[rollei_list] Re: 2.8 80mm Opton-Tessar
- From: Carlos Manuel Freaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 00:37:54 +0000 (GMT)
Marc, I only answered one of the issues in your
original post, you wrote that you couldn't find an
explanation about the prewar Tessar 2.8 that Zeiss
sold to Rollei and I answered the explanation could be
the projected Rollei cameras with the lens that
couldn't be manufactured due to the war and I quoted a
prototype from 1934 and other from 1939 as examples,
my position about if they were recomputed or
redesigned or they weren't recomputed o redesigned is
that I have no position about it.
You can agree or disagree with Prochnow, however his
career in Rollei was like cameras design engineer from
March 1958 to 1994, and his first contract was
approved by Reinhold Heidecke after a personal
interview, Prochnow has several registered D.B.P
patents for his invents and designs like camers
designer.-
All the best
Carlos
--- Marc James Small <marcsmall@xxxxxxxxxxx>
escribió:
>> With all credit to Prochnow, Zeiss denies that
> this happened. All of the 2.8/8cm CZJ Tessars
> were made to the formula computed in 1931. There
> was no redesign, recomputation, or the like
> according to the factory records. And these
> records are meticulous in detail.
>
> Now, in support of your position, every version
> of the 2.8/8cm Tessar save for those three Muster
> lenses are credited to the same 1931
> design; this includes the front-cell focusing
> lenses used on the Super Ikonta B and BX along
> with the front-standard focusing lenses used on
> the Ikoflex III. It is not impossible, of
> course, that the 1931 design accommodated both
> types but it is certain that the 2.8/8cm used on
> the Super Ikonta cameras could not have been
> identical to that used on the Ikoflex III.
>
> Against your position is the fact that Carl Zeiss
> Jena was then a VERY slow-moving behemoth which
> insisted on great precision and which acted with
> glacial slowness in lens formulations. We DO
> know that the 2.8/8cm design for the Ikoflex III
> was finished by mid- or late 1936, so it is
> doubtful if any redesign was made in 1938: I
> doubt that CZJ would produce those four linked
> production batches of lenses with different designs.
>
> Incidentally, there are separate production
> batches with a mounting listed as Compur
> 0. These batches are destinct from those made
> for the Ikoflex III and for Rollei, though these
> also used Compur 0 shutters.
>
> Prochnow spent his career as a Rolleiflex
> publicity hack and his book has to be read in
> that light. A possible resolution can be
> found. Could the following explain the possible
> discrepancy?
>
> 1931: CZJ produced a master design for the 2.8/8cm
> Tessar
> 1934: F&H rejected the design
> 1935: Zeiss Ikon requested a tweaking of the
> 1931 design for its intended Ikoflex III
> 1936: CZJ developed a slightly improved design
> to meet Zeiss Ikon's requirements.
> 1938: F&H decided to revisit production of a
> camera with a 2.8/8cm Tessar. (F&H by this point
> knew of the impending Ikoflex III and was most
> concerned over a possible loss of the
> professional market to Zeiss Ikon.) Contact with
> CZJ afforded them the opportunity to hop on the
> bandwagon of the Ikoflex III design with reduced
> charges due to production economics, and they did
> so. This was not a reformulation to meet F&H's
> needs but, rather, F&H agreeing to accept the
> tweaking requested by Zeiss Ikon as their
> standard -- F&H's interest, after all, was to
> meet the challenge of the Ikoflex III and not to
> produce a world-busting superior camera. F&H
> then owned the professional MF market, though
> there were challengers such as the Primarflex and
> the Exakta 66. The Ikoflex had to this point
> been only a camera for advanced amateurs and had
> enjoyed little professional use, but the
> appearance of the Ikoflex III was really the
> placing of an elephant on a dinner table.
> 1939: CZJ produces matched lots of lenses to a
> common (Ikoflex III) design for both Zeiss Ikon and
> F&H orders.
> 1994: With Zeiss Ikon safely long gone,
> Prochnow re-invents the past to make it seem that
> the tweaking of the 1931 design was done to
> please F&H where it actually had been conducted
> to meet the needs of Heinz Küppenbender's Zeiss
> Ikon.
>
> So, yes, I agree that there might well have been
> an improvement of the 1931 design but that any
> such improvements would have been minor: Ernst
> Wandersleb, that most honest of men, was then the
> chief of optical design at Jena, and he would not
> have permitted the factory records to continue to
> reflect a 1931 design date unless the changes were
> minor ones.
>
> This is fascinating stuff. Again, I need more
> numbers from Ikoflex III and Rolleiflex 2.8
> cameras, in both cases with body and lens
> details. We are on to something here, folks,
> and, as the indomitable Sherlock Holmes often
> noted, "Watson! The game is afoot!"
>
> Marc
>
>
> msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!
>
> ---
> 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
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>
__________________________________________________
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
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
