View Full Version : Zeiss Tele-Tessar 85/4? What the heck?
CK Dexter Haven
09-14-2008, 18:17
http://www.digitalkamera.de/Meldung/Neue_Objektive_von_Zeiss_jetzt_auch_mit_EF_Bajonet t/5111.aspx
Isnt that cool looking? Someone out there must have been reading that "what new zeiss lens you want to see" thread.
Perfect really. The only thing that remains to be seen is the price?
noimmunity
09-14-2008, 20:26
The link inside the link: http://www.digitalkamera.de/Meldung/Neue_Objektive_von_Zeiss_jetzt_auch_mit_EF_Bajonet t/5111.aspx
"Compact" (no details). Min focus 0.9m . Priced at Euro 700. Wonder if it comes in silver as well as black?
veraikon
09-15-2008, 04:01
http://www.photoscala.de/Artikel/Zeiss-Planare-fuer-Canon-21er-Distagon-fuer-viele
Für Messsucherkameras mit M-Bajonett stellt Carl Zeiss das Tessar T* 4/85 mm ZM für vor, das rund 700 Euro* kosten soll.
* in Germany (incl. 19%VAT) - so I guess in US about 695US$ ;)
I missed that thing about minimum focus .9 meters...pass...I have hit that barrier too many times with other lenses, even though people will mention there is little dof there I would not have a lens that didnt have it.
CK Dexter Haven
09-15-2008, 07:24
I'm very surprised to see even this much interest. F4 max for a 'portrait' lens? And, if you need to stop it down a bit for a bit of 'edge,' you're looking at 5.6.... DOF-wise, may as well be shooting with a small-sensored digital compact. Alright, i exaggerate a bit, but.... I don't even have medium format lenses that are this slow.
Seems like the market is saturated with normal and fast glass, so the manufacturers are going slow (Leica, with its Summarits, too) just to put more products on the shelves. Choice is good, sure. But, how many of these things can they sell? Their only hope is that people flock to it because of some fabled 'classic imaging' characteristics, like they did with the Sonnar-C 50/1.5. I wonder if the focus shift 'feature' will be enabled in the Tele-Tessar. Bonus!
Who would have thought that the venerable 90/4 Elmar revives like that ?
I bit big if you ask me ....
Roland.
Double Negative
09-15-2008, 07:29
^^ Agreed... f/4 is a bit dark for such a lens, but like you say there are plenty of faster lenses available (such as Zeiss' very own 2/85) granted, at a steep price jump. Being that they already had that lens, it makes sense to offer a slower, cheaper and compact alternative. It would have been nicer as an f/2.8 lens, but maybe a little too close to the big brother and competing against a similar Leica offering (Elmarit-M and Summarit).
Or maybe it's just a prototype - which would explain why Zeiss hasn't "announced" such a lens officially yet. Maybe the real one IS f/2.8. Heh. Okay, back to reality.
I'm still happy with my Leica 2,8/90 Elmarit-M purchase because the f/4 lens is too dark and the f/2 lens is too expensive. :p
Why not Planar to pair with that very expensive Sonnar? I have been reading in places that Tessar is generally inferior to Planar? Is it to keep the cost "low"?
maybe it is dark, but there are many people here who love tessar design so this is aimed to them. i love tessar look and im sad because there are no new tessars. because of that i am considering to buy and saving money for heliar classic for a last few months because it is very close design to tessar.
only reason this doesnt interest me is because i dont like longer lenses.
OMG, a 85mm at f4. I guessed wrong yet again. Pushing the performance envelope, I think not. Zeiss could do a f2.8 in their sleep, so why a f4 and a .9m minimum focus distance. At least they have a new 21mm f2.8 in ZF mount.
Where can I read about Tessar design vs. Planar? The easiest debate on Zeiss optics is probably on Sonnar vs. Plannar.
sockeyed
09-15-2008, 11:48
I have enough trouble focusing my f/3.5 CV 90mm to want an f/2.8, so I don't see f/4 as such a bad thing. DoF is plenty shallow at that aperture on a longer lens, too. If it's a potent performer (and priced better than 700 Euros over here), I'd consider one.
I'm sure it will be an excellent portrait lens and I like the Tessar look in my TLR. I just don't see how they can charge so much for a slow 4-element lens.
