Light cleaning marks to Rollei front element: A problem?

[andy m.]

I am interested in purchasing a 2.8 Rolleiflex described as having

very light cleaning marks on its taking lens (front element).

 

I have had a lot of trouble locating a decent Rollei to replace one

I regrettable sold a few years ago. Most I have seen have been

expensive and none has been without problems. The current one I am

considering has a problem but is being sold at a good price and at

least the seller (a dealer) is being explicit about the very light

cleaning marks).

 

I am not overly precious about my camera gear, but do wonder whether

such marks could impact upon image quality.

 

I know there are lots of experienced people on this forum. Any

opinions?

 

Thanks, Andy

[sabrina_h.]

The first Rolleiflex my husband bought had severe cleaning marks on the lens. He did 2-3

test rolls and had huge glare and flare on almost all the images.

 

He bought it from a store and returned it promply. The next purchase was cleaning mark

free. It creates flawless images (he's had it for almost 2 yrs now).

 

That's not to say it will happen to you, but may be something to consider. Your

equipment is an investment. I know the turnover rate of our equipment is high. We buy

and sell all the time. I would question buying any lens with cleaning marks.

 

good-luck

[andre_noble4]

My instructor had a Rollei with serious cleaning marks. He was artsy type, so he actually loved the flair filled and soft images it produced.

[matt_needham]

My Rolleiflex has what I would call light cleaning marks on the taking lens, and I've never had any problems. I also use a Hasselblad 500c/m and a Pentax 67II, both with flawless lenses, and the Rollei images are comparable.

[h._p.]

My 2.8E2 has some cleaning marks on the front element. I've not seen any sign of flare but, then again, I always use the lens hood. In my experience, a good hood is pretty well esential on most lenses if you don't want flare.

[mike_elek]

I've had a lens with cleaning marks, and it caused flare throughout the image. Not enjoyable at all.

[johnmarkpainter]

It depends on whether they are TRULY 'light' and also the lighting conditions and use of a

Hood when shooting.

 

jmp

[georg_scheck]

It depends if the cleaning marks(scratching) is only in the coating

or deeper in the glass body.The Xenotar has got a single element front lens whereas the planar is a double cemented together.With the Xenotar it shouldn t be to much of a problem trying to get a good front lens element from a scrap camera and simply change it.

Also polishing and recoating in your optics store could be considered

otherwise some people like the "Hamilton" look of their pictures.

 

Good light Georg

[fwstutterheim]

<i> With the Xenotar it shouldn t be to much of a problem trying to get a good front lens

element from a scrap camera and simply change it. </i> <br><br>

Pardon me, but <br>

1. It should be easier to find a Rolleiflex without cleaning marks on the lens, <br>

2. Exchanging an element or even the (one!) entire lens is not a good solution. <br><br>

Andy, can you get the camera on trial? <br><br> Ferdi.

[andy m.]

Thanks everyone for all the your responses.

 

Hi Ferdi, yes, I reckon I could get the camera on approval. The price is really good and it looks nice from the photo I have seen.

 

I have been having a LOT of problems finding a nice Rollei to replace a 3.5F type 4 that I sold when I was a student. I am currently using an old Automat and loving it- getting great image quality.

 

The problem is, how would I know that the scratches on the 2.8 weren't degrading the images? I do my own darkroom work and scanning, but all the same, it is difficult to be sure about such a thing. Cheers, A.