[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Rollei] unsubscribe
- Subject: [Rollei] unsubscribe
- From: "Bart Kramer" <bartkramer >
- Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 06:30:28 -0600
- References: <200305020701.AAA01663
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Rollei Users list digest" <owner-rollei
To: <rollei-digest
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 01:01
Subject: [Rollei] Rollei Users list digest V12 #64
>
> Rollei Users list digest Friday, May 2 2003 Volume 12 : Number
064
>
> Topics in this digest:
> 9 Why the 6-element lens for 3.5Fs
> Search for highest 5 element Planar -- how about Tessar
> 2 Search for highest 5 element Planar -- how about Tessar
> RE: [Rollei] FS: Beautiful 2.8E Xenotar
> Subscription and Unsubscription Instructions
> ADMINISTRATIVE: ITEMS FOR SALE/WANTED TO BUY AMENDED!
> Items FS 2 MAY 2003
> ADMINISTRATIVE ANNOUNCEMENTS: PLEASE READ!
> ADMIN: Replying to Rollei Digest Postings
> fs: 5.1.03
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 18:52:54 -0700
> From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk >
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Why the 6-element lens for 3.5Fs
> Message-ID: <003801c3104d$8e7d7a20$ccfe5142@VALUED20606295>
> References:
<5C7752CCB00C3A47A70D5C4204A360B2554A55 >
<017a01c31032$97037020$d11af0c3 >
<01cb01c3103a$1231b160$d11af0c3@qnu350>
<005a01c3103d$628e7aa0$75f65142@VALUED20606295>
<028a01c31047$58b53960$d11af0c3@qnu350>
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Q.G. de Bakker" <qnu
> To: <rollei
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 6:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Why the 6-element lens for 3.5Fs
>
>
> > Richard Knoppow wrote:
> >
> > > You do not need to dismount the glass to clean it.
> Just
> > > clean both surfaces. I don't know how Hassy lens mounts
> are
> > > made but 35mm camera mounts often have retaining rings
> to
> > > hold the back elements or groups in place. These rings
> don't
> > > always have slots or dots on them, they are removed by a
> > > tubular friction tool. The frustrating thing is that I
> could
> > > probably figure it out in a few seconds if I had one to
> look
> > > at.
> >
> > On the back of my lenses, i found two concentric retaining
> rings, each with
> > two pin-plier holes. And, closest to the actual glass, a
> semi-circle ridge
> > with two slots opposite each other.
> > Removing the inner of the two retaining rings (screwed
> off), the rear lens
> > group assembly (including semi-circular ridge) appeared to
> be loose. But
> > just a bit. It can be turned (inserting an appropriate
> "something" in the
> > two slots in the semi-circle ridge), clockwise and anti
> clockwise. Yet it
> > doesn't appear to screw out, or in. It just rotates. It
> doesn't (or not so
> > that i have noticed) with the retaining ring in place.
> >
> > I have tried lifting the group assembly out, but it
> wouldn't budge. There is
> > very little purchase on the semi-circular rim anyway.
> Maybe if i could get a
> > better grip? Maybe it isn't meant to lift out?
> >
> > And that's as far as i got.
> >
> > That is: i found that removing the other, outermost
> retaining ring allows
> > the complete lens group to be taken out of the focussing
> mount. Good, if you
> > need that. But i need to get inside the lens. Without
> doing damage. And
> > without the diaphragm assembly falling out in many pieces.
> >
> Its possible it lifts out. A safe way to lift it is with
> Scotch tape. It won't scratch the surface and grips enough
> to remove elements.
> If it comes out be careful to note any spacers associated
> with whatever comes out.
> If you can get the entire rear cell out, and this is a
> Tessar, there should be only the one lens in it, i.e. the
> cemented pair.
> AFAIK (Marc?) Zeiss did not make any leneses other than
> conventional Tessars under that name. They certainly made
> modified Tessar type lenses, but with other names, such as
> Biotessar.
> - ---
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 22:01:47 -0400
> From: Marc James Small <msmall >
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Search for highest 5 element Planar -- how about
Tessar
> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.20030501220147.014e9ce8 >
> References: <735720C0A5C5A444A7E3268DA6F17D5C9CF825 >
>
> At 06:09 PM 4/30/03 -0700, Richard Knoppow wrote:
> >very good performance. It was patented in 1902 originally as
> >an f/8 lens.
> > Faster versions were rapidly developed at Zeiss by Merte
> >and others.
> > Nearly every lens manufacturer has made Tessar type
> >lenses. In the USA Bausch & Lomb made them under contract to
> >Zeiss.
> > I don't know the date the Schneider Xenar was first
> >produced but it would have been sometime after the Tessar
> >patent expired, about 1918.
>
> Richard
>
> The life of a German patent is twenty years. Thus, the Tessar patent
> expired in 1922. This led to the modification of the original Leitz
> "Anastigmat" lens to the Elmax, leading to the long-lived Elmar. The
> relationship between Zeiss and Bausch & Lomb was terminated, of course, by
> the First World War, but B&L continued to produce a variety of Tessars,
> including their famed Micro Tessars, in recent times.
>
> Marc
>
> msmall FAX: +276/343-7315
> Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 22:02:39 -0400
> From: Marc James Small <msmall >
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Why the 6-element lens for 3.5Fs
> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.20030501220239.014eb614 >
> References: <3.0.2.32.20030430173128.00dc7514 >
>
> At 09:25 PM 4/30/03 -0400, ll.clark wrote:
> >In <3.0.2.32.20030430173128.00dc7514 >, on 04/30/03
> > at 05:31 PM, Marc James Small <msmall > said:
> >
> >>The Xenotar was modified between the 3.5F, Type II, and Type III.
> >
> >Whoa! This is the first mention of this change in the SK lens, isn't it?
> >Let me ask the dumb question, then: in what way[s]?
>
> From five to six elements, of course: look at the subject heading!
>
> Marc
>
> msmall FAX: +276/343-7315
> Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 22:16:28 -0400
> From: ll.clark
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Why the 6-element lens for 3.5Fs
> Message-ID: <E19BQ5s-0006G0-3u >
> References:
>
> In <3.0.2.32.20030501220239.014eb614 >, on 05/01/03
> at 10:02 PM, Marc James Small <msmall > said:
>
> >From five to six elements, of course: look at the subject heading!
>
> Things don't appear to me to be quite so transparent. No one can seem to
> agree whether the change in the Planar was to correct falloff in
> illumination in the corners, or to improve sharpness.
>
> What was the reason or reasons for changing from five to six elements in
> the Xenotar?
>
> - -----------------------------------------------------------
> les clark / edgewater, nj / usa
> - -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 19:21:22 -0700
> From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk >
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Search for highest 5 element Planar -- how about
Tessar
> Message-ID: <00f201c31051$87e51ac0$ccfe5142@VALUED20606295>
> References: <735720C0A5C5A444A7E3268DA6F17D5C9CF825 >
<3.0.2.32.20030501220147.014e9ce8 >
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marc James Small" <msmall >
> To: <rollei
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 7:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Search for highest 5 element Planar --
> how about Tessar
>
>
> > At 06:09 PM 4/30/03 -0700, Richard Knoppow wrote:
> > >very good performance. It was patented in 1902 originally
> as
> > >an f/8 lens.
> > > Faster versions were rapidly developed at Zeiss by
> Merte
> > >and others.
> > > Nearly every lens manufacturer has made Tessar type
> > >lenses. In the USA Bausch & Lomb made them under contract
> to
> > >Zeiss.
> > > I don't know the date the Schneider Xenar was first
> > >produced but it would have been sometime after the Tessar
> > >patent expired, about 1918.
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > The life of a German patent is twenty years. Thus, the
> Tessar patent
> > expired in 1922. This led to the modification of the
> original Leitz
> > "Anastigmat" lens to the Elmax, leading to the long-lived
> Elmar. The
> > relationship between Zeiss and Bausch & Lomb was
> terminated, of course, by
> > the First World War, but B&L continued to produce a
> variety of Tessars,
> > including their famed Micro Tessars, in recent times.
> >
> > Marc
> >
> > msmall FAX: +276/343-7315
> > Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!
> >
> Thanks. I wasn't sure of the life of German patents but
> seem to remember seeing a reference to twenty years
> somewhere. Presumably, the life of the US patent is 17 years
> from date of issue whatever the life of a foreign patent is.
> Since B&L continued to make Zeiss design lenses for many
> years after WW-1 it would be interesting to know what
> arrangement, if any, they had about the _names_. B&L
> continued to use the Zeiss names on a number of lenses for
> decades. Were they not covered under some copyright law or
> did the two companies have some sort of agreement.
> - ---
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 19:32:45 -0700
> From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk >
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Why the 6-element lens for 3.5Fs
> Message-ID: <00f901c31053$1fb63270$ccfe5142@VALUED20606295>
> References: <E19BQ5s-0006G0-3u >
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: <ll.clark >
> To: <rollei
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 7:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Why the 6-element lens for 3.5Fs
>
>
> > In <3.0.2.32.20030501220239.014eb614 >, on
> 05/01/03
> > at 10:02 PM, Marc James Small <msmall > said:
> >
> > >From five to six elements, of course: look at the
> subject heading!
> >
> > Things don't appear to me to be quite so transparent. No
> one can seem to
> > agree whether the change in the Planar was to correct
> falloff in
> > illumination in the corners, or to improve sharpness.
> >
> > What was the reason or reasons for changing from five to
> six elements in
> > the Xenotar?
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> - -
> > les clark / edgewater, nj / usa
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> - -
> >
> It virtually has to be to improve sharpness. Fall off is a
> matter of the geometry of lenses. It does vary somewhat from
> the strict cos^4 theta law, but not by much. There are
> special designs which eliminate one factor and reduce the
> fall off to cos^3 theta. This is used in some wide angel
> designs. Its known as the tilting entrance pupil principle.
> Retrofocus lenses also have less fall off than a "normal"
> lens for a given angular coverage. That's because the half
> angle, the "theta" above, is less. A lens which is not
> rectilinear, for instance, a fish-eye lens, also has less
> fall off, providing it has barrel distortion. Fish eye
> lenses have lots of barrel distortion so have less fall off.
> A fish eye lens with a tilting entrance pupil can have cos^2
> theta fall off and accept light from greater than 90 degrees
> half entrance angle.
> While many retrofocus lenses based on the Planar type
> exist I do not believe any Rollei TLR lens is of this type.
> Its possible that some 80mm lenses for SLR 6x6 cameras are
> retrofocus. The extra back focus is needed to clear the
> mirror box.
> OTOH, an additional element might make it much easier to
> control the rim rays in a design. Further, a symmetrical or
> semisymmetrical lens has a certain amount of automatic
> cancellation of coma, geometrical distortion, and lateral
> color. Coma is a particularly ugly aberration so reducing it
> is important. By going to a six element conventional
> Planar/Biotar design from the five element design symmetry
> is gained making correction easier. I think this is clearly
> the reason for the change.
> While the true Planar has one more element and one more
> cemented surface than the five element type it may very well
> be less sensitive to manufacturing variations, making it
> cheaper to manufacture, or it may be able to use less
> expensive glass. One would have to have an intimate
> famialiarity with the design to know if either of these
> speculations are true.
> - ---
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 19:38:44 -0700
> From: Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh >
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Why the 6-element lens for 3.5Fs
> Message-ID: <3EB1DA34.49A9F39 >
> References:
<5C7752CCB00C3A47A70D5C4204A360B2554A5D >
>
> 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 19:48:32 -0700
> From: Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh >
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Why the 6-element lens for 3.5Fs
> Message-ID: <3EB1DC80.F0578318 >
> References:
<5C7752CCB00C3A47A70D5C4204A360B2554A55 >
<002801c3103c$14cc6e90$75f65142@VALUED20606295>
>
> Richard
>
> I say it again! In 1952, I saw a H'blad Ektar apart at Oscar
> Heinemann's
> shop. It was FIVE (5) elements. OH said that it looked just like a
> Medalist lens. Maybe the first Ektars were 4 element Tessars, but
> the later ones were not. There is no need to count F**$^@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!
>
> Jerry
>
> 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
> > dickburk
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 22:53:46 -0400
> From: Dale Dickerson <vze2g2z8 >
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Why the 6-element lens for 3.5Fs
> Message-ID: <3EB1DDBA.2070304 >
> References:
<5C7752CCB00C3A47A70D5C4204A360B2554A5D >
<3EB1DA34.49A9F39 >
>
> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 22:55:53 -0400
> From: Marc James Small <msmall >
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Why the 6-element lens for 3.5Fs
> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.20030501225553.014edfb8 >
> References:
<5C7752CCB00C3A47A70D5C4204A360B2554A55 >
>
> At 12:39 AM 5/2/03 +0200, Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
> >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.
>
> That is bunk, as the assembly lines and control measures were identical.
> The switchover was done over a matter of months and simply reflected a
> changed engraving in the nummernschild. I own a number of Zeiss-Opton and
> early Carl Zeiss lenses and have never seen a bit of difference in their
> performance.
>
> Marc
>
> msmall FAX: +276/343-7315
> Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 23:06:10 -0400
> From: Marc James Small <msmall >
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Search for highest 5 element Planar -- how about
Tessar
> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.20030501230610.0154b9f4 >
> References: <735720C0A5C5A444A7E3268DA6F17D5C9CF825 >
<3.0.2.32.20030501220147.014e9ce8 >
>
> At 07:21 PM 5/1/03 -0700, Richard Knoppow wrote:
> > Since B&L continued to make Zeiss design lenses for many
> >years after WW-1 it would be interesting to know what
> >arrangement, if any, they had about the _names_. B&L
> >continued to use the Zeiss names on a number of lenses for
> >decades. Were they not covered under some copyright law or
> >did the two companies have some sort of agreement.
>
> Bausch & Lomb purchased the US rights to the extant Zeiss lens names under
> the Alien Properties Act of 1917. I believe that B&L and Zeiss did have a
> mutual business arrangement after 1920 but it was not the warm and close
> relationship which had existed prior to the War.
>
> Marc
>
> msmall FAX: +276/343-7315
> Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 20:14:49 -0700
> From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk >
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Why the 6-element lens for 3.5Fs
> Message-ID: <002901c31059$1eb2e480$3cf75142@VALUED20606295>
> References:
<5C7752CCB00C3A47A70D5C4204A360B2554A55 >
<002801c3103c$14cc6e90$75f65142@VALUED20606295>
<3EB1DC80.F0578318 >
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jerry Lehrer" <jerryleh >
> To: <rollei
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 7:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Why the 6-element lens for 3.5Fs
>
>
> > Richard
> >
> > I say it again! In 1952, I saw a H'blad Ektar apart at
> Oscar
> > Heinemann's
> > shop. It was FIVE (5) elements. OH said that it looked
> just like a
> > Medalist lens. Maybe the first Ektars were 4 element
> Tessars, but
> > the later ones were not. There is no need to count
> F**$^@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!
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> That's what I wanted to know. I was pretty sure they are
> Heliars of the Altman type. He designed the lens for the
> Medalist and the similar lens for small press cameras. Kodak
> also built some others of the type.
> - ---
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 20:34:08 -0700
> From: "John Browning" <j_browning >
> Subject: RE: [Rollei] FS: Beautiful 2.8E Xenotar
> Message-ID: <000001c3105b$b12bc550$0200000a@g61w501>
> References:
>
> Hi,
> Wondering if you have sold this yet? Thanks.
> John Browning
>
>
> - -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rollei us
> [mailto:owner-rollei On Behalf Of
> crgrbrts
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 11:18 AM
> To: rollei us
> Subject: [Rollei] FS: Beautiful 2.8E Xenotar
>
> For Sale: Great user 2.8E Xenotar (no meter) at a great price.
>
> The glass is flawless -- recoated by John Van Stelten with no cleaning
> marks, no fungus. Maxwell screen installed for gorgeous viewing. Camera
> completely overhauled by Krikor Maralian 4 months ago. Mechanically and
> optically it's perfect. Cosmetically, this is a well cared for user.
> Leather's intact and there are no major dings. Comes with EXC everready
> case (non-original strap). 10-day return privilege.
>
> $425.00 + shipping. U.S. only, please.
>
> Reply to:
>
> Craig Roberts
> Washington, DC
> 301-984-5777 x 241
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 00:00:31 -0400
> From: Marc James Small <msmall >
> Subject: [Rollei] Subscription and Unsubscription Instructions
> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.20030502000031.01476c00 >
> References:
>
> SAVE THIS MESSAGE! From time to time, our beloved computer unsubscribes
> us, so, should you not receive any messages for a day or three, perhaps
you
> might just trying resubscribing.
>
> To unsubscribe from the list, send a mail message to:
>
> majordomo us
>
> the body (not the subject) should contain the line
>
> unsubscribe rollei
>
> if you have been receiving individual messages, or
>
> unsubscribe rollei-digest
>
> if you have been receiving the digest, which includes many messages
> together in one large message.
> - ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe to one of the lists, send a mail message to:
>
> majordomo us
>
> the body (not the subject) should contain the line
>
> subscribe rollei
>
> if you wish to receive individual messages, or
>
> subscribe rollei-digest
>
> if you wish to receive the digest, which includes many messages
> together in one large message.
> - ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> TWO IMPORTANT NOTES:
>
> FIRST: Please be careful not to send your subscription and unsubscription
> requests to rollei his address is for
> mail to the readership of the list. Sending your request to it will
> cause your message to go to everyone on the list, but not to the
> program that controls the list.
>
> SECOND: That hyphen in "rollei-digest" is vital! If you don't use the
> hyphen, the message will be garbled and the computer won't be able to
> comply with your request.
>
> Marc Small
> Rollei List Administrator
>
> msmall FAX: +540/343-7315
> Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 00:00:26 -0400
> From: Marc James Small <msmall >
> Subject: [Rollei] ADMINISTRATIVE: ITEMS FOR SALE/WANTED TO BUY AMENDED!
> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.20030502000026.0147d520 >
> References:
>
> WTB/FS ads are welcome but are to be posted on Fridays only, as of the
> poster's zone time.
>
> I have no problem, incidentally, with commercial postings, so long as
basic
> ethics are observed. And I do expect that any FS/WTB deal negotiated
> through the Rollei List will allow a reasonable return privilege and MBG.
> (This rule does NOT apply to the pointing out on the List on Fridays of
> auctions on other sites: the rules of the auction site would then apply
> and not the List rules.) And MBG means a "Money-back Guarantee". This
> means that if someone dislikes something they have purchased, they have an
> absolute right to return it without explanation. The seller may set a
> reasonable period for this right -- 10-days from receipt is normal in the
> industry.
>
> And, when you reply to such an ad, PLEASE DO SO BY PRIVATE E-MAIL and not
> by a posting to the entire Rollei List!
>
> Marc Small
> Rollei List Panjandrum
>
> msmall FAX: +540/343-7315
> Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 00:00:44 -0400
> From: Marc James Small <msmall >
> Subject: [Rollei] Items FS 2 MAY 2003
> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.20030502000044.0077e32c >
> References:
>
> TERMS:
> Shipping charges extra
> 10-day MBG from receipt
>
> New Items:
> B+W Series VII 010 Filter, Leitz plastic case, E 30.00
> Schneider 4/50 Componon enlarging lens 9074658, E 60.00
> Schneider 5.6/80 Componon enlarging lens10071027, retaining ring, E
60.00
> Schneider 5.6/80 Componon enlarging lens 11840738, M39 adapter, E 60.00
> Agfa Viking, f/6.3 Agfa Viking lens, FB, IB, box shopworn,
> otherwise E+/M- 15.00
> Agfa Readyset Special, Readyset lens, worn and torn FB, E-. 15.00
> Kodak Autographic 3A w/B&L f/6.3 No. 4 Anastigmat lens, s/n
> 3161263, in Kodamatic shutter, overall condition E,
> but with serious leather-peeling 50.00
> Kodak Cine-Kodak Eight, Model 25, E+ 25.00
> Kodak Instamatic X-90, E 25.00
> Kodak Junior Vigilant Six-20, difficulty locking front standard
> into position, E- 15.00
> Kodak Pocket Instamatic 100, vinyl ERC 10.00
> Sears Seroco 4" by 5" folding plate camera kit, including camera in E+ c
> ondition (Seroco lens in Wollensak shutter), four film holders,
> two missing dark slides 175.00
> Seneca Boy Scout 2A, E- 12.00
>
> Leica Items:
> 11mm Leica ocular for the Televid/APO-Televid, Leica catalog number
> 410030, s/n 2060505, FB, packing, ERC, and caps. Yields
> 40X on the Televid 77 and 32X on the Televid 62. E/E+ 100.00
> Leica P150 slide projector with 2.8/80 Hektor lens, FB, advance is
> questionable, otherwise E 100.00
> 4.5/12cm E Leitz Micro Summar, clean glass, worn body,
> with unknown adapter, E 300.00
> Box for lens case ETBIX/14565 (50mm Summitar, Summicron,
> Summitar), E 25.00
> E Leitz New York small box, marked "73151" (might be a Prewar
> number for an aperture-control device for a taking lens used
> on an enlarger), shop worn, E- 10.00
> Vivitar 252 Flash with M2/M3 cord, E 25.00
> CEYOO Flash Gun, FB, Instruction cards, test bulb, E 50.00
> CEYOO Flash Gun, E 10.00
> Leitz A36 SL filter, some discoloration, plastic keeper, E 10.00
> Leitz Projection Lens Calculator, no Leitz number, E (have two copies)
> 25.00
> Original German-language Leicaflex SL-2 Brochure, the suppressed
> 'Nipple' version, Leitz Brochure 111-102, 9/74, E
> (have four copies) 40.00
> Morgan, Willard D., Henry M. Lestr, et alii. The Leica Manual. Reprint
> of 1st (1935) edition. Dobbs Ferry, New York: Morgan &
> Morgan, 1977. ISBN 0-87100-118-7. DJ, E+. 30.00
>
> Zeiss and Zeiss-Ikon Items:
> 4.5/4.5cm Carl Zeiss Jena Mikrotar 227936, does not
> focus properly 150.00
> Voigtlander Zoomar Depth-of-Field Calculator, E 75.00
> Lens hood, 37 (?)mm female threads, 391/70, E 40.00
> Lens hood, 40.5mm female threads, 1113, E (20.0704 for Ikonta?) 40.00
> Three generic telephoto rear lens caps for Contax, 20.0610, E 20.00 ea
> Carl Zeiss S40.5 1m Proxar, E 10.00
> Carl Zeiss S40.5 1m Proxar, FB and plastic keeper, all E 15.00
> Carl Zeiss S4.0.5 0.5m Proxar, FB and plastic keeper, all E 15.00
>
> Rolleiflex Items:
> Rollei E15B flash IB, E 20.00
>
> Exakta Item:
> One REALLY nice set of extension tubes, German, no maker noted 15.00
>
> Display or Darkroom Items:
> 3 1/2 gallon cans of Dektol 5.00 (all)
> 4 1 quart cans of Dektol 5.00 (all)
> 4.5/150 Spiratone barrel lens 67924 5.00
> Ilford loader for spooling film from 35mm cassette onto
> Ilford Auto-Winder spool, one spool in box, and
> Ilford Darkroom tank with one Auto-Winder
> spool, E+ 35.00
> Kindermann 16mm reel in box, LN 18.00
> Nikor 35mm tank w/reel, E 20.00
>
> Miscellany:
> Sekonic Auto-Lumi selenium meter, Model L-158, E 25.00
> Accura Expomat light meter, leather ERC, light cone,
> working condition unknown, E 20.00
> 3.5/37.5 Rodenstock-Eutelon cine lens, 4475275, caps, E 35.00
> 2X JSK Longar 5314843 cine lens, caps, E 35.00
> Alpa T-Mount Adapter, E- 25.00
> Sears 8465 tripod, E 25.00
> Kilfitt 300m f/5.6, some fungus, no mount 55.00
> Flash Kodaguide, E 5.00
> Kodak Projection Print Scale, FB, E 5.00
> Kodak Print Quality Kodaguide for Kodabromide, FB, E 5.00
> Kimax 2 1/4" by 2 1/4" Viewer -- needs rewired, E- 20.00
> Canon Canonet QL-19 w/case, E 60.00
> Kodak Jiffy Series II in worn, torn, and incomplete box, E 25.00
> Minolta XG-7 w/1.7/50 X-Rokkor lens in substantially ratty ERC, Minolta
> Auto 200X flash in case, Focal 35-105 f/3.5 Macro Zoom in case,
> and 2.8/135 Super Albinar telephoto in case, along with camera IB
> and miscellaneous filters, all E/E+ save for camera case. Camera
> seems fully functional. 100.00
>
> Marc
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 00:00:30 -0400
> From: Marc James Small <msmall >
> Subject: [Rollei] ADMINISTRATIVE ANNOUNCEMENTS: PLEASE READ!
> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.20030502000030.014798b8 >
> References:
>
> List Folks:
>
> Several things of merit need attention by us all from time to time:
>
> a) This is a Rollei List, not a general photography list. I don't mind
an
> occasional wandering off-topic, but I would ask that we keep such
> diversions to a bare minimum. If it doesn't involve the care and feeding
> of Rollei cameras, I would suggest that the topic be taken up elsewhere.
> And, PLEASE! Every off-topic comment should be so marked in the SUBJECT
> block by adding, at the beginning: OFF-TOPIC so the unwary can be alerted
> and read or delete as they wish.
>
> b) PLEASE change the subject block when a thread grows away from its
> original subject matter. That is, a thread might begin, honestly enough,
> marked with a subject heading of OLD STANDARD ROLLEIFLEX LENSES but the
> topic might shift, over days, to coverage of modern Xenotar lens design.
> When this happens, please have the courtesy to your fellow list members to
> change the subject block to: MODERN XENOTAR LENS DESIGN or somesuch.
>
> c) When those taking the digest respond, PLEASE reset the subject block!
>
> d) Please be careful to trim the quoted text in the message to which you
> are replying. That is, please block-and-cut or whatever your software
> requires to reduce the quoted text to the bare minimum necessary to
> maintain continuity. Most of you are already doing this quite nicely, but
> it would be best if we all were quite conscientious in doing so!
>
> e) Should you be out of the loop for a few days, pray, do NOT use an
> auto-response message of any sort, or I will simply unsubscribe you! Such
> messages will be replayed, ad nauseam, to the entire list. Please
> unsubscribe if you must for the period you will be gone.
>
> f) Please send your messages in plain-text only. HTML and similar
> codings are NOT looked on with favor by the undersigned!
>
> g) Thankfully, we are a polite and communal lot, so I will only say that
> we have never experienced the sort of flaming agonies which occasionally
> afflict other lists. I would like to see this collegial spirit of
> good-will and honest debate continue. To that end, please remember that
> postings to the Rollei List are in the nature of conversations between
good
> friends, and these ought not be repeated outside the List without the
> explicit permission of the original poster. If you disagree with
something
> someone has said, then this should be taken up directly with that person
> either on-List or by direct off-List contact.
>
> h) Searchable archives are available at:
>
> http://digistar.com/rollei (suffix '.com', previously '.net' : update
> your files)
> http://www.digistar.com/rollei is an alias of the previous
>
> and the search engine does work:
>
> http://digistar.com/rollei/search.html
>
> The actual List Archives are not directly searchable. These can be
> accessed as follows:
>
> To find out exactly what is available, send the following command to
> <majordomo (NOTE: This command goes to MAJORDOMO
and
> NOT to the entire List!)
>
> index rollei-digest
>
> You will then receive an index of all of the Digests available, going back
> to May, 1996. To receive a specific Digest, you then send the following
> message to MAJORDOMO at the same address:
>
> get rollei-digest v01/v01.n001
>
> The Rollei Digest is divided into volumes, while each Digest has a name
> which includes the volume number, so it is a tad confusing. To get Volume
> 10, Digest 19, the command would be:
>
> get rollei-digest v10/v10.n19
>
> Again, these Digests are not searchable.
>
> i) Frequently asked/answered questions (FAQ) sites:
>
> http://www.stutterheim.nl/rollei/faq.html
> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Village/3762/Rollei/index.html
>
> Marc Small
> Rollei List Administrator
>
> msmall FAX: +540/343-7315
> Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 00:00:22 -0400
> From: Marc James Small <msmall >
> Subject: [Rollei] ADMIN: Replying to Rollei Digest Postings
> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.20030502000022.0147fc94 >
> References:
>
> Please change the Subject: block when replying to the Digest. Otherwise,
> all the rest of us receive is a message whose subject is "Rollei Digest
> so-and-so".
>
> Thanks!
>
> Marc James Small
> Rollei List Owner
>
> msmall FAX: +276/343-7315
> Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 02:25:26 -0400
> From: Photovilla
> Subject: [Rollei] fs: 5.1.03
> Message-ID: <474D973D.51ED9CE3.0C62B8EE >
> References:
>
> The Photo Village, Inc.
> 594 Broadway, Suite #410
> in SoHo, NYC... Just 2 blocks south of the Leica Gallery.
>
> Please call (646) 613-1107 or email.
>
>
> OF INTEREST:
>
> The Last of the Domke F-803
>
> We have sold out of the F-802 famous black canvas reporters satchel
...however we have aquired a small stash of New, USA F-803 bags for $89.95
each -strait from the factory. These are also reporters satchels and they
have inserts that are perfect for Leica M cameras. Another favorite with
Leica users and we have less than 10 left to offer. When they are gone there
will be no more...
>
>
> Leicavit MP in black paint , IN STOCK, New, USA $895
> 28mm PC lens, Schneider SA design, collaboration, Mint was $1695, now
$1395
> Leica R9 black, demo, LN, taken out of the box for one day was $1995, then
$1950, now $1900!
> Hasselblad H1 set, the best 645AF camera in our opinion, $5595
> Hasselblad Xpan kit, demo, body + 45mm lens, level, shade, complete,
boxed, Mint $1795
> - -------------------
>
> Cosina-Voigtlander Leica Mount Products:
>
> Sale!!! Buy a 35f2.5 Classic Skopar for $250 + a Bessa T for $205 and get
an INSTANT rebate of $20!
> The best deal around for this pair, new and perfect for each other.
>
> Abrahamsson Mini Softie, engraved w/Voigtlander "V" in gold, normal price
$15
> Voigtlander Bessa R2, black, a great alternative M camera. $485
> Voigtlander Bessa T, black or chrome, while they last... $205
> Voigtlander 15f4.5 Super Wide, black, with finder, beats the Hologon and
only $355
> Voigtlander 21f4.0 Skopar, black, with finder, was $355, now $325 ***this
weeks web special***
> Voigtlander 28f3.5 Skopar, black or chrome, $300, now $275
> Voigtlander 28mm metal finder, nicest I've seen (including Leica's) and
only $150
> Voigtlander 35f2.5 classic, tiny and sharp, priced right at $250
> Voigtlander 75f2.5 Heliar, black or chrome $300
> Voigtlander 90f3.5 APO Lanthar, black or chr., small and light $375
> Voigtlander 90f3.5 APO Lanthar, black, Mint- perf. glass $250
> Voigtlander 90mm finder, bright lines are super bright $129.95 ***lower
price***
> Voigtlander Strap adapter for VC meter, another cool accessory by Cosina
$20
> Voigtlander VC Meter, black only, $349
> Voigtlander Rapid Winder for R, T or R2, black, new, In Stock $165 ($150
w/body)
> Voigtlander 40mm finder, only a few in stock $125 (LUG/LEG/MUG special)
>
>
> Leica M Bodies, Lenses, Finders & Motor Drives
>
> Leica 0-Series, anastigmat lens, tiny with unique finder, demo 1 year US
warr. $850
> Leica MP, black paint, beautiful, box, caps, strap, papers and more $2550
(IN STOCK)
> Leica M7, New, USA all types in stock. Get them before next price raise
hits!
> Leica M7, black, demo, Exc+, 1 year USA warranty was $1795, now $1695
***this weeks web special***
> Leica M6 TTL Millennium, black paint, near Mint, boxed, complete was
$2999, now $2895
> Leica M6 TTL LHSA black paint, near Mint, boxed, looks unused $2495 (only
one in stock)
> Leica M6 TTL .72 New, USA, black $1895
> Leica M6 TTL .72 black, new import, last of the new M6's $1695
> Leica M6 TTL .72 chrome, Mint-, late, boxed $1495
> Leica M6 TTL .72 black, Mint-, case $1395
> Leica M6 TTL .72 Titanium, 1 year US warr. Mint-, boxed. was $2050, now
$1950
> Leica M6 TTL .58 black, Mint-, hardly a mark, will soon be hard to get at
all... $1495
> Leica M6 TTL .58 silver, Mint-, no box but nice shape $1495
> Leica M6 TTL .85 chrome, near Mint, nice 1 year US warr. $1495
> Leica M6 TTL .85 black, near Mint, boxed, complete $1495
> Leica M6 "classic" Titanium, near Mint, boxed $1995
> Leica M6 .72 "classic" Mint, sealed Leica demo, black, 1 year US warr.
$1395
> Leica M6 .72 "classic" chrome, Exc+ (no dents, dings, just a few scuffs)
works well, great user $1199
> Leica M6 .85 "classic" near Mint, black, rare $1395
> Leica M4 chrome, Mint- late number was $1895, now $1695
> Leica M4 chrome, Exc++, perf. mechanics and recent CLA $1450
> Leica M3 SS, over 1 mil. Exc++ was $1395, now $1295
> Leica M3 SS, over 1 mil. Exc, "K" on wax seal for "Krauter" overhaul $1195
> Leica M2 LR ST, over 1.1 million, preview lever, Exc+ $1100
> Leica M2 BR, good user $800
> Leica 21f2.8 ASPH Elmarit, black, Mint, boxed, 1 year warr. $1795
> Leica 21f2.8 ASPH Elmarit, black near Mint, caps, shade, was $1595, now
$1495!
