hasselblad and Rolleiflex

[whitewave]

Maybe it's time to take MF photos. I'm taking my time in thinking
about wich system to buy. I'm considering only zeiss (or Schneider on
Rolleiflex), so Hasselblad and Rolleiflex, and since
ebay-digitalera-prices are cheaper and cheaper, it has no sense for me
to look at Bronica, Mamiya ecc.

Hasselblad, one day I will be able to take portrait with a 150 (or
maybe the 120), to have more backs and maybe a digitalback.

Rolleiflex, I can use it without a tripod, I can carry it everytime I
go out.

This is a problem to be solved by me, and my needs.

But I would like to know your comments about the 80s.
Wich is the best planar?
80 CF t* for Hasselblad?
80 2.8 rolleiflex?

My choice for Rolleiflex is a 3,5 F camera. What do you think about
Xenotar vs. Planar?

Thanks.
.....................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it

[Neil Gould]

Hi Marco,

Post by whitewave
Maybe it's time to take MF photos. I'm taking my time in thinking
about wich system to buy. I'm considering only zeiss (or Schneider on
Rolleiflex), so Hasselblad and Rolleiflex, and since
ebay-digitalera-prices are cheaper and cheaper, it has no sense for me
to look at Bronica, Mamiya ecc.
Hasselblad, one day I will be able to take portrait with a 150 (or
maybe the 120), to have more backs and maybe a digitalback.
Rolleiflex, I can use it without a tripod, I can carry it everytime I
go out.
This is a problem to be solved by me, and my needs.
But I would like to know your comments about the 80s.
Wich is the best planar?
80 CF t* for Hasselblad?
80 2.8 rolleiflex?
My choice for Rolleiflex is a 3,5 F camera. What do you think about
Xenotar vs. Planar?
Thanks.
.....................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it

At first, I thought you were considering SLR systems from both Hasselblad
and Rollei. TLR vs. SLR is a bit of an apples vs. oranges comparison. But,
I'll offer a few quick notions based on my experience with both the Rollei
TLR and SLR cameras.

IMO, there is little to compare with the compact and efficient design of
the TLR, and the Rolleiflex line is about as good as it gets. In use, most
of the differences between camera models become nuances, rather than
show-stoppers. Most models are really more similar than they are
different.

The Rollei 6000 series SLR cameras are very sophisticated units. Some
consider them to be the most advanced MF SLRs available. I've had the
6008i for a couple of years, now, and feel that there is little that can
compare with the features and quality of this camera system. However, I
question the idea that you'd carry one of these every time you go out.
They aren't the biggest beasts on the market, but they aren't what I'd
consider for backpacking, either. Be prepared to pay dearly to
participate, too. Lenses and accessories are rare and pricey, even on
eBay.

There is a lot of hoopla around the Planar vs. Xenotar question. So much
that just asking can mark you as a troll! ;-) Which is better suited to
you depends on many things, your typical subject matter, your particular
tastes, and so on. I don't believe that anyone will be able to give you a
useful answer as to which one will meet your needs better. Unfortunately,
because of the rarity of Rollei SLRs, it may be difficult to rent both
lenses to compare them yourself, but that is about the only way to get a
definitive answer on this question.

Meanwhile, more information and useful links can be found in web sites
dedicated to medium format. A quick Google search will get you started.

Regards,

Neil

[whitewave]

Post by Neil Gould
At first, I thought you were considering SLR systems from both Hasselblad
and Rollei. TLR vs. SLR is a bit of an apples vs. oranges comparison. But,
I'll offer a few quick notions based on my experience with both the Rollei
TLR and SLR cameras.

Yes, infact I said that's a problem that I must solve on my own.
I'll use the camera, and I have to decide wich one is better for the
photos I want to take.

Post by Neil Gould
The Rollei 6000 series SLR cameras are very sophisticated units. Some
consider them to be the most advanced MF SLRs available. CUT
participate, too. Lenses and accessories are rare and pricey, even on
eBay.

Yes, they are too rare and too expensive. Why not buying Hasselblad
system? The sophisticated specs of the Rollei 600x aren't worth the
extra money, IMHO. At least for my idea of MF photography (mostly,
studio portraits)

Post by Neil Gould
There is a lot of hoopla around the Planar vs. Xenotar question. So much
that just asking can mark you as a troll! ;-)

NO!!!! I'm not a troll! I'm only a 23 years old student. I don't
know so much Rolleiflex types to have my belief in their ranking.
I would like only to hear to you comments! ;-)


Which is better suited to

Post by Neil Gould
you depends on many things, your typical subject matter, your particular
tastes, and so on. I don't believe that anyone will be able to give you a
useful answer as to which one will meet your needs better.

Ok. I'm italian, and in a photo related NG there was a skillfull
Rollei user. He wrote down a very useful review of any lenses.
Finally, he said that his best is probably the Xenotar 2.8, but he
suggests also to start with the Planar 3,5, because it gives a "more
general" result.
To tell the truth his reviews are very well written, and every
thoughts is well explained. I'm sorry, but my english isn't as good
to let you understand all the nuances of his speech.

Unfortunately,

Post by Neil Gould
because of the rarity of Rollei SLRs, it may be difficult to rent both
lenses to compare them yourself, but that is about the only way to get a
definitive answer on this question.

In Italy it's VERY difficult to rent photo equipment.

Post by Neil Gould
Meanwhile, more information and useful links can be found in web sites
dedicated to medium format. A quick Google search will get you started.

Ok.

Post by Neil Gould
Regards,
Neil

Thanks a lot for your answer (and not to considering me a troll ;-)).




.....................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it

[Martin Francis]

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html

FWIW.

[germano]

Post by Martin Francis
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html
FWIW.

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html

And this......??

Ciao
Germano

[jjs]

Sharpness is highly overrated. I don't believe a person will see the
difference in Rolleiflex and Hasselblad lenses in typical gallery
enlargements. Very often people get an impressionistic sense of sharpness
from a lens that is not sharp. It might behoove them to find out exactly
what causes that impression before wasting their time with benchtests.

I'd say the OP should choose something he will _use_. An allegedly great
camera does no good if it has qualities that pursuade the user to leave it
at home.

[Stefano Bramato]

maybe starting with rolleiflex TLR is cheaper than starting with
Hassie and you can have excellent results: you can have a good
training and some resutls soon.

After few time you can decide to empty your piggybank with buying an
Hasselblad outfit. But if you stay in tune with Rolleiflex (I've two,
a Tesar and a Planar 2,8) is the same quality that hasselblad, and
you can find exciting to shoot with the same focal length everytime:
it's a real challenge.

Post by whitewave
My choice for Rolleiflex is a 3,5 F camera. What do you think about
Xenotar vs. Planar?

Never tryed Xenotar but Planar works excellent.

ciao

[whitewave]

Post by Stefano Bramato
maybe starting with rolleiflex TLR is cheaper than starting with
Hassie and you can have excellent results: you can have a good
training and some resutls soon.

I don't think it's cheaper. A 500cm+80 black+A12 costs as much as a
Rolleiflex 3.5F and a Rolleiflex 2.8F is more expensive than that
Hassy kit.

Post by Stefano Bramato
After few time you can decide to empty your piggybank with buying an
Hasselblad outfit. But if you stay in tune with Rolleiflex (I've two,
a Tesar and a Planar 2,8) is the same quality that hasselblad, and
it's a real challenge.

Yes the 80 lense will be the one I want to use mostly.
But, are you sure that they have the same quality?
I know very well Hassy results, but I've never seen with my eyes a
print from Rolleiflex Planar or Xenotar.

Post by Stefano Bramato

Post by whitewave
My choice for Rolleiflex is a 3,5 F camera. What do you think about
Xenotar vs. Planar?

Never tryed Xenotar but Planar works excellent.

Thanks.

Post by Stefano Bramato
ciao

Ciao Stefano.
.....................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it

[David J. Littleboy]

Post by whitewave

Post by Stefano Bramato
maybe starting with rolleiflex TLR is cheaper than starting with
Hassie and you can have excellent results: you can have a good
training and some resutls soon.

I don't think it's cheaper. A 500cm+80 black+A12 costs as much as a
Rolleiflex 3.5F and a Rolleiflex 2.8F is more expensive than that
Hassy kit.

You should be able to find pre-1960 Rolleis for under US$500. These are
really fine cameras and a pleasure to use. More recent Rollei TLRs are
ridiculously overpriced. A relatively recent Hassy 501CM (or whatever) in
good shape should be about US$1200.

Post by whitewave

Post by Stefano Bramato
After few time you can decide to empty your piggybank with buying an
Hasselblad outfit. But if you stay in tune with Rolleiflex (I've two,
a Tesar and a Planar 2,8) is the same quality that hasselblad, and
it's a real challenge.

Yes the 80 lense will be the one I want to use mostly.
But, are you sure that they have the same quality?
I know very well Hassy results, but I've never seen with my eyes a
print from Rolleiflex Planar or Xenotar.

At the risk of repeating myself, the right answer is looking more and more
like "none of the above", i.e. Mamiya 7. About the same price as a Hassy
kit, the Mamiya 7 is a sharper contrastier lens (this shouldn't be a
surprise: it's a full stop slower and isn't a retrofocus design like the
Hassy 80/2.8) and has 50% more film for A4 aspect ratio prints.

Thanks to Martin Francis for reminding me of this link.

