Were/are Zenzanon lenses actually private label lenses from other manufacturers?

[andyfalsetta]

I searched the archives and couldn't find anything on this. A couple of threads mentioned Bob Monaghan's site but I had trouble finding that as well.

 

It seems odd that Bronica, after using Nikkor lenses for so long, would be able to outperform Nikkor or at least match the performance of their competitors after starting their own lens manufacturing business. In essence they put their future on the line when they switched to Zenzanon. They were obviously successful so their optics were first class but how did they accomplish this? Maybe there is more to this story that I am not aware of and I am hoping someone can jump in and provide some info to shed some light on this.

 

I worked for Canon USA for 26 years (but not in the Camera Division) and made a few trips to Utsonomiya, Japan, where Canon develops and produces their high end optics. It is hard to imagine Bronica setting up a similar operation starting from scratch but like I said, there may be more to this than I am aware of - like an influx of investment capital to subsidize a lens manufacturing operation or a partnership or something like that. I know Japanese companies like to set up strategic relationships with companies we "Westerners" might think are their competition so maybe this would explain some of it but then again, who would that have been?

 

Any thoughts on this?

[rodeo_joe1]

Good question!

It's relatively easy to see where re-badged 35mm camera lenses came from. The likes of Tokina/Mitsuki and Cosina had a definite barrel style that was easy to spot.

 

The Zenzanon lens barrels look fairly unique in style and don't give much away. So it's likely Zenza Bronica manufactured the barrels themselves and maybe had the optical components made by the likes of Cosina.

 

Sometimes the coating of lenses has a "look" to it as well. Cosina's early lenses generally had an amber coloured coating.

[c_watson1]

Nikkor/Zenzanon/Komura lenses coexisted back in Bronica's focal plane shutter days. Not sure what's so puzzling(or relevant) about how Bronica managed to make high quality leaf shutter optics for the SQ/ETR cameras. They did. For a long time.

[andyfalsetta]

I understand that to some folks, a camera is more of "an appliance" so to speak and a means to an end. This is cool. To me, I find it interesting to know a little more about a device than how to get the most out of it. That curiosity is what caused me to ask the question. I guess that since Zenzanon lenses have "Seiko" prominently displayed on the barrel that the shutter was either produced under license by Bronica or produced exclusively by Seiko and incorporated at time of manufacture; so back to the original question, what else may not have been pure Bronica?

[ben_hutcherson]

I guess that since Zenzanon lenses have "Seiko" prominently displayed on the barrel that the shutter was either produced under license by Bronica or produced exclusively by Seiko and incorporated at time of manufacture; so back to the original question, what else may not have been pure Bronica?

 

I wish I could answer your question fully, as I'd like to know myself about the optics. I've been suitably impressed with my Nikkor optics when I can get around the earthquake the S2a sets off(although I find that the 13.5cm, which I understand is the same as the 35mm RF lens, slightly less impressive than the others I have). At the same time, when I do my part the Zenzanons on my SQ-a absolutely blow me away. This week, I printed a dozen 8x10s that were a crop from the center of the negative-the projected size is larger than the baseboard of my enlarger and I'd guess it would be about 24x24. In any case, the prints are tack sharp. This particular negative is Tri-X(EI 400, straight D76). It was shot with the 80mm from a tripod and in full sun-I think with the filter I had on I was doing 1/500th and was either at f/8 or f/11.

 

All of that aside, Seiko of course is well known for precision timekeeping. I have been looking at getting 150mm Fujinon 4x5 lens, and many of these come mounted in Seiko shutters. They are well known on LF lenses, although they tend to be less expensive than Copal shutters. I have no doubt that the Seiko shutters in Zenzanon lenses are made by Seiko-just like the well known Compur and Pronto shutters in Rolleiflexes and Hasselbads. Seikos aren't unique to Bronica-the 127mm pre-C lens RB67 lens I'm holding in my hand also claims to have a Seiko shutter. I think all the RB/RZ lenses I've seen have Seiko shutters. If it's any consolation, this particular 127mm is beat to heck and the pre-C lenses are getting on in years(they were made from 1970 to 1974) and the shutter speeds are still dead on. The SQ series shutters are electronic and should hold their timing pretty much indefinitely.

[rodeo_joe1]

Many cameras use(d) Seiko shutters, nothing unusual in that. The Kowa 6, Mamiya TLR, and Mamiya 645 leaf-shutter lenses for example. Although I found the Kowa shutters extremely unreliable. However this was possibly due to Kowa's implementation rather than Seiko's fault.

 

Speaking of Kowa; I'm pretty sure they didn't make the optics for their lenses. Maybe Komura had a hand in them? Possibly the Bronny lenses too?

 

Fuji is also a possible candidate for a subcontractor to design and manufacture Bronny's optical components.

