Recognizing Novoflex Innovation

[M like Leica M6]

One of the german thinktanks in the photo gear business that is always underestimated is Novoflex - their name was not on many products they developed and produced. I just copied a small part of their company history from their website, it only shows a fraction of the products they made for others - ever wondered, why Zeiss and Leitz bellows looked like Novoflex bellows? Today, most people know them for their ballheads, bellows and other accessories, in the past every nature and sports photographer had a follow-focus lens made by Novoflex. I have no idea what this manufacturer produces today for other companies. There must be many interesting things to find out about their history.

1997
Development of shift bellows for photography and digital photography for Rollei, Braunschweig, Germany

1987
First internal focusing Rapid Focus Lens 2.8/300 with Tamron-Optik

1986
Development and production of 60-300mm Rapid Focus Zoom Lenses with Tamron-Optik

1982
Development and production of the 200mm Rapid Focus Lens

1977
Production of automatic bellows and lens heads for Pentax with Bayonet and for Leica R 3

1972
Prism viewfinder with a exposure meter for the HASSELBLAD camera made by Hasselblad, Sweden, Flash holder X-Shoe

1970
Production of automatic bellows for Rollei, Braunschweig, Germany

1968
Automatic bellows and corresponding lens head Auto-Bellows-Novoflexar 4/105 mm for NIKON, CANON, TOPCON, PENTAX ,etc.

Automatic bellows for ICAREX made by Zeiss-Ikon

1967
Development and production of the first bellows with automatic aperture functionality for the MINOLTA SR-T 101 for Minolta Camera, Japan

1966
Development and production of special bellows, bellows lens hood and lenses for BOLEX Cinema cameras made by Paillard, Switzerland

1962
Development and production of the Macro wide angle lens 1:3.5/35mm
Development and production of the automatic 105 and 135 lens heads with a double cable release for the bellows

Development and production of a prism viewfinder for HASSELBLAD made by Hasselblad, Sweden

1960
Bellows for the ALPA camera made by Pignons AG, Switzerland

1959
Bellows for EDIXA for WIRGIN-Kamerawerke

1955
Development and production of NOVOFLEX Rapid Focus Lenses

1954
Development and production of a special bellows for CONTAX with Panflex for ZEISS-IKON

Development and production of bellows for HASSELBLAD for the 1600-F
and 1000- F camera

1950
Production: Reflex camera body and corresponding lenses for LEICA and CONTAX​

I think they deserve a more important place in the hall of fame. What do you think about it?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Nah. Overpriced rubbish. Just like Leicas.

[HEAVY IRONY WARNING -- It's actually superb stuff, where the price reflects the quality. Frances and I both use Novoflex heads.)

Cheers,

R.

 

[M like Leica M6]

I have a Novoflex Miniconnect - well, more than one.

 

[Dralowid]

They make a fabulous range of lens/body adaptors and they have made in the past all sorts of rings, tubes and even Visoflex and other reflex housing accesories.

The follow focus lenses have a very good reputation.

Michael

 

[naruto]

I used a friend's Novoflex bellows on the Nikon for close-focus/macro. It compares very well with the ultra-expensive original Nikon apparatus.

 

[Ronald M]

In the late 60`s, a friend had a 400 with a squeeze to focus handle. Pretty decent lens

I have a micro focus rail from Novo that I have had around 40 years. Well made piece.

 

[Roger Hicks]

In the late 60`s, a friend had a 400 with a squeeze to focus handle. Pretty decent lens

I have a micro focus rail from Novo that I have had around 40 years. Well made piece.

Very sharp centrally, soft in the corners (ideal for wildlife and most types of sport, also for fashion).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Marc James Small]

Karl Müller Memingen. That is the firm. They first got started making reflex housings -- I own one they made before the Novoflex brand came into play. Their early reflex housings are grand and put Leitz and Zeiss Ikon in their place -- I have them for Contax and both Leica thread-mount and Leica M. This is a company I really like.

