mcblue

<p>Thanks Edward.</p>

<p>Scott -- pretty happy with my Xenotar also, which is about 50 years old</p>

<p>Greg -- that's what I heard, and I discovered a similar comment about Xenotars on one of my online photo spaces (about prefering Xenotars to Planars for color).</p>

<p>I had really pleasing results for slide film on my Xenotar, but I haven't used the same film on my Planar camera (plus I can't duplicate the scene and natural light from past shooting...) so I don't really have a way of verifying except to keep on shooting with both cameras...</p>

<p>Ok, thanks Egon.</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I'm back in my Rolleiflex phase and I have with me a 3.5-E2 Xenotar and a 2.8F Planar. My quick question is: Is it true that the Xenotars have better color saturation than Planars? I'm not really inclined to do an A/B testing so I thought I'd get some feedback from people who've used Rolleiflexes for years.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>I haven't found the Mother's California plastic polish, but I did order a Maxwell screen and it's beautiful. I can focus pretty well in darker areas. It's like a new camera. Reminds me of the Acute-Matte screen on a Hassy.</p>

<p>Thanks Frank. I think I'll try that also. I saw that suggestion from another PN forum thread also...</p>

<p>Thanks Stuart. Will try that. :)</p>

<p>Hi Robert,<br>

It's a 2.8F Planar (12/24) but the serial is 246xxxx, so I'm thinking it might be an early 2.8F Type 2. I don't really know much about thei screens. The screen itself is only really clear in the center where there seems to be a fresnel. I already tried washing it.</p>

<p>I have an 3.5E-2 Xenotar and the stock screen it came with is actually clearer and brighter than the one on the "new" 2.8F. I was actually using an old, plain Beattie screen on the 3.5E-2, but I took that and put it in the 2.8F to take my test shots. I re-inserted the old stock E-2 screen (with a smaller and more subtle fresnel in the center) into the 3.5E-2. I'd likee</p>

<p>What kind of plastic polish can I use on the muddy screen? Thanks!</p>

<p>Thanks D Purdy.</p>

<p>Hi again,</p>

<p>Sorry. I took out the screen and found out that it actually is the original screen. Is it possible it was in there in reverse?</p>

<p>Anyway, I'm considering a Beattie or a Maxwell...</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I just received a Rolleiflex 2.8F and it doesn't seem to have the original screen. The screen has faint grid lines and a circular area in the center that's clearer than the rest of the screen (which is really scratched and cloudy). Can anyone identify what type of screen it is and maybe suggest a replacement screen? Thanks.</p>

<p>Thanks Brian!</p>

<p>Thanks Edward. So I might as well go to KEH instead of spending time on eBay?</p>

<p>I'll check them out. I heard good things about them but haven't had the occasion to buy anything from them. Thanks.</p>

<p>Thanks Brian. It's used. Is there a way to search for items on ebay that ended bidding already?</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>How much would someone expect to spend on a 503CW body, 80mm CF T*, a prism or waist-level finder, and a an A12 back nowadays in great condition?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks Jil! I'll try that as well.</p>

<p>Thanks Friedemann. :)</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for the further clarification and suggestions...</p>

<p>I'm actually getting confused with all the choices. The link from Robert above was actually bit helpful in narrowing the choices down.</p>

<p>Just one more question: Can people tell the difference between a $300 large format lens and a $800 one (both used -- I wouldn't really consider the really new ones priced around $2000).</p>

<p>I'm asking because I don't want to buy "good and cheap" and then not be able to resist upgrading to "much better and more expensive" because it will double or triple the cost (I've made such mistakes in the past).</p>

<p>So I'm raising my budget a little -- but not to the extent of buying those uber-expensive $2000+ lenses. But if a certain newer and more expensive lens is really not much of an upgrade from an older lens at half the price, I wouldn't bother.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Thanks guys. I think I'll get the 150mm Symmar. I've seen a few around...</p>

<p>Thanks for the replies! Robert, I'll look at the Nikkor you mentioned at KEH.</p>

<p>Vick, can you tell me which specific Symmar that would be -- the convertible lens. That might be a good bonus.</p>

<p>I'll probably also look for a portrait lens after the normal lens. I actually have these listed:</p>

<p>Rodenstock 210mm Sironar-N <br /> Fujinon-W 210mm F5.6 <br /> Fujinon-W 210mm CM F5.6</p>

<p>But I think I best look for a 135mm or 150mm first. Thanks again.</p>

<p>Since I'm pretty happy with shooting using a Rollei TLR with a 75mm lens, I thought my first 4x5 lens should be a normal or slightly-wider-than-normal lens. I saw the following recommended highly:</p>

<p>Rodenstock 150mm f/5.6 APO Sironar-S</p>

<p>But it's really expensive ($1097 at B&H new). Can anyone recommend a comparable normal lens at the 135mm-150mm range that doesn't cost as much? New or used...</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

 

<p>Thanks Chuck!</p>

<p>Thanks Morgan. I'll check out the Rodenstock as well. Enjoy your wait (honestly, I'm hoping I don't get distracted. Just a while ago I was obsessing on Rolleiflexes...).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Great. Thanks for all the advice!</p>

<p>I'll check out the large photography forum for used lenses. Actually I signed up just last night.</p>

<p>I'll definitely look for a normal or slightly wider than normal lens. And then I'll look for something in the portraiture range. When I did some view camera work in a portraiture class, I think we had a 210mm.</p>

<p>I'll check out the specific lenses you mentioned. I have time till August, I guess. And I'll probably get the universal bellows now anyway.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the advice on all the other stuff as well!</p>

<p>Hi Doremus,</p>

<p>Thanks for all the info. Can you tell me where you buy used lenses for large format, or is it the usual places for 35mm and medium format -- B&H, Adorama, KEH, etc. Thanks!</p>