Edited May 3, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1

[andyfalsetta]

Thanks Ben and Rodeo_Joe for the input; you've raised many good points and I appreciate getting the benefit of your experience and knowledge. I will look more closely at other lenses for clues when presented with the opportunity. I admit that I am somewhat biased with some things and feel that aftermarket products are usually not as good as OEM. My experience with lenses (years ago and with 35mm) usually was that aftermarket lenses were inferior to the OEM. But if competitors like Cosina, Komura, etc could produce optics for a company like Bronica, that says a lot about how well these "Davids" stack up against the "Goliaths".

 

On a side note, at Canon, there has been a $ billion annual revenue line selling laser printers to HP. All of their non-inkjet printers and all of their toner cartridges were/are private labeled by Canon for HP. Thinking about the optics, I can't get the image out of my mind of the rows of workers at the Canon factory hand grinding lenses. It takes a fair amount of skill to do that at the highest level. I'm not implying Canon had anything to do with this because I believe they were focused more on the scale of lenses needed for the 35mm market.

 

I guess there isn't a clear answer at this point and maybe there won't be.

[ben_hutcherson]

You may know this, but before Bronica died a silent death the brand was bought by Tamrom. This was in the late '90s or early '00s right before digital made huge inroads into the wedding/event/portrait market(where Bronica was a popular staple brand) and continued to market/sell the SQ and ETR system for a few more years. One of the reasons Tamron claimed for buying Bronica was to take advantage of their "optical expertise."

 

I've used a lot of different lenses in my time in photography, and I really think that Zenzanon lenses are very much under-appreciated for just how good they are. One of the things that's often said about LF lenses, and MF to a lesser extent is that they don't have to be as good as 35mm lenses since the negative(or sensor) is larger and of course you also have to make some compromises to get the image circle needed. The latter is even more significant in LF lenses since photographers expect an image circle that's significantly larger than the film area. In any case, as I mentioned, I've been working the past few days with a portion of a negative that's not a whole lot bigger than 35mm, and at 8x10 it's as good as any Canon or Nikkor lens I've seen.

 

I too can be(and usually am) snobbish about using camera brand lenses-or as the case may be the "standard equipment" lenses for a system(like Nikkors on the S-system). With that said, you have to admit that the 3rd parties have made some big strides in optical quality in recent years.

[andyfalsetta]

One of the reasons Tamron claimed for buying Bronica was to take advantage of their "optical expertise."

 

That is pretty interesting Ben. At face value that statement could answer a lot of questions. Equally, a conspiracy theorist could turn that around and translate that line as "we (Tamron) don't build cameras and one way to preserve a revenue stream is to acquire it." Yes that sounds far fetched but then again it is rare to encounter a Japanese business man who "tells it like it is" :)

 

I am new to MF so anything you mention is probably something I didn't know; so thanks.

[rodeo_joe1]

One more thought. It might be worth searching patent applications for anything filed by Zenza Bronica. Most lens designs get filed, and the application is usually filed by the head designer.

 

No lens patent applications by Zenza would be a sure sign that they outsourced their optics. OTOH, it's possible they designed the optics in-house and had the glass ground by someone else.

 

The more I think about it the less likely it seems to me that a "one horse" setup like Zenza would design and make their own optical components from start to finish. Even Kodak contracted out the lenses for most of their cameras; to Jos. Schneider and the like.

[andyfalsetta]

No lens patent applications by Zenza would be a sure sign that they outsourced their optics. OTOH, it's possible they designed the optics in-house and had the glass ground by someone else.

 

Rodeo_joe, this relates to what Ben had said. If in fact Tamron wanted lens expertise when they acquired Bronica, maybe it was the design and engineering staff that they wanted to wrap up and keep for themselves. As you said, the existence of patents would be a sure sign that Bronica was calling the shots when it came to the design of Zenza lenses. Interesting stuff.

[dan_fromm2]

Rodeo Joe wrote:

 

One more thought. It might be worth searching patent applications for anything filed by Zenza Bronica. Most lens designs get filed, and the application is usually filed by the head designer.[\QUOTE]

 

Joe, what you wrote looks reasonable but my friend Eric Beltrando (visit his site dioptrique.info) tells me that it isn't so. His database of lens prescriptions taken from patents is light on lenses post-WW II. He's told me that manufacturers stopped patenting lens designs.

[Heritage Cameras]

At least one Zenzanon 80mm f/2.8 MC lens for the Bronica EC cameras was made by Carl Zeiss Jena in the former East Germany:

 

Zenzanon MC 80mm f2.8 Carl Zeiss

[ondebanks]

Bronica also used West German manufacturers to fill some specialist needs in their leaf-shutter medium format systems - a couple of different Carl Zeiss (Oberkochen) Variogon zooms, and a Schneider-Kreuznach PCS-Super Angulon shift lens. (Rollei had the same lenses for their 6000 series cameras).

