[rollei_list] Re: Five versus Six Elements, 3.5 versus 2.8
- From: CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:32:10 -0200
Marc:
The weight difference between an Automat type 3 and a 2.8GX
according your numbers is 255g, not 115g, it's a perceptible
difference to handle the camera and to carry it hanging from your neck
if you walk for a long time.
There is some simplification or typo in the Prochnow's info about the
3.5F and 2.8F weight, it couldn't be the same since they are identical
mechanically and the 2.8/80 lens is heavier than the 3.5/75 lens;
Prochnow sometimes takes info from official prices lists and Rollei
sales brochures for the cameras description, they tend to simplify, to
average and to standardize the cameras basic description, it's like
the lens nominal focal length and the lens real focal length.
OK, I just weighed my 3.5F with the Planar 3.5/75 six elements and the
2.8C with the Xenotar 2.8/80, both without lens cap and with an empty
120 spool: 3.5F= 1140g; 2.8C= 1230g, the 2.8C is a simpler camera than
the 3.5F and the 2.8F, it does not have lightmeter, it does not have
DOF calculator, it does not have coupling lightmeter gears; the lens
weight makes the difference, in other words, the weight difference
between the 3.5F vs 2.8F must be bigger than the 2.8C vs 3.5F
difference. I use both cameras and I perceive the difference, it's not
a "dramatic" difference but it exists.
I don't think the 2.8/80 lens has some fragility itself in comparison
with 3.5/75 lenses, however the 2.8/80 five elements has a larger
diameter and they use similar body, the 2.8/80 lens first element
surface is more exposed to suffer scratches and the like than the
3.5/75 lens, it's a matter of size.
Carlos
2013/10/26 Marc James Small <marcsmall@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> I have owned many variants of the 3.5/75 Planar Rolleiflex TLR's and a few
> of the earlier Tessar ones. For many reasons, I kept a 12/24 2.8F and a
> 2.8GX and a Postwar Automat, Type 3.
>
> Weight:
>
> Automat, Type 3 920g
> 3.5C (five-element Planar 1120g
> 3.5F (six-element Planar) 1220g
> 2.8F 1220g
> 2.8GX 1235g
>
> Now, Carlos, where's the beef? The distinction in real weight between the
> Automat Type 3 and the 2.8 GX is 115g, roughly a quarter of a pound or
> around four ounces. Lord Almighty, I heft a Leica M6 lot weighing
> thirty-five pounds about with me, and even my Rolleiflex kit includes the
> Mutars and the Proxars.
>
> I am unaware of any fragility of the lenses on the 2.8/80 models. I've
> never had any problems with any CZJ, CZ, or JSK lens on a Rolleiflex TLR.
> The reflex mirrors can be a problem, as the factory coated them in silver
> and it is now a problem to find a company still doing that but, of course,
> you can silver it in your own kitchen though I would recommend that you do
> this when your spouse is visiting the maiden aunt, as the process involves
> some testy chemistry.
>
> Thanks for sharing the pictures, Carlos.
>
> 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
>
---
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:
