[rollei_list] Re: Identifying 2.8F models...the 3.5/75 six elements (again)
- From: "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 19:33:32 -0800
OK that makes sense. But the note in the book was specifically to "maintain
the performance guaranteed to Rollei." Until we know what the "performance"
was that was guaranteed, and why it was perhaps "not maintained" or why it
needed to be "maintained" we shall not know. Also what was meant by Rollei's
comments "The 80mm F2.8 Planar and Xenotar lenses did not have these
problems and thus retained their five elements." We would need to know what
was meant by the term "problem." It could be as you stated. Perhaps Marc's
contacts at Zeiss can shed light on this. In the meantime, I think the horse
is dead.
Peter K
On 1/2/06, todd belcher <todd_belcher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> OK, so it does not specifically states it was done to IMPROVE
> performance. It DOES state that it was done to meet the guaranteed
> performance of the 75mm lens. So if we are saying it was difficult to meet
> the criteria or a certain level of performance, wouldn't that mean basically
> the newer design improved things?
>
>
>
>
> No - my point is, the newer design maintained things. The 5 element design
> was no longer possible to produce at the same price due to glass becoming
> too expensive or unavailable, so they created a 6 element version that was
> at the same price, maintaining performance. I other words, Zeiss was telling
> Rollei that to make the 5 element 3.5 Planar, it was going to cost more -
> possibly driving the price of a 3.5 F to the same price as a 2.8 F. So
> Zeiss made a 6 element 3.5 Planar that cost the same as the 5 element
> 3.5Planar, but was the SAME performance.
>
>
>
> Hence, there would have been a better chance of getting a better
> performing 75mm lens. More than that I do not know. But I cannot imagine
> anyone in business stating that the newer design IMPROVED the performance
> because they are saying the older lenses are not as good.
>
>
>
>
> This is the reason the 6 element was quietly introduced without fanfare.
> If the performance of the 6 element was in fact better than the 5 element,
> Rollei and Zeiss would have made sure everyone knew about it. The fact it
> was the same performance meant of course, they could not be advertised as a
> better performer. Economics was driving the change to the 6 elements, not
> performance.
>
>
> The 5 element 2.8 Planar was never changed because the glass for it was
> always available at a reasonable price.
>
>
> todd
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
Other related posts:
