[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: Dale Dickerson <vze2g2z8 >
- Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 09:04:36 -0400
- References: <5C7752CCB00C3A47A70D5C4204A360B2554A65 >
The design was not as good as the Rollei camera of the time. The design
was dumped in late 1950s. The USSR started making them. You can get one
repaired using parts from the metal shutter Kiev 88. Just do not plan
to use the 1600 or 1000.(I know the Kiev 88 only goes to 1/1000, but the
1/1600 is still possible in the mechanical parts inside.) They tend to
band at the high speeds.
Dale
Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:
>Jerry,
>
>Why don't they work anymore, are they retired?
>
>Peter K
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jerry Lehrer [mailto:jerryleh ]
>>Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 7:39 PM
>>To: rollei us
>>Subject: Re: [Rollei] Why the 6-element lens for 3.5Fs
>>
>>
>>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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------