (Sinar's) own name came later Bob. Sinar did the same as Linhof: engrave their name on lenses already bearing all the original manufacturer's markings, suggesting the same as Linhof did, that these were not just Schneider or Rodenstock lenses, but cherry-picked lenses, the best of the crop.<br>The suggestion it also carried is that the people who knew how to make great lenses rather than great cameras (i.e. Schneider and Rodenstock, vs. Linhof and Sinar), were less good at making sure a lens was within strict tolerances than these camera makers who never made a lens themselves. But yes: you don't have to be able to make a lens to test a lens.<br>But be all that as it may, it has never been shown that the non-marked/non-cherry-picked lenses were any less than the ones sold to Linhof or Sinar. Only suggested. Marketing.<br><br>And what's it worth today? How many of those lenses are still within the even (as suggested) slacker tolerances the lens makers worked to? Or rather: how will a Linhof or Sinar name engraved on a barrel guarantee that a second/third/fourth hand lens could still be better than a lens that lacks such an engraving?<br>The tag really is not worth much at all.<br>It might have been, on a factory-fresh lens bought directly from Linhof dealers, though even that is rather tenuous. But now, it's not worth the ink used to fill in the engraving. Given a choice between your engraved lens, Mike, and a cheaper one in the same condition without the Linhof engraving, i would certainly know which one to buy.

[bob_salomon]

<p>"But be all that as it may, it has never been shown that the non-marked/non-cherry-picked lenses were any less than the ones sold to Linhof or Sinar. Only suggested. Marketing."<br>

Since you obviously have never shot critical work both with and without Linhof, or Sinar tested lenses, vs the exact same lens without the test. To a high end art director's approval you would not know. So to you that is marketing. To a high end studio working with high end AD or for critical color matched work for high quality magazines or catalogs it is a basic requirement.<br>

Any manufacturer has an acceptable range of tolerances for their product. All Linhof and Sinar do is cherry pick the best of those so that lenses with their name on them represent that lens manufacturer's highest quality.<br>

Really simple, isn't it?<br>

And you should have read my earlier comment that Sinar had purchased the same QC equipment as Linhof had to do their tests. That was before the Sinaron lenses from Sinar/Rodenstock. So there was no need repeating what I had already stated.<br>

What are they worth? Depends on the buyer.<br>

What do they cost new today? A great deal more then the same lens without the logo marked on the lens.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Yes, Bob. it sounds really simple.<br>Just as simple as the fact that all that talk about high end art directors and their likes doesn't change the fact that it was never shown that these cherry picked lenses are better in any way than the ones not selected by Sinar or Linhof.<br>Or can you?<br><br>I did not repeat what you had already stated (you are in attack mode, i see). I have 'corrected' your "Sinar primarily sold Rodenstock lenses under their own name", pointing out that they did sell Schneider and Rodenstock lenses under the Schneider and Rodenstock name, adding a little engraving that showed their company name, just as Linhof did. Not that it matters. But, Bob, "no need repeating what I had already stated".<br><br>Do the "Sinar" or "Linhof" engraved lenses cost a lot more than those without the name?<br>Sometimes (new ones evidently do). Sure. But that's down to lore. Not because these lenses indeed are better. And enough sellers and buyers know that.<br>I bought a used "Linhof" engraved 75 mm Super Angulon for less than $200 not long ago. (About as much as was said the engraving alone would be worth. If so, the lens was free, i guess.) That is: the lens is actually engraved "Technika", the shutter has the "Linhof" engraving. The lens is fine (now i have transplanted it to a different shutter). The shutter, a Synchro Compur, once was a fine thing, now is a bit of junk.<br>That engraving may have had (though i don't think it ever has) a significance, but how much does it mean today? Even on new lenses? Any evidence to show, Bob?<br>But would you or HP Marketing be willing to guarantee that a "Linhof" engraved used lens is still better than a 'plain' Schneider or Rodenstock?

[bob_salomon]

<p>we would never a guarantee a used lens is any thing. We would have no idea of its history, how it was used or abused, etc. In your case that lens is decades old and anything could have happened to it over all those years.<br>

What evidence would you accept? The only evidence that means anything is a head to head comparison, same subject, same lighting, same film, same processing, same environment, etc. And somehow I can't see you doing that since it would involve buying two new lenses just to do the test.<br>

If you want to go find a May Co. photographer then they could tell you what the May Co. went through to color match and output the best possible matched chromes. But again, that was for advertising and I somehow don't think that that is what you do.<br>

So if it doesn't matter to you it just doesn't matter. But that doesn't make the tests a "Lore" The tests are anything but mythical. And if you want to delude yourself into believing that a lens manufacturer, a car maker, a camera maker or any other manufacturer does not have an acceptable range of Qc then you are deluding yourself.</p>

 

[zack_zoll]

<p>To me, it seems a simple analogy is in order. The Jack Daniel's brand sells a more expensive bottle of whiskey called 'Single Barrel.' It is regular Jack Daniel's, but the brewer has sampled the whiskey in all the barrels, selected the best one, and has bottled it as Single Barrel. The remaining barrels are all mixed together, and bottled as regular Jack Daniel's.</p>

<p>Does that mean that Single Barrel is generally better than regular Jack Daniel's? At least to someone it is. Does it also mean that if a certain batch was especially good, that you could get a regular bottle of Jack Daniel's that tasted the exact same as Single Barrel? Yep, that too.</p>

<p>Obviously a bottle of Single Barrel is likely to taste better than the regular stuff, because it's already been sampled. But since it's made from the regular stuff, it's literally impossible for it to be any better than the regular stuff is capable of being.</p>

<p>Having 'Linhof' or 'Sinar' on a new lens isn't really a quality stamp - it's more of a warranty. It tells the customer, "We looked at a bunch of these for you, and this is one of the better ones. You're not going to have to send this one back." It's a really fancy version of the 'inspected by ...' stickers you get in your clothes. Obviously no matter how rigorous the inspection process, the lens is never going to be any better than the design of the Rodenstock/Schneider lens allows, and thus a Linhof lens is physically incapable of being better than a good copy of a Schneider lens.</p>

<p>Of course, once a lens is old, and has been used/carted around/beaten up, the Linhof label means absolutely nothing.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

My point, Bob: the mark, even if it may have had some value when Mike's lens was fresh from the factory... erm... Linhof 's premises, it holds no value now.<br><br>What evidence i would accept? The thing you propose. But, Bob, why would i have to do that? Linhof and you are making the claim. It's up to you to substantiate it.<br>And Linhof and you will have enough lenses available to do the test. So get on with it! ;-) We have been waiting for some evidence for many decades now.<br><br>Colour matching lenses may perhaps help (what evidence is it again that you can present that shows that these engraved lenses are not only colour matched, but better colour matched than the 'regular' Schneider and Rodenstock lenses?) but colour matching is a task best left to the lithographer.<br><br>If the tests are anything but mythical, it should not be that hard to show the results, Bob. We have yet to see any.<br><br><i>"if you want to delude yourself into believing that a lens manufacturer, a car maker, a camera maker or any other manufacturer does not have an acceptable range of Qc"</i>, then and only then, you may also delude yourself into believing that it makes sense for Linhof, Sinar and whoever to retest and reject the unacceptable products these manufacturers have let slip through.<br>I know: your focus is on the "range" bit, the suggestion being that it is too wide, that the non-lens manufacturer have to retest the bunch, and can and will do better. Which, quite frankly, would be rather delusional.<br><br><br>And, Zack, that's the thing: the suggestion that the tolerances allowed by these manufacturers are wide enough to find significant differences between the products they churn out. Are they really?

[bob_salomon]

<p>You are welcome to believe whatever you want. And if you want to do a test buy whichever lenses you want.<br>

With your attitude if we supplied lenses for testing, which we do not do, you would then claim the we cherry picked for the test.<br>

So just keep yourself happy.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Well, Bob. You can try to turn this into a thing about Linhof customers, your customers, claiming things, demanding, even, that you supply lenses for testing. But believe it or not: that's rather silly.<br>Linhof marketing claims Linhof cherry-picks lenses, that the chosen lenses are better than the ones without their stamp of approval. They test.<br><br>So where are the test results that could substantiate that claim?<br><br>Such a go $%#& yourself response you posted here is good marketing, Bob. I wonder what they think about it in München. Don't you?