I think this lens is meant more for a "traveller" photography, where an f4.0 on an 85mm lens would be a minimum anyway, it is to be seen if this is compensated by compactness and lightness too. BTW, the Tessar has never been a champion of sharpness at f2.8, so it may be that making it an f4.0 lens, it will be optically good right from the wide open. What I like a lot about Tessars is the bokeh and an extremely marked 3d rendering - we will see how it is when the lens comes out, but I'd be very tempted to swap it for my flary Elmarit 90...
very cool . it is one of very few Zeiss lenses Im interested to test. I have TLR with Tessar 3.8 so it would be interesting to test this and see if it is good companion with my cron preasph. I think it is a bit unnecessary to have both 90 2.8 and 2.0 so why not 2.0 and 4.0 intstead so I can use 4.0 as lightweight daylight lens :P An excuse of having more lenses for me, a silly tech freak :D
Please excuse me for being terribly rude, but are you people stupid?
Rangefinders don't need bright lenses beacuse you do not focus through the lens.
Lenses that are fast are bigger and heavier.
Slower lenses are not as 'unsharp' wide open as fast lenses are. Shooting a modern f2.8 lens at f5.6 or an f4 lens at f5.6 will give the same sharpness (or close enough).
Do portrait lenses need to be sharp as hell anyway? You probably won't be putting your camera on a tripod...
maybe it is dark, but there are many people here who love tessar design so this is aimed to them. i love tessar look and im sad because there are no new tessars. because of that i am considering to buy and saving money for heliar classic for a last few months because it is very close design to tessar.
only reason this doesnt interest me is because i dont like longer lenses.
This is a tele-tessar not a tessar. These are quite different lens designs. You can read a bit here (from the horse's mouth): http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/f39d17ddf7e6e652c12570fb00491418
Tele-Tessar lenses are typically lighter in weight than the Sonnar/Ernostar lenses which is what Zeiss choose for the 90/2.8 for the Contax G. It will interesting to see the optical construstion and how light&small it is.
Having written this, I would have thought an f/2.8 design would have made more sense. The Contax-G lens is still pretty small and light and I use the f/2.8 quite often, to keep the shutter time short (1/500s). I am not really an available light kind of guy, but an f/4 lens would clearly not be as useful to me as the f/2.8 I own. My WA lenses typically don't go to fully open (about f/5.6 most of the time).
Another thing Zeiss increasingly does, is to use the classical names Sonnar and Tessar for marketing purposes. The optical design has little resemblance with the classic design. Tessar gets used for the lower quality ones, Sonnar for the higher quality ones. This mostly concerns digicams. I hope this one is not affected (perhaps I should say infected :D). At €700 or so this one is not particularly cheap.
You probably won't be putting your camera on a tripod...
That's what I need the f/2.8 for, to keep the shutter at 1/500s since I am mostly not using the heavy tripod :D. Carrying a heavy tripod defeats the purpose of a light weight ranger :eek:
Pherdinand
09-15-2008, 14:22
it's strange since the 85/1.4 planar is set at only 1000 euro. Not much of a difference for a big difference in speed.
Of course many will say, a tele-tessar is a different lens...bokeh and bla bla:)
CK Dexter Haven
09-15-2008, 14:27
Please excuse me for being terribly rude, but are you people stupid?
Rangefinders don't need bright lenses beacuse you do not focus through the lens.
Lenses that are fast are bigger and heavier.
Slower lenses are not as 'unsharp' wide open as fast lenses are. Shooting a modern f2.8 lens at f5.6 or an f4 lens at f5.6 will give the same sharpness (or close enough).
Do portrait lenses need to be sharp as hell anyway? You probably won't be putting your camera on a tripod...
You're the only one using the word "bright," so perhaps your namecalling is misdirected? Maybe you're not so "bright" after all.
It has nothing to do with focusing through the lens. It has everything to do with limiting a 'portrait'-length telephoto lens to 'non-portrait' apertures. This would probably be the slowest of contemporary primes. The discussion is about whether that makes sense, and to whom this lens might be directed. I don't think you're educating anyone here about the principles of photography.
Whether or not this is a smaller lens than others in its focal length is another matter for discussion. It doesn't look appreciably smaller. Whatever. I'm not sure how small you need your lenses to be anyway. I routinely see petite girls carrying SLRs, while the rangefinder crowd whines about tiny RF lenses.
Your comparison of max apertures is sorta moot since you're not really talking about max apertures. We shall see if this f4 lens performs as well at f4 as it does at 5.6 and smaller, and also whether it performs as well as an f1.4, f2, or f2.8 lens does at f4. Whatever the results, f4 is still too limiting for my purposes.
