[rollei_list] Re: 2.8 80mm Opton-Tessar
- From: Marc James Small <marcsmall@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx,rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:59:06 -0500
At 04:12 AM 11/15/2006, Carlos Manuel Freaza wrote:
>Marc:
> In the Rollei Report 1, page 7-190 you can see
>the photograph about the Rolleiflex Standard prototype
>with Tessar 2.8/80 and size 0 Compur shutter PR 061,
>the comment says that on 1934 CZJ developed this
>faster lens for the prototype but the design was
>shelved because the lens performance was not yet
>satisfactory, Prochnow also adds that on 1938 the idea
>was taken up again "and the lens recomputed". I have
>no doubt that the two lenses Rollei bought on 1938
>from CZ were to develope the 2.8A prototype.
>In the Rollei Report II, page 16-345 you can see the
>1939 2.8A prototype PR 149 and you can read the
>reasons F&H couldn't manufacture for the market the
>camera before the WWII, the camera was developed again
>10 years later.
>Perhaps I did not use right the word "re-designed",
>the exact word is "recomputed", you could recompute
>the same design, but both words have similar practical
>effects.-
With all credit to Prochnow, Zeiss denies that
this happened. All of the 2.8/8cm CZJ Tessars
were made to the formula computed in 1931. There
was no redesign, recomputation, or the like
according to the factory records. And these
records are meticulous in detail.
Now, in support of your position, every version
of the 2.8/8cm Tessar save for those three Muster
lenses are credited to the same 1931
design; this includes the front-cell focusing
lenses used on the Super Ikonta B and BX along
with the front-standard focusing lenses used on
the Ikoflex III. It is not impossible, of
course, that the 1931 design accommodated both
types but it is certain that the 2.8/8cm used on
the Super Ikonta cameras could not have been
identical to that used on the Ikoflex III.
Against your position is the fact that Carl Zeiss
Jena was then a VERY slow-moving behemoth which
insisted on great precision and which acted with
glacial slowness in lens formulations. We DO
know that the 2.8/8cm design for the Ikoflex III
was finished by mid- or late 1936, so it is
doubtful if any redesign was made in 1938: I
doubt that CZJ would produce those four linked
production batches of lenses with different designs.
Incidentally, there are separate production
batches with a mounting listed as Compur
0. These batches are destinct from those made
for the Ikoflex III and for Rollei, though these also used Compur 0 shutters.
Prochnow spent his career as a Rolleiflex
publicity hack and his book has to be read in
that light. A possible resolution can be
found. Could the following explain the possible discrepancy?
1931: CZJ produced a master design for the 2.8/8cm Tessar
1934: F&H rejected the design
1935: Zeiss Ikon requested a tweaking of the
1931 design for its intended Ikoflex III
1936: CZJ developed a slightly improved design
to meet Zeiss Ikon's requirements.
1938: F&H decided to revisit production of a
camera with a 2.8/8cm Tessar. (F&H by this point
knew of the impending Ikoflex III and was most
concerned over a possible loss of the
professional market to Zeiss Ikon.) Contact with
CZJ afforded them the opportunity to hop on the
bandwagon of the Ikoflex III design with reduced
charges due to production economics, and they did
so. This was not a reformulation to meet F&H's
needs but, rather, F&H agreeing to accept the
tweaking requested by Zeiss Ikon as their
standard -- F&H's interest, after all, was to
meet the challenge of the Ikoflex III and not to
produce a world-busting superior camera. F&H
then owned the professional MF market, though
there were challengers such as the Primarflex and
the Exakta 66. The Ikoflex had to this point
been only a camera for advanced amateurs and had
enjoyed little professional use, but the
appearance of the Ikoflex III was really the
placing of an elephant on a dinner table.
1939: CZJ produces matched lots of lenses to a
common (Ikoflex III) design for both Zeiss Ikon and F&H orders.
1994: With Zeiss Ikon safely long gone,
Prochnow re-invents the past to make it seem that
the tweaking of the 1931 design was done to
please F&H where it actually had been conducted
to meet the needs of Heinz Küppenbender's Zeiss Ikon.
So, yes, I agree that there might well have been
an improvement of the 1931 design but that any
such improvements would have been minor: Ernst
Wandersleb, that most honest of men, was then the
chief of optical design at Jena, and he would not
have permitted the factory records to continue to
reflect a 1931 design date unless the changes were minor ones.
This is fascinating stuff. Again, I need more
numbers from Ikoflex III and Rolleiflex 2.8
cameras, in both cases with body and lens
details. We are on to something here, folks,
and, as the indomitable Sherlock Holmes often
noted, "Watson! The game is afoot!"
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
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
