rollei_list Digest Sat, 21 Mar 2009 Volume: 05 Issue: 068
In This Issue:
[rollei_list] Re: Whiteface T with Xenar question
[rollei_list] Re: Flashpot?
[rollei_list] Re: Flashpot?
[rollei_list] Re: Whiteface T with Xenar question
[rollei_list] An old Xenotar with good coating
[rollei_list] Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
[rollei_list] Re: Whiteface T with Xenar question
[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
[rollei_list] Re: Whiteface T with Xenar question
[rollei_list] Re: Whiteface T with Xenar question
[rollei_list] Re: Whiteface T with Xenar question
[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
[rollei_list] American Character
[rollei_list] ADMIN: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbe
[rollei_list] Re: ADMIN: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria ln
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 22:12:05 -0800
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Whiteface T with Xenar question
From: "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>
OK. So all the fancy wording still means exactly what I said. The
coatings
of the 70s were better than the coatings in the 50s. Fair enough?
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Richard Knoppow
<dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Peter K.
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:59 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Whiteface T with Xenar question
You misread. What I meant was better coatings than they, JSK that
is, had
in previous decades. The 50s coatings on Xenotars were horribly
soft. Much
softer than those on Zeiss lenses. Not sure why, but since
coatings were
designed for specific use perhaps their formula was not up to par
until
years later.
Peter K
There is a great deal more to a coating than the "formula". The
method
of deposition and baking in vacuo is of considerable importance in
making
the coating hard and for its adherance to the glass. I have no
idea what
Schneider's practice was but I have certainly seen Schneider
lenses where
the coating appears to have rubbed off in spots.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
--
Peter K
Ó¿Õ¬
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 10:21:52 +0100
From: Emmanuel Bigler <Emmanuel.Bigler@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Flashpot?
From Carlos Manuel F.
The 150 magazine was accepted by Rollei, it uses a film 61.7mm width,
like 120/220 width but it comes a lot longer than 120/220 regular
rolls, I think Fotimpex Berlin had film for the 150 Flashpot
magazine
some time ago.-
In addition to what was mentioned by Carlos, I clearly remember that
when the Maco-Rollei R3 film was introduced, it was available in long
unperforated rolls of 61.7mm width suitable for the FlahPhot long roll
film back.
Well, since to the best of my knowledge the R3 film will not
continue to
be sold when the stock is empty, this information is totally
useless...
but there are manufacturers of 120 film, hence there should exist some
long rolls of unperforate 61.7mm film somewhere in the world...
As far as I remember in the FlashPhot back there is a built-in
knife to
cut any length (??) of exposed film for processing.
--
Emmanuel
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 07:24:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Carlos Manuel Freaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Flashpot?
Those are bad news Emmanuel, I had read good comments about Maco
Rollei R3 films and dedicated developers combo, I think the real
advantage for the film is the wide exposure index using pushing
process with the dedicated developer, otherwise I can't see another
real advantage you couldn't obtain from films already in the market
for several years.
Efke also had 120 bulk film available some years ago, JandC and
Fotoimpex sold it, but it does not appear avilabale now, only 35mm.
Carlos
--- El sáb 21-mar-09, Emmanuel Bigler <Emmanuel.Bigler@xxxxxxxx>
escribió:
De: Emmanuel Bigler <Emmanuel.Bigler@xxxxxxxx>
Asunto: [rollei_list] Re: Flashpot?
Para: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fecha: sábado, 21 de marzo de 2009, 6:21 am
From Elias R.
I take it this to use 50' rolls of what, 70mm?
From Carlos Manuel F.
The 150 magazine was accepted by Rollei, it uses a
film 61.7mm width, > like 120/220 width but it comes a
lot longer than 120/220 regular
rolls, I think Fotimpex Berlin had film for the 150
Flashpot magazine
some time ago.-
In addition to what was mentioned by Carlos, I clearly
remember that when the Maco-Rollei R3 film was introduced,
it was available in long unperforated rolls of 61.7mm width
suitable for the FlahPhot long roll film back.
Well, since to the best of my knowledge the R3 film will
not continue to be sold when the stock is empty, this
information is totally useless... but there are
manufacturers of 120 film, hence there should exist some
long rolls of unperforate 61.7mm film somewhere in the
world...
As far as I remember in the FlashPhot back there is a
built-in knife to cut any length (??) of exposed film for
processing.
--
Emmanuel
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Yahoo! Cocina
Recetas prácticas y comida saludable
http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
------------------------------
From: Sanders McNew <sanders@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Whiteface T with Xenar question
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 10:40:20 -0400
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.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 10:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Carlos Manuel Freaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] An old Xenotar with good coating
I know there are some old Xenotars showing stains in the coating,
but it is not my 2.8C Xenotar case, it's from 1954, lens coating
looks good, without stains.
Yesterday I took this photograph at the street, 2.8C hand held,
close to noon (bad light)with the old Xenotar 2.8/80, Ilford Pan F
50 Plus developed in Tetenal Ultrafin Plus 1+4, please see the
image largest size:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/itarfoto/3373339006/
Carlos
Yahoo! Cocina
Recetas prácticas y comida saludable
http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
------------------------------
Subject: [rollei_list] Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:33:28 -0500
From: "Raid Amin" <ramin@xxxxxxx>
Hi Experts,
I have a 3.5F with serial number 2 280 xxx with a Planar taking lens.
According to the "books", the 3.5F in the range
3.5F-2.250.00 - 3.5F-2.299.546 should be having as taking lens:
Tessar 3,5/75mm, Opton PI 3.5/75mm, Carl Zeiss Oberkochen, Bayonet 2.
What does this suggest to you?
Was my 3.5F "butchered" at some time?
It required extensive repair of the film advance mechanism, and at the
time of the repair, The repairman mentioned the possibility that the
wrong camera front parts are there.
Thanks.
Raid Amin
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Carlos Manuel Freaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
What book are you talking about Raid?, a regular production 3.5F
with Tessar lens never existed.-
Carlos
--- El sáb 21-mar-09, Raid Amin <ramin@xxxxxxx> escribió:
De: Raid Amin <ramin@xxxxxxx>
Asunto: [rollei_list] Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
Para: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fecha: sábado, 21 de marzo de 2009, 5:33 pm
Hi Experts,
I have a 3.5F with serial number 2 280 xxx with a Planar
taking lens.
According to the "books", the 3.5F in the range
3.5F-2.250.00 - 3.5F-2.299.546 should be having as taking
lens:
Tessar 3,5/75mm, Opton PI 3.5/75mm, Carl Zeiss Oberkochen,
Bayonet 2.
What does this suggest to you?
Was my 3.5F "butchered" at some time?
It required extensive repair of the film advance mechanism,
and at the
time of the repair, The repairman mentioned the possibility
that the
wrong camera front parts are there.
Thanks.
Raid Amin
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Yahoo! Cocina
Recetas prácticas y comida saludable
http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
------------------------------
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:46:38 -0500
From: "Raid Amin" <ramin@xxxxxxx>
Hi Carlos,
I went to the website of the Rolleiclub: http://www.rolleiclub.com/
cameras/tlr/info/all_TLR.shtml
Is the information wrong?
Thanks for clearing things up for me.
Raid
-----Original Message-----
From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rollei_list-
bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carlos Manuel Freaza
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 3:42 PM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
What book are you talking about Raid?, a regular production 3.5F
with Tessar lens never existed.-
Carlos
--- El sáb 21-mar-09, Raid Amin <ramin@xxxxxxx> escribió:
De: Raid Amin <ramin@xxxxxxx>
Asunto: [rollei_list] Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
Para: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fecha: sábado, 21 de marzo de 2009, 5:33 pm
Hi Experts,
I have a 3.5F with serial number 2 280 xxx with a Planar
taking lens.
According to the "books", the 3.5F in the range
3.5F-2.250.00 - 3.5F-2.299.546 should be having as taking
lens:
Tessar 3,5/75mm, Opton PI 3.5/75mm, Carl Zeiss Oberkochen,
Bayonet 2.
What does this suggest to you?
Was my 3.5F "butchered" at some time?
It required extensive repair of the film advance mechanism,
and at the
time of the repair, The repairman mentioned the possibility
that the
wrong camera front parts are there.
Thanks.
Raid Amin
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Yahoo! Cocina
Recetas prácticas y comida saludable
http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:54:39 -0700
From: Jerry Lehrer <glehrer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
RAID!
Your "books" are in error. Or are you interpreting them
correctly? No
F should be shown with
a Tessar. No f 3.5 Tessar should be shown taking Bayonet II.
Jerry
Raid Amin wrote:
Hi Experts,
I have a 3.5F with serial number 2 280 xxx with a Planar taking lens.
According to the "books", the 3.5F in the range
3.5F-2.250.00 - 3.5F-2.299.546 should be having as taking lens:
Tessar 3,5/75mm, Opton PI 3.5/75mm, Carl Zeiss Oberkochen, Bayonet 2.
What does this suggest to you?
Was my 3.5F "butchered" at some time?
It required extensive repair of the film advance mechanism, and at
the
time of the repair, The repairman mentioned the possibility that the
wrong camera front parts are there.
Thanks.
Raid Amin
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
------------------------------
From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:04:46 -0700
----- Original Message -----
From: "Raid Amin" <ramin@xxxxxxx>
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 1:33 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria
lnumbers?
Hi Experts,
I have a 3.5F with serial number 2 280 xxx with a Planar
taking lens.
According to the "books", the 3.5F in the range
3.5F-2.250.00 - 3.5F-2.299.546 should be having as taking
lens:
Tessar 3,5/75mm, Opton PI 3.5/75mm, Carl Zeiss Oberkochen,
Bayonet 2.
What does this suggest to you?
Was my 3.5F "butchered" at some time?
It required extensive repair of the film advance mechanism,
and at the
time of the repair, The repairman mentioned the possibility
that the
wrong camera front parts are there.
Thanks.
Raid Amin
---
I wonder about that repair man.
According to Prochnow _Rollei Report 2_ the serial
number is correct. He identifies the camera as a 3.5F second
model. The serial numbers run from F- 2,300,000 through F-
2,241,499
These cameras were supplied with either a Zeiss Planar
or Schneider Xenotar with Heidosmat finder lens made by the
same company that made the taking lens. Prochnow does not
indicate that different serial number sequences were used
for the different taking lenses.
There appear to have been three versions of the 3.5F,
my German is very limited so I can't determine from the text
what the differences are.
The Rollei film transport mechanism is pretty rugged,
mostly they just get sticky from old lubricant. They _can_
be broken and sometimes parts wear out due to very heavy
use. I wonder what happened to yours.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:05:32 -0500
From: "Raid Amin" <ramin@xxxxxxx>
Jerry,
My sin was to visit the website of the RolleiClub.
Raid
-----Original Message-----
From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jerry Lehrer
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 3:55 PM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
RAID!
Your "books" are in error. Or are you interpreting them
correctly? No
F should be shown with
a Tessar. No f 3.5 Tessar should be shown taking Bayonet II.