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html

And much gratitude to Chris P. for doing our homework<g>.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

[germano]

"David J. Littleboy" <***@gol.com> wrote in message news:<chjous$qvb$***@nnrp.gol.com>...
... the Mamiya 7 is a sharper contrastier lens (this shouldn't be a

Post by David J. Littleboy
surprise: it's a full stop slower and isn't a retrofocus design like the
Hassy 80/2.8) and has 50% more film for A4 aspect ratio prints.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Dear David ,
you haven't wrong ideas . Mamiya 7 lenses have an
incredible sharpness ,but sharpness is not the only one thing in
photography .Others element made a good photography . The multicoated
layer of M7 isn't so good as Zeiss Planar's Blad ;color's
restitution is bad.
And,very important question,in M7, image's plasticity (3dimension)isn't sufficient
(look image of Planar's Zeiss for Blad or Heliar Voigtlander for Bessa
2,or Planar for Rollei;not extremly sharp -as M7-but pleasantness natural).
Photography is not a number but a complex question.
Salutation ,
Germano

[Stefano Bramato]

Il computer puo essere un grande strumento, ma in mano a whitewave

Post by whitewave
I don't think it's cheaper. A 500cm+80 black+A12 costs as much as a
Rolleiflex 3.5F and a Rolleiflex 2.8F is more expensive than that
Hassy kit.

I don't think so.
Ebay is convenient and if you look you can stay down to 400-500$
easily for a 2.8 Planar Rolleiflex. Cheaper than Hassie.

[Stefano Bramato]

Il computer puo essere un grande strumento, ma in mano a whitewave

Post by whitewave
Yes the 80 lense will be the one I want to use mostly.
But, are you sure that they have the same quality?

Yes. Almost the same if not better in same cases.

Post by whitewave
I know very well Hassy results, but I've never seen with my eyes a
print from Rolleiflex Planar or Xenotar.

Trust us!!
Or google to have more infos.

CIao!

[Martin Jangowski]

Post by whitewave

Post by Stefano Bramato
maybe starting with rolleiflex TLR is cheaper than starting with
Hassie and you can have excellent results: you can have a good
training and some resutls soon.

I don't think it's cheaper. A 500cm+80 black+A12 costs as much as a
Rolleiflex 3.5F and a Rolleiflex 2.8F is more expensive than that
Hassy kit.

First of all, a Rolleiflex with a 2.8 Planar or Xenotar can be found
from about 300 Euro upward. You won't get a Hasselblad this cheap.
A Rolleiflex C, D or E needs a brighter screen than the originally
issued glass screen, but this is about the only problem with this
older models. A F is a joy to use, but well kept C with its
round diaphragm (IIRC 13 segments instead of 5 for all newer Rolleis)
makes excellent bokeh and has no real disadvantages.

Second, even a Rolleiflex T or a 3.5B model (3.5/75 Tessar/Xenar)
will be the equal of a Hasselblad Planar when stopped down
to f5.6-8 or more. These models go for 100-200 Euro.

I made this comparison with several Rollei TLRs (even with
Rolleicord models with Tessar/Xenar) and two 2.8/80mm Planars
for SL66. These are the equal of the Hasselblad Planars. For
studio work, I usually use a RB or SL66 for tight shots and
a Rollei TLR for larger views, and nobody is able to see any
difference in quality between this systems.

Martin

[whitewave]

Post by Martin Jangowski
First of all, a Rolleiflex with a 2.8 Planar or Xenotar can be found
from about 300 Euro upward.

Where?!? In Italy their price is 900$ (800 euro), on ebay they go for
550-800 $.
Or are you talking about earlier models?

You won't get a Hasselblad this cheap.

700$ for a 500cm + 80 black T* + A12 + waist level finder

Post by Martin Jangowski
A Rolleiflex C, D or E needs a brighter screen than the originally
issued glass screen, but this is about the only problem with this
older models. A F is a joy to use, but well kept C with its
round diaphragm (IIRC 13 segments instead of 5 for all newer Rolleis)
makes excellent bokeh and has no real disadvantages.

Ok, thank for the advice.

Post by Martin Jangowski
Second, even a Rolleiflex T or a 3.5B model (3.5/75 Tessar/Xenar)
will be the equal of a Hasselblad Planar when stopped down
to f5.6-8 or more. These models go for 100-200 Euro.

I would like something "softer" than a Tessar. I will use it for
portraits.

Post by Martin Jangowski
I made this comparison with several Rollei TLRs (even with
Rolleicord models with Tessar/Xenar) and two 2.8/80mm Planars
for SL66. These are the equal of the Hasselblad Planars. For
studio work, I usually use a RB or SL66 for tight shots and
a Rollei TLR for larger views, and nobody is able to see any
difference in quality between this systems.

So you aren't saying Rolleiflex F Planar to be better than Hasselblad
Planar, but that they are quite the same. Is it right?

Post by Martin Jangowski
Martin

.....................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it

[Neil Gould]

Hi,

Post by whitewave

Post by Martin Jangowski
Second, even a Rolleiflex T or a 3.5B model (3.5/75 Tessar/Xenar)
will be the equal of a Hasselblad Planar when stopped down
to f5.6-8 or more. These models go for 100-200 Euro.

I would like something "softer" than a Tessar. I will use it for
portraits.

If you want a softer lens than a Tessar, then perhaps the Planar is a
better choice than a Xenotar or Xenar. The Schneider lenses are very
sharp, and considered to have a less pleasant bokeh than the Zeiss lenses.
However, I like both.

Post by whitewave

Post by Martin Jangowski
I made this comparison with several Rollei TLRs (even with
Rolleicord models with Tessar/Xenar) and two 2.8/80mm Planars
for SL66. These are the equal of the Hasselblad Planars. For
studio work, I usually use a RB or SL66 for tight shots and
a Rollei TLR for larger views, and nobody is able to see any
difference in quality between this systems.

So you aren't saying Rolleiflex F Planar to be better than Hasselblad
Planar, but that they are quite the same. Is it right?

Zeiss makes Planar lenses for both Hasselblad and Rollei. The lenses are
equivalent. However, these are two different kinds of camera systems, and
you may find that those differences affect the end result, not because of
the lens quality, but in the way that the cameras are best used.

Since you are a student, and presumably have many years of photography
ahead of you, I'd really recommend that you start with a Rollei TLR. This
will give you the opportunity to learn about the important aspects of MF
shooting; the square frame; the "normal" 75 - 80 mm lens view; the
differences between films; etc. Once your preferences develop, your next
kit can be tailored to suit your tastes, and you will may spend less in
the long run.

Neil

[whitewave]

Post by Neil Gould
Since you are a student, and presumably have many years of photography
ahead of you, I'd really recommend that you start with a Rollei TLR. This
will give you the opportunity to learn about the important aspects of MF
shooting; the square frame; the "normal" 75 - 80 mm lens view;

Thanks a lot for the advicxe.

the

Post by Neil Gould
differences between films; etc. Once your preferences develop,

I'm making tests with my 35mm equipment, and with D100 too. You can
see some of my photos in my site, from the signature.

your next

Post by Neil Gould
kit can be tailored to suit your tastes, and you will may spend less in
the long run.

Ok.

Post by Neil Gould
Neil

.....................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it

[Bob Monaghan]

Hi Neil,

I'm not sure the lenses are "equivalent" in a technical sense (though they
are in performance in my experience)...

quoting zeiss lens expert and author Marc J. Small:

Zeiss has used the "Planar" name a gazillion times, beginning with
Rudolph's symmetrical six-element design of 1896. In the 1930's, Ernst
Wandersleb, who began his career as Rudolph's assistant, assigned to HIS
assistant, Dr Hans Sauer, the reworking of the Planar to accomodate the
existence of new optical glasses and lens coatings. Sauer worked on this
for fifteen years, a decade at Jena and, following the division of the
Zeiss entities, at Oberkochen. The result of his work was TWO lens
designs, one being the 5-element design used in the Rolleiflex TLR from
1955 until 1996 and the other the 6-element Planar used on the Hasselblad
C system and the Rolleiflex SL66 and 600x systems.
endquote (from http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/hassy.html )

as Mr. Small notes, some authors such as the notable Kingslake have
claimed otherwise, so it may be worthwhile to pass on this correction...

regards bobm

[Neil Gould]

Hi Bob,

Post by Bob Monaghan
Hi Neil,
I'm not sure the lenses are "equivalent" in a technical sense (though
they are in performance in my experience)...

You're right... I should have been more clear in my statement. On the one
hand, I *was* referring to performance, and on the other, I was referring

Post by Bob Monaghan
the 6-element Planar used on the Hasselblad C system and the
Rolleiflex SL66 and 600x systems.

Still, the distinctions are worth noting in the TLR vs. SLR versions.

Thanks!

Neil

[Q.G. de Bakker]

[...] The result of his work was TWO lens
designs, one being the 5-element design used in the Rolleiflex TLR from
1955 until 1996 and the other the 6-element Planar used on the Hasselblad
C system and the Rolleiflex SL66 and 600x systems.

Only the very early Planar lenses made for Hasselblad had 6 elements. From
about 1960 the design was changed, and the lens since then has 7 elements.
The CB Planar that came and went away again was again a 6 element design,
but i don't know if it was the same as the very early C lens.

The above lenses are all f/2.8 80 mm Planars.
There are other Planars too of course.