> Leica 21f4 chrome, Super Angulon, Exc+ w/rear cap $1195
> Leica 21mmf3.4 Super Angulon, black, Exc, shade and late number $995
> Leica 24f2.8 ASPH Elmarit, black, new import $1695
> Leica 28f2.8 Elmarit, previous to Summicron, Mint- w/shade $950
> Leica 28f2.8 previous version to above, shade, Mint- perf. glass, only
$795!
> Leica 35f2.0 ASPH black paint, New, USA $1695
> Leica 35f2.0 ASPH, new import $1295
> Leica 35f2.0 ASPH, chrome, near Mint $1150
> Leica 35f2.0 pre-ASPH, caps, shade, Exc/Exc+ with perf. glass $895
> Leica 35f1.4 ASPH Titanium, Mint/boxed, complete $1995
> Leica 35f1.4 ASPH chrome, near Mint, perf. glass, caps, was $1445, now
$1395
> Leica 50f2.8 Elmar, black, collap. Mint, box $495
> Leica 50f2.0 Summicron, demo, current, 1 yr USA warranty, Exc+ $795
> Leica 50f1.4 Summilux, chr Mint- was $1450, now $1395
> Leica 50f1.0 Noctilux, new import, best deal! $2095
> Leica 50f2.0 Summicron, dual range, Exc++, great performer $550
> Leica 50f2.0 Summicron, chrome, rigid, Exc+ $395
> Leica 50f2.0 Summicron, 50 Jahre, due in $1395
> Leica 90f2.0 ASPH Summicron new import $1595
> Leica 90f2.0 pre-ASPH, E55, MT-, pull out shade & caps $895
> Leica 90f2.0 pre-ASPH Summicron, black, Exc+ $750
> Leica 90f2.8 Tele Elmarit, skinny (the good one) with caps, hood, all
Mint- $595
> Leica 135f4.0 M, Elmar, black, perf. glass, sharp, $349
> Leica 135f2.8 M, with eyes, Exc+, perf. glass was $545, now $495 ***this
weeks web special***
> Leica 28-35-50mm Tri Elmar, E55, black, US demo 1 year warr. $1195
>
> Leica R Cameras, Lenses and More:
>
> Leica R9, New, USA, black 5 year US warr. $2095 (one week before the next
price raise!)
> Leica R8, near Mint demo, 1 year US warr. $1295
> Leica R6.2 R, Mint, case, body cap $1295 ***this weeks web special***
> Leica R4 Olympic w/motor drive, Mint-, rarely seen $595
> Leica R8/R9 Motor Drive kit, Mint, boxed, complete as new (new price $799)
one only $500
> Leica SL2, black, near Mint $1350
> Leica 21mmf4.0 Super Angulon, shade, chr. Mint-, caps, Wetzlar $895
> Leica 28f2.8 Elmarit, Exc++, caps, case, shade, 3rd cam was, $595, now
$495
> Leica 28 PC lens, perspective correction, Schneider SA, rare used, Mint
was $1695, now $1350
> Leica 35f2.0 Summicron, late, E55, pull out shade, 3 cam, Mint- was$945,
now $899
> Leica 35f2.0 Summicron, earlier version, shade/filter, Exc/Exc+ was $555,
now $495
> Leica 50f2.0 Summicron ROM, Mint demo, 1 year US warr. $795
> Leica 50f2.0 Summicron, 3 cam, Mint- boxed was $450, now $395
> Leica 80f1.4 Summilux, 3 cam, late, best portrait lens! Mint, case $1295
> Leica 90f2.8 Elmarit, 3 cam, tiny telephoto, was $395, now $289
> Leica 100f2.8 APO Elmarit, 3 cam, sharp! near Mint was $1450, now $1250
> Leica 180f2.8 older style, 3 cam, Exc+ w/Mint glass $595
> Leica 180f4.0 Elmar, compact and sharp, rarely seen this nice, Mint-/Mint,
was $750, now $700
> Leica 180f2.8 APO ...the best of the best... new import $2395
> Leica 35-70f3.5 Vario Elmar, GERMAN, the sharp one, Mint $795
> - -----------------------
>
> Misc.
>
> Billingham "L2" bag, best Billingham for a Leica M system, movable
dividers $149
> The Leica Bumper, a re-making of the classic Leica accessory, only eye cup
for an M camera $75
> Wasserman rewind cranks, fits M2/3, others, last 12 units remain, black or
chr., only $40
> Lacie 500Gigabyte "Big Drive" fire wire drive for Mac or PC, haven't seen
bigger yet...$795.
> Leica R8/R9 Motor Drive kit, Mint $500
> Leica Duovid 8+12 x 42, hunter green, limited lifetime USA warranty, demo,
was $1195, now $1095
> - -----------------------
>
> Rich/
> www.photovillage.com
> Please call (646) 613-1107 12-8pm most M-Sat. Call to be sure.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Rollei Users list digest V12 #64
> ***************************************
>
>
------------------------------