P3D Re: Custom Realist

[egoldste@xxxxxx (Eric Goldstein)]

>Eric,
>You are overlooking the issue here.

Dalia, you should be used to it by now... you've read my other posts... It
sure wouldn't be the first time! 8-)

>It is important whether there is
>"crazing" on the lenses or not because a potential Custom buyer won't know
>to look for this defect if he/she isn't aware of it .

Sorry for any confusion... I'm fumbling and mumbling around in an attempt
to make the point that anyone who is considering the purchase of ANY 40+
year old camera needs to inspect the lenses for fungus, coating
abrasions/defects, seperation, and any number of other age-related issues.
Crazing is not in any way unique to Custom Realists, but could affect any
classic camera we may want to purchase. And this is not exclusively a
COATING defect but can affect uncoated surfaces as well. The viewing lens
on one of my old Rolleiflexes has a bit of it... thankfully, it's not the
taking lens!

>Whether the Custom
>lenses are better than Ilex Paragons or Ektars is another discussion
>altogether.

Hmmm, if I'm remembering correctly,  I think the original question dealt
with the anticipated optical performance of the Custom, inquiring as to
weather 300 ll/mm(!!!!!!) could be expected. Bob and Brian have pointed out
that the answer to this question is "NO!" (at least not on the film chips),
my point is that the resolution of the Custom is subjectively (and I'd bet
a buck objectively, too) no higher than other fine tessar-type cameras of
this vintage which are MUCH cheaper and more readily available. So if one
is buying a Custom as a user believing that they will be getting more lens,
I say "no way!!"

>Meanwhile, any person considering purchasing a Custom, please examine the
>lenses carefully.

ANY classic camera. They are all prone to the kind of aging defect ZAK has
described and numerous others. Perhaps an article on what to look for when
buying a classic might be more useful to more people?

Regards,

Eric G.



------------------------------