[Bob Monaghan]

Hi QGdeB ;-)

thanks for the update and extension notes ;-) yes, this adds to Mr.
Small's notes on the SLR vs. TLR points, and to Neil's notes on SLR vs SLR
Hassy v. Rolleiflex SL66.. ;-) I find it surprising that so many variants
of the basic (great) design were tweaked and produced over time? ;-)

but this does gives those collectors out there something to do once they
have the basic kit ;-) they can start collecting lens variants too ;-)

grins bobm

[Q.G. de Bakker]

Post by Bob Monaghan
thanks for the update and extension notes ;-) yes, this adds to Mr.
Small's notes on the SLR vs. TLR points, and to Neil's notes on SLR vs SLR
Hassy v. Rolleiflex SL66.. ;-) I find it surprising that so many variants
of the basic (great) design were tweaked and produced over time? ;-)

I don't. ;-)

Planars comes in many shapes and forms, as do Sonnars, Tessars, Biogons,
Distagons, and what have you.
Zeiss uses generic names to denote similar, but not necessarily the same,
designs.
Design families, in fact, in which one particular design may bear only the
slightest resemblance with a very much earlier member of the family, though
the two are still related: the one begot another which in turn begot etc.

So just because they are all Planars, all f/2.8 all 80 mm, and all made to
cover 6x6, doesn;t necessarily mena they should be all the same.
The 80 mm made for the Hasselblad cameras, for instance, needs to be very
slightly "retro focussy" so the mirror will have a clear way up (the famous
viewfinder vignetting is caused by the mirror still not having the necessary
space when the 80 mm Planar is on the camera, so they just made the mirror a
bit shorter too.) On Rolleflex TLRs, there is no mirror behind the taking
lens, so the design was freed from that constraint, and the lens could be
made differenlty (which indeed is why the "NASA-Planar" is 100 mm instead of
80 mm: long enough to be far away enough from the mirror, and be free from
that sort of constraints.)

And then there are other considerations leading to different designs. Like
how much effort you can, or want to, put into a design. How much a lens may
cost. What aberration you like corrected most. What, what sort of
photography, is is intended to do. Etc.

Post by Bob Monaghan
but this does gives those collectors out there something to do once they
have the basic kit ;-) they can start collecting lens variants too ;-)

Indeed. ;-)

[Michael R. Lachance]

Post by Q.G. de Bakker
Planars comes in many shapes and forms, as do Sonnars, Tessars, Biogons,
Distagons, and what have you.
Zeiss uses generic names to denote similar, but not necessarily the same,
designs.
Design families, in fact, in which one particular design may bear only the
slightest resemblance with a very much earlier member of the family, though
the two are still related: the one begot another which in turn begot etc.

For example. Bert Stern, when shooting Jazz on a Summer's Day,. fitted a
150mm Sonnar to his 35mm Arriflex (hand-held!) motion picture camera. At the
time (1958) he used a Hasselblad 1000F for much of his 6x6 work, I highly
doubt the Sonnar he fitted to the Arri had a shutter.

Mike Lachance

[Q.G. de Bakker]

Post by Michael R. Lachance
For example. Bert Stern, when shooting Jazz on a Summer's Day,. fitted a
150mm Sonnar to his 35mm Arriflex (hand-held!) motion picture camera. At the
time (1958) he used a Hasselblad 1000F for much of his 6x6 work, I highly
doubt the Sonnar he fitted to the Arri had a shutter.

If it was a lens he used on his 1000F, i doubt it was a 150 mm lens. ;-)
The Sonnar available then was 135 mm. Great lens!

But, being 1958, it may have been a 150 mm (shuttered) lens he used on his
500C?
;-)

[Michael R. Lachance]

Post by Q.G. de Bakker
If it was a lens he used on his 1000F, i doubt it was a 150 mm lens. ;-)
The Sonnar available then was 135 mm. Great lens!
But, being 1958, it may have been a 150 mm (shuttered) lens he used on his
500C?
;-)

Good info!
I'll double check my reference on this, as he talked about it in his own
words... but its been a while since i checked..

Mike Lachance

[Michael R. Lachance]

Checked my sources:
The lens was a 180mm Sonnar which Stern normally used in his still
photography work. He adapted it to his 35mm Arriflex.
So, what do we know about the 180 Sonnar of late 1950's vintage?

Mike Lachance

Post by Michael R. Lachance

Post by Q.G. de Bakker
If it was a lens he used on his 1000F, i doubt it was a 150 mm lens. ;-)
The Sonnar available then was 135 mm. Great lens!
But, being 1958, it may have been a 150 mm (shuttered) lens he used on his
500C?
;-)

Good info!
I'll double check my reference on this, as he talked about it in his own
words... but its been a while since i checked..
Mike Lachance

[Michael R. Lachance]

Perhaps to answer my own question?

http://medfmt.8k.com/sam/

Just found this on the web. Although thuis article discusses fitting to a
Bronica, the lens shown is the exact make/model that Stern used, (ive seen
actual pictures the lens fitted to his Arri.)

