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 > //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