Steinheil Culminar 135mm f/4.5 for LTM

[David Silver]

I've been curious about trying alternative lenses in Leica thread mount, and I dug up this Steinheil Culminar 135mm f/4.5 in one of my lens drawers this week:



It's in excellent condition, and I'm thinking about trying it on my favorite Leica IIIg this weekend, and possibly a couple of Russian LTM cameras that came to me recently. Any opinions on this (obviously very well made) lens? I've noticed that the f/3.5 is more desirable and definitely more pricey than the f/4.5, but without any explanation. Significant performance differences? Rarity? It does appear that the f/4.5 is way more common. Just curious.

[daveinpasadena]

I can't comment about the 135mm Steinheil Culminar's, they seem pretty common on eBay though. I do know that the 85mm F2.8 was bandied about quite a bit a couple of years ago on RangeFinder Forum as being a great lens, etc. -- that drove up their prices for a while! I can't imagine any lens from Steinheil being if not outstanding, at least very good.

[David Silver]

I find the value issue for Steinheil lenses confusing. I've used a lot of Steinheils in Exakta and M42 screw mount, and they usually performed superbly. Yet, looking at eBay, my Culminar 135mm f/4.5, even in Leica thread mount, wouldn't bring a lousy $20! Well, the other way to look at it...what a bargain! I've always been far more invested and interested in mainline Leitz optics, never considered working with LTM alternatives until just recently, so this will be a neat opportunity to compare performances. To be fair, I'll switch it back and forth with a Hektor.

[daveinpasadena]

Unless they are exceedingly rare, 135mm rangefinder lenses don't command too much money in the second hand market. I think there are several reasons for this. One is that they are not currently popular since many rangefinder bodies do not have integral 135mm finders. This means an external finder is required and that can be tricky to setup correctly at such a long focal lengths. There is also a school of thought which cotends that 135mm is just too long for practical use on a rangefinder (I don't belong to that school). Also, there were a lot of 135mm rangefinder lenses made in the 50's since at that time it was the main path to telephoto capability. Remember that at that time the SLR was not common place and was relatively expensive. Finally, 135mm optical designs are simpler than shorter lenses -- less glass and less exacting tolerances than short lenses -- so they cost less to begin with.

Also, by the way, if you've been sticking mostly to Leica lenses (which are all wonderful) you've been missing a lot of the fun of using and collecting 35mm rangefinders and lenses.

[David Silver]

Oh, I understand the whole issue of the common nature and optical simplicity of 135mm lenses (uh, I do know a few things about photography...just a few ), and I'm with you about using them on rangefinder cameras (I think many photographers are too "viewfinder bound" and therefore fear the longer lens, but I've used them on Leica and Contax for years). I was speculating about Steinheil lenses in general. And I'm no rookie to using MANY different lenses from all the various manufacturers (when you own over 2000 cameras, you get yer chances...), but simply never cared to try alternatives in LTM. I was only "sticking to Leica lenses" specifically with my Leica cameras. I've used zillions of different lenses with dozens of other systems. Trust me, if I'm "missing the fun", it was more a case of having all the hot fudge sundaes and root beer floats I'd ever want, while missing a few banana splits. Leica was my professional working system, and that's why I avoided "playing" with it too much. And from a historical point of view, few people know more about Leitz than I do. Professionally things have changed for me the past year and I'm simply not doing that sort of work anymore, so I'm digging up all these LTM alternatives for the first time. I've tried them all in other systems, but it's a first for me with my Leica gear. In other words, I still have my sundaes and floats, and I'm still getting fat on them, but now I have the time to try those banana splits. Back to my musings on Steinheil...they are exceedingly affordable lenses, in any focal length, and that seems puzzling. I don't understand why their reputation doesn't command more $$$ respect. Using the 135mm as just an example, the Culminars I've used in Exakta mount were certainly superior to comparable Zeiss Triotars (which are common as dust), yet the latter goes for several times the price of the former. Just name recognition? Maybe. Many photographers who are not so fanatical as us will know the Zeiss name (or Leica, Nikon, Canon...), but will acknowledge never having heard of Steinheil (or Schacht, Schneider...). Sort of a case of the "victors writing history" perhaps? In the meantime, it's raining here again, and the forecast says more into next week, so it will be a while until I can take this beauty out for a test ride.