Im pretty sure he was normally using this on his Hassy. 1000F, Does this
make sense?

Mike Lachance

Post by Michael R. Lachance

Post by Q.G. de Bakker
If it was a lens he used on his 1000F, i doubt it was a 150 mm lens. ;-)
The Sonnar available then was 135 mm. Great lens!
But, being 1958, it may have been a 150 mm (shuttered) lens he used on his
500C?
;-)

Good info!
I'll double check my reference on this, as he talked about it in his own
words... but its been a while since i checked..
Mike Lachance

[Q.G. de Bakker]

Post by Michael R. Lachance
Perhaps to answer my own question?
http://medfmt.8k.com/sam/
Just found this on the web. Although thuis article discusses fitting to a
Bronica, the lens shown is the exact make/model that Stern used, (ive seen
actual pictures the lens fitted to his Arri.)
Im pretty sure he was normally using this on his Hassy. 1000F, Does this
make sense?

These Sonnars never were produced for Hasselblad.

Though some will have been sold with a interchangeable mount.
Some may have been adapted/machined to fit.
And people like Heinz Kilfitt sold adapters with which you could mount
lenses with C-mount to (among others) early Hasselblad.

So it was not a lens from Hasselblad, but may have been a lens he used on
his Hasselblad.

[Michael R. Lachance]

Post by Q.G. de Bakker
These Sonnars never were produced for Hasselblad.
Though some will have been sold with a interchangeable mount.
Some may have been adapted/machined to fit.
And people like Heinz Kilfitt sold adapters with which you could mount
lenses with C-mount to (among others) early Hasselblad.
So it was not a lens from Hasselblad, but may have been a lens he used on
his Hasselblad.

That does make sense, I re-read the article i linked earlier...
"Attached to the Flektoskop and Flektometer reflex
housings with a large screw thread, the lens was eventually
adapted to Hasselblad 1000F by that innovative photographic
group, the Life magazine camera department. Based on their
success, adapter mounts were later made in Germany for
consumer use."

It makes sense, he very well may have simply bought the Hasselblad adapter
that was available.
Thanks for the info, and food for thought!
Meaningless trivia, of course, but interesting nonetheless.

Mike Lachance

[Bandicoot]

Post by Bob Monaghan
Hi Neil,
I'm not sure the lenses are "equivalent" in a technical sense (though they
are in performance in my experience)...
Zeiss has used the "Planar" name a gazillion times, beginning with
Rudolph's symmetrical six-element design of 1896. In the 1930's, Ernst
Wandersleb, who began his career as Rudolph's assistant, assigned to HIS
assistant, Dr Hans Sauer, the reworking of the Planar to accomodate the
existence of new optical glasses and lens coatings. Sauer worked on this
for fifteen years, a decade at Jena and, following the division of the
Zeiss entities, at Oberkochen. The result of his work was TWO lens
designs, one being the 5-element design used in the Rolleiflex TLR from
1955 until 1996 and the other the 6-element Planar used on the Hasselblad
C system and the Rolleiflex SL66 and 600x systems.
endquote (from http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/hassy.html )
as Mr. Small notes, some authors such as the notable Kingslake have
claimed otherwise, so it may be worthwhile to pass on this correction...

Anyone know if this applies to the Schneider case as well as the Zeiss? ie,
is the Xenotar in the Rolleiflex TLR the same design as the one in the 600x
and E66 systems?

(Just curious...)



Peter

[Martin Jangowski]

Post by whitewave

Post by Martin Jangowski
First of all, a Rolleiflex with a 2.8 Planar or Xenotar can be found
from about 300 Euro upward.

Where?!? In Italy their price is 900$ (800 euro), on ebay they go for
550-800 $.
Or are you talking about earlier models?

Yes. Good "user" F models go from 450+ Euro, good "C,D,E"-Rolleiflex
from 300+ Euro.

Post by whitewave
You won't get a Hasselblad this cheap.
700$ for a 500cm + 80 black T* + A12 + waist level finder

Post by Martin Jangowski
A Rolleiflex C, D or E needs a brighter screen than the originally
issued glass screen, but this is about the only problem with this
older models. A F is a joy to use, but well kept C with its
round diaphragm (IIRC 13 segments instead of 5 for all newer Rolleis)
makes excellent bokeh and has no real disadvantages.

Ok, thank for the advice.

