OT: lenses (Was: Front Panels - PDP8 and PDP 11
roland.schregle at gmail.com
Fri Mar 11 17:06:12 CST 2016
On 11/03/2016, at 8:01 AM, Zane Healy <healyzh at aracnet.com> wrote:
>> 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.
There's always the Schneider Xenotar as alternative to the Planar; got one on my 2.8C. The performance is pretty much identical for a fraction of the price. Of course it doesn't have the same prestige. There's been endless discussions about the relative merits of these two lens, but for all intents and purposes, they are absolutely on par. They're for users, not collectors.
Have the Tessar on a 3.5B (aka MX-EVS). Excellent expect when wide open as mentioned here, though I wouldn't call it entry level. I think Zeiss made an earlier, sub-standard lens (Biotar ?) for Rollei before they could deliver 75mm Tessars.
Also have Distagon wide angles for my SL35 (Rollei's 1st foray into 35mm SLRs), including a clunky f/1.4 35mm and an f/2.8 25mm. These are superb lens; even the ones made under license by Rollei Singapore are pretty good. The Zeiss ones are more solidly built tho. Of course I also have the Planar as standard lens for the SL35, plus a 200mm TeleTessar. The latter is fairly unimpressive unless really stopped down.
Somebody mentioned the Zeiss ZM line for Leica. Have the f/2.8 35mm Biogon and the f/2 50mm Planar for my M3 and M2. These perform very close to the original Leitz glass, but are at least affordable for mere mortals. Having said that, I find the colour rendition of these lens over the top; way too saturated compared to the earlier Zeiss lens (note that these are actually made by Cosina in Japan).
"END OF LINE" [MCP, 1982]
More information about the cctalk