robert_petersen1

<p>Those are the days we dream of , glad they still exist !! congratulations , now go out there and shoot it !</p>

<p>Good old Lighter Fluid works good with out ruining a camera.</p>

<p>Whew lots of verdicts here , lots of experience and lots of comparisons , i too have been shooting film as of lately and own several cameras to shoot and have comparisons but i don't do this , shoot to compare ,i own the m3 and the m6 the f6 and the f2s the f1 and the a-1 the little penn ft and the rolle twin 2.8 the maymia 7, the 4x5 and 8x10 as well as the digital the 800 the 610 and the 7d and mk3 and a a7r Sony along with lens that have adapters for the sony and cannons , the point is i am not comparing them to each other ,i am learning what they do and how well they work and capture images, this includes there lens and the results ...so no fair on a verdict of which rf you feel is best, with out a added question of "best for what " Is the 8x10 deardorf better than the m6??? for what ?But to let any one get a good idea of the contax camera g1 and g2 ,i want to add the best i found a g1 for is using the 28mm on it ..there done, you will not find any problems with focus,28s have a good depth of field, the camera view finder will adjust to this perspective for you ,try that on the m6 , the 35 45 and especially the 90 will NOT focus as fast but what the g1 and 28 give you is a fast street shooter and if you want a sharp landscape, stop it down and you will be happy with 100 percent sharp images , the g2 is far better with the 90mm , your portraits and work in a ilford film, B&W will be as good as the m6 , the 35 mm lens is best left on the m6 were that lens and camera just shine as well as the 50 summicron, the 45mm works so well on a sony a7 , hard to believe some one tossed their g in the trash can awww not often do you hear that about the m3 or m6 , " i got a g2 and tossed the Ms in the trash, whats this car comparison? electric tooth brush vs the old handjobber , or... a sx70 vs a 100 land-camera non sense the g2 is a capable camera...just like all the others i mentioned .</p>

<p>With the exception that you can "feel" it , i am prone to say <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=141496">Roland Vink</a> is correct ,from my experiece working on lenes ,it appears to be oil on the inner side or the rear element , and a considerable easy fix , but not for the price you paid would i suggest cleaning it yourself .</p>

<p>Unfortunately everyone here is right ,if this was not disclosed you must return it, unless you and the buyer can agree to a mutual price , the problem is you need to consider a re-sale in the future and as every one will agree a scratch on your rear element will not effect the images as much as you think, but do test it on a digital camera shoot a white wall and blow up the image 200 % or more and you will be hard to see the effect , i have seen rear element chips and scratches from your image it is so hard to tell ,but you said you needed a flash light to see it so it may not be all that bad , test it be happy with the results and then ask for the discount or return it and find yourself much happier with perfections at a reasonable price</p>

<p>Yes , prices differ from time to time but the 28mm 2.8 has a solid reputation for Nikon ,unfortunately the 35mm does not ,if you have then time google 35mm lens comparisons and notice how the 35mm Zeiss lens compares to the Nikon ,it is one of the only lens made by NIKON other manufacturers out preform Nikon , the 28mm on the other hand may outperform even the Zeiss .</p>

<p>Also there is the same lens with 3.5<br> <strong>Nikon 55mm f/3.5 AI </strong><br> <strong>it is not as sharp in the corners but "cheaper" in cost but not in built.<br /></strong></p>

<p>The <strong>Nikon Micro-NIKKOR 55mm f/2.8 AI-s</strong> it is so sharp with ZERO visible distortion at any distance .. distortion at 3 meters (10 feet) is under ± 0.1 <br> The lens you rented is a very good lens but this is better and what you need for your distance consideration ,take time tripod ,shoot in manual ,check your images on the computer of your tests then proceed .</p>

<p>Your on the right track ,the qualification is if you want to do this and have the time then proceed ,do bring with you a relative wide lens 24mm min for any indoor work , a good flash just in case for fill and don't forget to let them know you can shoot in HDR for that price if your camera allows it</p>

<p>The one reason to consider this (which is a better built quality ) is physical abuse,built better ,no there is no graph of reference to determine a winner ,be it body or lens , not like if we introduced a plastic camera were the plastic would be a disadvantage, or if it was hand built ,or if both were factory fresh ,or used for a long time , you will see many more Leica's prized and on the self and kept for a investment or a collectors advantage ,while you will see many more Nikon's out in the dirt ,the storms ,the wars , the shooters hand ,being used and in time worn out from the 40 ,50 , 100, years being used, a f may not reach the built of a Leica m3s quality but most certainly a f2 , We will wait the day you own both of these cameras and you too like all of us will still be puzzled which is better and why and with your query you will take it upon you to determine the results with experience and let us know !</p>

<p>Both those prices are excellent for both those cameras , i believe from my experiences the best lens on a Yashica was on a Yashica 12 , and found the Mat not as contrasty but both these lens are great for black and white , i feel the Tessar has some thing special to it a signature look , were the Xenar even thou a Tessar design will preform more detail in the shadows but i fond this to be the difference between both camera held side by side , The Yashica has a 80 mm lens were as the Rolliflex is 75mm , now if you dint have them side by side you may not notice the difference but 5mm more is obvious on the screens next to each other , if you want a little more wide angel the Rolleiflex would be the choice , The Yashica has a better screen , and most noticeable in the using it in the night or darker environments , the screen will then let you see it is almost twice as bright and you can compose a image better n the dark , also the magnifying glass is different , i need reading glasses some times to focus and i can almost not need them with the Yashica were as the Rolliflex it is a must .</p><div></div>