camera damage from "the best" foam

[tony duell]

> 
> Frankly, anybody needing something in the 180mm range has a lot of [in my
> opinion] better options in newer gear.  For example, my rangefinder

I have always considered an Leica M + visoflex to be something of a kludge. I 
really can't understand why my father bought that back in the 1960s rather than
say a Nikon F.

> coupled 200mm Komura or ANY SLR with a 200mm lens is WAY more convenient

I think using the Leica rangefinder, with its relatively short base line, with a 200mm
lens is not going to be that accurate. 

FWIW, the only reason I have the 180mm f/2.8 Nikkor is that due to the cosmetic
damage the camera shop was selling it for less than a 200mm f/4 Nikkor which is 
what I actually went to buy. Since I don't take action shots, I didn't need the extra
speed, but it might be useful. And it will do what I want (pick out details on buildings,
etc).

> and easier to use than visoflex plus 180mm tele-elmarit - THAT is an
> extraordinary amount of weight and bulk.  Therefore, the primary value of
> that lens would have been to a collector who wants the RARE aspect, and
> they want it to look good.  Cosmetic damage is significant in THAT market.

Sure. It's a great pity this happened.

-tony