[nikkortorokkor]

David, while I don't have your professional or collecting experience - not even a tenth of it - I suspect you're right about Zeiss, Leitz, Nikon and Canon winning the 'hearts and minds' of a public who are totally ignorant of Steinheil, Staeble, Enna, etc. Everybody knows Carl Zeiss makes the best optics, so that Triotar HAS to be better than something I've never heard of, right?

As I've delved into the somewhat strange world of the collector, I've become fascinated by the way every brand as its devoted enthusiasts. Reading a board member's praise for the build quality of his 'new' Chinon reminded me again that there were an awful lot of good cameras made by an awful lot of manufacturers, and listening to the 'experts' repeating their 'RollieHassyLeitzZeissNikonCanon' mantra won't lead me to them.

I suspect most of the enthusiasts for 'lesser' marques didn't lust after them initially. How many of us stood drooling over a Braun or a Chinon in the camera store window? The stars in our eyes were all for the M3, F3, or maybe even the OM3Ti. We bought the Chinon because it was the sensible choice, the one we could afford and justify. And guess what? We liked it, it never let us down, and the glass was good enough to do everything we asked of it. But it was never going to impress anyone as much as if we'd had a Rollieblad or a Leikon with some big name lenses hanging around our neck, or so we thought.

[PeterW]

As you say, David, name recognition plays a large part in the price many people are willing to pay for a lens. Their somewhat wobbly logic, if they bother to think about it, runs along the lines of: “Zeiss made superb Sonnars and Planars; the Triotar was made by Zeiss so therefore it must also be a superb lens.”

With regard to Steinheil, an old and once very highly regarded optical company, most people who recognise the name associate it with the Cassar, a range of simple classic triplets. It was a pre-war design recomputed after the war to use the newer glasses then available. Financially was a very successful range of lenses for Steinheil. Thousands of them were fitted to lower price 35mm cameras designed for the popular boom in projected colour transparencies. This wasn’t a very demanding application, and the fact that the Cassar’s definition was rather iffy unless it was well stopped down wasn’t appreciated until cheap colour prints became popular. When it was, Steinheil redesigned it as the Cassarit, a much better triplet, but the damage to Steinheil’s reputation in the eyes of Mr. and Mrs. Average Photographer was already done.

It’s not really surprising that you found the Culminar out-performed the Triotar. The Triotar, as its name implies, was a triplet whereas the Culminar, with the exception of some now very rare early lenses to bear the name, was always a four-glass design. Most, including the f/4.5 135mm, used what is sometimes referred to as a Tessar layout – a single positive lens at the front, a negative lens in the middle and a cemented pair (pos/neg) at the rear, but there was at least one exception, the f/2.8 85mm Culminar. This had what is sometimes called a reversed Tessar layout with the cemented pair at the front and the single positive lens at the rear. In both cases the aperture iris went between the cemented pair and the single negative middle lens. The f/4.5 Culminar is called a “Tele-objectif” in some Steinheil catalogues, but it wasn’t a telephoto design, it was an ordinary long-focus lens.

The Culminar, Cassar, Cassarit and post-war Orthostigmat were all part of Steinheil’s “Casca” lens programme aimed at putting the company back on its feet after war damage and a workforce reduced from over 2,000 to under 800. The Culminar was in a different street from the Cassar and Cassarit, but it wasn’t one of Steiheil’s “premium“ lenses. These were the post-war "Quin" series of lenses, the Quinon, Quinar and Quinaron. These were all six-glass Gauss type lenses of excellent quality but aren’t seen very often these days. Probably seen most is the f/3.5 135 Tele-Quinar for the Exakta.

When Zeiss was brought out of the East by the Americans to be re-established in Western Germany just after the end of the war the company was all but cut off from lenses from Carl Zeiss in Jena. Until Zeiss got its new lens factory up and running there was a lot of design co-operation between Zeiss (West), Rodenstock and Steinheil, both in Munich. Both companies made early post-war lenses to Zeiss design for the Ikonta and Super Ikonta range.

An offspin of this may possibly have been the premium quality of Steinheil’s Gauss-type “Quin” lenses and Rodenstock’s Gauss-type Heligon lenses, but that’s just conjecture.

PeterW

[David Silver]

nikkortorokkor said:

I suspect most of the enthusiasts for 'lesser' marques didn't lust after them initially. How many of us stood drooling over a Braun or a Chinon in the camera store window?

Now there's a funny thing! When I was "drooling" over my first 35mm camera, as a teenager, way back in the year ~mumble, mumble~ the camera I wanted was...a Fujica Compact Deluxe! Oh, yes, I knew what a Nikon was, and my dad had a Zeiss Ikon Ikonta, and there was Canon as well (not sure if I knew what Leica was about yet), but my heart honestly sped up at the thought of buying that little Fujica fixed-lens 35mm rangefinder camera. I thought is was WONDERFUL! Saving my money from two jobs worked during the summer, I marched into the camera store right before going back to school and bought that baby. I never, ever, felt that much in love with a camera again, despite after all these years having many more than my share of Leica, Nikon, Contax, Canon, and whatever else...I did remarkable things with that simple Fujica. If I had to pick just one camera to shoot whatever I had to shoot for the rest of my life, I wouldn't hesitate, it would be my trusty little Compact Deluxe. Good gosh, that lens was sharp! Plus the rangefinder was deadly accurate and as contrasty as they come. The meter is long dead (the very first use of silicon blue cells...a landmark design!), but the shutter still fires true, and the "sunny sixteen" rule is all I need. I take my baby out of storage about twice a year and exercise it with a couple rolls of film. Well, you know the saying...they just don't make 'em like they used to.

And pardon my silly stumble down memory lane...

[David Silver]

peterw said:

The Culminar, Cassar, Cassarit and post-war Orthostigmat were all part of Steinheil’s “Casca” lens programme aimed at putting the company back on its feet after war damage and a workforce reduced from over 2,000 to under 800. The Culminar was in a different street from the Cassar and Cassarit, but it wasn’t one of Steiheil’s “premium“ lenses. These were the post-war "Quin" series of lenses, the Quinon, Quinar and Quinaron. These were all six-glass Gauss type lenses of excellent quality but aren’t seen very often these days. Probably seen most is the f/3.5 135 Tele-Quinar for the Exakta.

Nice bit of history, Peter. I never knew too much about Steinheil, and you quickly filled a few gaps for me! Regarding the Tele-Quinar, that was the 135mm f/3.5 lens I was referring to in my original post. Couldn't remember the name of the darn thing, but I knew I'd tried one in M42 mount some time ago, and was very impressed with the results. Your explanation of the more advanced formula certainly mirrors my experience. And that also explains why the f/3.5 demands at least a decent value when compared to the f/4.5's bargain basement prices. But I was also pleased with the Culminars I've used in Exakta and M42, to the degree that I'm not sure they performed any less than the Tele-Quinar. Perhaps in the fine details...yes the details. I probably never enlarged my fun photos enough to see the difference. Wait, I do recall being impressed by the Tele-Quinar's especially strong contrast. Not so much more sharpness, but better tonal definition. Ooh, now perhaps THAT is a lens I should get in LTM. In the meantime, if this darn rain will ever stop, I'll get out there with the Culminar and a fistful of other LTM alternatives I want to try. Great stuff...thanks for all that.