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

Roland Schregle 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  
>> 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.
> 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 mailing list