[rollei_list] Re: xenotar 2.8f vs planar 2.8f

  • From: Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 16:09:09 -0400

Jeffery Smith wrote:

I rarely even consider buying a lens if there are issues of fungus, cleaning marks, or separation. I have had Van Stelten clean half a dozens lenses for me, and some involved polishing, recoating, separating, and cementing. When this happens, we can pretty much toss them out of the running due to other possible influences.
(snipped)

Regarding older lenses (including my Cord's Xenar), after 5 decades,
isn't the lens performance a taphonomic issue (i.e. dependent on
individual preservation?)

Peter Nebergall

As you allude to, Peter's insight goes beyond those kind of visible and obvious problems. Individual variation, mishandling, poor adjustment, poor repair, dust/haze, et cetera all play a far larger role relative in the performance of the particular classic camera you have in your hands than any other factor...


So I guess the question should be "Is a new 80/2.8 Planar better than a new 80/2.8 Xenotar?". :-)

You'll be hearing from Jerry shortly ;-)


Eric Goldstein


--- 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: