I have read on a number of occasions that the various Pantar lenses made for both the cheaper Contaflex models as well as certain Continas that could accept alternative focal lengths, were made for Zeiss by Rodenstock. I can't speak to the veracity of this but it is an assertion that might be found from a range of sources, FYI.
On the same topic I have also read, I'm sure, that after the merger of Zeiss Ikon and Voigtlander to form ZI/V certain lenses, Eg some for the Icarex SLRs, were produced by Voigtlander but marked as Carl Zeiss. Eg the Zeiss 50mm Tessar which as I understand it is really a Voigtlander Skopar (same design of course, two single elements plus a cemented doublet closest the film). But ZI and Voigtlander were the same company by then, anyway, so it's really a difference that isn't much of a difference.
Cheers,
Brett
radi(c)al_cam
Well-known
I've read that regarding the Nettar II 518/16, e.g.: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Nettar#Nettar_II_518.2F16
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
The Rodenstock distributed camera lens production in later years was up-market of Zeiss Ikon - after the fifties, they only distributed large format, process and aerial/military lenses. In small and medium format, they supplied Kodak, Edixa, Polaroid and some more - but all I am aware of are Rodenstock branded, so they weren't really a OEM (where the customer would apply his own brand).
Rodenstock would have had the capacity to act as a Zeiss OEM, and did deal with them (Rodenstock was a large Schott optical glass customer). However, I have never seen solid arguments (like a contemporary document) for Rodenstock OEM lenses on Zeiss Ikon cameras - the reason usually given is that early on there was a Rodenstock BRANDED lens on one odd Zeiss Ikon camera earlier on. But as I said, that will have had political reasons, it was the last Dresden made body distributed by Stuttgart after Zeiss fell apart - and Rodenstock even branded a Zeiss design in that case (which makes it very special, and no OEM deal).
As Zeiss was the power centre in the West German optics industry, and notorious for integrating everything under their own corporate umbrella, down to manufacturing screws and casting glass, I think is outside their corporate structure and psychology that they should have outsourced lens productions for capacity reasons during the decline period of the German camera industry. If any, it might have been strategically driven support for one of their struggling optical glass customers (perhaps with the intention to embrace and take over, as they often had done throughout the 1920s, or maybe only as a stop-gap measure against declining demand for glass types used in camera lenses). If so, it might be difficult to find hard evidence for that - any demonstrative expansion of Zeiss would not have been popular and might have prompted the competition to protest against anti-trust law violations, so they'd have been discreet about it.
Rodenstock would have had the capacity to act as a Zeiss OEM, and did deal with them (Rodenstock was a large Schott optical glass customer). However, I have never seen solid arguments (like a contemporary document) for Rodenstock OEM lenses on Zeiss Ikon cameras - the reason usually given is that early on there was a Rodenstock BRANDED lens on one odd Zeiss Ikon camera earlier on. But as I said, that will have had political reasons, it was the last Dresden made body distributed by Stuttgart after Zeiss fell apart - and Rodenstock even branded a Zeiss design in that case (which makes it very special, and no OEM deal).
As Zeiss was the power centre in the West German optics industry, and notorious for integrating everything under their own corporate umbrella, down to manufacturing screws and casting glass, I think is outside their corporate structure and psychology that they should have outsourced lens productions for capacity reasons during the decline period of the German camera industry. If any, it might have been strategically driven support for one of their struggling optical glass customers (perhaps with the intention to embrace and take over, as they often had done throughout the 1920s, or maybe only as a stop-gap measure against declining demand for glass types used in camera lenses). If so, it might be difficult to find hard evidence for that - any demonstrative expansion of Zeiss would not have been popular and might have prompted the competition to protest against anti-trust law violations, so they'd have been discreet about it.
radi(c)al_cam
Well-known
Or, the strategy was exactly the other way round … Here I find something intriguing, but no sources are given, unfortunately:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roden...C3.BCstungsproduktion_.281920.E2.80.931953.29
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
"Their own camera production" is debatable, they probably were rebranding (or at the very best modifying) rather than producing. The Rodenstock folders I have owned were made by Franka or Welta, even the Clarovid (one of the more original Rodenstocks) quite obviously was a Welta Perle with a Rodenstock rangefinder rather crudely bolted on. Rodenstock attempted to establish their own distribution and brand of mass-production folders for a fairly brief period, from 1930-1936 - but being both the lens supplier and a competitor of their own camera body suppliers at once obviously was too fragile to carry through.