[rollei_list] Re: Planar vs. Planar
- From: Marc James Small <marcsmall@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:38:55 -0500
At 06:06 PM 3/3/2010, Laurence Cuffe wrote:
>Thanks Richard, thats pretty much what I thought.
>One other comment on the planar lens design:
>My understanding is that the original Planar got a poor press because
>of internal reflections, which finally came under control when
>elements could be given anti reflective coatings. I think Kingslake
>is my source for this.
The original Planar of 1896 had six elements, so
it was prone to internal reflections, though
careful use of a lens shade and avoidance of
contre-jour lighting helped quite a bit. Rudolph
went on to design the four-element Tessar in 1902
to overcome the internal reflection problem, and
the Planar became a back-bencher, though it
continued to be sold by CZJ as a large-format lens for decades.
Rudolph's assistant, Hans Wandersleb, had taken
over from Rudolph as Chief of Photoraphic Lens
Design at Jena after World War I, and, when
Smakula developed true lens coatings in 1935,
Wandersleb assigned to HIS assistant, Hans Sauer,
the reworking of the six-element Planar with lens
coatings. Sauer worked on this for fifteen years
and completely reworked the design to produce the
five-element Planar of 1950. Kingslake accuses
Sauer of simply assigning an old name to a
completely new design, but Sauer was adamant that
he just kept reworking the Planar time and again,
and his surviving notes support Sauer's remarks.
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
Other related posts:
