At 07:38 PM 9/26/04, Moose wrote:
>But you didn't tell us which one(s) were made by Oly! :-)
>
>Moose
Caveat:
This applies *only* to those lenses made while the serial numbering
convention Vivitar started in 1970 was still in use (to about 1990 or so;
this is an *important* caveat).
The manufacturers of Vivitar's lenses under this serial numbering scheme
can be identified by the first one or two digits of the serial
number. Serial numbers beginning with a "6" or "9" identify the
manufacturer with only the first digit. The rest identify the manufacturer
with the first two digits. To answer your direct question . . . under this
scheme:
6 = Olympus
This scheme gradually changed after about 1990 as ownership of Vivitar
changed hands. For more information about Vivitar's serial numbering
during that era, and a comprehensive list of manufacturer's codes, see
Stephen Gandy's CameraQuest web page on the subject:
http://www.cameraquest.com/VivLensManuf.htm
>"The original Vivitar Series I lenses were designed not by a Japanese
>company or a German optics powerhouse, but by an American company -
>Opcon Associates (of Stamford Connecticut). Surprise!
My Bad . . . you're correct about the design effort . . .
The company that ultimately became Kiron was Kino Precision. They
manufactured (some of ??; all of ??) the initial Series I lenses and did
engineering to support that. Possible exception: the initial solid CAT's
were made by Perkin Elmer . . . but I don't recall if these CAT's were part
of the original line or came later. The engineering done by Kino is
different from the design engineering done by Perkin Elmer. It's quite
important nonetheless. Designs are worthless if they cannot be
successfully fabricated and assembled. It enabled Kino being able to
evolve into Kiron, and put lenses into the marketplace under its own name.
The important point is Vivitar was not (and still isn't) a design house,
nor a manufacturer. They performed project management with outsourced
resources, and marketing to sell the products made with their name on
them. Uncertain who performed the product distribution function. I can
envision a lot of scenarios in which it would make more sense for direct
shipping from manufacturer to wholesale buyer. However, its potential to
reduce transportation cost must outweigh its risks. From a business
perspective, Vivitar reduced the in-house capital resources required, and
their tendency to become recurring fixed costs, by not performing
engineering or manufacturing themselves. They only paid for engineering
provided, or unit manufactured, as/when it was performed. This strategy is
not without risks and makes some assumptions about its cost versus how much
doing it in-house would cost. Which one is actually less expensive . . .
and strategically protects . . . or at least does not risk . . . market
share over the long term . . . is situational to the specific market. And
that can change over time.
Vivitar's strategy worked well for some time, but the risks caught up with
them as the marketplace shifted and their market share slipped
considerably. Firms that have made lenses for Vivitar are now bigger
players with their own non-OEM lenses. Vivitar is more toward the
periphery now, not with the ubiquitous retail presence and name recognition
it once enjoyed. Their web site shows only have six AF lenses . . . five
zoom and one prime. Likewise with their MF lenses (the prime is a
CAT). They seem to be doing a little better with their flash line.
-- John Lind
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|