[rollei_list] Re: Tell the tales of Triotars
- From: Sanders McNew <sanders@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 17:20:30 -0400
So, Marc and Richard, help me out a bit here.
I have it in my head that when you stop a lens down even one stop from full
aperture, its performance improves substantially. I think I read somewhere
that it had something to do with not using the extreme periphery of the lens,
though that's probably wrong. For this reason, over the years I've always
tried to stop down from full aperture when light permitted -- to stop a 2.8E
down to f/4 (or smaller), for example, whenever possible.
Is that correct? And if it is correct, then wouldn't one expect an f/3.5
Triotar, stopped down to f/4.5, to provide visibly better results than an f/4.5
Triotar at full aperture? Maybe the advantage of working the Triotar design to
a larger aperture was, in part, to improve the visual acuity of the lens at a
given working aperture. Or is that a stupid conclusion built on false
assumptions?
Sanders
On May 5, 2013, at 1:15 AM, Marc small wrote:
> Rudolph turned over lens design to Ernst Wandersleb, who eventually got the
> aperture opened to f/3.5. Then Wandersleb turned the project over to his
> assistant, Hans Sauer, who got it down to f/2.8.
Other related posts:
