[rollei_list] Re: 2.8 80mm Opton-Tessar

Marc, I gave an info from a book, I have no position
about the lenses, however according your original
question it's evident you did not consider F&H prewar
prototypes and projects to manufacture a 6x6 camera
with a Tessar 2.8 and 8cm or 80mm focal length, these
prototypes and the advanced project to manufacture it
for the market could clearly explain the prewar lenses
that F&H bought from Zeiss, if they were recomputed or
not I don't know, the real lenses comparison is the
only way %100 sure to know it.-

All the best
Carlos  
 --- Marc James Small <marcsmall@xxxxxxxxxxx>
escribió:

> At 09:32 PM 11/15/2006, Carlos Manuel Freaza wrote:
> 
>  >My answer was and is that Rollei used the two 1938
>  >lenses to develop the 1939 2.8 prototype, and
> Rollei
>  >needed the lenses for the camera series
> production,
>  >the 1939 prototype was ready for production and
> that
>  >was the reason to buy the lenses on 1939, Rollei
>  >needed the lenses but due to the war Rollei
> couldn't
>  >obtain the tooling to manufacture the camera for
> the
>  >market. The 1939 prototype and that Rollei had
>  >projected to manufacture the prototype for the
> market
>  >on 1939 are facts, the 1939 lenses batch bought
> from
>  >Zeiss for this camera production is my conclusion,
>  >and according Prochnow the lens was recomputed to
> meet
>  >F&H quality needs and then Prochnow has to do
> too.-
> 
> Dear heavens, Carlos.  Synchronize yourself with 
> the economic realities of the later 1930's.  F&H 
> was a major customer of Carl Zeiss Jena but was 
> hardly the largest by a long shot:  Zeiss Ikon 
> not only was owned by the same Foundation which 
> owned Carl Zeiss Jena but also purchased probably 
> several dozen times or more as many lenses a year 
> as did F&H.  Again, the market will respond to 
> that elephant sitting on the table and not to the 
> vagrant tapping on the window for attention.  If 
> there was a redesign of the 2.8/8cm Tessar, it 
> was done to meet Zeiss Ikon's needs and not in 
> response to any request from F&H.
> 
> Zeiss Ikon by that time was run by Heinz 
> Küppenbender, soon to move up to head the entire 
> Zeiss works, a role he held through 1972, and to 
> head the entire German optical industry during 
> the War years.  (Küppenbender shielded a lot of 
> Jews and other "undesireables" as "workers vital 
> to the War Effort":  he was slated to be tried by 
> the Nazis until Speer bailed him out.  And, as 
> no  good deed goes unpunished, he was later tried 
> by the Allies as a Nazi War Criminal, and was 
> acquitted.  Israel, having slavered over 
> Schindler, has yet to acknowledge the much larger 
> role Küppenbender played in saving the lives of 
> Jews.  All of this is off the subject, of course.)
> 
> In other words, Zeiss Ikon had a fair amount of 
> clout with Jena in the later 1930's.  F&H had 
> some clout but not a lot, as other camera 
> companies were buying more lenses than they were at
> that time.
> 
> I do not see F&H having the clout to demand a 
> SPECIAL run of 2.8/8cm Tessars to their peculiar 
> specifications, despite the ambiguous language in 
> Prochnow.  Much more probable was that Zeiss Ikon 
> demanded a tweaking of the design, and that F&H 
> was then given the opportunity to hop on 
> board.  This is made more probable by the "screw 
> you, jack" approach Zeiss often made towards 
> Zeiss Ikon -- they were relatives but not 
> friends, and while Zeiss HAD to acknowledge the 
> priority of Zeiss Ikon orders, they did not have to
> like it.
> 
> The world does not revolve around Braunschweig, 
> pace Prochnow.  We all now that it revolves 
> around Jena and Oberkochen (<he grins> pace Jos. 
> Schneider!).  Seriously, Carl Zeiss Jena was the 
> main player and Zeiss Ikon was the elephant on 
> the table.  F&H could not demand any sort of 
> redesign as Prochnow hints happened.  F&H might 
> well have adopted the Ikoflex III lens but that 
> was a Zeiss Ikon request and not a response to some
> F&H demand.
> 
> If you have some evidence that there is a 
> difference between the Ikoflex III lens and that 
> produced for Rollei, let me know.  If you are 
> suggesting that Zeiss Ikon humped along on an 
> order from F&H, let me see some proof other than 
> a simple recitation from Prochnow -- and that is 
> MOST unlikely.  I know a lot about the pride of 
> Zeiss and Zeiss Ikon, and, had F&H insisted on a 
> separate lens design, Küppenbender certainly 
> would have insisted on a totally different design
> for the Ikoflex III.
> 
> Again, your entire thesis hangs on proving that 
> there are differences between the 2.8/8cm Tessars 
> produced for the Ikoflex III and for F&H.  Prove 
> that, and I will concede your point.
> 
> 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
> http://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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: