[rollei_list] Re: "different types of black boxes" (was: OT / prove it !)
- From: Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 11:55:07 -0700
Nick,
Yes, I know that Zeiss may have been ahead of Leitz in the
past. But that is history, not current events.
BTW, I just finished trying an f2.8 Jupiter 35mm lens in a
Contax IIIa, and it is a perfect fit. Why does it not fit yours?
Jerry
Nick Roberts wrote:
> --- Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I did not mean to suggest that the Contax was
> > inferior
> > because it is more complex. That does make it more
> > supportable. There is something attractive about
> > design
> > which is simple but effective and the Leica fits
> > that
> > description. The Contax is also an elegant camera.
> > The
> > shutter evidently stems from a design used by ICA in
> > earlier
> > cameras, for instance, the Mirroflex. It works on a
> > different principle than the Leica shutter.
> > I agree that the Zeiss lenses for this camera
> > were
> > excellent and some were innovative designs.
> > Bertelle, who
> > designed the Sonnar worked with variations of the
> > Cooke
> > Triplet. The f/1/4 Sonnar has seven elements but
> > only six
> > glass air surfaces. The Zeiss Biotar/TT&H Opic, both
> > based
> > on the Zeiss Planar of Rudolph, has some fundamental
> >
> > avantages over the Sonnar for fast lenses, however,
> > at its
> > simplest it has eight glass air surfaces and much
> > more flare
> > than the Sonnar. Because lenses of the time were
> > uncoated,
> > the Sonnar was the superior design. BTW, they must
> > have been
> > hell to build with many cemented surfaces and
> > steeply curved
> > surfaces.
> > One feature of both the Leica and Contax cameras
> > was
> > their accurate rangefinders. Fast lenses are of
> > little use
> > if they can't be accurately focused.
> > A last word on the shutter. If one can achieve
> > the same
> > end with two mechanisms, one relatively simple, the
> > other
> > complex, the simpler one is usually considered to be
> > the
> > superior solution. That, and not build quality,
> > life, or
> > performance, was the basis for my remarks. The
> > Contax was an
> > outstanding and astounding piece of machinery. I
> > wonder how
> > many thousands of dollars it would cost to duplicate
> > one
> > now.
> > I am aware of Henry Scherer. His website has some
> >
> > interesting things to say about the Contax. I gather
> > than he
> > thinks many of them were never really tuned up to
> > peak at
> > the factory. He obviously loves these cameras.
> >
> > ---
> > Richard Knoppow
> > Los Angeles, CA, USA
> > dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
>
> But the Contax and Leica shutters did NOT have equal
> performance. The Contax shutter was capable of 1/1250
> - the first FP Leica shutter managed 1/500, I think.
> It is generally accepted that Leica lenses were
> inferior to Zeiss until the mid-50s introduction of
> rare earth glasses. In my personal experience, the
> Jupiter 12 Biogon copy is every bit as good - and
> faster - than my 35mm f3.5 Summaron - and that's a
> pre-war design, manufactured under lower QC
> conditions, against a 50's design. Mind you, the
> Summaron is beautifully compact, and the Jupiter
> doesn't fit on the Contax IIIa.
>
> Nick
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
