OT: lenses (Was: Front Panels - PDP8 and PDP 11

[COURYHOUSE at aol.com]

I  wonder if the tele tessar was a true  tessar   design  or  just a  use 
of  'the name' ? I have seen   snipits in google referring to it being a true 
telephoto...  with a true  tessar formula  lens  IS NOT.
 
ok  the  norm   for the hassleblad was a80 mm  f  2.8 planar...
 
in the rolliflex   the tessar was the entry level lens... the  planar  the  
upgrade.
 
my  first  'real' camera was a 1933 rolliflex  with a   f3.5 tessar.   not 
bad  at  all  but a little soft  wide open.
I still have  this  camera. and the low  shutter   speeds are a little  
slow  but OTW   rest is   fine..
In  HD  I  bought an argus  c3   from my  geometry teacher  for   $8   and 
used it a lot   more  shots  per  roll and  would operate  eye level  and 
had a  pretty  good  split image rangefinder.. the   lens  was  decent too.
 
when I  went in USAF  sold   the  C#  to  my  brother but  kept the 
rolliflex  (  wish I had   saved both! as  the argus  shot  some of  my   first  
press  work)  adn  when in USAF   got a  SLR. 
 
messages in the bin?   then  add  my address to  your  contact list?! the 
address
 
 
In a message dated 3/10/2016 8:31:43 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,  
mgariboldi at gmail.com writes:

2016-03-11 4:25 GMT+01:00 <COURYHOUSE at aol.com>:

>  Hasselblad  did not use  tessar.  tesar was  a   good  lens  but 
certainly
> not the hi end
>  ed#
>

Incorrect.  There were various, like the  *Tele-Tessar*, which appeared for
Hasselblad.

(By the way, your  messages usually end up in my   bin.  Just so  you
know...)

- MG



> In a message dated 3/10/2016  8:01:07 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
> mgariboldi at gmail.com  writes:
>
> 2016-03-10 16:59 GMT+01:00 Zane Healy   <healyzh at aracnet.com>:
>
> >
> > > On Mar 9,  2016, at 11:37  PM, Paul Anderson <useddec at gmail.com>  
wrote:
> > >
> > >  Popular or Modern Photography  20 or 30 years ago had an article on 
the
>  10
> > >  best lens ever made. I think Zeiss made 3 of them, and they  were  
the
> only
> > > company with more than one.
>  >
> > One of  my all time favorite lenses is the Hasselblad  80mm f/2.8 
Planar C
> > lens  made by Zeiss.  Even their  low-end Tessar lenses are  awesome.
> >
>
> Anything  made for Hasselblad could hardly be called  'low-end'.  (A  bit
> like
> a 'low-end' SGI, there was basically never  such  a thing... certainly not
> in
> terms of original  cost.)
>
> The only  truly low-end Carl Zeiss optics are  probably the *Pentacon*
> series, made by  the post-WW II Carl  Zeiss Jena branch of the GDR.
>
>
> Take a look at  the  Sony a7 series of bodies, people are using RTS lenses
> on
>  >  them.  You can put almost anything on them, and they’re a  full  frame
> > sensor.  I know that the wider lenses might  have some  fringing issues 
at
> > the  edges.
>
>
> Which (affordable) lens  *doesn't* have  imperfect edges, especially
> completely analog lenses without  any  in-camera digital correction.  
(This
> can also be done  afterwards,  if one knows the possible distortion  
values.)
>
> The Sony a7-series aren't  exactly cheap.   More affordable and rather 
good,
> too, are µ4/3  cameras,  especially in conjunction with a focal reducer, 
if
> the crop is  too  much of an obstruction.  I gain an extra stop of light, 
 on
> top of  reducing the crop, with my M42/Praktica thread mount  lenses.   My
> thorium-coated Asahi Pentax Super-Takumar  1.4/50's maximum diaphragm  is
> effectively widened to an  impressive ƒ/1.  On top of that I have  in-body
> image  stabilization, good high ISO handling and other features, all  at  
the
> fraction of the cost.  On top of that, I can exchange my  lenses  with my
> dedicated µ4/3 Super 16 digital film  camera.
>
>
>
> >  I’ve started looking  seriously at the a7 series, as it would allow me
> to
> > use a  lot of lenses I have, that I can currently only use on 35mm  film
>  > bodies.
> >
>
> Nothing prevents you from using a  full  frame lens on a smaller (e.g.
> APS-C)
> sensor  body.  The crop isn't  always a negative, sometimes it can change 
 a
> mediocre tele-photo prime into  an excellent  one.
>
>
>
> > Since I started shooting more than  just  Nikon, it’s a lot harder to 
find
> > Nikon lenses I really  like.  The  only AF lens I really like is the
> Nikkor
>  > 50mm f/1.4G, at f/5.6 it can  compete with my 50mm  Summicron.
> >
>
> At ƒ/5.6 only?  Well,   that's rough...
>
> -  MG
>