Tessar T* f/2.8 - 45 mm http://www.carlzeiss.com/de/photo/home_e.nsf/3187a822cd4605b7c1256709007 04e24/a82fe043bf31376bc12567a80044ee76/$FILE/Tessar%202,8_45_e.pdf
Distagon T* f/3.5 - 15 mm http://www.carlzeiss.com/de/photo/home_e.nsf/2e01b79b6d188a5dc12566fe003 b2654/03c6616470f47e07c12567a80044eff9/$FILE/Distagon_3_5_15_e.pdf Tele-Tessar T* f/4 - 300 mm http://www.carlzeiss.com/de/photo/home_e.nsf/2e01b79b6d188a5dc12566fe003 b2654/c101f9904e1f3beac12567a80044f0a8/$FILE/TeleTessar_4_300_e.pdf > -----Original Message----- > From: gfen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 20 November 2002 17:02 > To: INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Lens manufacturers > > > On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Herb Chong wrote: > > i friend of mine just started working for the company that designed > > and built the Next Generation Space Telescope Mirror. it's > in storage > > right now. he will have access to the optical design software, he > > thinks. i've asked for a 65mm f0.9 already. next up is > 12-200mm f2.8 > > for the Pentax DSLR. > > somewhat releated to the above, however, I'm abou to engage > in a little thread hijacking.. > > Does anyone know where to get a good optical diagram of a > classic lens*? This includes the elements/groups, but also > the lines indicating what path the light takes through the > lens? I found one of these, once, that would totally meet my > demands**, but it was too small and I couldn't scale it up > cleanly to meet my requirements. I even went so far as to try > some software that was supposed to turn them out, but nothing > really worked how I wanted it. > > Unfortuantly, I can't find the original gif that I liked. It > must be on my girlfriend's computer. If you think you can > help, let me know, and I'll show you what I'm looking for > with that example. > > * - Ideally, I wanted to find a Zeiss tessar. The one I found > appears to be a Zeiss planar 80/2.8, which also worked. A > Pentax 50/1.4 would also be swell, but at this point, almost > anything would work well (except, well, I really would love > it tto be something truly classic, like those Zeiss lenses). > > ** - It needs to be complex enough to be interesting, but not > so much that theres TOO much. A straight up optical formula > is kinda boring. Its the l ines that abstract it and make it > interesting. > > There was a point when Hassleblad designers were posting to > rec.photo.equipment.medium-format. I meant to hit them up > witrh the same request, but never did, and now it appears > they've vanished. > > -- > http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a > poke in your eye. > http://www.eighteenpercent.com <-> photography and portfolio. > >
