[rollei_list] Re: 3.5F for $1,200?

  • From: "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 11:14:17 -0800

Is it much heavier? Anyone have the weight differences?

On 12/4/05, Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> RUGers,
>
> Unfortunately, Peter is correct. Desirability has nowt to do with
> practicality.
> A Xenotar MAY be a better lens, but the Planars fetch more money.
>
> The Bay II accessories are painfully hard to find, compared with Bay III.
>
> Frankly, I prefer the f2.8 because it has a longer FL lens, but it is much
>
> heavier than the f3.5 equipped cameras.
>
> Jerry
>
> "Peter K." wrote:
>
> Right now people have money before the holidays. The $750 is a fairly
> realistic price, but the camera has the less sought after Xenotar. Now I am
> not trying to get into a pissing contest with Planar versus Xenotar. They
> are both good lenses, but the Planar fetches the higher price. Personally
> for that money I would opt for a 2.8 lens. That is the ones the pros
> usually used and Bay 3 accessories seem to be more prevalent. Besides, I get
> a bit faster of a lens for those low light situations. Peter K
>  On 12/4/05, *Rei Shinozuka* <shino@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > ebay rating is a function of transparency of information (condition,
> > return policy, shipping cost, etc) and efficient execution.  it's
> > not an indicator of general price level, since
> > buyers are free to bid whatever they want for an object, or to not
> > enter into the transaction at all.
> >
> > in other words, i don't think it is legitimate for a buyer to
> > give a seller a negative rating because the price was too high, or
> > indeed to complain in general that the seller "charged too much".
> >
> > -rei
> >
> > On Dec03 21:37, Don Williams wrote:
> > >    Interesting listing on eBay.  A relatively clean 3.5F for around
> > $1,200.
> > >
> > >    Item # 7568780673
> > >
> > >    Seems somewhat high to me but I suppose that the seller has been
> > having
> > >    success or he wouldn't still be in business.
> >
> > --
> > Rei Shinozuka shino@xxxxxxxxx
> > Ridgewood, New Jersey
> >
> > ---
> > Rollei List
> >
> > - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> > in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
> >
> > - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> > 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
> >
> > - Online, searchable archives are available at
> > //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Peter K
> Ó¿Õ¬
>
>


--
Peter K
Ó¿Õ¬

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. rollei_list
  3. Archive
  4. 12-2005