OT: lenses (Was: Front Panels - PDP8 and PDP 11
healyzh at aracnet.com
Fri Mar 11 01:01:16 CST 2016
> On Mar 10, 2016, at 10:05 PM, COURYHOUSE at aol.com wrote:
> 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.
I think it’s based on the Tessar, but is something different from what’s in the Hasselblad manual. The cross-section is definitely different. There are apparently at least two Tele-Tessar designs, with different numbers of elements.
> 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.
I’ve not been able to justify the cost of a Planar Rolleiflex, though I’d really love one with a nice f/2.8 Planar lens. Both of mine have the 75mm f/3.5 Tessar. The older of my two is from 1936, the newer from about 1958. For me the Rollei is more of a small lightweight travel camera, or shooting for fun, than a serious camera. Sort of a “getting back to my roots” sort of thing, as I started with a Yashica 44LM TLR.
What I really need to do is spend the money and get my Hasselblad’s 80mm f/2.8 Planar C CLA’d, as the shutter on it isn’t accurate (or fast) at any speed. :-( It’s my "serious work" Medium Format camera.
More information about the cctalk