Rolleiflex 3.5 almost no bokeh wide open?

[l_frost]

<p>I recently purchased a 30s Rolleiflex k2 Standard with a Tessar 3.5. After developing the first test roll I noticed something strange: the wide open shots had only slight blurring.<br>

The other 3.5 Tessar Rolleis I've shot with from this era had the intense target/smear bokeh the Tessar is known for.<br>

Manipulating the aperture with the back open everything appears to be working fine.<br>

So, what is going on here? The serial number on the lens is correct for the time period. Is this lens defective or is something out of alignment?<br>

What effects depth of field besides aperture on this camera?<br>

I am at a loss on this, any help would be greatly appreciated.</p>

[geoff_r1]

<p>Focal length and distance to subject affect dof more than aperture. What distance were you focussing at? You should have a shallow dof on when focus is close.</p>

[cpj]

<p>You have a really early Tessar with no lens coatings at all. Thus light scatter, internal reflections, slight element separations, and all other possible anomalies are likely, any one of which can affect Bokeh which is subjective anyway. One 80 year old lens might produce completely different results than any other lens of the same vintage depending on storage, years in direct sunlight, original assembly and myriad other conditions. What would really be surprising is finding a 1930 Rollei with a Tessar that produced equal and identical results to a 1932 Tessar when one spent its years in England and the other in Florida, for example.</p>

[l_frost]

<p>I was at the minium focusing distance, 2,2 on the focusing knob; that's what seems so strange.</p>

[l_frost]

<p>CPeter Jørgensen<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=334581"></a>,<br />I agree that there could be a lot of variation among lens, but for there to be only a slight difference in DOF between f22 and f3.5 seems excessive.. especially when the Zeiss 30s MF lens tend toward that very aggressive (some would say intrusive) bokeh.<br>

Would an element separation be likely to have other symptoms I could look for?<br>

---<br>

(Thank you both for responding!)</p>

[cpj]

<p>Yes, that is a very likely cause of this and other problems because a very minor change in the relationship between the four elements of a Tessar lens---I'd guess as little as .013 mm or 1/2-thousandth of an inch--could be enough to change the calculated lens formula and resulting DOF. I am no expert on optical design for sure, but I've seen MAJOR differences--like a Leica lens with one element reassembled backwards by an incompetent repairman--have minimal obvious effect on enlargements up to 8x10. On the other hand, MINOR changes to a different element can produce an obvious disaster. </p>

<p>I hate to see people like me try to take lenses apart because successfully putting them back together is a lot more difficult, even for some professional camera repair people. The whole venture is educational when you have reference sources and relatively little money is at stake, but can become frustrating and expensive when you run into problems requiring multiple trial and error trips to the workbench.</p>

<p>Something like this that bothers you so much might be best resolved by trading the camera for a similar era model to a big dealer like KEH, B&H, Adorama or other on-line company which moves a lot of antique stuff and let their appraisers review the value vs. cost of problems they find. </p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Is the leaf shutter opening properly?</p>

[chuck_pere]

<p>Maybe try photographing a yardstick at an angle. Focus at the center. You should easily be able to see any DOF changes as you change the aperture. </p>