Their lenses were first made by Steinheil, until the death of the owner caused the family to walk away from the company, and Novovlex went to a different firm. The first-generation Novoflex lenses use true LTM as their mount, and the second-generation used lenses from a different German firm (details available on request, but I am too lazy at the nonce to look up the name) using the Dresden Pentacon Praktina bayonet-mount.

Later, Karl Müller briefly flirted with Tamron. I know little about this flirtation.

I love Kilfitt/Zoomar and I love Novoflex. In the end, I kept a bimcj of Killfitt reflex housings and two of its iconic lenses, the 4/300 Tele-Pan-Kilar and the 50 - 125mm zoom. I have not kept a Novoflex lens, though I did shoot a lot with the rapid-focus lenses back in the day. Great lenses.

Rpger. it is grand to find you hear. I have never acknowledged tp you the veracity of your comments on the first generation 1.4/35 Leitz Summilux -- that it worked at f/1.4 when the f/2 Summicron just would not open that far. True, true, true.

Thanks for your comments, guys!

Marc

 

[M like Leica M6]

Time to show off:

A Novoflex follow-focus lens from the early 60s with the classical single-grip body, built-in bellows and a 280mm f/5.6 head. I just made some shots on a Canon 5D Mark2 and compared with a Canon EF f2.8/70-200 IS with a 1.4x extender. The Novoflex wins hands down (more contrast, sharper). The 'shoulder tripod' is Novoflex's 'stabilizer'

 

[Roger Hicks]

I love Kilfitt/Zoomar and I love Novoflex. In the end, I kept a bimcj of Killfitt reflex housings and two of its iconic lenses, the 4/300 Tele-Pan-Kilar and the 50 - 125mm zoom. I have not kept a Novoflex lens, though I did shoot a lot with the rapid-focus lenses back in the day. Great lenses.

Marc

Dear Marc,

Good to find you here too. I really envy you the 4/300. Isn't it a Pan-Tele-Kilar, though? I borrowed one from a friend, who always calls it the Pantie-Killer. Incredible lens, with the dual-action focusing mount. EDIT: I just found my Shutterbug review of it: http://www.shutterbug.net/equipmentreviews/classic_historical/0703sb_classic/

Novoflex is always one of our favourite stands at photokina, even if some of the stuff they make is inexplicable, such as the four-legged 'tripod'. Will you be at photokina?

Cheers,

R.

 

[rxmd]

A Novoflex follow-focus lens from the early 60s with the classical single-grip body, built-in bellows and a 280mm f/5.6 head. I just made some shots on a Canon 5D Mark2 and compared with a Canon EF f2.8/70-200 IS with a 1.4x extender. The Novoflex wins hands down (more contrast, sharper).

Well, if you don't mind stopdown operation. You're back in the 50s comfort wise. If your idea of comfort is an Exakta, I guess it's fine, otherwise it's a bit clunky. Want to use shutter speed priority automation? (Er, what's that?) Want to stop down to f/11? (Why is my viewfinder going dark?)

(And that's not to mention some other advantages of the newer lens, such as image stabilization, or that the subject doesn't have to be in the center to be sharp, or the fact that you can shoot it at 70mm, too )

 

[M like Leica M6]

There is also a difference in the price tag: the cheapest 400mm "IS" prime made by Canon, the 400mm f/4.0, IS DO, costs $5,700. A used 400mm Noflexar costs $200-500. An old-fashioned telephoto lens in the hand delivers much sharper images than two in Canon's catalog.

And, of course, even a Leica M9 has no stabilizer, no autofocus, no shutter priority, multimode multi-something metering and no built-in device to support the photographer with a blended vegan decaf grande double-shot hazelnut syrup Mocha Frappucino© with onion toppings - how could people ever take photos with a shabby Leica? And there are even people that use a sensor with a maximum capacity of 36 shots only...

 

[rxmd]

There is also a difference in the price tag: the cheapest 400mm "IS" prime made by Canon, the 400mm f/4.0, IS DO, costs $5,700. A used 400mm Noflexar costs $200-500. An old-fashioned telephoto lens in the hand delivers much sharper images than two in Canon's catalog.

