[rollei_list] Re: On-Topic Discussions: Rolleinars
- From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:10:13 -0800
----- Original Message -----
From: "Allen Zak" <azak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 3:35 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: On-Topic Discussions: Rolleinars
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
Balance maybe. I weighed my Rolleis a while back. I
will have to do it again because I can't find the notes I
made. I do not have an f/3.5 with either Xenotar or Planar
but my 2.8E is definitely the heaviest of the Rolleis and
feels a bit nose-heavy. The lightest was an "Old Standard"
the next lightest was the Rolleicord IV.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
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:
