j.p._dahl_n

<p>Use and compare them, and see which one you like the most.<br>

Yes, the 2,8 Xenar is a Tessar type of lens, but it doesn't have to be less good than a six element lens. The advantage of a six element lens is that the sharpness is more even to the corners at large apertures. Stopped down a bit, the four element lenses can be as good, or better. My Retina Ib Xenar outperforms the 1,8/50 Zuiko for my Olympus in regards of sharpness.</p>

<p>This manual for a Voigtländer camera shows how the Compur shutter works in a better way than the Weltini II manual:</p>

<p>http://www.cameramanuals.org/voigtlander_pdf/voigtlander_bessa_e.pdf</p>

<p>It starts at page 15. The shutter here has a selftimer (delayed action device) that yours may not have, but the other functions are the same.</p>

<p>Both Deckel and Gauthier (The makers of Compur and Prontor and other shutters) took this seriously. Their early shutters have aperture blades of matte black paper and some have plastic shutter blades. They are delicate and easy to damage during cleaning and repair. Their later shutters have polished metal blades, chemically treated to a grey colour.</p><div></div>

<p>A young Mark Hama? ;-)</p>

<p>I assume your camera is a Rolleiflex 3,5B (or "MX-EVS" in the US). The lens serial number on mine is 1405xxx, also a west german Tessar, marked "Carl Zeiss".</p>

<p>The lever at the flash contact should not move more than a few millimeters, just to free the locking device for the older type of male flash contacts. On the F models it was no longer the M/X switch as it was on the MX-EVS (Rolleiflex 3,5 B in Europe).</p>

<p>I have fourteen Rollei TLR:s and my late 3,5F with Planar is the "best". The 3,5 Planar has the sharpest aperture already at 5,6. I found it a little bit sharper than the 2,8F, also with Planar. If you don't need the half stop faster lens, the 3,5F (or E) is perfect.</p>

<p>Your Rolleiflex 3,5 "X" is a great camera though. The Tessar and Xenar are extremely sharp in the center, and stopped down to 11 they match the Planar and Xenotar. So you only "need" the Planar or Xenotar if you are going to shoot with large apertures and want a little better corner-to-corner sharpness.</p>

<p>It was made after the war, so I wouldn't recommend him to use it while reenacting the war. A pre-war Retina would be a lot better, and they were used by both the Axis and Allies. :-)</p>

<p>Are you sure it's a Xenar and not a Xenon? The IIc never had the Xenar. The Ib/IB did.</p>

<p>Does anyone know who made the old Zeiss Ikon and Voigtländer films during the 30's - 50's? Or did they really have their own coating factories?</p>

<p>Foma have discontinued their 200-film. If you find it, it's from the last production.</p>

<p>http://www.foma.cz/</p>

<p>Yes, I once mixed Agfa 8 to a four (or five) times stronger concentrate. The chemicals involved are perfect for making a stronger concentrate.</p>

<p>I've seen old recipes where the glycin developers were mixed to a milky slurry that would be kept in small air tight bottles. It kept much longer that way.</p>

<p>Maybe I should start mixing Agfa 8 again. It's an excellent developer, that reminds me of Rodinal but with perhaps better midtones.</p>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=282122"></a></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Q.G. de Bakker wrote: <em>Am i the only oldtimer over here who still remembers DIN grades correctly?</em><br /><em> DIN 18 is 50 ASA, not 40.</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Geez, I made a typo! I swear! I blame Fotokemika - They changed the names of their R14/R17 films to R20/R40 and then suddenly to R25/R50. I still shoot them at DIN 14/10º and 17/10º.</p>

 

 

<p>DIN 18º (40 ASA) was considered medium speed. Agfa Isopan-Ultra DIN 23º (160 ASA) was a fast film in 1941.</p>

<p>Zeiss Ikon and Carl Zeiss were different companies, but related. Zeiss Ikon bought in lenses from Carl Zeiss.</p>

<p>The Novar wasn't made by Carl Zeiss, but by various makers. The lens name "Novar" belonged to Hüttig that later merged with ICA. They only made cameras and bought in the lenses from different optical companies, like Steinheil. In 1926 ICA merged with Ernemann, Goerz and Contessa-Nettel, to form Zeiss Ikon 1926, under the Zeiss umbrella. The Novar continued to be a good standard triplet in the lower price range, but not marked with the makers name. It's quite OK stopped down to 11-16.</p>

<p>Carl Zeiss, the optical company, had their own triplet, the Triotar, and it's always marked "Carl Zeiss".</p>

<p>Now look for Rolleinar close-up sets. They fit perfectly and are of better quality. Great stuff. :-)</p>

<p>Early Rollei Proxars/Rolleinars were three-piece sets; the lenses plus the Rolleiparkeil anti-parallax prism. The prism could be also to correct the perspective when shooting tall buildings, like "rise" on a view camera!</p>

<p>I know what you mean. I love the Kodak Retina Ib/IB cameras. They lack the rangefinder and accessory wide and tele lenses of the IIc/C and IIc/C, but they feel more straight forward and the 2,8 Xenar lens is awesome.</p>

<p>I have one, but with the 2,8 Xenon (actually a five element Xenar!).</p>

<p>Yes, the type 150 is a bit rare but can be found for a reasonable price on auction sites when the seller doesn't point out its rarity or the model number. I bought mine for around $40 a couple of years ago. It works great, but I still have to try it out.</p>

<p>I agree with Krikor that it's not worth a repair by a professional repairman, but it still is a nice project for the hobbyist. Don't throw it away when you can give or sell it as a spare parts camera.</p>

<p>Please, show it to us!</p>

<p>Maybe the locking tab didn't go inside the little hole in the "door", but behind it, so the "door" got stuck?</p>

<p>Did anyone mention the Zeiss Ikon "Box Tengor"? ;-) They have the Goerz Frontar lens, which is a two element achromat. The last model have a chrome "frame" around the front, and the lens is coated. http://farm1.static.flickr.com/49/151431785_7f47c33911.jpg I'm not a box camera guy, but if I would want one, this is the one I would look for.</p>

<p>Yes, it's an 3,5 E3. I also had one without the meter. All of them have the lever for flash synch/self timer.<br>

The 3,5 E2 is different. It has a smaller shutter, so the gap between the lenses is smaller. The flash synch is on the bottom locking lever for the flash, and there's a sliding knob for the selftimer next to the viewing lens.</p>

<p>The Planar has a quite nice softness at full aperture. Especially the out of focus area.</p>

<p>For softness with a Tessar or Triotar at full aperture, use a Rolleisoft filter, or the results will be harsher than with the Planar.</p>

<p>A cheaper option would be a Yashica TLR with Yashikor. It's very pleasantly soft at the largest aperture, and sharp stopped down.</p>

<p>"Ikon" is just a part of the brand name "Zeiss Ikon". The shutter is probably a "Klio", Pronto or Prontor, by Gauthier.</p>

<p>As Rick Drawbridge wrote, but you don't have to use heavy (thick) paper. Thin black paper works fine as photographic plates are very flat. The black acid free paper you can buy for photo albums would be perfect.</p>