Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/01/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 03:34 PM 1/11/2008, David Rodgers wrote: >On the modern performance scale, the Planar is 14.2 megapixels. The >Xenotar is 14.19. But Planar had the name recognition. So I guess they >go for more. :-) I am not certain what this "modern performance scale" might be, but I would have to have a lot more information before accepting any such "megapixel" figure for lenses designed for analog use. I have owned Rolleiflex and Rolleicords with CZJ and ZO and CZ lenses and with JSK lenses, with Triotars and Tessars and Planars and Xenars and Xenotars. I have never found any substantive differences between Xenar and Tessar or between Planar and Xenotar. The lenses are effectively identical in performance, all else being equal. One problem is that all of these lenses up through the 2.8F's were hand-assembled and thus the variations within a given batch of lenses were a lot broader than we now recall -- a good Xenotar would beat a mediocre Planar on any day, and vice versa. Much as a I hate to disagree with Jeffrey, the value of 2.8F and 3.5F cameras seems to be driven far more by the user market than by the collectors. Yes, a NIB 2.8F will bring a premium, but these cameras tend to be sold more for use than for sitting on a shelf. I would suggest #400 to $700 for a w.8F in honest E condition, with all respect for McKeown's Law. Marc msmall@aya.yale.edu Cha robh b?s fir gun ghr?s fir!