On Sat, 3 May 2003 22:38:25 +0200, "Max Perl" <max_perl@post11.tele.dk> wrote:

>So if there was a choice between the Sonnar 40/2.8 and the

>Xenar 40/3.5 most people would go with the Sonnar because of

>better optics?

Well, let me tell you my Rollei 35 story...;-)

I bought and used a Rollei 35 with the Xenar f3.5 (with

match-needle meter, which I MUCH prefer to the more

limited-range, harder-to-use LED version) in New York,

and liked it - it produced "snappy", pleasant images

even when shot wide open, though the corners under a

good magnifier were less sharp than I like. I moved

to Seattle where I sold it and bought the Sonnar f2.8

model. While the lens tested sharper in the

corners/edges than the Xenar at wide stops, it never

had the "snap" of the Xenar that gave the nicer-looking

slides (even with the technically-lower corner

resolution), and I sold it. Seven years later, I moved

back to New York, and was at a local Farmers Market

when I heard behind me someone call out, "Do you

remember me? You sold me your Rollei 35. Do you want

to buy it back?" The answer was an immediate, YES!",

though the camera was not working, and had a small

dent in the top. When I got it home, I removed the

top, and poked around - and it came unjammed, and

the meter started working again! On a roll, I applied

a screw driver to the back side of the dent and was

able to completely remove it. I had my old Xenar f3.5

Rollei 35 back again, in mint condition (but for the

case...). That was 20 years ago, and I still have it.

Moral of the tail: take the Xenar version...