[rollei_list] Re: 2.8 80mm Opton-Tessar

This is also an interesting comment Peter and
coinciding in general with the opinons about the
Tessar for the 2.8A.
I think it's almost impossible to retrofit a 2.8A with
Biometars, at least with the Biometars 2.8/80 used for
the 2.8B, the Biometar is a five elements lens heavier
and bigger than the Tessar, the Biometar required a
complete redesign for the lens carrier (lens panel)in
the 2.8B and new and bigger lens carrier guide posts.

All the best
Carlos
 --- "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx> escribió:

> Thank you Carlos. Apparently the only 80mm F2.8
> Tessar that people liked was
> the one for the Hasselblad. In my references under
> the moniker "Lousy
> Lenses" they state the following:
> 
> "One curious example is the f2.8 Tessar, liked in
> 50mm form but much less so
> in the 80mm versionunless for the Hasselblad where
> it was admired!"
> 
> Since that Tessar came much later perhaps Zeiss'
> work on the earlier 80mm
> F2.8 Tessar helped.  I did find that in 1931 Zeiss
> listed *a Tessar
> *f2.850, 60, 75, 80mm This was designed by Merte. It
> is fairly common
> and usually
> really good but the original 80mm version for the
> 6x6cm Super Ikonta was
> said to different and less liked by users. So it
> does coincide with
> Richard's note about the Tessar on Zeiss' own
> cameras.
> 
> The only notation specifically for the Rollei 2.8A
> reads as follows:  "*Tessar
> *f2.8 80mm for Praktisix SLR and a few were sold on
> Rollei cameras. This
> seems to have been an old or pre-war design and was
> not up to the standard
> expected. There seems to have been a close out in
> Jan. 1964. The f2.8 Tessar
> had previously been a problem on the Rollei 2.8A in
> 1950-1951 when a batch
> were sold with Tessars at No2,300,000-3,000,000,
> which are wartime or just
> post-war numbers. Customers found these of poor
> quality and the factory
> recalled them. Thus they became a real collectible
> through scarcity. A
> little later Rollei supplied some cameras with Jena
> f2.8 80mm Biometars and
> these were much more successful. [It is not known
> what happened to the
> Tessar cameras, but they may have been rebuilt with
> Biometars and sold e.g..
> in E. Germany but this is a uncertain.]"
> 
> Interesting comments about the possibility of 2.8A
> models being retrofitted
> with Biometars, but no one knows for certain.
> 
> Peter K
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/14/06, Carlos Manuel Freaza
> <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Peter, I think Richard K explained several times a
> > possible cause: Tessar design limits, they
> > manufactured Tessar for 3 decades but never a
> Tessar
> > 2.8/80 for the 6x6 format, it seems 2.8/80 is an
> > extreme design limit for this lens type and then
> the
> > optical design and glasses must be very exact.
> Zeiss
> > manufactured the Tessar 2.8/60 for the 4x4 however
> the
> > increased focal length from 60mm to 80mm increased
> the
> > problems too and it seems they could solve the
> main
> > design problems for 1938 when Rollei started to
> > develop the 2.8A prototype, but you know this lens
> > never was %100 satisfactory, for the reasons
> Richard K
> > explained several times .-
> >
> > All the best
> > Carlos
> >
> >
> >
> > --- "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx> escribió:
> >
> > > Carlos,
> > >
> > > Very interesting. Seems odd though that having
> been
> > > building Tessars for 3+
> > > decades that CZJ would have had issues at this
> time.
> > > Do you know any reason
> > > why this would have happened?
> > >
> > > Marc, any input?
> > >
> > > Peter K
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/14/06, Carlos Manuel Freaza
> > > <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Marc:
> > > >        On 1934 CZJ developed a Tessar 2.8/80
> lens
> > > > prototype for the Rolleiflex Standard, but it
> had
> > > bad
> > > > quality and F&H rejected the lens.
> > > > On 1938 CZJ re-designed the Tessar 2.8/80 and
> this
> > > > time F&H accepted the lens performance
> developing
> > > the
> > > > 1939 Rolleiflex 2.8A 2.8/80 prototype (PR 149)
> but
> > > the
> > > > production couldn't begin due to the war, this
> > > protype
> > > > was the basis for the 1948 2.8A prototype with
> > > some
> > > > changes.
> > > > I think it's evident the 1938 and 1939 Tessars
> > > 2.8/80
> > > > were bought for the 1939 prototype commercial
> > > > production and it did not happen due to the
> war.
> > > >
> > > > All the best
> > > > Carlos
> > > >
> > > > --- Marc James Small <marcsmall@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > escribió:
> > > >
> > > > I have no explanation for the
> > > > > existence of the Prewar 2.8/8cm CZJ Tessars
> --
> > > > > the first Rolleiflex batch was of only 2
> lenses
> > > > > and was completed on 2 FEB 1938;  the other
> > > > > Rolleiflex batches date from the first half
> of
> > > > > 1939.  The Ikoflex lenses all date from 1939
> > > save
> > > > > for the final batch of 3 which 29 DEC 1941
> > > during
> > > > > the heart of the war years.  All of the
> Prewar
> > > > > lenses were produced to a design dated 27
> JAN
> > > > > 1933 but, for that matter, ALL Prewar
> 2.8/8cm
> > > CZJ
> > > > > Tessars were produced to that design save
> for a
> > > > > single batch of 2 lenses for the Super
> Ikonta
> > > > > B/BX made to a design dated 20 SEP 1938, but
> > > that
> > > > > was clearly a test for a planned upgrade
> which
> > > > > did not occur because of the war.
> > > > >
> > > > > We do know that Franke & Heidecke was
> > > > > substantially concerned over Zeiss Ikon's
> move
> > > > > from the f/3.5 Tessar in the Ikoflex II and
> > > > > II/III to the f/2.8 lens in the Ikoflex III
> and
> > > > > probably intended to follow suit, though
> this
> > > was
> > > > > precluded for some years because of the
> outbreak
> > > > > of War.  I would suspect that F&H caboosed
> their
> > > > > order onto the Zeiss Ikon order, as eight of
> > > > > these blocks were made in unison in four
> linked
> > > > > groups and were finished on the same day,
> > > > > probably so that both Zeiss Ikon and F&H
> enjoyed
> > > > > a price break from production economics.  I
> do
> > > > > not have any Rolleiflex 2.8 lens numbers
> handy,
> > > > > so I cannot be certain of this, but it would
> > > seem
> > > > > that the lenses used in the 2.8 came from
> lenses
> > > > > ordered by Rolleiflex and not from left-over
> > > > > Ikoflex III lenses.  Here is a precis of
> these
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis! 
¡Abrí tu cuenta ya! - http://correo.yahoo.com.ar
---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' 
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: