Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Johnny Deadman wrote: > > I know this will interest at least one person on this list. > > A whiles ago I bought a really beat up Rolleiflex T2 for somewhat less than > a new M baseplate. The lens had a fair few cleaning marks and it had been > around the world so I wasn't even sure the ground glass was still in > alignment. Anyhow, I shot a few rolls with it but really forgot about it for > the longest while. Anyhow, having bought an Epson 1640 flatbed which is > actually half-decent at scanning MF, and having also bought a super-sharp > Rodenstock 4x loupe (lovely thing!), I dug them out. > > Yoinks! > > Now I see what Mark Rabiner is going on about when he (heretically and half > jokingly) claims his Rolleiflex is sharper than his Hassie. > > And I had called this camera a dog! It's now looking like an extraordinary > bargain. > > Still a problem with some internal reflections which I think needs tackling > with matte paint, but still. > > -- > John Brownlow > Johnny! The 80mm Zeiss Planar's on my Hasselblad and IN my Rolleiflex are the same it seems in name only!!! The lens for my Hasselblad is a CF T* coated. The lens in my Rolleiflex 2.8 F type 2 is not T* or otherwise super multicoated (early 1970's) but it's advantage apparently from what i learn on Marc James Small's Rollei list (the RUG) is it's internal baffling. Although the fact that is is a different optical formula might also be an issue. I just see it as the difference between ad on glass and built in glass. The difference is baffling? :) Thought the Rolleiflex had a fraction of the parts of a Hasselblad but maybe not. Certainly no mirrors, bouncing or otherwise! mark rabiner :) Rolleiflex: the best deal in photography!