[rollei_list] Re: Kiev Body

Hello all,

I would like to ask if it is possible to use original Contax rangefinder
lenses on the Kiev Contaxski body,

with a reasonable amount of focusing accuracy.

Thanks,

Marvin.

 

  _____  

From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jerry Lehrer
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:56 PM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: T body

 

Peter, 

No, the Ektar Rolleiflex 2A was owned by a friend.  O. Heinemann did the 
installation of the lens. 

Jerry 

"Peter K." wrote: 

Jerry, So you had an oddity. I think you also had a Rollei TLR with a Ektar.
Neither were factory made. Peter K  
 On 6/15/06, Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 

I dinna ken from whence it came, but it looked pristine.  I bought it out of
an advert 
in the local free newspaper, a long way back.  It certainly did not look
like a hack 
job.  At the time, I did not realize that it might be unique. 

Jerry 
  

"Peter K." wrote: 

Well, the T did not come from from the factory that way, someone please will
correct me here if I am wrong. So I would assume it was done by a technician
thereafter? Peter K On 6/14/06, Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 

Peter, 

As I may have said before, I once had a T that had an E side plate so that
double 
exposures could be made. (the shutter could be recocked) 

Jerry 

"Peter K." wrote:Hi Douglas, The T was something of a stripped down Rollei F
that basically targeted the same market as the earlier Rolleicord. The T was
named for Theodore Uhl, a choice of names that allegedly got him fired when
management at Rollei found out he named the camera after himself.I have a
Rollei T and it is among my favorites. What it lacks is 220 capability and
multiple exposure. But 220 and Multi-exposure were more for pros, and this
camera was designed for the amateur and advanced amateur market. The T came
with a Zeiss Tessar or Schneider Xenar F3.5 taking lens. It was lighter that
the standard Rollei F and had the ability to use a 6 x 4.5cm adapter (an
adapter the more expensive models could not use). Like the F it could use
the Rolleikin for 35mm film, and had a removable hood, so you could use a
prism in place of the Waist Level Finder.As someone already pointed out, the
F TLRs of the 60s and 70s were different bodies than the T. The newer FX and
GX bodies are based on the T as the tooling for the previous Fs was not
available. Personally, it is my opinion that this was smarter idea since it
was less costly to use a T chassis. Rest assured someone will disagree with
me here and tell me I am wrong even though I state this is just an opinion.
;-) Peter K 
On 6/13/06, Douglas Nygren <dnygr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 

I have a Rollei and have not paid much attention to bodies, etc. It 
performs well. 

What is a T body? An F body? The GX, FX are recent vintage cameras, 
right? 

Doug 
  
  
  
  
 

 





  _____  



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.0.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.4/364 - Release Date: 06/14/2006

 


  

-- 
Peter K 
Ó¿Õ¬ 

 





  _____  



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.0.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.4/364 - Release Date: 06/14/2006

 


  

-- 
Peter K 
Ó¿Õ¬ 

 





  _____  



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.0.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/368 - Release Date: 06/16/2006

Other related posts: