OT: lenses (Was: Front Panels - PDP8 and PDP 11
COURYHOUSE at aol.com
COURYHOUSE at aol.com
Fri Mar 11 00:05:37 CST 2016
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
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
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
> not the hi end
Incorrect. There were various, like the *Tele-Tessar*, which appeared for
(By the way, your messages usually end up in my bin. Just so you
> 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>
> > >
> > > Popular or Modern Photography 20 or 30 years ago had an article on
> > > best lens ever made. I think Zeiss made 3 of them, and they were
> > > company with more than one.
> > One of my all time favorite lenses is the Hasselblad 80mm f/2.8
> > lens made by Zeiss. Even their low-end Tessar lenses are awesome.
> Anything made for Hasselblad could hardly be called 'low-end'. (A bit
> a 'low-end' SGI, there was basically never such a thing... certainly not
> 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
> > 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
> > the edges.
> Which (affordable) lens *doesn't* have imperfect edges, especially
> completely analog lenses without any in-camera digital correction.
> can also be done afterwards, if one knows the possible distortion
> The Sony a7-series aren't exactly cheap. More affordable and rather
> too, are µ4/3 cameras, especially in conjunction with a focal reducer,
> the crop is too much of an obstruction. I gain an extra stop of light,
> 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
> 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
> > 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.
> sensor body. The crop isn't always a negative, sometimes it can change
> mediocre tele-photo prime into an excellent one.
> > Since I started shooting more than just Nikon, it’s a lot harder to
> > Nikon lenses I really like. The only AF lens I really like is the
> > 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
More information about the cctalk