[rollei_list] Re: Identifying 2.8F models...the 3.5/75 six elements (again)
- From: Marc James Small <msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 19:57:53 -0500
At 04:21 PM 1/2/06 -0800, Peter K. wrote:
It clearly states "performance data guaranteed to Rollei." It also states,
there was a PROBLEM with the 75mm lenses meeting this performance. So IMO
the 6-element version was made to correct this "problem," and Prochnow did
state PROBLEM.
As to being cheaper, for whom? Zeiss maybe, but it clearly states
Production Costs Remained Unchanged. So to me it would seem that while it
may have benefitted Zeiss from both a financial and perhaps an improved
resolution standpoint, it ONLY benefitted Rollei from a performance
standpoint.They saw no savings.
Now Carlos, with all due respect, this was nearly 50 year ago and we are
beating a dead horse. In the book I have, which Prochnow wrote, I think it
is clear there was a "problem" with the 5-element 75mm design that needed
correcting otherwise there would not be a 6-element version. Now this may
have been something very minor you or I would never ever notice in a
photograph, but Prochnow DOES NOT STATE that the design change was done
for economical reasons. And again, he DOES State Production Costs Remained
UNCHANGED [for Rollei]!!
-----------------------------------
Damn, sir! Pray, clip your messages!
In the middle 1960's, the Zeiss Foundation was hell-bent on cutting itself
from all camera and camera lens production. They recognized the
public-relations virtue from having a leading role in the field, which is
why they continued to subsidize the Zeiss Ikon Contarex and its magnificent
lens line along with the lenses for Hasselblad and Rolleiflex, but they
really wanted these to be at the least not a source of loss. Zeiss made
more profit from a single microscope than it made from a dozen Planar
lenses and the profit from a submarine periscope was probably more than a
hundred such lenses would produce. No one has ever accused Zeiss of having
a lick of commercial sense but, still, they at the least understood the
basics.
I would suggest, without any hard knowledge one way or 'tother (though I
shall ask those more knowledgeable than I), that the Zeiss Lens Works
advised Franke & Heidecke around 1965 that the cost of a properly produced
five-element 3.5/75 Planar would be jacked up substantially due to
increased production costs but that they could supply a six-element lens at
the current five-element price due to ease in manufacturing standards. F&H
was concerned over maintaining its price-point AND in maintaining optical
quality, so the switch was a no-brainer. That Schneider followed suit soon
thereafter leads some credence to this approach.
In other words, the switch to the six-element lenses seems to have been
mandated by the reduced precision needed in their production while
allowinig a continuation in optical quality.
I have owned and used a lot of this guys. I loved my 3.5E and regret
selling it. I never warmed to any version of the 3.5F. In the end, I kept
a 2.8F and a 2.8GX and an Automat, Typ III. And a couple of Ikoflices, of
course, just to keep me honest.
I still have yet to acquire an Ikoflex III or a Rolleiflex 2.8A or 2.8B,
but these are not heavy items on the agenda. Some day.
Marc
msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!
NEW FAX NUMBER: +540-343-8505
---
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: