Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/01/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi David: My 2.8F 12/24 is one of the later models, a Whiteface... so it came with a very bright Rollei made screen which is very similar to the also very bright screen in my 6008s. All are very easy to focus, and none of them would benefit by having a Maxwell screen. The screen in my Rolleicord Vb is darker, but not nearly as dark as those in the older 'cords. I've had some of my Rollei TLRs repaired by Krikor: http://www.krimarphoto.com/About_us.htm He did great work for me. I've never used Fleenor, but am given to understand that he also odes great work. Jim David Rodgers wrote: > Jim, > > >>>I have a close-to-mint 2.8F 12/24 for which I paid far more than $600 > > in > the summer of 2000. Mint or not, I use it several times a year.<< > > That's certainly a nice camera. I'd like to find another Rolleiflex. The > shutter in my 2.8C Xenotar is questionable and I'm not sure it's worth > repairing. I had my 3.5E Planar CLA'd a few years ago. My only regret is > that I didn't have a (Maxwell?) bright screen installed at the time. > Just after I got the E back I came across a used 2.8F Planar priced at > approx what you paid. It had a bright screen. I already had two Rolleis > so I passed. Now I wish that I'd bought it. The bright screen makes a > big difference. The only bad thing about buying an older TLR -- or any > older camera for that matter -- is the potential for repair. The CLA on > my E wasn't inexpensive. It probably cost about what the camera is > worth. > > DaveR > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >