Have you shot with Hassys for more than 5 years?

[Q.G.]

A Red T signified Zeiss Jena Single Coating. A Red “T*” would signify Zeiss multicoating.

It would be correct without the "Jena".
Zeiss marked their single coated lenses with a red "T". Oberkochen too.

 

[gr82bart]

People love to obsess about the theoretical when they should be obsessing about the practical, and then they go write about it on the Internet and people read it and take it as if it is law.

But, but, but ... where would all the drama in these forums go?

Regards, Art.

 

[André E.C.]

But, but, but ... where would all the drama in these forums go?

Regards, Art.

Cheers



André

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

It would be correct without the "Jena".
Zeiss marked their single coated lenses with a red "T". Oberkochen too.

'
Use of The Red "T" single coat marking was initiated by Zeiss Jena PRIOR to WW-II, it was also used by Zeiss Oberkochen AFTER WW-II.











j

 

[Q.G.]

Use of The Red "T" single coat marking was initiated by Zeiss Jena PRIOR to WW-II, it was also used by Zeiss Oberkochen AFTER WW-II.

Right. So speaking of Hasselbad lenses, those marked with a "red T" are not from Jena.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Right. So speaking of Hasselbad lenses, those marked with a "red T" are not from Jena.

Maybe, maybe not. A lot of the Oberkochen Zeiss glass was manufactured by Jena for Oberkochen. The Red "T*" marking on the lens mount may well have happened at Oberkochen.

 

[Q.G.]

Maybe, maybe not. A lot of the Oberkochen Zeiss glass was manufactured by Jena for Oberkochen.

Are you sure? Schott also moved to the west, to Mainz.

Anyway, Schott, maker of Zeiss' glass, did not grind lenses, nor apply coatings.
That happened at the place where the blocks of glass were turned into lens elements, i.e. Zeiss Oberkochen (as far as Hasselblad lenses are concerned).

And absolutely no Hasselblad lens was made in Jena.

The Red "T*" marking on the lens mount may well have happened at Oberkochen.

No "may well have" about it.
(Same for the red T (without *) marking.)

 

[eddym]

But, but, but ... where would all the drama in these forums go?

Regards, Art.

Just think about the losses in popcorn futures!!!! :munch:

 

[Nicole]

But, but, but ... where would all the drama in these forums go?
Regards, Art.

:munch:

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Are you sure? Schott also moved to the west, to Mainz.

Anyway, Schott, maker of Zeiss' glass, did not grind lenses, nor apply coatings.
That happened at the place where the blocks of glass were turned into lens elements, i.e. Zeiss Oberkochen (as far as Hasselblad lenses are concerned).

And absolutely no Hasselblad lens was made in Jena.

I think it likely that no complete Hassy lenses were made by Jena for Oberkochen. But there were a lot of camera and other lens elements ground, polished and coated by Jena for Oberkochen, many of them after Oberkochen and Jena merged in 1990.

"After the partitioning of Germany, a new Carl Zeiss optical company was established in Oberkochen, while the original Zeiss firm in Jena continued to operate. At first both firms produced very similar lines of products, and extensively cooperated in product-sharing, but they drifted apart as time progressed."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...93BA35752C1A962958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2




j

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Are you sure? Schott also moved to the west, to Mainz.

Anyway, Schott, maker of Zeiss' glass, did not grind lenses, nor apply coatings.
That happened at the place where the blocks of glass were turned into lens elements, i.e. Zeiss Oberkochen (as far as Hasselblad lenses are concerned).



No "may well have" about it.
(Same for the red T (without *) marking.)

True, for many of the Zeiss camera lens products, the Schott glass was ground, polished, coated, etc. by Jena to Oberkochen's order, then shipped to Oberkochen for final assembly. This is all a matter of historical record.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

From Jena to Mainz - and Back Again
THE HISTORY OF SHOTT- between the Cold War and the reunification of GERMANY
http://www.schott.com/english/download/glasmacherzug_e.pdf

 

[Curt]

... but the precise origins of the letter H in the expression Jesus H. Christ are obscure.

The "H" of things you learn here!

Drama, we don't need no stinkin drama! :munch:

 

[Q.G.]

True, for many of the Zeiss camera lens products, the Schott glass was ground, polished, coated, etc. by Jena to Oberkochen's order, then shipped to Oberkochen for final assembly. This is all a matter of historical record.

Must have read it wrong?

Schott was moved to Bavaria by the end of the war; stayed in the West (moved from Bavaria to Mainz in 1952); Jenaer Glaswerk Schott only supplied glass to Zeiss Jena; until after the unification?

 

[Rob Skeoch]

To answer the original post..... I had three camera bodies two 550 and one 553 and five lenses... only had one repair ever and it was on warranty.
I did buy all the gear new though.

It worked flawlessly but I have to admit I never really loved the system.... my needs have changed and I've switched to a Rollei GX that I use every week and a Pentax AF645 that I never use.

I'm sure if you buy well you'll have no problems.

-Rob

 

[Seabird]

This is what I was thinking too. But it's scary having no intermediate bridge in between the [35mm and LF] systems - either too big or too small.

Given what you've told us so far, I'd go straight to 4x5:

• Low film usage? ideal 4x5 profile
• Genre = into the light studio portraits? Again, ideal LF subject material
• Multicoated lenses? LF = a whole new world of lenses to obssess over without being tied to any one manufacturer

My own photographic equipment odyssey went 35mm --> MF --> 4x5. What do I use now? Just 35mm and 4x5. Dont worry about not having anything in the middle (if it really becomes an issue, you can always pick up a nice little Rolleicord TLR ...)

Of course, YMMV.

Best wishes

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

I've had my 503 for almost 4 years. I shoot sporadically, sometimes 5-10 rolls a week, sometimes 5-10 rolls within a 6 month period.

I went from 35mm to 4x5, and then MF. My 4x5 skills weren't the best in the beginning, and when I jumped to MF (A tower tlr, then a pentax 645) I saw an immediate improvement over both my 35mm work and most of my 4x5 work.
Sharper, better contrast, no friggin dust spots, hairs, etc. on the film and resulting prints.

Then I decided to really tackle 4x5 and prefer it to everything except quick pictures of kids, animals, vacations, travelling, etc. That's just me. If you know you want the hasselblad, go for it. I'd try to borrow or rent one first but I just bought mine without even having held one before. I don't regret it, but I can tell you that my particular lens (80mm C Planar) is the same generally as my Pentax 645 75mm lens, just with less contrast. Both are fantastic lenses, but I was not blown away when I first saw my negatives..
It's good, as good as all the other stuff I have generally. It just feels better to use sometimes, sometimes the 4x5 feels better. Sorry if i've made things worse for you! Just wanted to add my thoughts and opinion.

 

[k_jupiter]

OK...
I have a number of systems, shoot almost all formats except for ULF, metric, half plate, and minox...

What is the most useful for your requirements? Probably either a rb67proS with 65, 90, and 180mm lens, or a 4x5 Speed with a decent 135W and 210 lens.

None of that is going to set you back a lot of change these days, they don't require a lot of maintenance, and they will be there for you when you decide to go out and shoot the couple times a year the urge hits you.

That said... the C220 with a 65mm and a 135mm lens would do just as well.

My favorite system? My 8x10 Deardorff with 5x7 and 4x5 backs, and my C220 with a 65mm lens on it. If I look at the quality of the photographs I have taken, they are near the top. The Nikon FM2 with 35 and 105 lens on it isn't a slouch either, just not in the same league.

tim in san jose

 

[JBrunner]

If your only going to make 24 exposures a year, shoot 4x5. There would seem no advantage to roll film unless the subject matter demands that type of system.

 

[RobC]

get a holga.

 

[Andrey]

If your only going to make 24 exposures a year, shoot 4x5. There would seem no advantage to roll film unless the subject matter demands that type of system.

That seems like the way to go. I generally don't like closed systems with proprietary mounts and limited lens selections. Large format is as open as it gets.

get a holga.

Now that's funny.

I'm anti-holga since it's overpriced and the neg is overkill. I have a very similar 35mm point and shoot which more than satisfies my seldom abstract longings.