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

  • From: keith_w <keith_w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 12:33:52 -0800

Jerry Lehrer 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

Two things, the camera being offered IS visually beautiful, and two - the seller has been in business for some time. He is on the web as "PhotoCamera.com" and the business (whatever it is) is located in Beverly Hills, CA.

I have no personal history of going online to determine if the selling price is "average" or way too high... I'm just offering what I can see on the surface.

[My recent mistakes have been because I recall 2.8F's selling for what seemed to be an outrageously high price, and when I found what looked like a good TLR buy at half that price, and almost as pretty, it seemed like a bargain!
I'm just recounting, with some wry amusement, how I misled myself!
All in good fun, even WITH the mistakes! LIve and learn. <g>]


keith whaley
---
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

Other related posts:

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