On 12/03/2016, at 12:54 PM, Marco Gariboldi wrote:
> 2016-03-12 0:06 GMT+01:00 Roland Schregle :
>
>>
>> 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 (Bio
2016-03-12 0:06 GMT+01:00 Roland Schregle :
>
> 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.
>
On 11/03/2016, at 8:01 AM, Zane Healy wrote:
>
>> On Mar 10, 2016, at 10:05 PM, couryho...@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
2016-03-11 5:31 GMT+01:00 Zane Healy :
> Again, Rollei, where the Tessar is on the low-end, Planar is on the
> high-end. And yes, even SGI had a low-end. I have two O2’s, one is
> low-end, one is high-end, there the difference is the CPU..
>
Nobody in his right mind would've called a(n original
I saved one hassie from my photo era before the computer business and
after USAF I was a commercial photog. I used ELM's for fashon work
and had a couple of cms and a SWC wideangle fixed lens one I
keptone c w/ 80m mm and a 150 mm and a few backs th
> On Mar 10, 2016, at 10:05 PM, couryho...@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
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 t
digital backs yea.. if they had one for the pentax 6x7 i woulda keted it
but alas i gave up waiting and sold it bought a lens for my nikon d90 lol
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:25 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
> posters! The lens was a Goerz Red Dot Artar and the sharpest flat
>>> field lens
>>>
>> On
> On Mar 10, 2016, at 7:25 PM, couryho...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Hasselblad did not use tessar. tesar was a good lens but certainly
> not the hi end
> ed#
My camera’s with Tessar’s are Rolleiflex TLR’s, not my Hasselblad’s. I got the
two I have more for fun than anything, but the one can p
2016-03-11 4:25 GMT+01:00 :
> 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 spam bin. Just so you
know...)
Hasselblad did not use tessar. tesar was a good lens but certainly
not the hi end
ed#
In a message dated 3/10/2016 8:01:07 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
mgaribo...@gmail.com writes:
2016-03-10 16:59 GMT+01:00 Zane Healy :
>
> > On Mar 9, 2016, at 11:37 PM, Paul Anderson wrote:
2016-03-11 1:11 GMT+01:00 Fred Cisin :
> C-Mount is the standard mount for 16mm movie, and then for TV cameras.
>
Mostly consumer/prosumer film (depending how far you go back) and, indeed,
TV cameras; high(er)-end cinema lenses usually had different mounts.
As people often remark: C mount lenses
2016-03-10 2:53 GMT+01:00 Zane Healy :
> Personally I need a nice ASPH 28mm or 35mm Summicron. I have the original
> Nikkon 35mm f/2, one of the very first made, it’s been Ai’d, and it’s an
> AMAZING lens.
>
That Nikon *(*e.g. *Nikkor-HC Auto* I presume?) 2/35 lens is quite good,
but if you thin
2016-03-10 16:59 GMT+01:00 Zane Healy :
>
> > On Mar 9, 2016, at 11:37 PM, Paul Anderson 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 o
> On Mar 10, 2016, at 4:11 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
>
>>> (Note: the only digital that can handle a D-mount is the Pentax-Q. It
>>> claims to be the smallest interchangeable lens digital - I need to get a
>>> letter writing campaign going to convince Minox to redo their Minox-Leica
>>> as a scr
> On Mar 10, 2016, at 2:49 AM, couryho...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Paul - My darkroom became a storage room!
About 4-5 years ago my “Computer Lab” became my darkroom. :-) Though my
Commodore 64 is setup between my Beseler 23C and my Beseler 45MX enlargers. :-)
One of these days I have a darkroo
(Note: the only digital that can handle a D-mount is the Pentax-Q. It
claims to be the smallest interchangeable lens digital - I need to get
a letter writing campaign going to convince Minox to redo their
Minox-Leica as a screw-mount using C or D mount!)
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, Zane Healy wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2016, at 8:42 AM, Fred Cisin wrote:
>
> one of these days, . . .
> The Sony Nex/E-mount is a very thin camera. Thinner than the
> Micro-Four-Thirds. It can take a C-mount lens without needing a recessed
> adapter. I gotta dig out my Goerz Hypar and try that on my Nex (not an A7
> On Mar 10, 2016, at 8:55 AM, Fred Cisin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, Fred Cisin wrote:
>> You might also get a little vignetting from any very short focal length lens
>> that isn't retro-focus, since the sensors are expecting all light to be
>> coming in perpendicularly, not from a optic
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, Fred Cisin wrote:
You might also get a little vignetting from any very short focal length lens
that isn't retro-focus, since the sensors are expecting all light to be
coming in perpendicularly, not from a optic node very close to the center of
the lens. THAT could be handl
If anyone knows of a good digital body that will adapt to RTS optics,
please let me know.
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, Zane Healy wrote:
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
> On Mar 9, 2016, at 11:37 PM, Paul Anderson 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
Paul - My darkroom became a storage room!
still have the monster 5x7 durst enlarger w/ vacuum easel that I had since
the 70s. what a beast! then I have small 2x3 omega to pull strips of
negatives though to print.
yea the digital stuff was a game changer indeed...
I do not know a
I also don't know if I will ever use my darkroom again, and have Omega D2,
other enlargers, print washers and dyers, etc that I don't need.
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Paul Anderson wrote:
> Popular or Modern Photography 20 or 30 years ago had an article on the 10
> best lens ever made. I t
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.
I know there are a lot of great optics out there, but I still love Zeiss.
I have several Zeiss cameras, binoculars, micro
I need a 90 mm summacron for my m2 (drop me a line off list if anyone
has one)
Yes I know the 105 f 2.5 nikkor you speak of great sharp portrait
length lens for the nikon F!
we have a small 105 mm red dot Goertz we used for copy work on 2 1/4
x 3 1/4 in compur
> On Mar 9, 2016, at 5:25 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
>
>>> posters! The lens was a Goerz Red Dot Artar and the sharpest flat
>>> field lens
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, Rod Smallwood wrote:
>> Thanks,,
>> Our cam was fitted with a high grade Ziess lens that cost a fortune even
>> then,
>
> Zeiss
27 matches
Mail list logo
