Is it worth to have Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar lens recoated?

[chalermpol_butpet]

I have a very nice (actually looks like new overall) Rolleiflex 2.8F with

Planar lens that has been kept for about 25 years (I can say, in bad

environment) and would like to bring it back to our modern world! I sent

the camera overhauled for shutter and film transportation, the camera

now working perfectly. The big trouble is bad coating damage on front

and rear elements of the taking lens. As from the previous forum

answers, FOCAL POINT company can do the recoating to Rolleiflex

Planar lens but I need some advice ; How much would it cost for

recoating 2.8F Planar lens? Is it worth it to do so? And, the camera will

be working and focusing perfectly like it should be? Thank you so much

for all advice post.

[ben conover]

Hello,

 

Have you tested the lens yet? I would see how it works before deciding anything. I bought a Rolleicord 4 in excellent condition with perfect lenses and extras for $180, it is on the way in the post so I am excited to test it and see how it performs. I think the 2.8F Planar lens on your Rolleiflex has an outstanding reputation.

 

Cheers.

[rich815]

It'll be expensive, like $350-400 I would guess. Use it with a hood and see if you do not like it as is.

[brunom]

Chalermpol

 

The only people who can tell you how much this will cost is Focal Point or some other repairer. Why don't you ask them instead of just receiving opinions as to how much it will cost, and then when you have that information 'you' can then decide whether or not it will be worthwhile for you to have it done?

 

Why did you have the mechanical repairs done without first finding out the cost of the optical work?

 

Regards

 

Bruno

[douglas_green1]

I wouldn't bother. I picked up a really inexpensive Rollei 2.8E with a Xenotar that had lots of ugly pockmarks on the coating of the front surface, and a horribly marked up focusing screen. I tested the lens and it turns out that the images are beautiful - maybe just a bit more susceptible to flare than a perfect Xenotar or Planar, but otherwise spectacular. I replaced the screen with one of the < $40 bright fresnel replacements from the seller in Hong Kong, and now I have a perfectly functional 2.8E that cost me under $200 total. Even with the imperfections on the lens, it's noticeably better at large apertures than the Yashinon in my Mat 124.

[rich815]

My "opinion" about how much it cost was based on a friend who had his Leica 50/2 Summicron lens re-coated by FocalPoint. Of course doing a Rolleiflex might be a little different so email them for a quote. But I'd bet I'm not far off.

[roland_haid]

The answer lies into first sentence. If the outer shape is like new and you like it as such, get it recoated. It makes not to much sense to have the Rollei in A+ shape with a B- lens. The other way round would do. If the coating is bad but the lens has no big scratches, recoating can be done with limited polishing. If you have to polish to much there is always a danger to worse peformance. On the other hand, bad coating outside would not affect performance to much. But there is the point of aesthetics.

[brunom]

Richard

 

My remark about opinions was a genuine comment, as no-one here can 'know' what it would cost with regard to Charlermpol's lens, and a straightforward contact with a repairer would give an answer, whereas here he will only get opinions! The point I was expressing was, putting yourself in his position, needing mechanical and optical repairs to be done, or perceived to be required, wouldn't you find out what the cost of all the work needed

to be done would be, before doing anything?

 

A Rollie is obviously not a Leica, and may cost more [?], as the lens is fixed.

 

Regards

 

Bruno

[kelly_flanigan1]

How do you know the lens needs a recoating?<BR><BR>What do real images look like with the current lens?<BR><BR>What if a recoat job really doesnt help?<BR><BR>What if they ruin the lens?

[carl_glover]

You could always put a multicoated UV filter in front of the lens.

[chalermpol_butpet]

Thanks so much for all you guys! I already have an estimate from John that the cost for everything done (Front & Rear elements surface polished and recoated, Front element de-cemented then re-cemented back, shipping) is still in my budget range. As from your suggestions, I will try get the camera tested with some rolls (color slides and BW films) first to check. Anyway, this camera the lens has no scratch at all since it has been kept for a long time (after lightly use in the '60) with front cap and leather case (also in like new condition), just the coating going to split off (looks like Dry Mud surface) and light haze on the back of rear element that cannot clean off. I will use the camera like this, if the lens are seriously need fixing, I will send to John for service on October when I am in Los Angeles at that time. Thanks again guys!

[ben conover]

About this thing of adding a

multicoated filter to a lens; it doesn't work that way. Each air/glass

interface in a lens provides a reflective surface. For example, the

Tessar (or Xenar) on your 'cord has 4 elements in three groups. Each

group has two air/glass interfaces for a total of 6. Adding a filter

makes that eight. Now, the more light that gets reflected from each

air/glass interface is more light that is not going to make the image

intended but is bouncing around inside the lens or interfering with

other parts of the image. The big difference in reflectivity comes from

just coating each air/glass surface - say 98 percent of the light goes

where it is supposed to instead of 75 percent. Multicoating improves on

this slightly by maybe one half percent (maybe less). So, over 6 air

glass surfaces MC adds less than 3 percent. Putting a filter on adds two

air/glass surfaces so at 98.5 percent off each you lose another 3

percent. On the older lenses there tend to be many fewer air/glass

surfaces than on newer lenses. Some of the new zooms have 20 or 25

air/glass surfaces and you can see how even .5 percent better can really

help them. So if you want to add a UV filter to protect the camera's

lens - a very good idea around salt spray - fine, of if you need one for

color or contrast modification - fine. But optically a lens without a

filter will be better than one with.

 

My thanks go to Chauncey for that information.

 

Cheers.

[35mmdelux]

I've heard from the Leica guys that the Ukranian does excellent multi-coating at very low cost. I was going to send him some stuff but I just don't have the time. Charges about $20 per element. Calculate the risk factor and determine if its worth it to you. He request that only the glass be mailed - absolutely no hardware at all. Must ship under certain protocol. If interested email me and I'll forward his website address.