Yes, for my purposes, "portrait lenses" do have to be sharp as hell. I don't like Olan Mills/Sears/Strip Mall portraits. I don't always shoot 'mature' women. And, again, there is also the 'added benefit' of a lens that opens wider, if the wider performance is less than when closed down. Shoot at wider/softer apertures for less harsh results. With your theoretical lenses that are consistent from 4-64, you have no such choice.
CK Dexter Haven
09-15-2008, 14:37
I think this lens is meant more for a "traveller" photography... What I like a lot about Tessars is the bokeh and an extremely marked 3d rendering....
It seems most of the lenses being introduced lately are targeted toward the gear freak. RF guys tend to be the types to own multiple versions of the same focal length. A lens for low light. A lens for travel.... I just can't get myself to be one of those guys, even though i'm a self-confessed camera fetishist. I've been trying to reduce my kits/systems, and i can never justify having even two 50mm lenses for any given platform, even though that's my favorite focal length. I have a current 50cron, but i want to play with an Elmar or a Summitar. I have a 35/1.2 Nokton, but i'd love to try a Summaron. The guilt won't let me, though. I do 'compensate' in a way, by having (too) many different systems....
Yeah, i love the Tessar look. But, i'm not familiar with it in a telephoto. And, unfortunately, some of the out of focus character would be lost/minimized in this lens by its 'slowness.'
I don't yet have a tele for my Ikon. I had been considering acquiring one, but i don't really shoot landscapes. I'd want it for people, and for that purpose, i want one that does bokeh well. F1.4 or 2 makes much more sense.
Given that the Elmar design is very closely related to the Tessar, small the new Tessar is not. Compare to the 90/4 Elmar/Rokkor. Looks also larger than the 90/2.8 Tele Elmarit.
Roland.
Please excuse me for being terribly rude, but are you people stupid?
Rangefinders don't need bright lenses beacuse you do not focus through the lens.
Lenses that are fast are bigger and heavier.
Slower lenses are not as 'unsharp' wide open as fast lenses are. Shooting a modern f2.8 lens at f5.6 or an f4 lens at f5.6 will give the same sharpness (or close enough).
Do portrait lenses need to be sharp as hell anyway? You probably won't be putting your camera on a tripod...
I do not remember having seen a poster shooting so clumsily into his own feet. I guess there is a lot to learn for you :p
Double Negative
09-15-2008, 14:48
Please excuse me for being terribly rude, but are you people stupid?
How... Endearing. :mad:
Go Google "wanker" as I'm sure it applies. ;)
I guess I will not be selling my Elmarit 90 for a long time.
BillBingham2
09-15-2008, 15:21
I'd pick up an old 90/4 from Leica, I loved that lens for sunny day and smallest possible travel kit needs. Otherwise it f2 all the way.
B2 (;->
ZeissFan
09-15-2008, 19:31
I would probably buy this lens. The Tele-Tessar should be a very good performer. I don't need the speed of the f/2.0 Sonnar, or at least I don't want to pay the price for the f/2.0 Sonnar.
If I buy something, I'd rather buy Zeiss and not an older lens.
To each his own.
M-Hexanon 90/2.8 looking better and better ;)
oh yes!
M-Hexanon 90/2,8 - small and optical very very nice
ZeissFan
09-16-2008, 04:15
For the classic Contax, in the 85mm focal length, Carl Zeiss (Jena) used to offer two versions. The premium lens was the f/2.0 Sonnar while the budget offering was the f/4.0 Triotar.
The Tessar appears to be smaller than the Sonnar. And being a Tele-Tessar design, it should be a better performer than the Triotar (a triplet). That said, the postwar Triotar was a very decent performer, especially for a triplet.
As for the 0.9 meter close focusing distance, that's not bad at all, considering that some telephoto lenses won't focus closer than 5 or 6 feet and sometimes double that. I don't understand the complaint about the minimum distance being 0.9 meter.
It will be interesting to see some photo samples and to receive user reports. Right now, there are only some Web photos of the lens and a lot of speculation.
The pricing seems to be in line with its other lenses for the Zeiss Ikon.
Matt(1pt4)
09-16-2008, 05:52
FWIW, I've never found the .9m minimum range on the 90 Hex to be a limitation.
As far as the DOF at F4, at .9m, the DOF is 2cm. Unless you are going for the one eye in focus one eye out look, 2cm DOF will still allow you to do all sorts of lovely portraits.
Double Negative
09-16-2008, 06:18
...As far as the DOF at F4, at .9m, the DOF is 2cm. Unless you are going for the one eye in focus one eye out look, 2cm DOF will still allow you to do all sorts of lovely portraits.
Hmm, good point there. Even at 3.1m (10') the DoF is .31m (.88').
About my comment about minimum focus, this shot taken with a canon 50 1.4 on a 20D meaning it was 80mm. I was right up against the half meter minimum focus and has the lens at 1.4, 3200 and 1/8th of a second so.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3183/2802024499_7a5bba0621_o.jpg
Without that closer focus distance I would have never got the shot the way I did. Even when I was using an old Elmar lens that had a 1 meter mini focus I kept hitting the limit. For me its either getting the shot or not.
blackcoco
09-16-2008, 07:07
Let's just wait to see how sharp this lens can be.I only care about it,and the resistance of flare of cause.
Overconfidence
09-16-2008, 10:02
About my comment about minimum focus, this shot taken with a canon 50 1.4 on a 20D meaning it was 80mm. I was right up against the half meter minimum focus and has the lens at 1.4, 3200 and 1/8th of a second so.
Without that closer focus distance I would have never got the shot the way I did. Even when I was using an old Elmar lens that had a 1 meter mini focus I kept hitting the limit. For me its either getting the shot or not.
I'm sure if you shot it on APS film you'd be able to focus close enough too.
About my comment about minimum focus, this shot taken with a canon 50 1.4 on a 20D meaning it was 80mm. I was right up against the half meter minimum focus and has the lens at 1.4, 3200 and 1/8th of a second so.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3183/2802024499_7a5bba0621_o.jpg
Without that closer focus distance I would have never got the shot the way I did. Even when I was using an old Elmar lens that had a 1 meter mini focus I kept hitting the limit. For me its either getting the shot or not.
The camera you are using is an SLR not a rangefinder. Close up is typically not the strength of a Ranger. I would say, the kind of picture you are showing is not a matter for a Ranger, use the right tools for the task at hand.
On the other hand SLR 85 or 90mm primes typically have a close focus in the 0.8m to 1m range. If you had a full frame camera you would have needed a Macro lens.
In my view the 0.9m on the Tele-Tessar is industry standard for what it is. If you are troubled by this (which you have every right to be), the Ranger is just not the right camera for you.
I still don't see why would anyone choose this over Macro-Elmar-M...which is close to perfect in all regards and going at similar price used.
wlewisiii
09-16-2008, 15:05
About my comment about minimum focus, this shot taken with a canon 50 1.4 on a 20D meaning it was 80mm. I was right up against the half meter minimum focus and has the lens at 1.4, 3200 and 1/8th of a second so.
Sounds to me like you need to invest in a view camera but if an DSLR is a must, then perhaps a macro lens would help? But a regular lens on a RF probably isn't going to help you make that kind of shot very much, less than .9m focus or not...
If I had a M-mount camera, I'd be all over this lens. Perfect daytime short tele for a rangefinder camera. Wish there was a C mount of it & the current Sonnar... ;)
William
a 50 on a crop camera only makes the fov the same as 80. for dof ... it is not even close to being a 80.
ZeissFan
09-16-2008, 20:01
William, if you ever find one at a reasonable price ($150 or less), pick up the postwar Triotar. Very nice lens, reasonably sharp corner to corner and a good performer overall. It's smaller and lighter than the f/2.0 Sonnar.
Another underrated lens is the f/4.0 135mm Sonnar. I've used the old nickel and brass version (for the Contax I), the heavy brass and steel (Contax II) and the postwar Carl Zeiss lens. All three are great performers. I like the postwar version because it's a coated lens and also because it's not nearly as heavy as the earlier models.
wlewisiii
09-16-2008, 20:24
ZF, I've always kept a lookout for one though I got stone cold lucky and won a pre-war CZJ 85/2 Sonnar for $150 on a second chance. OTOH, since that's an uncoated lens, I still look for a post-war Triotar because of the virtues you mention. I've got a really fine 1960 J-11 so I don't look too hard for an "official" one.
Seems to me that the recent ZI lenses have really followed the best instincts of the Contax days in terms of having a level of absolute performance ($$$$) and a level of reasonable cost & size. If I could afford to, I'd be a very happy camper with a ZI & the 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.5 & 85/4.
