[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Rollei] Why the 6-element lens for 3.5Fs
- Subject: Re: [Rollei] Why the 6-element lens for 3.5Fs
- From: Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh >
- Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 19:48:32 -0700
- References: <5C7752CCB00C3A47A70D5C4204A360B2554A55 > <002801c3103c$14cc6e90$75f65142@VALUED20606295>
I say it again! In 1952, I saw a H'blad Ektar apart at Oscar
shop. It was FIVE (5) elements. OH said that it looked just like a
Medalist lens. Maybe the first Ektars were 4 element Tessars, but
the later ones were not. There is no need to count F**$^@g reflections
when the lens is apart and you can see the cemented surfaces.
I can supply no more than my eyewitness report.
End of discussion!
Richard Knoppow wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <peterk >
> To: <rollei
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 2:39 PM
> Subject: RE: [Rollei] Why the 6-element lens for 3.5Fs
> > 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
> That would be interesting. AFAIK, the Hasselblad Ektars
> were Heliar type lenses of the type designed by Fred Altman
> and covered under USP 2,279,384. Altman states that he used
> the extra element to obtain better control of rim rays,
> which is what is needed when making a fast lens.
> Other examples of this lens are all f/3.5 however.
> It would be of considerable interest to me to know for
> certain what the construction is. Someone who has one could
> count the reflections and tell whether it is a Heliar or
> something else.
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA