Re: [Rollei] Why the 6-element lens for 3.5Fs

[todd <todd_belcher >]

QG,

Well, at least two of us on this list have 2.8 Zeiss-Opton Tessars on 
Rollei 2.8 A cameras that are stinkers as far as sharpness goes. I have 
a 2.8 A with Jena Tessar that is tack sharp, another 2.8 A with Jena 
Tessar that was replaced with a Zeiss-Opton Tessar that is very soft 
(early serial number on this camera denotes it should have had a Jena 
Tessar and collimator test reveals that the lens is just plain 'ol bad) 
and a late 2.8 A (MX model) with Zeiss-Opton Tessar that is very sharp. 
All cameras are in beautiful condition and have not been tampered with. 
So in my microcosm of 2.8 A cameras, I have exactly what you describe of 
the Zeiss-Opton 2.8/80 Tessar.

todd


Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
> Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:
> 
> 
>>Was the Tessar for the 'blad any good? Better than the Ektar lenses they
>>were using?
> 
> 
> I was asking the very same question on the HUG, to find out if it would
> "pay" cleaning the Zeiss-Opton Tessars, or if i would be better of using my
> Ektar.
> 
> One answer i received there so far said that there is no difference between
> the two.
> 
> In a conversation off-list i was told that the early (1951-1953)
> "Zeiss-Opton Tessars", contrary to later (post October 1953) "Zeiss
> Tessars", had very poor QC and quite inconsistent quality. They could be
> quite good. They could be quite bad.
> 
> 
> 

------------------------------