[rollei_list] Re: Whiteface T with Xenar question
- From: "Raid Amin" <ramin@xxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:39:07 -0500
It looks as if the T has the highest resolution at F 8.0 with Pan F.
This is amazing. Not even the 2.8 Planar can match it at 8.0.
Raid
Ilford Pan-F developed in PMK 3.5 Tessar Old Standard Center Edge 3.5 59
21 5.6 59 30 8 59 33 11 66 47 16 66 47 22 66 47
3.5 Tessar Automat 1 Center Edge 3.5 42 17 5.6 75 37 8 75 47 11 75 47 16
66 59 22 59 53
3.5 Xenar MX-LVS Center Edge 3.5 32 25 5.6 32 25 8 57 32 11 64 36 16 64
40 22 57 40
3.5 Tessar T Center Edge 3.5 66 42 5.6 84 42 8 94 42 11 75 59 16 75 59
22 66 59
2.8A Center Edge 2.8 24 15 4 37 15 5.6 37 15 8 60 35 11 60 42 16 60 37
22 53 37
2.8F Planar Center Edge 2.8 68 48 4 68 54 5.6 76 68 8 86 68 11 86 76 16
86 86 22 68 68 ------------------------
From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sanders McNew
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 10:52 PM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Whiteface T with Xenar question
Carlos and Richard, thanks for your replies. Carlos, are you
certain about your statement that the Tessar and the Xenar
must be identical because F+H's requirements were the
same? In this instance I'm not so sure of that.
My understanding is that Zeiss reformulated the Tessar for
the T by adding lanthanum to the glass and flattening the
lens a bit, thereby (I am told) improving the lens's performance.
I have no direct experience with the T's Tessar to verify this
claim. However, I have seen lens tests online that show the
T's Tessar performing up to Planar standards, far above
what might be expected of an earlier Tessar, or a Xenar:
http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/0003e1
John Lehman's l/mm test produced surprising results and I
am wondering what others on the list might have to say about
them.
In any event, it appears the T's Tessar was meaningfully
improved over earlier versions. Does anyone know whether
Schneider had made similar improvements to their Xenars
by 1975? I am guessing not but that is only a guess. Would
the Xenars by 1975 have different lens coatings vis-a-vis
their 1950s siblings?
Sanders
* From: CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
* To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
* Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:35:00 -0300
Hi Richard:
The Rolleiflex T with Xenar lens is referred by
Prochnow in the Rollei Report 2 _second and reviewed 2001 edition_ ,
it's the Prochnow Register 185/2, PR 185/2. The T with Xenar 3.5/75
lens was manufactured from the beginning of 1973 to August 1976, 3000
units from serial numbers T2.310.000 to T2.320.449.
Rollei specs for Xenar and Tessar lens were identical and then the T
Xenar is at least as good as the T Tessar in theory.-
Carlos
2009/2/18 Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: sanders@xxxxxxxxx
> To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 12:06 PM
> Subject: [rollei_list] Whiteface T with Xenar question
>
>
> I just won a Whiteface T, a very late model
> (s/n T2316742) and to my surprise it sports
> a Xenar taking lens -- not the reformulated
> Tessar that I had expected. Did the Xenars
> of the 1970s make any improvements on their
> 1950s-era forebears? Any thoughts about
> the Xenars on late Ts would be appreciated.
>
> Sanders
>
> I've looked at _Rollei Report 2_ Claus Prochnow's book. According
to
> this no Rolleiflex T cameras were made with Xenar lenses. Prochow
identifies
> your serial number a PR 185/1, this appears to be his own system, he
gives
> the factory number as K-8 but that may cover a number of variations.
The
> serial number is in a block from T 2.199.000 to T 2.249.999 dated 1966
to
> 1970 . Note that not all of these numbers were necessarily used so the
exact
> place in the series can not be determined from them.
> Schneider has a complete list of all their serial numbers on line.
It
> takes a bit of digging to find it but its there. Check this against
the
> serial number of the Xenar to see if it fits the age of the camera.
Its
> possible it was replaced at some point, and if so, the finder lens
should
> also have been replaced. However, Prochnow, while highly reliable, is
not
> always complete and someone else on the list may have further
information.
> Perhaps Rollei did use some Xenars on this camera.
>
> --
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
Rollei List
Other related posts:
