[rollei_list] Re: Whiteface T with Xenar question
- From: "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:59:48 -0800
Sanders,
I would say #2. I do not think the high index crown lanthanum glass improved
the Tessar in terms of resolution. Now I am sure people will argue, but
perhaps it improved flare, reduced chromatic aberations, etc. But older
non-coated Tessars were often superb in terms of resolution.
Interesting article here that discusses this in detail.
http://www.willbell.com/TM/ChapterB.3.pdf
The quality of the Xenar v. Tessar is not something you'd be able to tell
apart in print or transparencies IMO. Enjoy the camera.
When is your son due?
Peter K
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Sanders McNew <sanders@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I am always happy to stir the pot on an obscure
> Rolleiflex question. And I'm feeling my oats these
> days: Melanie is expecting our first child, a boy!
> So life is good.
>
> (BTW, Melanie sends her regards to Richard and
> Slobodan.)
>
> Back on subject ...
>
> Peter, when you opine that they are "probably"
> identical, that can mean only two thing: Either
>
> (1) Schneider made conforming changes to the
> Xenar to match the reformulated lanthanum
> Tessar, or else
>
> (2) Zeiss's reformulation of the Tessar did not
> improve the lens.
>
> Which was it?
>
> Sanders
>
>
>
> On Mar 21, 2009, at 1:07 AM, FreeLists Mailing List Manager wrote:
>
>
> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:28:13 -0800
> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Whiteface T with Xenar question
> From: "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Wow! What a thread you started. Sanders, they are probably 99% identical.
> Coatings developed by Schneider would be the major difference IMO as they
> are the hardest to duplicate. By the 70s Schneider had much better and
> harder coatings. Their coatings of the 50s were not nearly as good or as
> hard as later years.
> So the short answer, yes.
>
>
>
--
Peter K
Ó¿Õ¬
Other related posts:
