Only some of the 2.8 A JenaTessar cells were mismatched. Others
were fine.
I have a later 2.8 A with an Oberkocken Tessar that is quite soft.
todd
On 14-Nov-06, at 12:26 PM, James & Christiane Thompson wrote:
Thanks for the information. As I mentioned, I am just curious if
any "improvements" were made to the design. I am quite happy with
the performance of my particular lens. Even wide open, this lens
has useful applications, and actually isn't as poor a performer as
ancient lore has led us to believe. For proof, type "Rolleiflex
A, 2.8 Tessar" into the search engine at photo.net. There I have
uploaded several images, several of which are at 2.8
Ciao,
Jim
--
"Ein Herz für Kinder" - Ihre Spende hilft! Aktion:
www.deutschlandsegelt.de
Unser Dankeschön: Ihr Name auf dem Segel der 1. deutschen
America's Cup-Yacht!
---
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
---
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
