Likely because they used the same shutter and shroud as the 2.8 F
which lens is, of course, larger in diameter. My 3.5 E is also bay
II.
Roger
> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 01:07:26 -0400
> From: ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: rollei_list Digest V6 #285
>
> rollei_list Digest Tue, 02 Nov 2010 Volume: 06 Issue: 285
>
> In This Issue:
> [rollei_list] Bayonet II
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: Robert Meier <robertmeier@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [rollei_list] Bayonet II
> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 12:08:08 -0500 (CDT)
>
> According to my measurement, the diameter of the front element of
the
> 75mm Tessar on my Rollei T is 25mm. The Rolleiflex T takes bayonet
> I accessories. I then measured the diameter of the front element of
> the 75mm Planar on my Rolleiflex 3.5F. It also is 25mm in
> diameter. The Rolleiflex 3.5F takes Bayonet II accessories. This
> leads me to wonder why F&H created bayonet II in the first place.
> Anyone know?
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
