Leitz Xenon 5cm f/1.5 Brief Guide - Rumors and Facts

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 7/30/2022 at 6:07 PM, UliWer said:

Please allow me another question about the Xenon:

Has anybopdy seen a Letz catalogue or list from the times when the Xenon was produced which mentions the lens? My German catologues about the lenses for the Leica from June 1935 and Januar 1938 don‘t have it, neither does the British „General Catalogue“ from August 1936 and I don‘t know any other prewar or wartime publication from Leica which mentions the Xenon. 

Edit: I found a catalogue which refers indirectly to the Xenon: "Leica Zubehör" (Leica accessories) from Mai 1940 mentions the cap for the Xenon "Orxdochrom" and several filters which have telegram words all beginning with "Xoo..". The list also has the "Xioom" hood though no leather or bakelit container of it's own, but only a soft leather bag "Exqoo".  

Leitz NY catalog of 1936 does not report Xenon, while the same catalog of 1938 lists Xenon at 162 US$ (IIIb with Xenon at 270) ; as a side note, Lager dipalys a Xenon datable 1936 which anyway does report the US TH Patent on the front ring (probably the Leitz NY 1936 catalog was "finish for print" jus a little before the Xenon official intro)

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[willeica]

31 minutes ago, luigi bertolotti said:

Leitz NY catalog of 1936 does not report Xenon, while the same catalog of 1938 lists Xenon at 162 US$ (IIIb with Xenon at 270) ; as a side note, Lager dipalys a Xenon datable 1936 which anyway does report the US TH Patent on the front ring (probably the Leitz NY 1936 catalog was "finish for print" jus a little before the Xenon official intro)

 

Likewise, the UK Leitz catalogue for 1936 does not have the Xenon. The earliest UK catalogue with the Xenon which I have is the 1938 version. The overwriting on the 1938 catalogue which I have shown above was from 1949, by which time the Xenon had been replaced by the Summarit. I have a Summarit from 1949 which shows the TTH engravings on the lens barrel. I think I posted a photo of that before.

William 

Edited August 3, 2022 by willeica

[Pyrogallol]

The Leica News and Technique edition for November December 1937 that I showed at post . #178 starts off by indicating that the Xenon was only issued a few months earlier, so the earliest catalogue it might appear in is likely to be one prepared in the autumn of 1937 and probably dated for 1938?

Edited August 3, 2022 by Pyrogallol

[derleicaman]

In reference to the Leica News & Technique of November 1937, I am surprised no one has pointed out the following sentence. "Incidentally, (the Xenon) it is entirely computed and manufactured by Leitz".

From what we know today, the lens is a Schneider design licensed to them by TTH, and most likely produced by Schneider. It was sold under the Leitz name, through Leitz.

Comments?

[Pyrogallol]

14 minutes ago, derleicaman said:

In reference to the Leica News & Technique of November 1937, I am surprised no one has pointed out the following sentence. "Incidentally, (the Xenon) it is entirely computed and manufactured by Leitz".

From what we know today, the lens is a Schneider design licensed to them by TTH, and most likely produced by Schneider. It was sold under the Leitz name, through Leitz.

Comments?

I did read that but assumed it was Leitz banging their own drum and making out it was all theirs, in their magazine, though we now know it was not that simple.

[willeica]

1 hour ago, derleicaman said:

In reference to the Leica News & Technique of November 1937, I am surprised no one has pointed out the following sentence. "Incidentally, (the Xenon) it is entirely computed and manufactured by Leitz".

From what we know today, the lens is a Schneider design licensed to them by TTH, and most likely produced by Schneider. It was sold under the Leitz name, through Leitz.

Comments?

Just a few things. Think of the date, Bill, and who was in charge in Germany back then. Computed and manufactured by Leitz was probably correct as it was an overall design that was copied, but the lens would have to have been recomputed for the Leica LTM mount. Finally, the Zeiss and Schneider etc names would have carried more clout than Leitz back then, so there was little to be gained from this. Leica did not have the same status that it has today. 

Anyway, post war the Allies cancelled all Axis patents. The TTH engraving would have been pretty meaningless post war and it was soon dropped.

William 

[Tears Everywhere]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, derleicaman said:

In reference to the Leica News & Technique of November 1937, I am surprised no one has pointed out the following sentence. "Incidentally, (the Xenon) it is entirely computed and manufactured by Leitz".

From what we know today, the lens is a Schneider design licensed to them by TTH, and most likely produced by Schneider. It was sold under the Leitz name, through Leitz.

Comments?

I believe it was true (only for the part of computing). 😊

All Leitz-Xenons also marked DRP or DRPa, which indicated they were covered by Leitz patents. But Leitz patent did not valid in US and UK at that time. That's why only Xenons sold in US and UK has TTH engraving.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Tears Everywhere

[Tears Everywhere]

32 minutes ago, willeica said:

Anyway, post war the Allies cancelled all Axis patents. The TTH engraving would have been pretty meaningless post war and it was soon dropped.

Leitz Summarit continued to mark TTH patent until 1952, a very long period. Because Summarit shares similar design to Xenon and TTH US2019985 expired in Nov. 1952. I am creating a Summarit list after Xenon. 😊

Edited August 4, 2022 by Tears Everywhere

[Counsel]

Sorry, William, you are wrong.

It is not correct that the German patents were declared invalid.  
 In the USA there was the "Office of the Alien Property Custodian", it was founded in 1917 in connection with the "Trading with the Enemy Act".  In the 1920s there were several scandals surrounding the APC regarding the exploitation of US patents with German owners that had been confiscated during World War I.  After Japan and Germany declared war on the USA in December 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt placed Executive Order 9095 in March 1942 under his direct control as an independent authority within the "Office of Emergency Management".  The Office of the Alien Property Custodian was dissolved in 1966 by President Lyndon B. Johnson by Executive Order 11281.
 The Office of the Alien Property Custodian could confiscate property in the US that belonged to nationals of enemy states.  The first confiscation order, Vesting Order No.1 of March 25, 1942, applied to the US property of I.G.  paint industry.  "Interest of IGF in certain contracts, and agreements, and in the capital stock, patents, contracts and other rights in and of Standard Catalytic Co. and Jasco Inc.; all patents and patent applications held by or in the name of Standard I.G. Co  ., Standard Catalytic Co., Jasco Inc., and W.E. Currie."  With this initial order alone, hundreds of patent applications and issued US patents were transferred to the control of the APC.
 In total, the rights to approximately 46,000 US patents and patent applications were taken over by the APC from 1942 to 1952.  German nationals owned 26,713 US patents and 2,962 US patent applications, and Japanese nationals: 1,126 US patents and 72 US patent applications (11)
 The ordinances also permitted the seizure of US patents and patent applications owned by non-Germans or Japanese but whose home country was occupied by German or Japanese troops.  This affected, for example, the Netherlands (1415 units), Poland (120) and Norwegians with 674 US patents and applications.
 Most of the US patents seized by the APC that did not belong to either Germans or Japanese were French.  7125 US patents and 731 US patent applications were forcibly assigned to the APC.  nationals belonged.
 So APC became the new patent owner, and APC then also issued licenses that required a fee. In this way, the United States appropriates all of Germany's intellectual property.  German companies could not even bring products to the American market that they had invented themselves.  A similar procedure was followed for other intellectual property rights.  As a result, Bayer initially lost its valuable Aspirin brand and later had to buy it back together with the company Bayer US, it’s former subsidiary

The Procedure  in the UK was similar

[willeica]

59 minutes ago, Tears Everywhere said:

Leitz Summarit continued to mark TTH patent until 1952, a very long period. Because Summarit shares similar design to Xenon and TTH US2019985 expired in Nov. 1952. I am creating a Summarit list after Xenon. 😊

1949-1952 for the engraved Summarit is 3 years. Long or short? 

William 

Edited August 4, 2022 by willeica

[willeica]

48 minutes ago, Counsel said:

So APC became the new patent owner, and APC then also issued licenses that required a fee. In this way, the United States appropriates all of Germany's intellectual property

Thanks for all of the detail. I don't claim to be an expert on this, but this is more or less what I was saying. There is a broader issue about why Leitz never pursued what might be perceived to be copies of its designs even before WWII. Then after WWII we had copies like the British Reid, the prologue to which involved Reid employees in fake British military uniforms and an owner who claimed a British military rank which he never had. Then with Canon and Leotax etc Leica copies in Japan, did they receive permission from the APC outfit while Japan was still Occupied Japan. That is another factor that needs to be thrown in, ie when did Occupied Japan cease to be a required marking on goods? Was this related to copyright or just a sign of a defeated country? 

This could go around in circles forever.

William 

 

[beoon]

I was recently going through the archive of the LHSA online (which is excellent) and came across this article which might be of interest for this topic?

Regards

Alan

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Edited August 6, 2022 by beoon

[willeica]

8 minutes ago, beoon said:

I was recently going through the archive of the LHSA online (which is excellent) and came across this article which might be of interest for this topic?

Regards

Alan

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Thanks. Good to see people using our Archives. This would seem to confirm that Berek designed the lens, but used features that were subject to other patents. This has always been common in the evolution of lens designs, but it is unusual to see other manufacturers being acknowledged in that way. The Xenon name deal with Schneider seems relatively straightforward. By 1949, when the Summarit appeared, the Schneider situation was no longer an issue, but in other territories the TH patent applied and the lens had to carry the TH marking until that expired. This is an evolution which took place over a number of years, which was not uncommon in the history of Leica cameras and lenses. The next stage was the evolution of the Summarit into the Summilux. I believe that one of the prototypes for the Summilux was designated as a Summarit. 
 

William 

[Pyrogallol]

I am looking at this Xenon, which doesnot have the patent inscription and is only about 200 serial numbers later than my one that has both patents inscribed. An engraving mistake?

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/134191503247?hash=item1f3e6fd78f:g:W9gAAOSw0WJi7SFv

[Matlock]

6 minutes ago, Pyrogallol said:

I am looking at this Xenon, which doesnot have the patent inscription and is only about 200 serial numbers later than my one that has both patents inscribed. An engraving mistake?

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/134191503247?hash=item1f3e6fd78f:g:W9gAAOSw0WJi7SFv

As I understand it, Leitz were only obliged to engrave the patent inscription on lenses destined for UK and USA, or have I got that wrong?

[Pyrogallol]

32 minutes ago, Matlock said:

As I understand it, Leitz were only obliged to engrave the patent inscription on lenses destined for UK and USA, or have I got that wrong?

Must be the answer. It is scaled in metres.

[Tears Everywhere]

19 minutes ago, Pyrogallol said:

Must be the answer. It is scaled in metres.

In the statistics of this topic, there is a gap for hundreds of Xenons did not have TTH engraving, from No.2891xx to 2894xx. 

[Tears Everywhere]

On 8/5/2022 at 3:05 AM, willeica said:

Thanks for all of the detail. I don't claim to be an expert on this, but this is more or less what I was saying. There is a broader issue about why Leitz never pursued what might be perceived to be copies of its designs even before WWII. Then after WWII we had copies like the British Reid, the prologue to which involved Reid employees in fake British military uniforms and an owner who claimed a British military rank which he never had. Then with Canon and Leotax etc Leica copies in Japan, did they receive permission from the APC outfit while Japan was still Occupied Japan. That is another factor that needs to be thrown in, ie when did Occupied Japan cease to be a required marking on goods? Was this related to copyright or just a sign of a defeated country? 

This could go around in circles forever.

William 

 

Most of those Leica screw mount patents were filed around 1930, they expired after WWII.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[willeica]

16 minutes ago, Tears Everywhere said:

Most of those Leica screw mount patents were filed around 1930, they expired after WWII.

So the US could not have been licensing soon to be expired Leitz patents for long and manufacturers in Japan, Britain and elsewhere could make camera copies and LTM lenses to their heart's content? Leitz/Leica could do nothing about it and was moving on to the M mount anyway.  I am aware of the patents which existed, but I have to yet to see where having patents played a major role in the development of Leica cameras or Leica copies. It could, of course, be a case of what did not happen, as opposed to what did happen. I await your final piece on the Xenon etc with interest.

William 

[Xenon 1.5]

Leitz Xenon f1.5 lens No 375858 has 2 rings and an add on camera body adapter. Anyone with knowledge or comments on this piece?