[rollei_list] Re: On-Topic Discussions: Rolleinars
- From: Mark Rabiner <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:31:04 -0500
> One reason I prefer f 3.5 versions to the f 2.8s in the various Rollei
> models was my clear impression that the f 2.8s were noticeably heavier.
> Eventually, I too was quite surprised to find the actual weight so
> close. Why it should have seemed otherwise remains mysterious.
> However, I very definitely prefer the 75 mm focal length, finding the
> 80 mm view a bit constricted in comparison. Over years I have used
> several, including on Hasselblads, and never get entirely comfortable
> with them. My provisional explanation for this preference is that the
> first Rollei I ever used was a 1939 (?) Automat and I got imprinted,
> like a baby duck. That happens to me a lot in life.
>
> Allen Zak
The 3.5's give an impression of being not just lighter but smaller I was
envious of a friend who had one.
I always wanted one as an option in that regard; but wondered what the
actual weight difference really was.
[Rabs]
Mark William Rabiner
---
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:
