posted 02-07-2007 04:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Reade:
Cooper had a 3.5 inch apeture Questar telescope, of that there is no question."35-mm Questar with a Zeiss 'Contarex' lens"
Should have read, "3.5 inch Questar with a 35mm Zeiss Contarex camera body." As small error.
I agree that the statment made in the linked article is in error, but not which parts of it are in error.
With a little more context added the quote reads, "the camera was a 35-mm Questar with a Zeiss 'Contarex' lens."
To me this says that the "35-mm" referred to a camera shooting 35mm film. It becomes an adjective describing the camera which, according to the quote, was a Questar ("The camera was a 35mm Questar"). And what sort of lens did the camera have? It had a "Zeiss 'Contarex' lens".
I also agree that the lens was probably a Questar for the simple reason there's no such thing as a Questar camera. So why the goofy quote saying that the camera had a Zeiss lens, not a Questar?
Here's another theory. Perhaps the camera had two lenses. The actual brand of the camera wasn't mentioned, but it had a two-lens combination, one by Questar and the other one by Zeiss, and that somehow the lenses were combined. Why combine a Questar and a Zeiss Contarex? Maybe to get a flatter or wider field - I don't know. Maybe the Zeiss and Questar lenses were combined to form a fascinating hybrid.
Another theory. Maybe the 35mm camera (brand unspecified) had two interchangeable lenses -- a Questar 3.5" and the Zeiss Contrarex.
I've often considered getting a Questar. But everytime I come back to this basic fact of telescope ownership: Aperture determines everything, including theoretical resolution. The only exception is it's hard to get my 12.5" Equatorial Newtonian or my 20" Dobson onto an airplane. ![](http://collectspace.com/ubb/smile.gif)
On edit, added 3rd theory, above.
[Edited by Glint (February 07, 2007).]