Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/08/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Interesting - but if Leitz knew everything about coatings, even multiple layers, in 1946 - why their coatings were so bad after WW II? And as I stated earlier, Osterloh´s position as PR chief does not increase his credibility - but he was a Leica employee, of course. But is my Summilux 35 from 1976 multicoated or not? All the best! Raimo photos at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen - -----Alkuperäinen viesti----- Lähettäjä: Erwin Puts <imxputs@knoware.nl> Vastaanottaja: L U G <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> <snip> >In a report from the Naval Research Laboratory from October 3, 1946, a >number of scientists report on the state of the coating technique in the >Zeiss and Leitz factories in wartime. They note specifically that both >companies use multiple layer coating as a technique, but because of its >costly procedure, only experimentally. It can thus be established that the >technique multilayer coating did exist at Zeiss and Leitz. >In a report of the BJP from Otober 24, 1975, also referenced in The Leica >Collectors Checklist, it is stated that Leitz used multiple layer coating in >the Summilux 1.4/35 (British Patent Literature from 1957). Reports in the >Journal of Optical Society of America in 1957 discuss the use of multilayer >coating based on progress in the leading optical firms <snip> >Given Osterloh's position his statement reflects the status-quo about the >S-C: without direct access to the company info (which is not disclosed or at >least may not be publicized) we cannot infer from the designation that the >S-C is coated , that is it therefore not multi-coated. This would be a fatal >flaw in any logical reasoning. >Erwin > >