Had to choose between original glass and a cheap replacement on a 1950s Rolleiflex

I got a Rolleiflex 3.5 in last week with a scratched taking lens. The owner wanted it working for a family shoot but didn't want to drop $200 on a genuine Zeiss optic. I went with a $40 uncoated UV filter over the front instead of swapping the glass out. It hid the scratches well enough and saved them the cash, but the flare in backlit shots was pretty rough. Has anyone else cheaped out on a lens repair and regretted it later?

2 comments

2 Comments

miawalker3d ago

Oh man, I read somewhere that those uncoated UV filters can actually make things worse in certain light because of extra internal reflections. I remember a camera repair blog saying they act like a second lens surface bouncing light around. Probably worked okay for the family shoot in open shade though.

fisher.reese3d ago

Oh wow, that's a classic fix but I've heard it can bite you later... I remember a old repair guy saying those uncoated filters are basically just extra glass that scatters light like crazy. For a quick family shoot it probably got the job done but anything with a strong backlight or street lamps at night must've looked like a fog machine went off. I wonder if a dirt cheap hood would've helped some, but those old Rolleis already have that front element sitting kinda deep. Still, saving that $200 for a real Zeiss lens makes sense if the camera gets used more... that original glass is worth protecting.