Post by Martin Jangowski
Second, even a Rolleiflex T or a 3.5B model (3.5/75 Tessar/Xenar)
will be the equal of a Hasselblad Planar when stopped down
to f5.6-8 or more. These models go for 100-200 Euro.

I would like something "softer" than a Tessar. I will use it for
portraits.

If you want "soft", use a Rolleicord Triotar wide open (in fact,
I bought a cheap Rolleicord II exactly for this). A Tessar/Xenar
or Planar/Xenotar is never soft except in the extreme corners.
The main difference is that the Planar wide open will be deadly
sharp until about 90% of the diagonal, and the Tessar starts a little
earlier. 2-3 stops down both are critical sharp to the edges.

Post by whitewave

Post by Martin Jangowski
I made this comparison with several Rollei TLRs (even with
Rolleicord models with Tessar/Xenar) and two 2.8/80mm Planars
for SL66. These are the equal of the Hasselblad Planars. For
studio work, I usually use a RB or SL66 for tight shots and
a Rollei TLR for larger views, and nobody is able to see any
difference in quality between this systems.

So you aren't saying Rolleiflex F Planar to be better than Hasselblad
Planar, but that they are quite the same. Is it right?

Yes, I got about the same results as C.Perez got. I don't
have a Hasselblad, but the Zeiss glass of the SL66 is identical
to the older Hasselblad C lenses. The differences between the results
of the SLR Planars and the TLR Planars are neglegible. The Mamiya 6 & 7
glass _is_ better, but this is like saying Porsche is better than
Mercedes...

Modern Zeiss WA lenses are surely better than the old Distagons,
but we are talking about standard focal lengths and there has
been no breaktru in the last 50 years. The only problem old
TLR lenses have is that they aren't multicoated. This is a real
problem if you have strong light sources in your field of view.
I wouldn't use single coated lenses for nightscapes, here the
modern multicoating is certainly better. However, a Rollei TLR
with the correct sunshade (!) is still a tool that is up
to nearly everything you want to do and is very affordable.

Martin

[whitewave]

Post by Martin Jangowski
Yes. Good "user" F models go from 450+ Euro, good "C,D,E"-Rolleiflex
from 300+ Euro.

I'm trying to find a good deal, like these prices.

Post by Martin Jangowski
Modern Zeiss WA lenses are surely better than the old Distagons,
but we are talking about standard focal lengths and there has
been no breaktru in the last 50 years.

Ok, this is a point I didn't think about.

The only problem old

Post by Martin Jangowski
TLR lenses have is that they aren't multicoated. This is a real
problem if you have strong light sources in your field of view.

I know this problem.


However, a Rollei TLR

Post by Martin Jangowski
with the correct sunshade (!) is still a tool that is up
to nearly everything you want to do and is very affordable.

I hope!! I think it will be a perfect camera for me.

Post by Martin Jangowski
Martin

.....................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it

[whitewave]

And what about Planar 3.5 vs Xenotar 3.5 or Planar 2.8?
.....................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it

[Bob Monaghan]

see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/blindresults.html - I did a blind lens test
including ~identical shots using rolleiflex 3.5f zeiss planar lens against
hasselblad zeiss 80mm lenses, and there was no statistically significant
preference for either lens. In fact, if you exclude the 3 element TLR and
chinese seagull lenses, there was no stat. signif. correlation between
price and lens rating! ;-)

so this would support the recommendation to pick a MF camera based on
other considerations, such as ergonomics, or needed features or
accessories, or price, since the lens performance on pro MF gear is so
close that most users can't tell them apart on side by side shots...

hth bobm

[Shelley]

I'm considering only zeiss (or Schneider on

Post by whitewave
Rolleiflex),

Why?

Post by whitewave
Maybe it's time to take MF photos. I'm taking my time in thinking
about wich system to buy. I'm considering only zeiss (or Schneider on
Rolleiflex), so Hasselblad and Rolleiflex, and since
ebay-digitalera-prices are cheaper and cheaper, it has no sense for me
to look at Bronica, Mamiya ecc.
Hasselblad, one day I will be able to take portrait with a 150 (or
maybe the 120), to have more backs and maybe a digitalback.
Rolleiflex, I can use it without a tripod, I can carry it everytime I
go out.
This is a problem to be solved by me, and my needs.
But I would like to know your comments about the 80s.
Wich is the best planar?
80 CF t* for Hasselblad?
80 2.8 rolleiflex?
My choice for Rolleiflex is a 3,5 F camera. What do you think about
Xenotar vs. Planar?
Thanks.
.....................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it

[whitewave]

Post by whitewave
I'm considering only zeiss (or Schneider on

Post by whitewave
Rolleiflex),

Why?

