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

[Dale Dickerson <vze2g2z8 >]

There is the Kiev 88 or a converter to p-6.
Dale

Jerry Lehrer wrote:

>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  
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>
>
>  
>

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