Jerry
Raid Amin wrote:
Hi Experts,
I have a 3.5F with serial number 2 280 xxx with a Planar taking lens.
According to the "books", the 3.5F in the range
3.5F-2.250.00 - 3.5F-2.299.546 should be having as taking lens:
Tessar 3,5/75mm, Opton PI 3.5/75mm, Carl Zeiss Oberkochen, Bayonet 2.
What does this suggest to you?
Was my 3.5F "butchered" at some time?
It required extensive repair of the film advance mechanism, and at
the
time of the repair, The repairman mentioned the possibility that the
wrong camera front parts are there.
Thanks.
Raid Amin
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
------------------------------
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:07:17 -0500
From: "Raid Amin" <ramin@xxxxxxx>
Hi Richard,
You cleared things up for me.
Thanks.
Raid
I wonder about that repair man.
According to Prochnow _Rollei Report 2_ the serial
number is correct. He identifies the camera as a 3.5F second
model. The serial numbers run from F- 2,300,000 through F-
2,241,499
These cameras were supplied with either a Zeiss Planar
or Schneider Xenotar with Heidosmat finder lens made by the
same company that made the taking lens. Prochnow does not
indicate that different serial number sequences were used
for the different taking lenses.
There appear to have been three versions of the 3.5F,
my German is very limited so I can't determine from the text
what the differences are.
The Rollei film transport mechanism is pretty rugged,
mostly they just get sticky from old lubricant. They _can_
be broken and sometimes parts wear out due to very heavy
use. I wonder what happened to yours.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Carlos Manuel Freaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
Raid, I just wrote yesterday that the Rollei Club site has some
very bad info about the TLR, it happens because they use some
factory data sheets that are not representing the true camera
description, they are intermediate files with production projects
only and I quoted like sample the 3.5F with Tessar and Xenar, you
need to replace them with Planar and Xenotar, these are the
manufactured 3.5F cameras. I think that even the most unreliable
books on the Rolleiflex don't mention a 3.5F with Tessar lens.
Your camera is within the serial block numbers 2.250.000 to
2.299.546, according Prochnow and other sources, it has a Planar
3.5/75 lens and your camera has a Planar 3.5/75 lens. My 3.5F is
within the same serial block numbers, it has 2.279.xxx, according
Prochnow it has a Planar 3.5/75 lens and my camera has a Planar
3.5/75 lens, you can imagine who is right.-
Ey! I'm noticing my 3.5F and your 3.5F are very close regarding the
serial numbers, I'd bet they are from the same batch.
Carlos
--- El sáb 21-mar-09, Raid Amin <ramin@xxxxxxx> escribió:
De: Raid Amin <ramin@xxxxxxx>
Asunto: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
Para: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fecha: sábado, 21 de marzo de 2009, 5:46 pm
Hi Carlos,
I went to the website of the Rolleiclub:
http://www.rolleiclub.com/cameras/tlr/info/all_TLR.shtml
Is the information wrong?
Thanks for clearing things up for me.
Raid
-----Original Message-----
From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Carlos Manuel Freaza
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 3:42 PM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria
lnumbers?
What book are you talking about Raid?, a regular production
3.5F with Tessar lens never existed.-
Carlos
--- El sáb 21-mar-09, Raid Amin <ramin@xxxxxxx>
escribió:
De: Raid Amin <ramin@xxxxxxx>
Asunto: [rollei_list] Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria
lnumbers?
Para: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fecha: sábado, 21 de marzo de 2009, 5:33 pm
Hi Experts,
I have a 3.5F with serial number 2 280 xxx with a
Planar
taking lens.
According to the "books", the 3.5F in the
range
3.5F-2.250.00 - 3.5F-2.299.546 should be having as
taking
lens:
Tessar 3,5/75mm, Opton PI 3.5/75mm, Carl Zeiss
Oberkochen,
Bayonet 2.
What does this suggest to you?
Was my 3.5F "butchered" at some time?
It required extensive repair of the film advance
mechanism,
and at the
time of the repair, The repairman mentioned the
possibility
that the
wrong camera front parts are there.
Thanks.
Raid Amin
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Yahoo! Cocina
Recetas prácticas y comida saludable
http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Yahoo! Cocina
Recetas prácticas y comida saludable
http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Carlos Manuel Freaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
Richard, I'm afraid Herr Prochnow corrected the numbers again for
the second and reviewed Rollei Report 2, the Raid's 3.5F and my
3.5F are within the serial block 2.250.000 to 2.299.546 in the
second edition, and this block is for the 3.5F third model.
It seems there are several correctins for the second edition.-
Carlos
--- El sáb 21-mar-09, Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
escribió:
I wonder about that repair man.
According to Prochnow _Rollei Report 2_ the serial
number is correct. He identifies the camera as a 3.5F second
model. The serial numbers run from F- 2,300,000 through F-
2,241,499
These cameras were supplied with either a Zeiss Planar
or Schneider Xenotar with Heidosmat finder lens made by the
same company that made the taking lens. Prochnow does not
indicate that different serial number sequences were used
for the different taking lenses.
There appear to have been three versions of the 3.5F,
my German is very limited so I can't determine from the
text what the differences are.