 

But Bronica did not re-brand these lenses as Zenzanon - they were stamped with both Bronica and Zeiss/Schneider identifiers.

 

Unless Nikon silently continued to provide Bronica with lenses and agreed to have them exclusively rebaded as Zenzanons, I think it's likely that Bronica started making their own lenses for their later cameras.

 

After all, Mamiya produced all their own optics; the quality was always good, improving with each generation, and from the late 1980s on they were world-beating. Bronica users also comment how for say the 6x6 SQ cameras, the Zenzanon PS lenses released in the 1980s were a step up from the previous Zenzanon S line.

 

And if you look at what other Japanese companies might have been subcontracted to make such high-end, nichey, medium format optics - Mamiya, Fuji, Pentax, Contax - they all had their own camera lines competing with Bronica, so why would they help a competitor?

[andyfalsetta]

 

And if you look at what other Japanese companies might have been subcontracted to make such high-end, nichey, medium format optics - Mamiya, Fuji, Pentax, Contax - they all had their own camera lines competing with Bronica, so why would they help a competitor?

 

Yes you have a good point regarding the constant improvement of the lens line under Zenzanon. It might also be intriguing if Nikon had acquiesced and supplied the optics while Bronica slapped "Zenzanon" on the finished product. This might be the easiest explanation but my opinion isn't based on any science or research.

 

As to your other point, there is another side to this. (referencing my earlier comment about Canon providing all of HP's laser print engines a few posts up in this thread). I can tell you from inside the mind of the executives (not the mind of "Minolta" ;-) , its all about reducing cost of sales (by producing more volume), market share (adding other sales channels), and raising quality (more critical input obtained through your partner's input or increased end customer input). All three of these objectives can be achieved by private labeling products to competitors. It happens more than you might think. This example may be too old for some but it still is valid; Philips owned the VHS cassette patents while Sony owned the Beta format. Philips tied up 85% of the market by licensing their technology to competitors while Sony struggled to maintain 15% with Beta.

[ben_hutcherson]

At least one Zenzanon 80mm f/2.8 MC lens for the Bronica EC cameras was made by Carl Zeiss Jena in the former East Germany:

 

Zenzanon MC 80mm f2.8 Carl Zeiss

 

Admittedly my opinion has probably been soiled, but I do not have a high opinion of CZ Jenna optics.

 

I'll freely admit that my one and only experience was on a Rolleiflex Automat II with CZ Jenna Tessar and it was absolutely terrible.

 

At the same time, I've been told that these particular lenses had their front and rear group separated at the factory and ended up mismatched.

 

So, I know that one particular bad experience doesn't necessarily represent the entire company, and I've heard both great things and bad things about CZ Jenna.

 

BTW, give me a Schneider on a Rollei over a Zeiss any day. Of course, sample to sample variation exists. With that said, I've had a bunch of Tessars and Xenars on various Rollei models and I find that the Xenars tend to both be sharper and give better color rendition. Planars and Xenotars can be a different story, and I don't have as much experience with those to give a comparison.

[rodeo_joe1]

Not wishing to sidetrack this thread, but I found CZ Jena lenses to be excellent, from the 58mm f/2 Biotar fitted to my old Praktina FX, to the 50mm Flektagon, 80mm Jena Bm and 180mm Jena S Pentacon 6 lenses I used.

 

The CZ Jena Pancolar lens achieved legendary status, although I never got to own one in its heyday.

 

The only Zeiss Jena lens I was unhappy with was a Tessar fitted to a Werra 3, although the nominally "same" Tessar on a Werra 1 was quite good. Sample variation I guess.

 

BTW, when did East German Zeiss make lenses for Rollei? It's always been my understanding that Zeiss Oberkochen made Rollei's lenses after Zeiss was split by the iron curtain.

Edited May 4, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1

[ben_hutcherson]

BTW, when did East German Zeiss make lenses for Rollei? It's always been my understanding that Zeiss Oberkochen made Rollei's lenses after Zeiss was split by the iron curtain.

 

They showed up on early post-WWII Automat IIs. AFAIK, that's the only model where they were used, and it's only a 7,5 cm 3.5 Tessar. They're actually fairly uncommon-I probably should have kept mine for its collectable value, but then the lens spoiled the camera.

 

I think that in the immediate post war years, F&H was having trouble getting east German lenses in quantity for their cameras. There were actually quite a variety of lenses used on Automat IIs-all 75mm 3.5 Tessar designs. I suspect that the fiasco with those particular CZ Jenna lenses probably soured the company on using them again. Again, I think that the issue was particular to the Automat II

 

For whatever reason, I tend to gravitate to the Automat II models-probably because that was my first 'Flex and I resurrected it from the dead-but I've had quite a few of them. The CZ Jenna is the only one I've gotten rid of, and I think the price it brought(right at $100 if I remember) reflected the general reputation.

