Hi Eric: Was it easy to see the separation?Just thinking it would take only a moment to check a mail-order camera for this, pack it up and send it back.
-------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Goldstein" <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 4:29 PM To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Who uses a T as a 'daily driver'
OK, Marc, then feel free to refund the $150 I had to shell out to JVS to recement the bugger. The rear element on the T is particularly nasty to remove as it is riveted in. John did say that the lens was a very good example of a recomputer Tessar and well worth fixing, but like I said I don't see a difference under magnification from my 1951 Xenar 'cord III. But then again I rarely shoot at apertures larger than f/8-11, so the difference may show up wider open... Eric Goldstein --On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Marc James Small <marcsmall@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: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 theRecomputed Tessar. Zeiss did have some problems with separation in thePro-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 haveexperienced 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, theyhad 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 Tessaron 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 2.8For 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 thesubject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Online, searchable archives are available at //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list--- 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
--- 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