The Rollei film transport mechanism is pretty rugged,
mostly they just get sticky from old lubricant. They _can_
be broken and sometimes parts wear out due to very heavy
use. I wonder what happened to yours.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Yahoo! Cocina
Recetas prácticas y comida saludable
http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
------------------------------
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:36:51 -0500
From: "Raid Amin" <ramin@xxxxxxx>
Carlos,
Yes, you have explained things well. How do you see your 3.5F when
compared to other TLR cameras tried out by you?Is the lens really
"exceptional" on the 3.5F. I have been using the 2.8D with the
Planar lens for about 20 years now, and then I added the 3.5F.
Raid
-----Original Message-----
From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rollei_list-
bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carlos Manuel Freaza
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 4:15 PM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
Raid, I just wrote yesterday that the Rollei Club site has some
very bad info about the TLR, it happens because they use some
factory data sheets that are not representing the true camera
description, they are intermediate files with production projects
only and I quoted like sample the 3.5F with Tessar and Xenar, you
need to replace them with Planar and Xenotar, these are the
manufactured 3.5F cameras. I think that even the most unreliable
books on the Rolleiflex don't mention a 3.5F with Tessar lens.
Your camera is within the serial block numbers 2.250.000 to
2.299.546, according Prochnow and other sources, it has a Planar
3.5/75 lens and your camera has a Planar 3.5/75 lens. My 3.5F is
within the same serial block numbers, it has 2.279.xxx, according
Prochnow it has a Planar 3.5/75 lens and my camera has a Planar
3.5/75 lens, you can imagine who is right.-
Ey! I'm noticing my 3.5F and your 3.5F are very close regarding the
serial numbers, I'd bet they are from the same batch.
Carlos
--- El sáb 21-mar-09, Raid Amin <ramin@xxxxxxx> escribió:
De: Raid Amin <ramin@xxxxxxx>
Asunto: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
Para: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fecha: sábado, 21 de marzo de 2009, 5:46 pm
Hi Carlos,
I went to the website of the Rolleiclub:
http://www.rolleiclub.com/cameras/tlr/info/all_TLR.shtml
Is the information wrong?
Thanks for clearing things up for me.
Raid
-----Original Message-----
From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Carlos Manuel Freaza
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 3:42 PM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria
lnumbers?
What book are you talking about Raid?, a regular production
3.5F with Tessar lens never existed.-
Carlos
--- El sáb 21-mar-09, Raid Amin <ramin@xxxxxxx>
escribió:
De: Raid Amin <ramin@xxxxxxx>
Asunto: [rollei_list] Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria
lnumbers?
Para: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fecha: sábado, 21 de marzo de 2009, 5:33 pm
Hi Experts,
I have a 3.5F with serial number 2 280 xxx with a
Planar
taking lens.
According to the "books", the 3.5F in the
range
3.5F-2.250.00 - 3.5F-2.299.546 should be having as
taking
lens:
Tessar 3,5/75mm, Opton PI 3.5/75mm, Carl Zeiss
Oberkochen,
Bayonet 2.
What does this suggest to you?
Was my 3.5F "butchered" at some time?
It required extensive repair of the film advance
mechanism,
and at the
time of the repair, The repairman mentioned the
possibility
that the
wrong camera front parts are there.
Thanks.
Raid Amin
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Yahoo! Cocina
Recetas prácticas y comida saludable
http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Yahoo! Cocina
Recetas prácticas y comida saludable
http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
------------------------------
From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:54:14 -0700
----- Original Message -----
From: "Raid Amin" <ramin@xxxxxxx>
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 2:07 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria
lnumbers?
Hi Richard,
You cleared things up for me.
Thanks.
Raid
I wonder about that repair man.
According to Prochnow _Rollei Report 2_ the serial
number is correct. He identifies the camera as a 3.5F second
model. The serial numbers run from F- 2,300,000 through F-
2,241,499
I mis-typed, the first number should be 2,230,000
As others have stated no F series cameras were made
with Tessars or Xenars.
If you are unfamiliar with the lenses used in Rolleis,
both the Planar and Xenotar began as five-element f/2.8
designs but the f/3.5 version was changed to a six-element
design similar to those used in a great many lenses for 35mm
cameras. The reason for this change is somewhat
controversial. I think the 3.5F lenses are both of the
six-element type. These are very high performance lenses.
The mechanical design of the camera is such as to take full
advantage of the lens quality.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------
From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:57:01 -0700
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carlos Manuel Freaza" <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 2:20 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria
lnumbers?
Richard, I'm afraid Herr Prochnow corrected the numbers
again for the second and reviewed Rollei Report 2, the
Raid's 3.5F and my 3.5F are within the serial block
2.250.000 to 2.299.546 in the second edition, and this block
is for the 3.5F third model.
It seems there are several correctins for the second
edition.-
Carlos
on top of that I mis-typed the first number:-( This is
the second time I've had a problem from using the first
editions and think I must just bite the bullet and buy the
later editions.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------
From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:00:50 -0700
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carlos Manuel Freaza" <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 2:15 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria
lnumbers?
Raid, I just wrote yesterday that the Rollei Club site has
some very bad info about the TLR, it happens because they
use some factory data sheets that are not representing the
true camera description, they are intermediate files with
production projects only and I quoted like sample the 3.5F
with Tessar and Xenar, you need to replace them with Planar
and Xenotar, these are the manufactured 3.5F cameras. I
think that even the most unreliable books on the Rolleiflex
don't mention a 3.5F with Tessar lens.
Your camera is within the serial block numbers 2.250.000 to
2.299.546, according Prochnow and other sources, it has a
Planar 3.5/75 lens and your camera has a Planar 3.5/75 lens.
My 3.5F is within the same serial block numbers, it has
2.279.xxx, according Prochnow it has a Planar 3.5/75 lens
and my camera has a Planar 3.5/75 lens, you can imagine who
is right.-
Ey! I'm noticing my 3.5F and your 3.5F are very close
regarding the serial numbers, I'd bet they are from the
same batch.
Carlos
I think the word you want may be _prototype_. That is
an early developmental version of some product which may
differ considerably from the final production version.
Prochnow shows a number of prototype cameras and even just
proposed designs.
Prototypes can be very interesting because they can
show the direction of the thinking of the design group.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:03:18 -0500
From: "Raid Amin" <ramin@xxxxxxx>
It is difficult to envision better lenses than those on the 2.8
models.
I had a broken 3.5F for over six years until it got fixed a couple of
months ago.
The repairman is trustworthy [Eddy Smolov]. He told me that something
was wrong with the front of the camera.
Then has promised me he would somehow make it work. Krimar provided
the
advance chain, and Eddy installed it. Eddy had to disfunction the self
timer for whatever reason so that the camera worked properly
otherwise.
I got the camera on an ebay buy from Egypt. It arrived broken, and the
seller insisted that it got that way in the mail.
Raid
:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Knoppow
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 5:54 PM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Raid Amin" <ramin@xxxxxxx>
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 2:07 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria
lnumbers?
Hi Richard,
You cleared things up for me.
Thanks.
Raid
I wonder about that repair man.
According to Prochnow _Rollei Report 2_ the serial
number is correct. He identifies the camera as a 3.5F second
model. The serial numbers run from F- 2,300,000 through F-
2,241,499
I mis-typed, the first number should be 2,230,000
As others have stated no F series cameras were made
with Tessars or Xenars.
If you are unfamiliar with the lenses used in Rolleis,
both the Planar and Xenotar began as five-element f/2.8
designs but the f/3.5 version was changed to a six-element
design similar to those used in a great many lenses for 35mm
cameras. The reason for this change is somewhat
controversial. I think the 3.5F lenses are both of the
six-element type. These are very high performance lenses.
The mechanical design of the camera is such as to take full
advantage of the lens quality.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
------------------------------
From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Whiteface T with Xenar question
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:22:16 -0700
----- Original Message -----
From: Sanders McNew
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 7:40 AM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Whiteface T with Xenar question
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
Well, my love to Melanie, who is quite attention
getting in person!
Its very difficult to know how to answer questions like
these unless the actual prescriptions for the lenses are
available and then one has only the calculated performance.
To obtain actual performance on any lens its necessary to
run a number of well controlled measurement on it using
precision optical instrumentation. The prescription is the
"formula" for the lens. It consists of specifications for
the curvature of each surface, the thickness of each element
and each air space, the distance of the design object plane
(at what distance the lens design is optimized), the
_complete_ specifications for the glass from each element is
made. The latter is available from the manufacturer's
catalogue if the actual maker and glass type are given.
There are other parameters in an actual production
specification such as the tolerances of of performance
allowable. I give these details, as I did in my previous
post, to give some idea of how complex optical design and
production is and how inadequate most of the common informal
methods of evaluating lens performance are. In addition to
this we have the variations introduced by coating. While
coating does not affect the resolution or aberrations of a
lens directly the effect on image contrast can affect the
usable resolution since resolution is ultimately a contrast
measurement.
Now having said all that, the change in a design might
be for improving the lens because, for instance, an error is
suspected in the original design, or because some new glass
type can improve the performance or lower the cost for
similar performance. Also, many older designs had to be
redesigned when stronger envirionmental regulations made it
more difficult or impossible to include certain traditional
chemicals in the glass. This changed the glass constants and
required a redesign to accomodate what ever glass had to be
used. Such a redesign may or may not improve a lens, the
primary object is to duplicate, if possible the former
design. There are many examples but one is that Paul
Rudolph's original Tessar can not be duplicated with glass
types available today.
For the most part re-calculation of a generic type is
done using a computer design program. There are many
available. The full programs are quite expensive but there
are demonstrator versions available free which will give you
some idea of how they work. Usually, these are limited as to
the number of surfaces one can enter and may have other
limits. There is actually one complete program available
free but its a command line program and beyond me.
So the direct answer to your question is that no one
outside of the factories can be sure if a lens was actually
redesigned or what the object or results of the change were.
In addition, records from Zeiss show that the company
was constantly experimenting with variations of their
lenses, at least at the period that the _Zeiss Index_ covers
(probably late 1800s to perhaps the twenties). Even where
one has patent and other information on lenses it very
difficult or impossible to tell which designs were actually
used in production and are in cameras (with some
exceptions). As far as the effect of Lanthanum glass on a
Tessar type lens, my lens designer friend set up a number of
Zeiss designs in a modern lens design program and allowed it
to do whatever it could to optimise them including using
modern low dispersion and rare-earth glasses. The results
were that not much improvement was gotten from the glass
change.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------
From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:26:45 -0700
----- Original Message -----
From: "Raid Amin" <ramin@xxxxxxx>
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 4:03 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria
lnumbers?
It is difficult to envision better lenses than those on the
2.8 models.
I had a broken 3.5F for over six years until it got fixed a
couple of
months ago.
The repairman is trustworthy [Eddy Smolov]. He told me that
something
was wrong with the front of the camera.
Then has promised me he would somehow make it work. Krimar
provided the
advance chain, and Eddy installed it. Eddy had to
disfunction the self
timer for whatever reason so that the camera worked properly
otherwise.
I got the camera on an ebay buy from Egypt. It arrived
broken, and the
seller insisted that it got that way in the mail.
Raid
I have heard of Eddy Smalov but have no experience with
him. I don't quite know which part is meant by _advance
chain_ probably has another name.
AFAIK, the self-timer in the F is part of the shutter.
In earlier f/3.5 models its a separate mechanism. There is
more in the front of the camera than the lens and shutter
mounting. Perhaps he was refering to the mechanism for
cocking the shutter or controlling the shutter speed and
f/stop. Very puzzling.
I am sure that others on this list will have further
comments on this.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:50:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Carlos Manuel Freaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
Carlos,
Yes, you have explained things well. How do you see your
3.5F when compared to other TLR cameras tried out by you?Is
the lens really "exceptional" on the 3.5F. I have
been using the 2.8D with the Planar lens for about 20 years
now, and then I added the 3.5F.
Raid
Raid;
Identical lenses about design and construction could have
differences even brand new, if you add factors like maintainance
and use for an old lens, differences can increase dramatically, and
then my opinion is only valid for my camera and lens.
About my 3.5F Planar 3.5/75 six elements, this lens was the only
reason I kept the camera when I received it, the camera working
condition was not according the seller description and he offered
me to return my money, but in fact the camera was very cheap really
and then I thought about Harry Fleenor to repair the camera because
the lens looked excellent except for a thin fungus ring in the
first element around the edges, no important really and Harry has a
lot of spare parts if necessary.
Harry sent the Planar to John v.S. in Colorado and he removed the
fungus without problem, it was not necessary to recoat the first
element.
Harry authorized me to comment his opinion about my
Planar :"...While I was adjusting the focus on the Rollei
collimator I was impressed by the
sharpness of the lens on this Rolleiflex 3.5F". Please note Harry
wrote on "this" 3.5F, you couldn't take it like a general
commentary about every Planar on every 3.5F.
In practical use, I only could say this Planar is an excellent lens.
Carlos
Yahoo! Cocina
Recetas prácticas y comida saludable
http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:59:48 -0800
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Whiteface T with Xenar question
From: "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>
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¬
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:01:42 -0400
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Whiteface T with Xenar question
From: Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
Peter -
My recollection is that, like you say, the higher index glass
reduced chromatic.
Tessars were good lenses from the get-go, but they have certainly been
improved over the years. The last 45 mm/2.8 Zeiss Tessars for the
Contax were amazing lenses...
Eric Goldstein
--
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Peter K. <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
------------------------------
From: Robert Meier <robertmeier@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Whiteface T with Xenar question
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 20:05:00 -0500 (CDT)
I have one of those 45/2.8 Tessars for my Contax 139 -- it's a great
lens and a great combination.
On Mar 21, 2009, at 8:01 PM, Eric Goldstein wrote:
Peter -
My recollection is that, like you say, the higher index glass
reduced chromatic.
Tessars were good lenses from the get-go, but they have certainly
been
improved over the years. The last 45 mm/2.8 Zeiss Tessars for the
Contax were amazing lenses...
Eric Goldstein
--
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Peter K. <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
------------------------------
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 20:54:06 -0500
From: "Raid Amin" <ramin@xxxxxxx>
Richard,
I have attached a photo of the transport mechanism that was broken.
Krimar had a replacement part.
It could very well have been that the shutter also was in need of some
repair and that's why the self timer had to be sacrificed.
Raid
I have heard of Eddy Smalov but have no experience with
him. I don't quite know which part is meant by _advance
chain_ probably has another name.
AFAIK, the self-timer in the F is part of the shutter.
In earlier f/3.5 models its a separate mechanism. There is
more in the front of the camera than the lens and shutter
mounting. Perhaps he was refering to the mechanism for
cocking the shutter or controlling the shutter speed and
f/stop. Very puzzling.
I am sure that others on this list will have further
comments on this.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
------------------------------
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 20:56:56 -0500
From: "Raid Amin" <ramin@xxxxxxx>
Carlos,
I fully understand what you mean. In my case, the lens is crystal-
clean, and this was the main reason why I accepted a partial refund
and that I kept the camera. I would not know whether it would be
worthwhile to mail Harry the camera for [hopefully] a similar
statement on my lens. I will take a roll of film with it tomorrow.
Raid
Raid;
Identical lenses about design and construction could have
differences even brand new, if you add factors like maintainance
and use for an old lens, differences can increase dramatically, and
then my opinion is only valid for my camera and lens.
About my 3.5F Planar 3.5/75 six elements, this lens was the only
reason I kept the camera when I received it, the camera working
condition was not according the seller description and he offered
me to return my money, but in fact the camera was very cheap really
and then I thought about Harry Fleenor to repair the camera because
the lens looked excellent except for a thin fungus ring in the
first element around the edges, no important really and Harry has a
lot of spare parts if necessary.
Harry sent the Planar to John v.S. in Colorado and he removed the
fungus without problem, it was not necessary to recoat the first
element.
Harry authorized me to comment his opinion about my
Planar :"...While I was adjusting the focus on the Rollei
collimator I was impressed by the
sharpness of the lens on this Rolleiflex 3.5F". Please note Harry
wrote on "this" 3.5F, you couldn't take it like a general
commentary about every Planar on every 3.5F.
In practical use, I only could say this Planar is an excellent lens.
Carlos
Yahoo! Cocina
Recetas prácticas y comida saludable
http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Carlos Manuel Freaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
Raid,
I forgot the question about the TLRs use comparisons, my
current three TLRs: 3.5F Planar, 2.8C Xenotar and 'cord IV Xenar
have excellent lenses, I can't tell the image quality difference,
for some landscapes color shots -wide water surfaces specially- the
Xenar tends to give a bit of blue cast if you don't use UV filter
or a Fuji Reala or Velvia film, it's a terrific lens regarding
sharpness and the 'cord is very light and comfortable to use it;
the C is the heaviest camera, however I also feel it very
comfortable in the hands and the Xenotar 2.8/80 on this C is a
remarkable lens considering its age; the 3.5F is great mechanical
camera, the coupled lightmeter is no longer reliable due to the
selenium cells condition but in fact I prefer to use hand held
lightmeters, I like very much the F automatic DOF indicator and the
bright focusing screen wirh central split image focusing aid, I
talked below about the Planar lens; I'd give a 0.00001% of
preference for the 3.5F use, but I really enjoy the three cameras.
BTW, TLRs cameras have some limits and for those limits I have and
use other cameras.
Carlos
--- El sáb 21-mar-09, Carlos Manuel Freaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
escribió:
Raid;
Identical lenses about design and construction could
have differences even brand new, if you add factors like
maintainance and use for an old lens, differences can
increase dramatically, and then my opinion is only valid for
my camera and lens.
About my 3.5F Planar 3.5/75 six elements, this lens was the
only reason I kept the camera when I received it, the camera
working condition was not according the seller description
and he offered me to return my money, but in fact the camera
was very cheap really and then I thought about Harry Fleenor
to repair the camera because the lens looked excellent
except for a thin fungus ring in the first element around
the edges, no important really and Harry has a lot of spare
parts if necessary.
Harry sent the Planar to John v.S. in Colorado and he
removed the fungus without problem, it was not necessary to
recoat the first element.
Harry authorized me to comment his opinion about my Planar
:"...While I was adjusting the focus on the Rollei
collimator I was impressed by the
sharpness of the lens on this Rolleiflex 3.5F". Please
note Harry wrote on "this" 3.5F, you couldn't
take it like a general commentary about every Planar on
every 3.5F.
In practical use, I only could say this Planar is an
excellent lens.
Carlos
Yahoo! Cocina
Recetas prácticas y comida saludable
http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Yahoo! Cocina
Recetas prácticas y comida saludable
http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
------------------------------
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:09:26 -0500
From: "Raid Amin" <ramin@xxxxxxx>
Carlos,
My long time workhorse has been the 1955 made 2.8D with the Planar.
It is my birth year, so I chose it optimistically as my reliable
TLR camera. I sold off a pretty looking 2.8E and a 2.8F. I also
have a first version Tele Rollei which has some decementing on the
taking lens. It was meant for me; I bought it from some person in
Australia, then sold it to someone in Germany. It got some damage
in the mail to Germany, so I got is back. My third Rollei is a late
model MX-EVS with a Tessar. Lastly, I have the 3.5F. The 2.8 Planar
is clearly sharper than my 3.5 Tessar when using large apertures. I
am trying to find a niche for the Tessar so that it gets used more
often. The 135 Sonnar in the Tele appears to my eyes to be very
sharp. I have not seen any effects yet due to the decementing.
Raid
-----Original Message-----
From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rollei_list-
bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carlos Manuel Freaza
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 8:58 PM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
Raid,
I forgot the question about the TLRs use comparisons, my
current three TLRs: 3.5F Planar, 2.8C Xenotar and 'cord IV Xenar
have excellent lenses, I can't tell the image quality difference,
for some landscapes color shots -wide water surfaces specially- the
Xenar tends to give a bit of blue cast if you don't use UV filter
or a Fuji Reala or Velvia film, it's a terrific lens regarding
sharpness and the 'cord is very light and comfortable to use it;
the C is the heaviest camera, however I also feel it very
comfortable in the hands and the Xenotar 2.8/80 on this C is a
remarkable lens considering its age; the 3.5F is great mechanical
camera, the coupled lightmeter is no longer reliable due to the
selenium cells condition but in fact I prefer to use hand held
lightmeters, I like very much the F automatic DOF indicator and the
bright focusing screen wirh central split image focusing aid, I
talked below about the Planar lens; I'd give a 0.00001% of
preference for the 3.5F use, but I really enjoy the three cameras.
BTW, TLRs cameras have some limits and for those limits I have and
use other cameras.
Carlos
--- El sáb 21-mar-09, Carlos Manuel Freaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
escribió:
Raid;
Identical lenses about design and construction could
have differences even brand new, if you add factors like
maintainance and use for an old lens, differences can
increase dramatically, and then my opinion is only valid for
my camera and lens.
About my 3.5F Planar 3.5/75 six elements, this lens was the
only reason I kept the camera when I received it, the camera
working condition was not according the seller description
and he offered me to return my money, but in fact the camera
was very cheap really and then I thought about Harry Fleenor
to repair the camera because the lens looked excellent
except for a thin fungus ring in the first element around
the edges, no important really and Harry has a lot of spare
parts if necessary.
Harry sent the Planar to John v.S. in Colorado and he
removed the fungus without problem, it was not necessary to
recoat the first element.
Harry authorized me to comment his opinion about my Planar
:"...While I was adjusting the focus on the Rollei
collimator I was impressed by the
sharpness of the lens on this Rolleiflex 3.5F". Please
note Harry wrote on "this" 3.5F, you couldn't
take it like a general commentary about every Planar on
every 3.5F.
In practical use, I only could say this Planar is an
excellent lens.
Carlos
Yahoo! Cocina
Recetas prácticas y comida saludable
http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Yahoo! Cocina
Recetas prácticas y comida saludable
http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 19:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Carlos Manuel Freaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
The 2.8D is a 2.8C with EVS, true workhorses, my 1954 2.8C is two
years older than me, my father bought it brand new in 1956 (my
birth year) and about 60% or 70% of my brother and me photographs
when we were babies and little childs were taken with this 2.8C and
it still works and works very well.
The Sonnar for the Tele-Rollei is a remarkable lens; I know about
some Rollei Planar and Xenotar lenses with decementing problems
maintaining the image quality.-
All the best
Carlos
--- El sáb 21-mar-09, Raid Amin <ramin@xxxxxxx> escribió:
De: Raid Amin <ramin@xxxxxxx>
Asunto: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria lnumbers?
Para: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fecha: sábado, 21 de marzo de 2009, 11:09 pm
Carlos,
My long time workhorse has been the 1955 made 2.8D with the
Planar. It is my birth year, so I chose it optimistically as
my reliable TLR camera. I sold off a pretty looking 2.8E and
a 2.8F. I also have a first version Tele Rollei which has
some decementing on the taking lens. It was meant for me; I
bought it from some person in Australia, then sold it to
someone in Germany. It got some damage in the mail to
Germany, so I got is back. My third Rollei is a late model
MX-EVS with a Tessar. Lastly, I have the 3.5F. The 2.8
Planar is clearly sharper than my 3.5 Tessar when using
large apertures. I am trying to find a niche for the Tessar
so that it gets used more often. The 135 Sonnar in the Tele
appears to my eyes to be very sharp. I have not seen any
effects yet due to the decementing.
Raid
-----Original Message-----
From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Carlos Manuel Freaza
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 8:58 PM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria
lnumbers?
Raid,
I forgot the question about the TLRs use comparisons,
my current three TLRs: 3.5F Planar, 2.8C Xenotar and
'cord IV Xenar have excellent lenses, I can't tell
the image quality difference, for some landscapes color
shots -wide water surfaces specially- the Xenar tends to
give a bit of blue cast if you don't use UV filter or a
Fuji Reala or Velvia film, it's a terrific lens
regarding sharpness and the 'cord is very light and
comfortable to use it; the C is the heaviest camera, however
I also feel it very comfortable in the hands and the Xenotar
2.8/80 on this C is a remarkable lens considering its age;
the 3.5F is great mechanical camera, the coupled lightmeter
is no longer reliable due to the selenium cells condition
but in fact I prefer to use hand held lightmeters, I like
very much the F automatic DOF indicator and the bright
focusing screen wirh central split image focusing aid, I
talked below about the Planar lens; I'd give a 0.00001%
of
preference for the 3.5F use, but I really enjoy the three
cameras.
BTW, TLRs cameras have some limits and for those limits I
have and use other cameras.
Carlos
--- El sáb 21-mar-09, Carlos Manuel Freaza
<cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxxxxx> escribió:
Raid;
Identical lenses about design and construction
could
have differences even brand new, if you add factors
like
maintainance and use for an old lens, differences can
increase dramatically, and then my opinion is only
valid for
my camera and lens.
About my 3.5F Planar 3.5/75 six elements, this lens
was the
only reason I kept the camera when I received it, the
camera
working condition was not according the seller
description
and he offered me to return my money, but in fact the
camera
was very cheap really and then I thought about Harry
Fleenor
to repair the camera because the lens looked excellent
except for a thin fungus ring in the first element
around
the edges, no important really and Harry has a lot of
spare
parts if necessary.
Harry sent the Planar to John v.S. in Colorado and he
removed the fungus without problem, it was not
necessary to
recoat the first element.
Harry authorized me to comment his opinion about my
Planar
:"...While I was adjusting the focus on the
Rollei
collimator I was impressed by the
sharpness of the lens on this Rolleiflex 3.5F".
Please
note Harry wrote on "this" 3.5F, you
couldn't
take it like a general commentary about every Planar
on
every 3.5F.
In practical use, I only could say this Planar is an
excellent lens.
Carlos
Yahoo! Cocina
Recetas prácticas y comida saludable
http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Yahoo! Cocina
Recetas prácticas y comida saludable
http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Yahoo! Cocina
Recetas prácticas y comida saludable
http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 19:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jim Boy <marinerx2@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] American Character
The photographer with the Rollei is Sylvia Plachy, she cuts the
square negs for the American character project, but image
perspective and composition style seem to come from a Rolleiflex
camera celarly, at least some of them.
Thanks, Carlos
David Chananie
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 23:17:18 -0400
From: Marc James Small <marcsmall@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] ADMIN: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria
lnumbers?
At 09:54 PM 3/21/2009, Raid Amin wrote:
I have attached a photo of the transport mechanism that was broken.
Raid
Please, do NOT post binaries on the Rollei
List. Ever. You certainly may advise folks of
their availability, but please do not post them directly to this List.
Marc
msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!
------------------------------
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: ADMIN: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria
lnumbers?
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:35:41 -0500
From: "Raid Amin" <ramin@xxxxxxx>
Marc,
I did not know about this issue. Sorry about that.
Raid
-----Original Message-----
From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rollei_list-
bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marc James Small
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 10:17 PM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] ADMIN: Rolleiflex 3.5F with wrong seria
lnumbers?
At 09:54 PM 3/21/2009, Raid Amin wrote:
I have attached a photo of the transport mechanism that was broken.
Raid
Please, do NOT post binaries on the Rollei
List. Ever. You certainly may advise folks of
their availability, but please do not post them directly to this List.
Marc
msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
------------------------------
End of rollei_list Digest V5 #68
********************************
---
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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list