Yeah - throw out your negatives!
It's counter to all known history about two well-documented companies; My guess
is the gentleman I spoke (or rather listened to for an hour - he has a
reputation for being "chatty"), has conflated unrelated events from a half
century ago:
He was also not shy about singing his own praises, so I'm inclined to file it
under fish stories, but wanted to know what others more knowledgeable than
myself thought.
________________________________
From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Peter <petermattei@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 6:17 PM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Bad Rolleiflex 2.8F Planars rumor
Clearly, Tom, for all these years our collective body of Rollei photography
falls into question...how much better could our images have been? Let's just
go back and do it all over again! Thanks for the lively thread!
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 at 18:05, tom rogers
<jtomrogers@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jtomrogers@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
First I ever heard of it - seems farfetched
It was originally posted on a Facebook Rolleiflex group by someone with no
knowledge of the cameras.
He stated he learned this in a conversation with one of the aftermarket bright
screen makers.
I assumed the original source was referring to the bad batch of 2.8A Tessars,
and it was a misunderstanding - but they said no, definitely 2.8 Planars.
So I called the maker, and he insisted it was the 80mm f2.8 Planar in the
Rolleiflex he was talking about, and that a new Zeiss designer was responsible
for the changes.
That's all I got.
Seems unlikely that for the past 4-5 decades, this hasn't been mentioned in any
available Rolleiflex or Zeiss material, and only one individual (who never
worked for Zeiss or Rollei) appears to be material to it.
Have not been able to corroborate this anywhere online - figured I'd ask here.
A question to Zeiss groups might help confirm or debunk
________________________________
From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on
behalf of `Richard Knoppow
<dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 12:09 PM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Bad Rolleiflex 2.8F Planars rumor
I don't have actual knowledge but on the surface it makes no
sense. I would expect that if there were bad lenses it would
have become very widely known quickly as the bad f/2.8 Tessars
became notorious at the time. That was not a design problem but
rather was due to old production having become scrambled during
the war. There were two Planar designs used for the f/3.5
version, a five element and a six element type. My memory is that
the six element version was easier to manufacture. This may be
the source of the rumor. Only the five element design was used
for f/2.8 lenses.
There is a long standing disagreement about whether the
Zeiss Planar or Schneider Xenotar is the better lens, in fact
there seems to be little or no difference.
All of these lenses were intended to provide better
performance at large apertures than the Tessar. Tessar type
lenses have an inherent fault, a sort of coma called oblique
spherical aberration, at large apertures that makes them blurry
in the margins. While many f/3.5 and f/2.8 Tessar type lenses
have been used the basic design is really about an f/6.3 lens.
Nonetheless, Zeiss and others produced some very good Tessar
types up to f/2.8 nonetheless, other designs are better and
faster Tessars were used mainly on lower cost cameras or those
requiring focusing by means of a moving element.
I would sure like to know if there is any truth to this
story but I am very skeptical for many reasons.
On 10/9/2018 7:00 PM, tom rogers wrote:
Myth or fact?
In the 70s, a Zeiss designer attempted to "improve" the Planar
formula and result was a bad batch of Rolleiflex 2.8F lenses
This is from a well-known individual making after market
components for cameras.
The early 50s bad 2.8 Tessar batch is well documented; First I've
heard anything about 2.8 Planars.
Comments?