[zack_zoll]

<p>I don't normally pick sides in what appears to be a sausage-waving contest, but you did use the example of lenses with fingerprinted elements Bob, or with lenses missing elements entirely. I'm not saying that is or is not true. But assuming it is true, you'd surely have to admit that lenses with such glaring flaws would be sent back immediately by the consumer, and would never enter the used market, wouldn't you?</p>

<p>Since used lenses often only carry the warranty that 'it worked well for someone, once' we would assume that a used lens sold by a respectable seller is (A) not horrid, (B) not something that can be returned to the manufacturer, and © in worse condition than when new, meaning that no matter how rigorous Linhof's testing is, and no matter how well they cherry-pick lenses, their seal on a <em>used</em> lens doesn't mean an awful lot, does it?</p>

[bob_salomon]

<p>Not once it is used unless you know its history and its maintenance after it was sold new. The same is true for all used products.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"their seal on a used lens doesn't mean an awful lot"</i><br><br>Nor on a new lens, unless it is demonstrated that it is not just a marketing thing.<br><br>Those examples (fingerprints and such) are rather spurious. As if Schneider or Rodenstock would let such lenses pass their QC.<br>You came close to insulting one of the companies whose products you sell, Bob, were it not for that deus ex machina, that third party intervention that you came up with to hold responsible for those blatant defects you reported.<br>Yet, the suggestion stands. Must stand, else there is no way to make sense of the Linhof (or Sinar) name explained as a stamp of approval.<br><br>But how about it, Bob? When will the claim that the Linhof name on a lens indicates something better than just an 'ordinary' lens be substantiated?

[bob_salomon]

<p>"But how about it, Bob? When will the claim that the Linhof name on a lens indicates something better than just an 'ordinary' lens be substantiated"<br>

No, that is for you to decide. Linhof's name on a lens has stood for a superior quality lens for decades among knowledagble users. Still does. Why not take a trip to Munich and see for yourself?</p>

[fwstutterheim]

<p>QC testing equipment often answers a simple question: "Is the tested product within spec, Yes or No?" IIRC the Carl Zeiss lens testing machine I have seen in operation for final inspection of Zeiss lenses made under licence did just that. The operator herself had no clue what was really going on in the "black box" and she could not change the pre-set standards for a specific lens type. She just mounted the lens, pushed the button and waited for the result. It was "Zeiss quality" or "No Zeiss quality". There was no way at all of cherry picking from the lenses that passed the test. Next to this optical test was a visual inspection and handling check that obviously had some room for subjective judgements and cherry picking.</p>

<p> Off course all this can be different with Rodenstock or Schneider testing equipment. I have not seen them.</p>

 

[bob_salomon]

<p>"</p>

 

 

<p>Off course all this can be different with Rodenstock or Schneider testing equipment. I have not seen them."</p>

I have. Rodenstock sold Linhof and Sinar their Rodenstok Sieman Star Projector. A very large, room sized, machine. The operator attaches a lens into the front of the projector and projects a pattern of Siemen's Stars onto a wall several feet away. The operator stands by the wall where the stars are projected on and with a remote control is able to rotate the lens. This lets the operator see numerous problems that may be in the lens, it also lets him pick lenses that would be best for specific cameras, for instance a 617 Technorama or a 612 Technorama.

 

Lenses that pass are then sent on for further testing and inspection as in the Zeiss example stated. Lenses that are rejected by the operator are then returned to the manufacturer as not meeting Linhof's standards. Lenses passing the other inspection tests are then marked with the Linhof name. Lenses that are rejected by the other inspections are returned unless Linhof technicians can correct the problem themselves. If they can they also get Linhof's logo. If not they are returned to the manufacturer.

These tests and Linhof's logo ensure that these lenses bearing the Linhof logo meet the highest performance standards from the manufacturer.