[janm]

I would love to read a history of the Japanese photo industry with an emphasis on R&D and manufacturing.

[john_cooper9]

I always thought that Bronica designed and built the PG lenses for their GS-1. I used the Bronica 6x7 GS-1 for years before going digital. I sold all my GS-1 stuff except for 3 PG lenses, the 65, 110 and 150 all F/4. The 110 macro is very sharp. I hope to eventually adapt them for use on the Fuji GSX digital MF camera. The electronically controlled Seiko shutter was always reliable. I have had mechanical Seiko's for some of my LF lenses, I think they are copies of the Compur, not unlike the Tiyoko used on my Hexar Ser 1 f:4.5 135mm, from the late 1930's.

[fwstutterheim]

I'll freely admit that my one and only experience was on a Rolleiflex Automat II with CZ Jenna Tessar and it was absolutely terrible.

 

At the same time, I've been told that these particular lenses had their front and rear group separated at the factory and ended up mismatched.

 

The Automat had a Tessar 3.5. The mismatched CZ Jena Tessars were the 2.8 not the 3.5 lenses. This is the story. The optical elements for the Tessar 2.8 were made at Carl Zeiss Jena before the war. The elements were matched and the lenses were ready for sale. They were not coated. Before WWII coating was reserved mainly for military use. During the war camera production had been reduced in favour of military products and the Tessars remained unsold. After the war the Rolleiflex factory was interested in purchasing Tessars 2.8 but wanted them coated. During the process of coating a number of elements were misplaced resulting in the mismatched Tessars 2.8. The Rolleiflex 2.8 cameras were recalled to have the optics replaced by (West-German) Opton Tessars 2.8. /Ferdi.

[fwstutterheim]

BTW, when did East German Zeiss make lenses for Rollei? It's always been my understanding that Zeiss Oberkochen made Rollei's lenses after Zeiss was split by the iron curtain.

 

Post-War Rolleiflex 3.5 serial # at Rolleigraphy with information on optics

Rolleiflex 2.8 serial numbers on Rolleigraphy.org with information on optics

 

CZJ = Jena (East)

Opton = Oberkochen (West)

CZ = Oberkochen (West)

[rodeo_joe1]

Thanks. I didn't realise F&D maintained ties with the CZ Jena factory after WWii.

 

To be honest, Rolleiflexes never interested me. I always thought the TLR was cumbersome to use and an ill-conceived design. I mean, two lenses when one would do?

[ben_hutcherson]

Thanks. I didn't realise F&D maintained ties with the CZ Jena factory after WWii.

 

To be honest, Rolleiflexes never interested me. I always thought the TLR was cumbersome to use and an ill-conceived design. I mean, two lenses when one would do?

 

Everyone has to use what they like, but if you get the chance give a TLR(preferably a Rolleiflex) a try.

 

All of my MF photography was done on one for quite a while before I bought an SLR.

 

One of the beauties of them is just how small and light they are, especially the 3.5 versions. The camera all but disappears in your hands. I hold it by "cupping" my hands around it. Even though the camerad are boxy, I still find them comfortable and ergonomic to use. The controls are all in the right place for me(or maybe it's just familiarity). My thumbs control the shutter and aperture wheels, and my left thumb focuses. My right index finger then pushes the shutter button, and I can use my right thumb to flick the advance lever forward and back although I usually use my entire hand. They are dead silent-quieter even than a Leica.

 

I have to admit that the left focus knob sometimes makes using other cameras difficult given my muscle memory from doing that. Of course, LF cameras generally have a left knob for focusing as does the RB67. On the Bronica S cameras, though, the big left knob that's in the "right" position to be a focus knob is actually the shutter speed dial.

 

BTW, although you don't have interchangeable film backs, they are incredibly easy to load vs. most of the other MF cameras I've used. Open the back, move the spool, then just pop the fresh roll in the bottom, feed the leader through the two rollers, then over the film gate and onto the take-up spool. I usually give it a half crank to make sure the leader is taking up correctly, and then just close the back. From there, you just crank until it stops. There's no lining up the arrows and dots like you have to do on other cameras, although I admit that it's generally not a huge deal. Still, compare that to SLRs(or at least all the ones I've used) where you have to pull out the insert and thread the leader around the pressure plate.

[rodeo_joe1]

"One of the beauties of them is just how small and light they are," - Not if you want interchangeable lenses. Have you ever used a Mamiyaflex? And how does sticking another camera on top of a camera make it any smaller?

 

I used a TLR way back in photo-college and hated it! I still have a 1950s Yashicamat that I inherited. It still works perfectly except for two major drawbacks: It uses film and it's a TLR!

 

How did this thread drift so far away from Zenzanon lenses BTW?

Edited May 7, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1