Dan Fromm
Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
- Messages
- 6,823
- Format
- Multi Format
Went to a camera show today, came home $20 lighter and with an 80/2.8 Xenotar in a #0 Synchro Compur-P. The front element's front surface has the "cleaned with steel wool" look but it passes light and forms an image anyway.
Took a look at Schneider's age of lenses table to date it, was probably made around 1960.
Fine, good, but the oldest Xenotar document I found in Schneider's Archiv (http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/archiv.htm) is dated 9/66 and says the lens goes in a #1. I have a set of 80/2.8 Planar cells of roughly the same vintage (early '60s) that fit a #1 too.
80/2.8 means a 27.6 mm entrance pupil. Since the #0's diaphragm opens only to 24 mm, the lens' front cell must magnify a bit.
The VM says a lot about f/2.8 Xenotars, doesn't mention shutter sizes. It has a picture of one on a board, not in a Rolleiflex, made in 1957, that looks like it is in a #0.
So, can anyone shed light on why old 80/2.8 Xenotars are in #0 and newer ones in #1? Redesign, other reasons, ... ?
Thanks,
Dan
Took a look at Schneider's age of lenses table to date it, was probably made around 1960.
Fine, good, but the oldest Xenotar document I found in Schneider's Archiv (http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/archiv.htm) is dated 9/66 and says the lens goes in a #1. I have a set of 80/2.8 Planar cells of roughly the same vintage (early '60s) that fit a #1 too.
80/2.8 means a 27.6 mm entrance pupil. Since the #0's diaphragm opens only to 24 mm, the lens' front cell must magnify a bit.
The VM says a lot about f/2.8 Xenotars, doesn't mention shutter sizes. It has a picture of one on a board, not in a Rolleiflex, made in 1957, that looks like it is in a #0.
So, can anyone shed light on why old 80/2.8 Xenotars are in #0 and newer ones in #1? Redesign, other reasons, ... ?
Thanks,
Dan