posted 02-07-2007 04:44 PM
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.
On edit, added 3rd theory, above.
[Edited by Glint (February 07, 2007).]