Well, I'm not sure if one really needs to point out that 50-years-old used equipment is cheaper than new equipment, moreover if in the next sentence one talks about the virtues of M9s.

That said, it would be nice if you could post a few of those sample shots that you made, to illustrate that the Novoflexes are much sharper than the two other modern lenses you mentioned; it would be interesting to see how the sharpness is distributed. Best would be a series with a few center and off-center subjects. Center sharpness is relatively easy with an achromat like the Noflexar head; it's chromatic aberration and sharpness across the field that are more difficult to control. Would be interesting to have it illustrated how they actually compare.

And, of course, even a Leica M9 has no stabilizer, no autofocus, no shutter priority, multimode multi-something metering and no built-in device to support the photographer with a blended vegan decaf grande double-shot hazelnut syrup Mocha Frappucino© with onion toppings - how could people ever take photos with a shabby Leica?

Is there something that you're trying to tell me? :angel:

The Novoflex rapid-focus lenses are nice if you want a really cheap and halfway decent manual-focus long lens, and they were a neat idea for sports and wildlife for the time, but that's about it. Kinda like a FED-5 (or rather the well-made equivalent of one): it's cheap, and you can shoot with it, and under the right conditions some aspects of your images may be as good or slightly better, but all in all, not really comparable. Here, in your comparison between a Noflexar and a modern IS zoom, we don't even need to get into discussing autofocus or uniform sharpness across the field. Already not having a dark viewfinder when shooting stopped down is nice, comparing zooms vs. non-zooms always leaves out a major usability aspect, and optical image stabilization is probably the most powerful innovation in lens design to hit the market over the last decade. Together with a lens that is already a stop faster you get an extra 2-3 stops of speed... even on film So you actually get something for that extra money.

 

[M like Leica M6]

Well, I'm not sure if one really needs to point out that 50-years-old used equipment is cheaper than new equipment, moreover if in the next sentence one talks about the virtues of M9s.

Funny, isn't it? Many concepts of the beloved Leica M are from the same era. Even an M7 or MP are somewhat old concepts, an M9 is an idea from the 50s with a sensor

That said, it would be nice if you could post a few of those sample shots that you made, to illustrate that the Novoflexes are much sharper than the two other modern lenses you mentioned; it would be interesting to see how the sharpness is distributed. Best would be a series with a few center and off-center subjects. Center sharpness is relatively easy with an achromat like the Noflexar head; it's chromatic aberration and sharpness across the field that are more difficult to control. Would be interesting to have it illustrated how they actually compare.

I can compare with a 2.8/70-200 L IS USM version I, that was the comparison I described. But I do not own a Canon 4/400, a friend has a good 4/300 that might help with the comparison, they are both well-known for very high image quality. As I only have full-frame cameras we should be able to judge the quality in the corners. Of course, for a typical DSLR user with a 1.3 to 1.6 crop camera that would not be important.

Is there something that you're trying to tell me? :angel:

Not really, I am just kiddin'. Woody Allen bears the blame. I saw this today and laugh all day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmnLRVWgnXU

The Novoflex rapid-focus lenses are nice if you want a really cheap and halfway decent manual-focus long lens, and they were a neat idea for sports and wildlife for the time, but that's about it. Kinda like a FED-5 (or rather the well-made equivalent of one): it's cheap, and you can shoot with it, and under the right conditions some aspects of your images may be as good or slightly better, but all in all, not really comparable. Here, in your comparison between a Noflexar and a modern IS zoom, we don't even need to get into discussing autofocus or uniform sharpness across the field. Already not having a dark viewfinder when shooting stopped down is nice, comparing zooms vs. non-zooms always leaves out a major usability aspect, and optical image stabilization is probably the most powerful innovation in lens design to hit the market over the last decade. Together with a lens that is already a stop faster you get an extra 2-3 stops of speed... even on film So you actually get something for that extra money.

Sure. If you can afford it. I know many professional photographers and people working in photo agencies. Ask them about their business and they start crying, it's a shame that it has become almost impossible to earn a living as a photographer. 20 years ago, I was a full-time PJ, it was a tough job, money was always tight. Today it's much worse - and all that wonderful new gear is just too expensive for them.

