>At 20:51 12/19/00 , Les Clark wrote:
>>In 1962 I acquired a Rollei 3.5F with a Xenotar, and find that I reach
>>for it more often than the Technika these days, probably because I'm
>>just getting old and lazy. Its lens is a blood-letting twin of the
>>Technika one. No lust for Zeiss from me...
And John wrote:
>Schneider-Kreuznach is perhaps the second best German lens maker; very hot
>on the heels of Carl Zeiss. The S-K name is not well known among still
>camera users, unless you are into Rollei TLR's or M/F SLR's. They are
>probably better known today for superb cinema and projection lenses . . .
>within those circles that use such lenses. S-K's Xenotar is really a
>"brother" of the CZ Planar. "Cousin" wouldn't be strong enough to
describe
>it. If you look at cross-section drawings of the two, you can see a very,
>very strong similarity. Among the Rolleiflex users, the consensus is the
>Xenotar and Planar are equivalent in quality and performance. It's just
>the CZ name that commands higher prices for those that have the CZ Planar.
>I'm not surprised at your Xenotar performance.
I?ve got a 100/2.8 Xenotar I use on a Century Graphic and a 100/2.8 Planar
on a Graflex XL. As far as I am concerned, they are twins, both in
appearance and performance. I lust for both. I guess that?s why I somehow
now have three 80/2.8 Planars for the XL. It must be a symptom of very
advanced Zuikoholism, what you do when you don?t need any more Zuikos.
Walt Wayman
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|