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

[Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh >]

Peter

Yes, but remember that the old 1600 H'blads don't work any more.

You would have to put the lens on a recent focal plane H'blad, as the
Ektars did not have a shutter.

Jerry

"Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" wrote:

> SO it would be a good to find an old 'blad with Ektar then?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerry Lehrer [mailto:jerryleh  ]
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 3:35 PM
> To: rollei  us
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Why the 6-element lens for 3.5Fs
>
> Peter
>
> No comparison. BTW, the Ektar was a 5 element Heliar design
> contrary to what Nordin says.  A friend of mine had Oscar Heinemann
> replace the stinking 2.8 Tessar in his Rolleiflex 2.8A with the Ektar
> in 1951.
>
> Jerry
>
> "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" wrote:
>
> > Jerry,
> >
> > I klnow your affection for the Ektars, but were the Kodak Ektar on teh
> 'blad that good? Better than the Zeiss?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jerry Lehrer [mailto:jerryleh  ]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 3:06 PM
> > To: rollei  us
> > Subject: Re: [Rollei] Why the 6-element lens for 3.5Fs
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > According to Nordin, the Tessars were supplied to the non-US
> > market.  We were blessed with the superb Kodak Ektar lens.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> > "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" wrote:
> >
> > > Was the Tessar for the 'blad any good? Better than the Ektar lenses
> they
> > > were using?
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: todd [mailto:todd_belcher  ]
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 2:22 PM
> > > To: rollei  us
> > > Subject: Re: [Rollei] Why the 6-element lens for 3.5Fs
> > >
> > > Richard, I think QG has the 2.8 Tessar in an early Hasselblad mount
> and
> > > does not mean the 2.8 Tessar as found in the Rollei TLR.
> > >
> > > todd
> > >
> > > Richard Knoppow wrote:
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Q.G. de Bakker" <qnu  
> > > > To: <rollei  
> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 12:29 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Rollei] Why the 6-element lens for 3.5Fs
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Nick Roberts wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>As an aside, has anybody ever tried the 2.8 Opton
> > > >>>Tessar?
> > > >>
> > > >>I would love to be able to say how good/bad Zeiss-Opton
> > > >
> > > > 2.8 80 mm Tessars
> > > >
> > > >>are.
> > > >>
> > > >>But, alas, i haven't tested the ones i have yet, since
> > > >
> > > > they need cleaning
> > > >
> > > >>very badly. No point testing a dirty lens.
> > > >>I have asked the Hasselblad Users brethren (mine are in
> > > >
> > > > "ancient" Hasselblad
> > > >
> > > >>mount) if anyone knows how to get to the rear lens group,
> > > >
> > > > but so far no
> > > >
> > > >>answer.
> > > >>So maybe there is someone on this list who can tell me how
> > > >
> > > > to disassemble
> > > >
> > > >>these lenses (in such a way that they can be reassembled
> > > >
> > > > again)? Or knows of
> > > >
> > > >>any resources available anywhere that might help?
> > > >>I'd be grateful for any and all assistance!
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >   Exactly which lens are you asking about, the f/2.8 Tessar
> > > > or the Planar?
> > > >   If the Tessar, there is no rear lens group, there is a
> > > > single cemented component. The cell can be unscrewed from
> > > > the shutter but requires some disassembly of the camera.
> > > >   I don't have an f/2.8 Tessar to look at. The f/3.5 front
> > > > cell has a front retaining ring which is removed with a
> > > > friction tool. Probably the f/2.8 is the same. Larger
> > > > Tessars, such as the 135mm, f/4.5 found on old Speed
> > > > Graphics, have a threaded back cap which is easy to unscrew.
> > > > Like many other lenses Tessars tend to get hazy inside the
> > > > front cell.
> > > >   If the back component looks hazy its probably bad cement.
> > > > Recementing is not too difficult but almost all Tessar type
> > > > lenses of any manufacture use a burnished or spun-in
> > > > mounting for the rear component. These can not be opened
> > > > without damaging them. The glass is held in place by a very
> > > > thin lip which is burnished down over the lens. While they
> > > > can be pried up they can never be smoothed down again. The
> > > > usual method for dealing with these is to remove the lip in
> > > > a small lathe and replace it with a threaded cap. Precision
> > > > work.
> > > >   Zeiss lenses of the 1930s and 1940s seem for the most part
> > > > to have pretty good cement; I've seen relatively few with
> > > > edge separation. But the canada balsam used in lenses pre
> > > > about 1950 is sensitive to heat and cold and can oxidize and
> > > > crystalize at the edges if the paint seal is broken.
> > > >   A lot of old lenses which have low contrast are just
> > > > dirty.
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Richard Knoppow
> > > > Los Angeles, CA, USA
> > > > dickburk  
> > > >
> > > >

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