The weight difference Automat vs GX is even bigger: 315g Carlos 2013/10/26 CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>: > Marc: > The weight difference between an Automat type 3 and a 2.8GX > according your numbers is 255g, not 115g, it's a perceptible > difference to handle the camera and to carry it hanging from your neck > if you walk for a long time. > > There is some simplification or typo in the Prochnow's info about the > 3.5F and 2.8F weight, it couldn't be the same since they are identical > mechanically and the 2.8/80 lens is heavier than the 3.5/75 lens; > Prochnow sometimes takes info from official prices lists and Rollei > sales brochures for the cameras description, they tend to simplify, to > average and to standardize the cameras basic description, it's like > the lens nominal focal length and the lens real focal length. > > OK, I just weighed my 3.5F with the Planar 3.5/75 six elements and the > 2.8C with the Xenotar 2.8/80, both without lens cap and with an empty > 120 spool: 3.5F= 1140g; 2.8C= 1230g, the 2.8C is a simpler camera than > the 3.5F and the 2.8F, it does not have lightmeter, it does not have > DOF calculator, it does not have coupling lightmeter gears; the lens > weight makes the difference, in other words, the weight difference > between the 3.5F vs 2.8F must be bigger than the 2.8C vs 3.5F > difference. I use both cameras and I perceive the difference, it's not > a "dramatic" difference but it exists. > > I don't think the 2.8/80 lens has some fragility itself in comparison > with 3.5/75 lenses, however the 2.8/80 five elements has a larger > diameter and they use similar body, the 2.8/80 lens first element > surface is more exposed to suffer scratches and the like than the > 3.5/75 lens, it's a matter of size. > > Carlos > > 2013/10/26 Marc James Small <marcsmall@xxxxxxxxxxx>: >> I have owned many variants of the 3.5/75 Planar Rolleiflex TLR's and a few >> of the earlier Tessar ones. For many reasons, I kept a 12/24 2.8F and a >> 2.8GX and a Postwar Automat, Type 3. >> >> Weight: >> >> Automat, Type 3 920g >> 3.5C (five-element Planar 1120g >> 3.5F (six-element Planar) 1220g >> 2.8F 1220g >> 2.8GX 1235g >> >> Now, Carlos, where's the beef? The distinction in real weight between the >> Automat Type 3 and the 2.8 GX is 115g, roughly a quarter of a pound or >> around four ounces. Lord Almighty, I heft a Leica M6 lot weighing >> thirty-five pounds about with me, and even my Rolleiflex kit includes the >> Mutars and the Proxars. >> >> I am unaware of any fragility of the lenses on the 2.8/80 models. I've >> never had any problems with any CZJ, CZ, or JSK lens on a Rolleiflex TLR. >> The reflex mirrors can be a problem, as the factory coated them in silver >> and it is now a problem to find a company still doing that but, of course, >> you can silver it in your own kitchen though I would recommend that you do >> this when your spouse is visiting the maiden aunt, as the process involves >> some testy chemistry. >> >> Thanks for sharing the pictures, Carlos. >> >> Marc >> >> >> >> >> msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxx >> Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir! >> >> --- >> 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 >> --- 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