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

  • From: "Jeffery Smith" <jls@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 17:24:26 -0500

Those shots are pretty stunning. Maybe I should consider lowering my elitist
ebay standards. ;-)


-----Original Message-----
From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Sintchak
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 4:44 PM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: xenotar 2.8f vs planar 2.8f

On 5/11/06, Jeffery Smith <jls@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 

I rarely even consider buying a lens if there are issues of fungus,
cleaning marks, or separation.  When this happens, we can pretty much toss 
them out of the running due to other possible influences.

My 2.8E Planar has a fairly good scratch on the front element, and numerous
lighter ones as well.  Used with a hood though I challenge anyone to see
there's any difference between the results I get from this lens versus any
other Rollei TLR.  It's performance is blow-away superb.  I got the camera
(in UGLY condition) for $150USD.  A $160 CLA to tighten up the slow speeds
(I was getting fine results even before the CLA though from 1/60th and up)
and it functions perfectly now.  
I also have a 80/2.8 (non-T*) Planar lens for my SL66 that has some
scratches too, again, no issues with quality or performace. 
No doubt your "policy", Jeffrey, ensures you get the best in lenses but I
must say you are missing some great deals out there with little to any true
sacrifice in quality or tangible results.


Other related posts: