On Mar 10, 2016, at 10:05 PM, COURYHOUSE at
aol.com
wrote:
I wonder if the tele tessar was a true tessar design or just a use
of 'the name' ? I have seen snipits in google referring to it being a true
telephoto... with a true tessar formula lens IS NOT.
I think it?s based on the Tessar, but is something different from what?s in the Hasselblad
manual. The cross-section is definitely different. There are apparently at least two
Tele-Tessar designs, with different numbers of elements.
ok the norm for the hassleblad was a80 mm f 2.8
planar...
in the rolliflex the tessar was the entry level lens... the planar the
upgrade.
my first 'real' camera was a 1933 rolliflex with a f3.5 tessar. not
bad at all but a little soft wide open.
I still have this camera. and the low shutter speeds are a little
slow but OTW rest is fine..
In HD I bought an argus c3 from my geometry teacher for $8 and
used it a lot more shots per roll and would operate eye level and
had a pretty good split image rangefinder.. the lens was decent too.
when I went in USAF sold the C# to my brother but kept the
rolliflex ( wish I had saved both! as the argus shot some of my first
press work) adn when in USAF got a SLR.
I?ve not been able to justify the cost of a Planar Rolleiflex, though I?d really love one
with a nice f/2.8 Planar lens. Both of mine have the 75mm f/3.5 Tessar. The older of my
two is from 1936, the newer from about 1958. For me the Rollei is more of a small
lightweight travel camera, or shooting for fun, than a serious camera. Sort of a ?getting
back to my roots? sort of thing, as I started with a Yashica 44LM TLR.
What I really need to do is spend the money and get my Hasselblad?s 80mm f/2.8 Planar C
CLA?d, as the shutter on it isn?t accurate (or fast) at any speed. :-( It?s my
"serious work" Medium Format camera.
Zane