[rollei_list] Re: Update on Rolleiflex MX TLR (was: Re: Re: TLR)
- From: Carlos Manuel Freaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 22:27:43 +0000 (GMT)
I think it's better to have both cameras, the 2.8 and
3.5 if the 3.5 is an old Automat model in good
condition and with coated lens or a similar
Rolleicord.
My workhorse is the 2.8C and I agree with Eric about
it, however I am also liking to use the Rolleicord IV
due to its light weight for snapshots. The 3.5F is as
heavy as the 2.8C, at least this is my conclusion
after to compare the three cameras weight, but I did
not use the 3.5F yet.
Regarding lens quality, the Xenotar is slightly better
wide-open than the other lenses (I don't know the
Planar 2.8 wide-open)but in practical use they are
identical for others f stops, except for f/22 again
bwhere the 2.8 lenses are slightly better (perhaps; I
never did a serious comparison considering this
aperture, but I have an impression about it).
Really the factory tolerances for Planar and Xenotar
were identical, also for Tessar and Xenar and then if
the lenses are in good condition it's very difficult
to find a practical difference between Xenotar and
Planar and between Xenar and Tessar; as Prochnow
explained, sometimes the lenses from Schneider were
closer to the tolerance limits and sometimes Zeiss
lenses were closer to the tolerance limits, both
lenses factories used F&H tolerances till the limits.-
All the best
Carlos
--- Thor Legvold <tlegvold@xxxxxxx> escribió:
> Update -
>
> today I received back the 2 rolls I'd taken with the
> MX last weekend,
> both Tri-X (due to the low light and
> list-recommendations to shoot at
> 5,6 and up to ensure image sharpness).
>
> The negs look great! Sharp corner to corner, evenly
> exposed, loads of
> detail, nice contrast and tonal gradation. Even
> spacing between each
> frame (this was built in 1952? My 6008i2 can't get
> frames spaced this
> nicely, and on rare occasions even overlaps them!),
> no apparent light
> leaks. I couldn't test for flare as it was cloudy
> and raining all
> weekend.
>
> This is a nice little camera. Of course, it's made
> me want more ;-).
> Are the f2.8 models that much more heavy/large or
> unweildy? Can they be
> shot wide open? Are there any niceties I'd want in a
> newer model (seems
> everyone wants an F)? I have a handheld metre, don't
> see the need for
> interchangable finders, but like the convenience a
> linked EV system
> (move one controll and the other follows) provides.
>
> I don't want to get into a flame war as to Planar
> vs. Xenotar, but will
> there be much difference between a Tessar and a
> Planar (or Xenar and
> Xenotar)? I almost always use available light, and
> most often shoot
> 100ISO film (or lower), which is why I wondered if a
> 2.8 might be more
> appropriate, and whether a Tessar will perform
> anywhere near a Planar
> when shot wide open (either 2.8 or 3.5). I expect
> there will be more
> than a few occasions where that might be neccessary.
>
> Or I could ask my friend if he's inerested in
> selling and just go with
> this one if he is. Are parts available (Europe)?
>
> Hmm, probably I've already asked some of these
> questions before. Better
> go back over the archives and check...
>
> Cheers,
> Thor
>
>
> On 31. okt. 2005, at 20.19, Thor Legvold wrote:
>
> > Hi Marc,
> >
> > Thanks for the little piece of history. I'll let
> my friend know about
> > it as well. I took a few rolls this weekend, but
> haven't had time to
> > develop them yet.
> >
> > So far it seems like a really great little camera.
> The only problems
> > I've noticed so far is the impossibly dark viewing
> screen (an easy
> > upgrade, I imagine) and that the winding crank has
> to be all the way
> > in reverse (the second part of the winding) to
> fire. If it's been
> > fully cocked but the winding lever is slightly
> below the end of
> > travel, the shutter won't fire. It hasn't been a
> problem to ensure
> > proper positioning with my thumb.
> >
> > When I looked at the lens through the back, I
> noticed that it actually
> > does have 10 aperture blades, I had mistakenly
> though it had 5 based
> > on viewing it from the front of the camera (silly
> me). I'm looking
> > forward to seeing the developed rolls.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Thor
> >
> > On 31. okt. 2005, at 16.26, Marc James Small
> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for the numbers, Thor.
> >>
> >> Hysteron proteron: you have to buy Prochnow in
> print the
> >> old-fashioned
> >> way. It is well worth the while to purchase the
> entire run of his
> >> publications. One of these is a Rollei repair
> manual, by the way.
> >> He is
> >> now engaged on issuing Voigtländer Reports every
> bit as authoritative
> >> as
> >> are his Rollei Reports.
> >>
> >> So you have a Rolleiflex 3.5A/MX (Type 1):
> >>
> >> Body s/n 1287946
> >> Taking Lens: 3.5/75 Zeiss-Opton Tessar T 913174
> >> Viewing Lens: 2.8/75 Heidosmat T 633608
> >>
> >> The numbering on the Heidosmat is problematic and
> these numbers seem
> >> to
> >> have been assigned by Rolleiflex and not by Carl
> Zeiss. That you
> >> viewing
> >> lens is marked with a red T is a rarity but has
> been previously
> >> noted, I
> >> believe.
> >>
> >> The taking lens is part of a lot of 15,000 lenses
> completed on 5 OCT
> >> 1950
> >> according to the factory records, so the lens on
> your gem must have
> >> been in
> >> storage for a few years before being installed in
> your camera. It
> >> seems to
> >> have been the practice of the era for Franke &
> Heidecke to order
> >> lenses
> >> well in advance from Zeiss -- and, until the
> early 1950's, a lot of
> >> lenses
> >> might come from either Jena or Oberkochen. We do
> not know whether
> >> Franke &
> >> Heidecke paid for these lenses at the date of
> manufacture or upon
> >> delivery
> >> and whether these lenses would have been stored
> at a Zeiss facility
> >> or in
> >> Braunschweig at the Franke & Heidecke facility.
> It is probable that
> >> Zeiss
> >> Oberkochen did not warehouse Zeiss Jena lenses
> and the converse, but
> >> even
> >> this is not certain.
> >>
> >> The rule of thumb is that the guys at Oberkochen
> shifted the marking
> >> on
> >> their lenses from "Zeiss-Opton" to "Carl Zeiss"
> on 1 OCT 1954 and
> >> that the
> >> transition occurred at the 1,000,000 mark but the
> truth is not nearly
> >> this
> >> neat. Zeiss produced lenses in batches and
> numbered them sequentially
> >> within these batches. As a result, there are
> Zeiss-Opton lenses
> >> bearing
> >> serial numbers well in excess of that one-million
> mark and some Carl
> >> Zeiss
> >> lenses with lower numbers. The changeover was a
> gradual one, as was
> >> the
> >> elimination of the red T marking indicating
> coating, though, in
> >> general,
> >> coated Zeiss-Opton lenses bear the T mark and
> coated Carl Zeiss
> >> lenses do
> >> not, a practice soon followed by Carl Zeiss Jena,
> Joseph Schneider
> >> Kreuznach, and the Soviet lens factories.
> >>
> >> Marc
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!
> >>
> >> NEW FAX NUMBER: +540-343-8505
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
=== message truncated ===
___________________________________________________________
1GB gratis, Antivirus y Antispam
Correo Yahoo!, el mejor correo web del mundo
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:
