10 Mar
2016
10 Mar
'16
10:05 p.m.
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.
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.
messages in the bin? then add my address to your contact list?! the
address
In a message dated 3/10/2016 8:31:43 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
mgariboldi at gmail.com writes:
2016-03-11 4:25 GMT+01:00 <COURYHOUSE at aol.com>:
at
(This
Hasselblad did not use tessar. tesar was a good
lens but
certainly
not the hi end
ed#
Incorrect. There were various, like the *Tele-Tessar*, which appeared for
Hasselblad.
(By the way, your messages usually end up in my bin. Just so you
know...)
- MG
In a message dated 3/10/2016 8:01:07 P.M. US Mountain
Standard Time,
mgariboldi at gmail.com writes:
2016-03-10 16:59 GMT+01:00 Zane Healy <healyzh at aracnet.com>:
>
> > On Mar 9, 2016, at 11:37 PM, Paul Anderson <useddec at gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > Popular or Modern Photography 20 or 30 years ago had an article on
the
10
> > best lens ever made. I think Zeiss made 3 of them, and they were
the
only
> > company with more than one.
>
> One of my all time favorite lenses is the Hasselblad 80mm f/2.8
Planar C
lens made by
Zeiss. Even their low-end Tessar lenses are awesome.
Anything made for Hasselblad could hardly be called 'low-end'. (A bit
like
a 'low-end' SGI, there was basically never such a thing... certainly not
in
terms of original cost.)
The only truly low-end Carl Zeiss optics are probably the *Pentacon*
series, made by the post-WW II Carl Zeiss Jena branch of the GDR.
Take a look at the Sony a7 series of bodies, people are using RTS lenses
on
> them. You can put almost anything on them, and they?re a full frame
> sensor. I know that the wider lenses might have some fringing issues the edges.
Which (affordable) lens *doesn't* have imperfect edges, especially
completely analog lenses without any in-camera digital correction. can also be done afterwards, if one knows the
possible distortion
values.)
The Sony a7-series aren't exactly cheap. More affordable and rather
good,
too, are ?4/3 cameras, especially in conjunction
with a focal reducer,
if
the crop is too much of an obstruction. I gain an
extra stop of light,
on
top of reducing the crop, with my M42/Praktica thread
mount lenses. My
thorium-coated Asahi Pentax Super-Takumar 1.4/50's maximum diaphragm is
effectively widened to an impressive ?/1. On top of that I have in-body
image stabilization, good high ISO handling and other features, all at
the
fraction of the cost. On top of that, I can exchange
my lenses with my
dedicated ?4/3 Super 16 digital film camera.
a
I?ve started looking seriously at the a7
series, as it would allow me
to
use a lot of lenses I have, that I can currently
only use on 35mm film
bodies.
Nothing prevents you from using a full frame lens on a smaller (e.g.
APS-C)
sensor body. The crop isn't always a negative, sometimes it can change mediocre tele-photo prime into an excellent one.
> Since I started shooting more than just Nikon, it?s a lot harder to
find
Nikon lenses I
really like. The only AF lens I really like is the
Nikkor
50mm f/1.4G, at f/5.6 it can compete with my
50mm Summicron.
At ?/5.6 only? Well, that's rough...
- MG
10 Mar
10 Mar
11:01 p.m.
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
11 Mar
11 Mar
3:06 p.m.
On 11/03/2016, at 8:01 AM, Zane Healy <healyzh at aracnet.com> wrote:
There's always the Schneider Xenotar as alternative to the Planar; got one on my 2.8C.
The performance is pretty much identical for a fraction of the price. Of course it
doesn't have the same prestige. There's been endless discussions about the
relative merits of these two lens, but for all intents and purposes, they are absolutely
on par. They're for users, not collectors.
Have the Tessar on a 3.5B (aka MX-EVS). Excellent expect when wide open as mentioned here,
though I wouldn't call it entry level. I think Zeiss made an earlier, sub-standard
lens (Biotar ?) for Rollei before they could deliver 75mm Tessars.
Also have Distagon wide angles for my SL35 (Rollei's 1st foray into 35mm SLRs),
including a clunky f/1.4 35mm and an f/2.8 25mm. These are superb lens; even the ones made
under license by Rollei Singapore are pretty good. The Zeiss ones are more solidly built
tho. Of course I also have the Planar as standard lens for the SL35, plus a 200mm
TeleTessar. The latter is fairly unimpressive unless really stopped down.
Somebody mentioned the Zeiss ZM line for Leica. Have the f/2.8 35mm Biogon and the f/2
50mm Planar for my M3 and M2. These perform very close to the original Leitz glass, but
are at least affordable for mere mortals. Having said that, I find the colour rendition of
these lens over the top; way too saturated compared to the earlier Zeiss lens (note that
these are actually made by Cosina in Japan).
--GT
--
"END OF LINE" [MCP, 1982]
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. 
12 Mar
12 Mar
3:54 a.m.
2016-03-12 0:06 GMT+01:00 Roland Schregle <roland.schregle at gmail.com>:
Have the Tessar on a 3.5B (aka MX-EVS). Excellent expect when wide open as
mentioned here, though I wouldn't call it entry level. I think Zeiss made
an earlier, sub-standard lens (Biotar ?) for Rollei before they could
deliver 75mm Tessars.
Biotar sub-standard? Germans happily used them on their film cameras,
rather extensively during WW II. I think you might be thinking of the Jena
(GDR) Biometar instead, which later became known as Pentacon.
Somebody mentioned the Zeiss ZM line for Leica. Have
the f/2.8 35mm Biogon
and the f/2 50mm Planar for my M3 and M2. These perform very close to the
original Leitz glass, but are at least affordable for mere mortals.
Indeed and, more importantly, I'm very happy with my Biogon. Plus, that
blue orb also looks nice.
- MG
4:34 a.m.
On 12/03/2016, at 12:54 PM, Marco Gariboldi <mgariboldi at gmail.com> wrote:
And it doesn't have those silly focussing tabs Leitz has on their lens. I much prefer
a focussing ring you can actually grab. My lens are 2nd hand and black though, and so look
a bit odd on the old silver Leicas. Been looking to replace them with silver ones, but
they show up less often on eBay.
--GT
--
"END OF LINE" [MCP, 1982]
2016-03-12 0:06 GMT+01:00 Roland Schregle
<roland.schregle at gmail.com>:
Hi Marco,
could have been the Biometar. I recall reading about it in Prochnow's Rollei Report,
but I don't have that at hand now.
Have the Tessar on a 3.5B (aka MX-EVS). Excellent expect when wide open as
mentioned here, though I wouldn't call it entry level. I think Zeiss made
an earlier, sub-standard lens (Biotar ?) for Rollei before they could
deliver 75mm Tessars.
Biotar sub-standard? Germans happily used them on their film cameras,
rather extensively during WW II. I think you might be thinking of the Jena
(GDR) Biometar instead, which later became known as Pentacon. Somebody
mentioned the Zeiss ZM line for Leica. Have the f/2.8 35mm Biogon
and the f/2 50mm Planar for my M3 and M2. These perform very close to the
original Leitz glass, but are at least affordable for mere mortals.
Indeed and, more importantly, I'm very happy with my Biogon. Plus, that
blue orb also looks nice.
3207
days inactive
3208
days old
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
COURYHOUSE＠aol.com -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
mgariboldi＠gmail.com -
roland.schregle＠gmail.com