Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About anthonym3

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Does a 1942 ROLLEIFLEX AUTOMAT have coated lenses?
  2. Is there a shop in the U.S. that would polish and recoat this lens? I have contacted DUCLOS however they cannot calibrate this lens.
  3. Is there a shop in the U.S. that would polish and recoat this lens? I have contacted DUCLOS however they cannot calibrate this lens.
  4. II have a VIOOH that I use with a 90mm f4 ELMAR ltm. I should have mentioned, the SUMMITAR is a 1939 model.
  5. Thank you. I have been fortunate to find a #2 yellow and a gr #2 green SUMMITAR filters in almost mint condition, so I suppose with these two it should render TRI-X 400 pretty well.
  6. I have a 50mm f2 SUMMITAR and don't know how this compares with the two mentioned. The SUMMITAR is not coated however I believe that with the barn door lens hood which I have it would be good for black and white. I have not found an in depth review of the SUMMITAR on the internet which may indicate it is an inferior lens. What do members have to say about it?
  7. A thank you to THOMAS, zeitz and TomB_tx for the information.
  8. What are the basic differences between screw mount models?
  9. Thank you to all repliers. Any information is a great help.
  10. I took a chance and bought this from E-Bay. Glass is surprisingly clean and clear, no haze fungus scratches or cleaning marks. However I am puzzled as it appears to be coated or bloomed . I have 1930's ZEISS glass that is bloomed. Information that I have found indicates that LEITZ did not coat 1937 lenses. Can someone enlighten me regarding this? Photo was made on an overcast day no blue in the sky.
  11. I believe that ROCKWELL being humorous and all, of that the thing that we probably can all agree upon is that there is no possible manner in which ROCKWELL can have even held the hundreds of cameras, lenses and other photo gear that he purports to have reviewed. Even allowing that his constant begging for "donations" has produced revenue it beggars belief that he could have the wherewithal to have purchased or borrowed the hundreds of items It is much more likely that he liberally "borrows" from legitimate reviews and recomposes to fit his. To sum it up KEN ROCKEWELL is a humorous affable fra
  12. Are the optical formula and diameter of the projector lens the same as the 50 mm 2.8 ltm collapsible lens?
  13. Think about this. Is it at all believable that KEN ROCKWELL who is always begging for "donations" has the wherewithal to afford the hundreds if not thousands of photographic items that he reviews or is able to borrow them? I believe that he gleans information from reviews by others and tailors them for his reviews. His review of the LEICA 3f in particular indicates that he has probably never actually used one. His "twice as many knobs and settings" etc. claim puts the lie to his alleged review.
  14. It is not at all arrogant. I also appreciate valid reviews of equipment and having used several LEICA 3-F's and my 1955 model M-3 I found ROCKWELL's "review" specious. Also it is not possible to believe that he has owned or borrowed the very many cameras that he claims by virtue of his "reviews" to be qualified to critique. His "several knobs", etc. comment left me baffled. I am looking at my 3-F and I see a wind knob, rewind knob, two shutter speed dials and a shutter button. I suppose that one could stretch a bit and call this "several". Apparently if ROCKWELL had indeed used a 3-F the "seve
  15. This validates my opinion. I believe that KEN ROCKWELL has never had an 3 F in his hands rather relies upon photos of the camera. He routinely opines about myriad cameras and equipment. I daresay that no amount of "contributions" to his account could possibly pay for what he claims to have used.
  • Create New...