Now, if they'd just come out with an M-mount collapsible 50/3.5 Tessar (in black & nickel?) ... :eek: :bang: :angel:
William
back alley
09-16-2008, 20:31
i plan on saving for this lens. i have no need for fast glass and i like the look of all my zm lenses.
wlewisiii
09-16-2008, 20:44
I hadn't thought about it till now, but yeah, I can see that joe. This is probably the best short tele out there for your look & style. Probably not use it often but when you do ... :D
William
I have two Elmar 90 lenses: the 3-element, and the collapsible. They are weightless in my bag for daytime walkabout, and DOF @ f/4 is as shallow as I want for portrait.
Palaeoboy
09-17-2008, 09:37
RF guys tend to be the types to own multiple versions of the same focal length.
I am one of those CK Dexter talks about LOL and I welcome this lens to complete my Zeiss kit to use with my CLE/CL's
In Voigtlander I have 21mm, 28mm, 40mm and 90mm
In Leica I have 28mm, 40mm 90mm (Sold the Leica 21mm was too big)
In Minolta Rokkor 28mm, 40mm 90mm (Shame they never made a 21)
In Zeiss 21mm, 28mm, 40mm (Rollei Zeiss) and now thay offer a new compact 85 to complete that set. This is great news, the Zeiss have their own character traits its nice to have a matching short tele.
This lens isnt a great suprise however, Tom and many other predicted a slower 85. The f2 was simply too large and expensive so a smaller and cheaper ZM 85 was definitely on the cards.
Why wouldn't you get the 80 Planar instead, Joel ?
Just wondering.
Roland.
Palaeoboy
09-17-2008, 11:31
Roland, with only 40 Black ones ever made I have never even seen one in real life!
Above all I think Zeiss is keeping with the the original Contax rf focal length and speed approach to these lenses, the only difference of course being improved optical performance where stopping down isn't needed for great imagery. The choice really comes down to lightest possible weight and lowest cost vs high speed with very high cost in the 85 mm class. This approach was similar to the old Contax RTS lens line up where two focal length offerings differed by 2 stops such as the 35 and 85 f/1.4 or f/2.8.
That's what I need the f/2.8 for, to keep the shutter at 1/500s since I am mostly not using the heavy tripod :D. Carrying a heavy tripod defeats the purpose of a light weight ranger :eek:
You should be able to get sharp results far slower than 1/500th? I know everyone is different in terms of shakes, stability etc. With a 90mm, 1/125 should be plenty crisp and 1/60 workable for some. When I saw a test of a camera on tripod vs handheld shots at various speeds, I was amazed to see how once the speed was about double 1/FL i.e. 1/125 for a 50mm, the tripod made little real difference. Beyond that it made no difference at all and at the fastest speeds was sharper due to no resonance as can be an issue with some tripods (and more SLRs I guess with the mirror flappig about). 1/250 on a 85 should be very crisp indeed even under less than ideal shooting circumstances.
ZeissFan
09-23-2008, 18:18
The great thing about the capitalist marketplace is that if you don't like a product, you don't have to buy it. There are plenty of other choices. So if this lens isn't your thing, that's great. There are still lenses from Leica, Voigtlander and Konica.
By the way, I tried to repeat my f/4.0 85mm Carl Zeiss Triotar (a triplet) test with the f/4.0 9cm Elmar (also a triplet). I got variable results from the Elmar. It probably wasn't a fair test, because the Elmar is a prewar lens while the Triotar is a postwar lens.
Regarding sharpness, one of the problems I had was with the Leica IIIf and trying to focus. Apparently, my eyes aren't what they once were, and that tiny little peep hole doesn't work that well for me. The unified rangefinder/viewfinder of the Contax is a better tool for me when it comes to focusing.
Still, the Leica IIIf is a wonderful camera to use, as long as you understand its limitations and quirks. But more on that later.
By the way, I tried to repeat my f/4.0 85mm Carl Zeiss Triotar (a triplet) test with the f/4.0 9cm Elmar (also a triplet).........
My post-war Elmar is a Tessar variant. With regards to focusing through the RF peep-hole, a newish beam splitter makes a world of difference. The 1.5 diopter corrected magnification makes for spot-on focusing.
I've used the ZI Contax II and must say that focusing is not only spot-on, but more of a normal look through for modern day photographers. That said, I still prefer the ergonomics of the IIIf or better yet the IIIg. To each his own I guess.