Today I use my old Novoflex lenses for landscapes and other nice motifs, I never was a sports or wildlife photographer. For street photography I use my old M6, good enough for me

 

[Roger Hicks]

Sure. If you can afford it. I know many professional photographers and people working in photo agencies. Ask them about their business and they start crying, it's a shame that it has become almost impossible to earn a living as a photographer. 20 years ago, I was a full-time PJ, it was a tough job, money was always tight. Today it's much worse - and all that wonderful new gear is just too expensive for them.

Today I use my old Novoflex lenses for landscapes and other nice motifs, I never was a sports or wildlife photographer. For street photography I use my old M6, good enough for me

Great quote from many years ago:

A keen amateur asked a leading sports photographer (sorry, forgotten who)why he was using a 400 instead of a 560.

"Ah," he says, "The 400 has one great advantage over the 560."

The amateur waited with bated breath to learn this professional inside tip. The professional went on, "I own the 400."

A friend of mine who still makes a living in Fleet Street, and who won the majority of his press awards with Leicas, reckons that a modern pro DSLR outfit is more expensive than an M outft, and gives him no better pictures. He always said, "When a full-frame digital M comes out, I'll be one of the first to buy." And he was.

He also added that the other electronics -- computer, software, satellite phone (and fees) -- are what make modern newspaper photography REALLY expensive.

Cheers,

R.

 

[M like Leica M6]

Great quote from many years ago:

A keen amateur asked a leading sports photographer (sorry, forgotten who)why he was using a 400 instead of a 560.

"Ah," he says, "The 400 has one great advantage over the 560."

The amateur waited with bated breath to learn this professional inside tip. The professional went on, "I own the 400."

When I started at a newspaper I was 20 years old. The first things I learned were engraved in the remainings of my brain as memorable quotes:

"We can't print excuses." (Heard once a day in the photo department)

"Forget the photos of .... (a staff photog) when he comes in, I have better ones" - "How can you already say they are better?" - "They are better because they are here."

"When you have a chance, shoot, don't think."

A friend of mine who still makes a living in Fleet Street, ...

There are two ways of making money in Fleet Street in 2010...

...and who won the majority of his press awards with Leicas, reckons that a modern pro DSLR outfit is more expensive than an M outft, and gives him no better pictures. He always said, "When a full-frame digital M comes out, I'll be one of the first to buy." And he was.

He also added that the other electronics -- computer, software, satellite phone (and fees) -- are what make modern newspaper photography REALLY expensive.

Cheers,

R.

That is absolutely right. I remember the days when a Nikon FM was an affordable full-format camera and came with a sharp, solid 1.8/50mm lens. I owned a 4.5/80-200, a 2.5/105, 2.8/24 (all purchased used), an old Metz strobe - and that was enough. Later I bought a used M6 (that I still own) and three lenses and I was happy as a child. Today, a good PJ equipment costs more than I ever spent for equipment in all these years.

Other things that were better in the good ol' days:

- You had no computer (!!!)
- Your phone did not need a battery nor did it crash like a computer.
- In your camera bag you had cameras, lenses and film and not batteries, batteries, batteries and battery chargers.
- Nobody stole your photos from your website (ask photographers about that today), they all need a service like www.imagerights.com to find all the stolen photos.
- You did not have to clean a sensor. There was no dust in your camera because all the dust in the world was in enlargers between your film and your paper.
- Nobody expected that you show every photo right after exposure to everyone who was in front of the camera unless your camera was a Polaroid.
- Nobody expected that you make him thinner using Photoshop. It was politically correct to ask your model to BE thinner, and you were not sued if you asked her for a date.
- Most people did not expect that you give them your photos for free, and they wanted them on paper.
- You could take photos at an airport, in front of a bank or in a mall without a rent-a-cop throwing himself between your camera and the state secrets in the shop-window, afterwards calling a S.W.A.T team to imprison you in Guantanamo for taking photos of a coffee set.

 

[Marc James Small]

Roger

Yes, it is a 4/300 Kilfitt Pan-Tele-Kilar. A really superb lens.

I doubt if I will be able to make Photokina this year. I travel as little as I can, and my wife is insisting that we visit her daughter in Maine, which is much more difficult to access from Richmond, Virginia, than is Cologne! <he grins>

Marc

 

[Ajax]

Karl Müller Memingen. That is the firm. They first got started making reflex housings -- I own one they made before the Novoflex brand came into play. Their early reflex housings are grand and put Leitz and Zeiss Ikon in their place -- I have them for Contax and both Leica thread-mount and Leica M. This is a company I really like.

Their lenses were first made by Steinheil, until the death of the owner caused the family to walk away from the company, and Novovlex went to a different firm. The first-generation Novoflex lenses use true LTM as their mount, and the second-generation used lenses from a different German firm (details available on request, but I am too lazy at the nonce to look up the name) using the Dresden Pentacon Praktina bayonet-mount.

*****

The Different firm Marc, was a little known subsidiary of Agfa located somewhere in southern Germany who made glass for the graphics industry. I have all the documentation somewhere supplied by Novoflex when researching my Leica-M Compendium. Oddly, when I faxed Agfa at the time, they denied all knowldege.

In the past few years, I seem to have done nothing much apart from test and review different bits of glass for the BJP. A few months ago, I hooked out my own nearly 40 year old doublet Novoflex and whacked off a few frames on a D2X. It was like meeting an old friend one didn't really know you had missed. Trouble was, the old Mount was goosed by years of abuse (salt water) so I impulsively acquired a new (1983 25th Anniversary ed) with the triplet head. The glass is good but surprisingly not that much of an improvement on the doublet and its balance, (extra front end weight) ain't the same, nor the ergonomics. Never understood why Novoflex went down that 'stand up straight' road for the grips when they already had a system that just felt like a second hand.

The squeeze focus Tamron 300 f/2.8 version was never so hot and worse with the doubler. while working for the Ap in Australia in the 80's, they gave me one to use. Could never get anything really sharp compared with the Novoflex which I used every day from a wind-up helicopter in either 400 or 600 (f/8!) mode for over 4 months. It was the 600 that got me the Kodachrome Cup award that year. Yes, pin sharp in the centre, nicely and immpressionisticly blurred at the edges! There were guys out there with all the latest N and C kit and they hardly ever got anything sharp (focus probs.) But Phil Uhl (Hawaii) was already showing the way with Minolta's new AF heavyweights. AF definately increased the rate of sharp frame captures, though not necessarily with the same rate of 'picture' success.

Oh, and one other thing. All that Novoflex stuff that used to cost hundreds (and in some cases thousands) of $ is still out there on the net at a fraction of today's prices for new stuff. All seems such a waste :bang:when what we can see in a picture is governed entirely by individual eyeball acuity and not the size or number of elements in a lump of lens. Feininger's 5X4 images of Stockholm and New York made 80 - 60 years ago with flea market acquired glass still stand the test of time :angel:.

saludos!

Jonathan

www.ajaxcameraclassics.blogspot.com
www.ajaxnetphoto.com

 

[presspass]

On a side issue, where do you find used Novoflex follow focus lenses? I have been looking for one for several years. Thanks,

 

[Matus]

I had the Novoflex Magic Ball head (middle size) and while it was very well done, I did not like the way the handle had the tendency to get unscrewed (as well as the friction setting part). Also the way the camera screw (with the big wheel) is designed it was not possible to attach a camera in a truly secure way (Turning my DSLR with 100/2.8 macro lens on side never worked) - I guess the things improve once some kind of quick-release system is used. But then the price really explodes and I would just go for Kirk or RRS ball head instead (I did not - I am a happy PhotoClam user ).

Also - to orient the camera in vertical position one had to have the handle sticking in the face (or completely away from user).

So, yes - well done, but this particular product I did not find very practical.

Still - I have several of their thick blue lens wraps and they are trull great - one even serves as a pouch for 5 4x5" film holders.