Rolleiflex A, Tessar 2.8/80mm -- Several Questions

[jim_thompson6]

Hello all,

 

I just purchased a Rolleiflex A (K7A), Type 1 the other day, and I

have a few questions. I should preface my remarks by stating that I

have not received the camera yet. Anyway, my research indicates that

the camera is Bajonett II, however, some sources mention that it is

not the regular Baj. II (something to due with a different

confirguration). Can anyone confirm or dis-confirm this? If the

Bajonett is indeed different, does anyone know of a work-around for

filters, etc.?

 

Secondly, there is not much information on the net about this

camera. I would like to hear your impressions specifically regarding

the performance of the lens. I know the story about the lens coating

fiasco -- this one has a Zeiss-Option version -- but how is the

performance below F 5.6 or 8, for example?

 

Thank you in advance for taking the time.

 

Jim Thompson

[fwstutterheim]

The 2.8 A has Bay II mounts. The centres of the lenses are 45 mm apart. Later 3.5

Rolleiflexes with Planar/Xenotar lenses also used Bay II but the centres of the lenses were 42

mm apart. The lens covers are not interchangeable. The Zeiss Opton Tessars are the good

ones. There were issues with (some of) the earlier Jena Tessars. The story is lens elements

were mixed up during coating, leading to a number of lenses with unmatched elements. The

Jena Tessars were replaced for Opton Tessars.

[siu_fai_au1]

Ferdi is correct about the lens distances but both the 3.5F and the Magic share the same 45mm size hence it is relatively easy to find the correct lenscap in cast it doesn't come with one. Any bayonet II filter will fit but non of the regular lenshood will. The outer bayonet of the 2.8A has a wider rim hence only the rare lenshood made specially for the 2.8A will fit. An alternative is to look for a 3rd party lens hood that fits in the inner filter bayonet.

 

I only shoot one roll with mine and the result were indeed quite soft. But mine has the original Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar.

[kerkko_kehravuo]

Siu Fai Au did write:

 

"... I only shoot one roll with mine and the result were indeed quite soft. But mine has the original Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar.

 

That unsharpness is strange? Maybe not everything ok with your A-model? My MX-EVS with it's Tessar f:3,5 is just perfect, even if compared to 2,8 F or 2,8 GX. Of course with tripod, etc.

 

Kerkko K.

[jim_thompson6]

Thank you both for responding. That is too bad about the lens-cover. I accidently picked one up (Baj.II), because the seller either didn't know or simply mislabeled it. Since the lenshood is so rare, is there a particular aftermarket item that is used? I will look on the net again, but I have my doubts about finding anything specific.

I will let you know about the quality of the lens when I finally get the camera.

 

Ciao,

Jim

[david a.]

Jim,

 

What I did was purchase a Bay II to 46mm adapter on eBay ($10+shipping) and then a used 46mm rubber lens hood from a local store ($2). And, even though it looks rather massive on the Rolleiflex, the hood does not, in any way, impede viewing.

 

I did try to buy a real 2.8A hood, but it went to Hong Kong, with a 3.5F! I wonder if that combination even fits properly!?!

[david a.]

<p>By the way, there are a couple of Rollei lists you can look at to get more information and maybe even accessories. One is the <a href="http://www.freelists.org/list/rollei_list">Rollei List </a> (http://www.freelists.org/list/rollei_list), formerly the RUG (Rollei Users Group). The other is the <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rolleiusers">Rolleiusers </a> group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rolleiusers).</p>

 

<p>If you want to search the older archives of the RUG, go <a href="http://digistar.com/rollei/search.html">here</a> (http://digistar.com/rollei/search.html).</p>

 

</p>If you look on the Rollei List you can find a 2.8A hood.</p>