My own preference again, as I do have a 85/2 Nikkor in LTM, but on a Barnack it is too heavy and bulky. It works well with the M3 though.
fresh from Photokina:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=63707&stc=1&d=1222272039
Andreas , what I want to know is... what other new ZM lens is there, in the glass cabinet next to the above? F1.2 50mm? f1.4 35mm? Don't tell me this 85mm is the BIG news from zeiss.
Double Negative
09-24-2008, 12:23
Andreas , what I want to know is... what other new ZM lens is there, in the glass cabinet next to the above? F1.2 50mm? f1.4 35mm? Don't tell me this 85mm is the BIG news from zeiss.
Those are the 4/85 Tele-Tessar lenses. Not sure why the one on the left looks so big.
*sigh* That's the big news.
wlewisiii
09-24-2008, 12:28
Yep a great user lens is always big news. :D YMMV of course :angel:
(grinning, ducking & running)
William
I did have the opportunity to handle and shoot a couple of frames with the 85f4 at Photokina. Nice enough lens, odd hood that does not reverse. I did suggest this to Zeiss/Cosina and maybe they will do a reversible version. Initially I was dissapointed with the f4 aperture, but in retrospect, there are lots of 2.8's out there if one needs it, so why not.
The design philosophy seems to be the same as for the Biogon 35f2.8 - make a highly corrected, compact lens without the complications of high speed with its problems of size, price and image quality. For that they already have the 85f2.0!
Is it only me, but do you see a Tessar type 50f2.8 in the future?
Zeiss know how to design lenses, the 21f4.5 C Biogon proves that and the C Biogon 35f2.8 is a very good lens in its own right and there is a place for lenses like these. Small, compact, highly corrected and "reasonably" priced (at least in todays market with m mount lenses going for premium prices, both new and used).
The trick is to judge your own needs. How often do you shoot at f1.4 or f2 and if you use digital Rf's - hogher ISO's can compensate for a slower, but lighter lens too.
I can see the 85f4 being useful as a "sunny day" lens - or, if the performance at f4 is spectacular enough, even as a compact portrait lens. Hmm, a small portable kit consisting of the 21f4.5, the 35f2.8 and the 85f4 and the ZM body, backed up by a R4M body for the 21f4.5 does cover a lot of ground and it is still cheaper than a Leica MP and a similar package of used M-lenses (21/2.8, 35f2.8 and a TE 90f2.8).
Roger Hicks
10-05-2008, 14:01
A point that no-one has made yet is that this is a Tele-Tessar in name only; actually, it's not a tele lens at all.
Like Tom, I've tried it (I used the M8, for a portrait), and although I'm not sensitive to bokeh -- it has to be really good or really bad before I notice -- I did actually notice the quality of the out-of-focus image, which is superb.
And I'm told that there are more Zeiss and Voigtländer lenses in the pipeline...
Cheers,
R.
Jason Sprenger
10-05-2008, 21:47
Tom A said "Is it only me, but do you see a Tessar type 50f2.8 in the future?"
A new 50/2.8 Tessar would be sorely tempting to me.
I wonder if the hood for the 35/2 Biogon would fit on 85/4 Tele-Tessar?
In a small kit, I'd hate to carry more than one hood.
wlewisiii
10-05-2008, 21:53
Is it only me, but do you see a Tessar type 50f2.8 in the future?
Drool... I'd have to buy an M body then... Find a used R2 maybe... But man, I'd love a modern well corrected Tessar.
William
A point that no-one has made yet is that this is a Tele-Tessar in name only; actually, it's not a tele lens at all.
You made that point here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=896618&postcount=15 two weeks ago and people commented.
Roger Hicks
10-06-2008, 06:24
You made that point here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=896618&postcount=15 two weeks ago and people commented.
Thanks for the reminder. I had quite forgotten. Which is no surprise seeing I've since spent a week at photokina; written about 10,000 words of show reports for Shutterbug; and sorted maybe 100 photographs (from several hundred of my own, and from press CDs, etc.)
I meant, of course, that no-one had pointed this out in the thread in question. But your point remains valid.
Cheers,
R.
Roland, with only 40 Black ones ever made I have never even seen one in real life!
I know quite few people who have them (I own a NOS black one and a chrome one which I sold as I preferred the black), so I think this is not correct. The factoid I believe referred to lenses sold independently from the body.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.