Joe Lopez

Below is an image of my Petri 135mm lens with the little "tab" that I've prattled on about circled. In the other photos of Petri mount lenses that I can find, this tab isn't present, and I don't remember it on other Petri breech mount lenses that I've had. It's actually part of the circular metal collar that runs around the inside of the lens mount [in other words, the whole thing -- including the tab -- is stamped out of the same sheet of metal]. The tab appears to prevent the lens from seating properly with the camera's breech mount.

 

<p><center><a href="/photo/7871217"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7871217-sm.jpg"></a>

Thank you! That is helpful. And I don't see the little tab/nub that my lens has. And I don't remember this little tab on the other Petri breech mounts that I once owned.

 

Interestingly, too, the lens pictured also lacks a feature the FTE manual labels the "aperture control pin" [my 135mm lens has it, though it doesn't seem to do anything since it's got a fairly standard spring-driven lever that controls the iris].

 

Oh well. One more useless bit of photographic equipment around my house is hardly noticeable among all the rest of it.

 

Thanks to all who responded!

I just got a 'luftwaffe edition" Leica from dvdtechnik.com. I've got to say, whoever does the Leica nameplate engraving does an amazingly good job. I'm impressed. Mine is a made-over Zorki 1. In a way, I feel a little bad about the whole thing. The Zorki is a nice little camera. It may not be a Leica, but it's got nothing to apologize for, and seems a bit of a shame that it wasn't allowed to go through life as itself. Great conversation piece, though.

You can get plastic bayonet I lens caps on eBay for not very much. The original Rollei mirror lens caps always seem to go for quite a bit. My only experience with a Rollei CLA was with Harry Fleenor. I sent him a 3.5F, and it came back looking and sounding just wonderful. As you probably know, he's quite popular with the Rollei crowd and typically has a large backlog. Two years or so ago when I sent him mine, I think it was about 6 to 8 weeks before I got it back.

 

I just ordered some replacement leather for a Minolta Autocord from cameraleather.com [i ordered Rollei black genuine leather]. It hasn't come yet, but I'll post some details when it does.

No, it sits properly within the corresponding slot in the mount. The problem is that the lens somehow [near that tab that I described above] doesn't sit flat enough within the camera's breech mount to allow the breech collar to turn over the flanges on the lens and thus hold the lens securely in place. I can tell that it's not sitting flush enough because the lens actually rocks a bit when it's in the mount, pivoting at that point. Which is where that little tab is located. Which does appear to clear the mount and sit inside the camera. And yet, the lens just doesn't sit flush enough there to allow the lens to mount. The lens doesn't appear to be damaged, bent, or squeezed out of round somehow. In fact, it's in near mint condition. But for the discoloration where the "passed" sticker once was, it is in mint condition.

 

I don't know. The only photo of a Petri lens mount that I've been able to find is the one in the FTE manual that I described above [a normal lens], and it doesn't have that tab. I no longer have other Petri lenses to compare this against, so I don't know if it's somehow unique to this lens or not. I don't think they had it. This lens wouldn't mount on any of the Petris that I had, which is why I still have it. I sold the others, but didn't know what to do with this lens because I thought it was some kind of incompatible variant of the basic Petri breech mount, and didn't belong with the other Petris I was selling.

 

I'll post a photo tomorrow of the lens mount. If nothing else, it might give comfort to someone else down the line who, having the same problem that I'm having, finds this posting.

Well, I'm no longer sure of much. The little tab that I've spoken of is immobile by design; it's part of the mount itself (part of the metal), not a part that's frozen from lack of use. At the same time, having played with the lens a bit more, I no longer think that tab is preventing the lens from engaging (it does seem to clear the camera body's lens mount to sit inside the camera [for what reason, I don't know]), but I'm not sure what is preventing the lens from mounting.

 

A few years ago, I had several Petri bodies. Another Petri Flex V, a Petri Flex VI, and a Petri FT. I was able to swap lenses among all of them. I picked up this 135mm f3.8 off eBay, and it wouldn't mount on any of the bodies, though it looks as if it should. It's not missing anything, and, frankly, that little tab is the only thing I can see that distinguishes it from other Petri lenses that I've had or seen. But it just won't work. Back then, I figured that it would certainly work on the later FT, but it didn't. And so it's sat on the shelf forgotten until I came across it and Petri Flex V earlier this week.

 

I'll try to post a picture of the lens's mount in a day or so. Maybe it might make sense to someone.

 

I remember, though, why I picked up the Petri Flex V. It's a cute camera. Their early SLRs had real style to them. The V is interesting. The shutter release is located on the body, to the right of the lens [as you hold it]. It had a top speed of 1/500, with a cloth, vertically travelling shutter. Electronic flash sync has its own marking on the shutter speed dial, somewhere between 1/30 and 1/60. LIke their rangefinders from the same era, it's got little name plate on the front announcing it as a "color corrected super." Later on, their cameras became fairly pedestrian, but in the early '60's at least, they had some interesting ideas about design. I really liked that cyclops-looking camera they came up with that had the round meter window built into the pentaprism.

Cleaning out the back room the other day, and I discovered a puzzle that I'd left for another day. I've got

Petri Flex V SLR with a breech mount. I've also got a 135mm f3.8 Petri breech mount lens [marked EE Auto] that

won't mount on this camera. [The lens has an a switch by the mount that allows you to toggle back and forth

between M and A, functions that I presume are for later Petris]. I know that some Petris used breech mount lenses

and that later Petris used M42 screw mount lenses. My question is whether there were two flavors of the breech

mount. I know that the camera is fine. Other Petri lenses that I no longer have would mount on it just fine.

This lens has a protruding non-moveable tab along the mount that prevents it from seating properly within the

camera's mount. This is distinct from the lever that controls the iris.

 

I used to have another Petri, a Petri Flex VI, and this lens wouldn't mount on it either. I've looked at the

instruction manual for the later Petri FTE on Mike Butkus's site (a later breech mount Petri with onboard meter

and some type of auto aperture EE function), and the illustration of the lens mount shown there lacks this little

tab that's present on my lens. Any ideas?

I think part of it is that cameras of the 1960's and 1970's, which for years never seemed particularly old or vintage or collectible, have now become collector's items. I saw someone walking around with a Canon AE-1 the other day, once a sight so common I never would have taken notice. Yet I realized as I was watching him that it had been quite some time since I'd seen one of those. To someone in their 20's or 30's -- alas, not me! -- a camera from the 1960's is a bit of a relic.

Leica has been in and out of financial hot water since I first became interested in photography in the late 1970's. Back then, their product line consisted of M-series rangefinders and an R-series 35mm SLR. Today, their product line consists of M-series rangefinders and an R-series 35mm SLR. In those 30 years, an entire generation has grown to adulthood using cameras with features and functions that Leica has never offered. Realistically, the amazing thing is that they're still around, not that they're once again swimming in red ink. But they'll survive as they have for decades, as a niche company offering fabulous optics wedded to a concept of image-making that's at least an entire generation out of sync. Whether they'll be around in 25 years without some substantial concessions to changing times and changing needs remains to be seen.

Yes. Franke & Heidecke's website can be found here (but you'll need to know German): <a href="http://www.franke-heidecke.net/">Franke & Heidecke</a>

Im sure that that's what happens (at least, they're always special order at B&H). Still, the parts inventories, the dies to make the metal parts, making the molds for the plastic parts, etc. comes at a cost that's obviously still justified, and I find it interesting that this market for new "vintage" cameras seems to be slowly (albeit very slowly) growing. Obviously, that market isn't large (given the retail prices being asked), and I'm guessing that the largest segment of it is in Asia. I just find it interesting that this market segment seems to be fairly steady (Rollei introduced the GX, as I recall, sometime around 1988, and their TLR's have been available consistently ever since). As much as I love Rolleiflexes (and I've dumped quite a lot on them over the years), I've always wondered who's buying these new ones.

You can find the backs being auctioned off you-know-where, the problem is finding the flat glass in good enough condition (no scratches, etc) that its use wouldn't be counter-productive. They haven't been made in years.

The really interesting thing is that there seems to be enough of a market to justify the release of an updated Tele Rollei. At a time when there's talk ad nauseum about the decline (and eventual demise) of film cameras, Rollei has managed to continue selling (at incredible cost) the FX, the re-released Rollei Wide and now the Tele is coming back. Rollei also seems to make (though I've never seen one) Leica-like rangefinders (as does the resurrected Voigtlander). God only knows how long this little niche market (basically for rich people's toys) will last, but it seems (so far) that there's enough demand to keep going.

There are two questions here.

 

1. Can a 3.5F Model 3 have come equipped with a Xenotar lens? Yes. According to Ian Parker's Rollei Guide, the Xenotar was an option on all 3.5F's.

 

2. Can a 3.5F have come equipped with a Zeiss Opton Tessar (Bayonet II mount)? No. With the exception of the Rolleiflex T's, the last Rolleiflex with a Tessar was the Rolleiflex MX-EVS, which went out of production in 1956. All subsequent 3.5 Rolleiflexes (the 3.5E's and the 3.5F's) had either a Planar or a Xenotar. Ian Parker lists all 3.5F's as Planars or Xenotars. Also, no 3.5 Rolleiflex with a Tessar had a Bayonet II mount. The only Bayonet II Tessar to grace a Rolleiflex was the f2.8 Tessar on the Rolleiflex 2.8A (late 40's to early '50's).

Thanks, Ted. It's not really a question of money. I have several Rollei's (and also a Mamiya TLR), and I'd like to develop an ongoing relationship with someone whose ability and judgment I could trust. At the same time, in the search for someone in the area who might fill the bill, I don't want to experiment by sending my Rollei out to someone who'll return it "serviced" with glue oozing out the leatherette and loose screws rattling around inside. So I thought I'd see what experiences people might have had with local repair folks.

Does anyone have any experience having a Rollei TLR serviced by a

repair shop in Seattle or Tacoma? I'm aware of the general

recommendations for people I could send my Rollei to by mail, but I'd

like to exhaust local possibilities first. Other than a self-timer

that doesn't work (well, it works when IT wants to), I don't have any

specific problems to fix, I just need to have a 2.8C cleaned and

adjusted.