On 2/22/2011 11:47 AM, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
In articleiq6dnXcmLK1HTf_QnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@earthlink .com,
Nicholas O. wrote:
"Richard wrote
I have a prototype Angulon, its awful.

The two good samples I have had were both 'Linhoff' branded on the shutter
and were late production.

Interesting. I had a 90mm Angulon which I would characterize as just
barely acceptable -- but not truly awful like the contemporaneous 120mm
Angulon I tried around the same time. Mine too said "Linhof" on the
shutter.

I know at some point Linhof started doing very stringent re-QA on
every lens they sold. Supposedly they duplicated the entire QA
setup that Rodenstock used at the end of their production line, and
supposedly they did actually reject some lenses that had passed
manufacturer QA (though it is not clear whether this means the
manufacturer had actually tested the lenses that failed, or just a
statistically significant sample of lenses from the same run). I
wonder if this was because of spotty quality from one or more suppliers
earlier on.



I have heard this same thing but question this given the 135mm xenar I
had, that was horrid, was in a linhof shutter. Obviously some other lens
other than the original one could have been put in this shutter by
someone along the way to make it appear to be a better lens than it was.
I suppose seeing the linhof brand on a shutter could help "prove" it's a
good sample but given the age and unknown history, it's not a fact cut
in stone anymore.

Stephey