Keep My Rollie?

[benjamin_shapiro]

I recently bought a 2.8 D Rollie

and aksed several questions

regarding its use - thanks for the

answers! However, upon

further looking at the lens from

inside there seems to be much

more damage to the coating

than I had previously noticed (in

the right light it more resembles

stargazing at some nebula than

looking through the famous 2.8

Xenotar). I purchased the

camera for 300$ and it seems to

be in very good mechanical

condition (ie. it needs no

repairs), perhaps only needing a

birghter Beattie focusing

screen. I showed it to a repair

man here and he said its has a

measurably sharp lens, but he

would reconsider the purchase

based on the condition of the

lens and its coating.

Furthermore, I shot a roll of

TMAX 400 and it does appear

sharp but there is significant

flare, however I do not yet have

a lens hood. Thus, I'm in a

quandry - it seems like this is a

fairly good deal and I can't seem

to find ANY other 2.8 D's - or

similar - much less something

under 450$ that is of high

quality. Should I keep the

camera and use as is; use my

saved dollars to look for a top

condition Xenotar front element

(and where on earth do you find

one?); use my savings to send

the lens in for polishing and

recoating; or return it and keep

on with the valient search? Any

suggestions?

 

Thanks,

Ben Shapiro

[ken_munn]

Ben,

 

Did the the D Xenotar have coating? I thought that coatings were relatively new - only on the Fs and the current GX? It could be that all your lens needs is a good clean. Also, if the lens is sharp, and a hood does help control flare, what's the worry? Maybe the next step should be to buy (or temporarily construct from black card) a lens hood and see if flare is still a problem.

 

In my earlier days I had several lenses that were less than virginal, yet they still produced crisp images, which is what counts unless pride-of-ownership is your thing. Don't give up on it yet.

 

Ken

[stephen_poe1]

I would experiment more with the lens and see if you can get satisfactory results from it. I used to have a Rollie E3 and did not realize how good it was till I traded it in on another camera. Now I find myself wishing I had found some way to afford keeping it.<p>

I believe that the Rollies are all coated from sometime in the 1950s on.<p>

I have used uncoated and single coating lenses to very good effect. My own (unqualified) observation is that only lenses that have a lot of air to glass surfaces or a lot of elements really suffer greatly from lack of coatings. I have gotten good results from a Goerz lens that is probably almost 60 years old; it certainly had no coatings.<p>

Get a lens shade of some kind and try again.<p>

I have never had a lens repolished but have read that it never really works very well. Can anyone shed light on that?<p>

I say; keep the Rollie and try more photography, perhaps with different films and developers.

[john_hicks___]

IMHO $300 for a 2.8D with a lens that has more than virtually invisible coating damage is ridiculous. And forget about finding an element or having the front element polished and recoated; you could buy a brand-new 2.8GX for less than it'd cost to have that done properly.

I'd return the camera if possible.

Good Rolleis at reasonable prices abound on ebay and from many other sources; no need to accept a damaged one.

[david_chananie]

In case you decide you want to have the lens examined/corrected, the name of the following guy has been mentioned on some of the newsgroups. I've not used him myself, so take this with a grain or two of nacl.

 

Mr. John Van Stelten, Focal Point, 1017 S. Boulder Rd., Suite E-1, Louiseville, Colorado 80027. Phone: (303) 665-6640 Fax: (303) 665-3803.

 

Hope this helps.

[richard jepsen]

A good Tessar MX or T-1 can be had for $175 to $350. I would pass on the camera. Not only do you have lens issues but you mentioned the binding in the shutter.