[rollei_list] Re: Who uses a T as a 'daily driver'
- From: Marc James Small <marcsmall@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:12:29 -0500
At 03:19 PM 2/1/2010, Eric Goldstein wrote:
>Full frame, the Xenars on the 'cord IIIs and IVs produce images as
>fine as the T Tessar... supposedly that T was recalculated to make use
>of newly available glass but I have no evidence of improved
>corrections under the enlarger or scanner. I also know several folks
>who have had element separation issues with the T Tessar, myself
>included...
There ought not be any element separation problem
with a lens as late as the Recomputed
Tessar. Zeiss did have some problems with
separation in the Pro-Tessars used on the
Contaflex SLR's, but that was identified in 1957
and corrected with improved glues. A lens made
after that date ought only have experienced separation if abused.
And the Recomputed Tessar is certainly an
improvement over the Xenar. When the Royal Navy
was forced to accept JSK Xenars on the final run
of T's, they had to rewrite the standards to
permit this, as the JSK Xenar could not match the
Recomputed Tessar in performance.
A scholar as noted as Ivor Matanle has remarked
that the Recomputed Tessar on the Contaflex was a
normal lens of astonishing performance.
And I still have no idea why you folks are
avoiding the Big Ride on a 2.8F or GX or FX.
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:
