[Leica] Duncan and Mydans and Nikkor Lenses

[Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net>]

A friend suggested I review Duncan's comments in THIS IS WAR, and,
amazingly, I listened and did so.

Duncan states, quite clearly,  of the Nikon lens offerings that "their
three standard lenses for 35mm cameras were far superior, in our opinions,
to any standard 35mm lenses available on the open market -- British,
American, or German".  I might quibble with "far superior", but not by much.

Duncan says that he and Bristol found this out "prior to the outbreak of
the Korean War".  He doesn't date this exactly, but we can presume he meant
a brief window prior to June, 1950.  And remember those words:  "standard
35mm lenses" and "available on the open market".  Duncan was speaking of
the sort of 50mm lens which could be had from the average photo store.

In early 1950, there were simply no Zeiss lenses for 35mm cameras
"available" on the market.  None.  The Jena lenses were barely "available",
in quite limited numbers, though only through Zeiss USA, and that over the
stringent objections of the Zeiss Foundation;  in any event, the normal
lenses were designs twenty years old at the time Duncan writes of.  There
were no Oberkochen 35mm lenses of any sort available at this time:  regular
production of the improved 1.5/5cm Sonnar does not commence for another
year.  I am fairly certain no British 50mm lenses were then in production,
and Kodak was no longer manufacturing the fine Ektar lens line.  Hence, the
competition could only be with Leitz' designs.

I have no doubt the Nikkor lenses were superior to the Leitz lenses of the
era.  If Duncan did a comparison of Prewar, and probably uncoated Zeiss
lenses, against new, coated, Nikon lenses, the test was not a fair one.  If
he compared a new Nikon lens with, say, a battered and worn,
fifteen-year-old Jena Sonnar, the test would depend on whether the Zeiss
lens had been checked over for alignment and cleanliness.  Duncan speaks
not of this, so we can only presume he took his own lenses out of his bag
and used those for the comparison.

No authority of any standing would suggest even a Summitar can perform as
cheerfully well as could a 2/5cm Sonnar, and the Summar is way off in left
field, somewhere.  Duncan mentions the 1.5/50 Nikkor, 2/85 Nikkor, and
3.5/135 Nikkor.  Now, if the comparison was like to like, that means a
Nikkor versus a Summarit, and the honours would clearly go to the Nikkor,
as it is a clone of the much superior (pace, Erwin!) Sonnar.  Leitz did not
make a 2/85 of any sort, though it did produce the rather soft 1.5/8.5cm
Summarex and the 4/9cm Elmar:  here, again, the Zeiss design for their
2/8.5 Sonnar would clearly win in almost any optical terms.  And the
4.5/13.5 Hektor, fine as it may be, and I have used and loved every one I
have owned, cannot hold a candle to the 4/13.5cm Sonnar on which the Nikon
3.5/135 is based.

So, the test was either Zeiss Prewar and uncoated and professionally
battered lens versus new Nikkor lens, or it was new Leitz versus new Nikkor
and, in that regard, given the Zeiss heritage of the Nikkor lenses, I would
suspect Duncan evaluated them properly, though, again, over-stating his
case quite a bit, as Dr Bauer was to advise Pop in 1951, but in terms of
spluttering German insistence on fair tests.

To my knowledge, Duncan never tested any British or American lenses against
the Nikkors, though he says the Nikkors are superior.  I would like to know
the basis of his statement.

I am continuing my efforts to get Mydans and Duncan to confirm this
analysis.  As it stands now, Duncan's statements, and the interesting
article by Arthur Goldsmith ("How the West Was Won".  Popular Photography,
March, 1991, pp 34 et sequentes), do not provide the precise exemplars in
the Bristol & Duncan shoot-off, but I suspect his basic statement -- that,
of "normal lenses" available in early 1950, the Nikkor lenses were superior
- -- was correct.  Zeiss was simply not in the running at that time.  (Carl
Mydans was sent to cover the Korean War.  In transit, he lost his camera
gear.  When he arrived in Tokyo, the ONLY lenses he could find AT ANY PRICE
were the Nikkor bunch, so he converted, making a virtue of necessity.
Hence, Nikkor lenses were, at least in Tokyo in 1950 ALL that was
available!  Duncan seems to misinterpret what caused Mydans to use Nikkor
lenses.)

And Duncan concedes that this analysis ONLY held for the 50mm to 135mm
range -- in other focal lengths, he specifically states that "we thought
the German lenses to be still superior".

Duncan also discusses the distaste stateside editors had for 35mm cameras
in this piece, incidentally.

Marc

msmall@roanoke.infi.net  FAX:  +540/343-7315
Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!