Because it's the top brnd for lenses and because in ebay era a 500cm
or a Rolleiflex is only a bit more expensive than Mamiya 645 and
RB/RZ, Pentax 645 ecc.
For quite the same price you can have a 80 made by zeiss, and e
reliable body, so why should I look to other brand?
.....................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it

[whitewave]

And I want square format.
What else could I buy? Bronica SQ?
No, because:
- its quality isn't at the top
- its quite difficult to find used components and lenses. Here in
Italy NO one use Bronica S system

Exakta?
- difficult to find and expensive

Mamiya C?
- difficult to find (at least here) and priced about as Rollei

Yashica A,B,C,D,124
- why not a Rolleicord Vb?

etc.



.....................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it

[Borghesia]

I have a hassy set and also a simple Rolleiflex Tessar.
The Rolleiflex T is my favorite and I use it 9 times over 1 for the
Hassy, because of it's lightness and simplicity.
As the Rolleiflex Tessar allready give oustanding results, it will only
be better with the more expensive Rolleiflex types.

On my last vacation to South East Asia, I was in deep thoughts of which
camera to take with me (I've got 18 camera's).
I ended up with a Konica Hexar and the Rolleiflex T, the 'flex performed
superb and I made best pictures of my collection.

My Hassy is resting in it's case a few years allready and maybe it's
time to give it a chance as well.

André

[Shelley]

Post by whitewave
Because it's the top brnd for lenses and because in ebay era a 500cm
or a Rolleiflex is only a bit more expensive than Mamiya 645 and
RB/RZ, Pentax 645 ecc.

Some people might agree with you, many others would disagree and say that
there isn't any single "top brand for lenses." I'm in the latter category.
In my experience you will see no consistent, recognizable difference in the
quality of images produced by lenses of the same format and design from any
of the major manufacturers. The biggest difference is often in prices.
However, prices of lenses made by the major manufacturers today are mostly a
function things like the number of middlemen involved in getting the lens
from manufacturer to photographer, the profit margins of the various parties
involved, labor and material costs in the country of manufacture, taxes,
import duties, desired profit margins, etc., not the quality of the
photograph the lens is capable of producing. In medium format photography
Pentax, Mamiya, and Zeiss lenses are all capable of producing technically
excellent photographs.

Post by whitewave
For quite the same price you can have a 80 made by zeiss, and e
reliable body, so why should I look to other brand?

The reason why you might think of other brands is that the six specific
cameras you mention fall within three fairly distinct categories of medium
format cameras. Among these categories the size of the negatives is
different, the aspect ratio of the negatives is different, the features of
the cameras are different, their size and weight are different, and their
primary intended use is different. While the brand of lens is also
different, that's one of the lesser important differences among them. Of far
greater importance is the type of photography you plan to do and how well
the characteristics of these different cameras fit that type of photography.

Post by whitewave

Post by whitewave
I'm considering only zeiss (or Schneider on

Post by whitewave
Rolleiflex),

Why?

Because it's the top brnd for lenses and because in ebay era a 500cm
or a Rolleiflex is only a bit more expensive than Mamiya 645 and
RB/RZ, Pentax 645 ecc.
For quite the same price you can have a 80 made by zeiss, and e
reliable body, so why should I look to other brand?
.....................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it

[Bob Monaghan]

yes, some excellent points. See Danny Gonzalez' great hands-on pro
photographer's review of MF cameras at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/gindex.html
see mf/pick.html on picking MF camera tips, and mf/features.html on some
MF features not seen in 35mm and their value and use in MF work etc.

hth - regards bobm

[Ted Azito]

Zeiss glass is somewhat overrated. Yes, they correct some abberrations
a little differently and you get a very slightly contrastier and "more
round" presentation-but it is pretty subtle.

The ex-Warsaw Pact nations make lenses to the old Zeiss formulas and
they are equally esthetically pleasing, but their QC sucks and they
are for odd mounts in many cases. I looked at the Kneb Hasselblad
clones but the backs don't interchange unless you modify the camera,
which no one in the US does, and they are evidently a pain in the ass
and shunned by pros.

The RB/RZ are too big and awkward for extensive handheld use, the
Bronicas are electronic and not as rugged as Hassy, and the SLR
Rolleis are even more expensive than the overpriced Hassy and their
lenses-apparently the same glass in different mounts-also even higher.
The Pentax 67 is still available but doesn't have interchangeable
backs.

So you might as well just buy the Hasselblad.

[David J. Littleboy]

Post by Ted Azito
Zeiss glass is somewhat overrated. Yes, they correct some abberrations
a little differently and you get a very slightly contrastier and "more
round" presentation-but it is pretty subtle.
The ex-Warsaw Pact nations make lenses to the old Zeiss formulas and
they are equally esthetically pleasing, but their QC sucks and they
are for odd mounts in many cases. I looked at the Kneb Hasselblad
clones but the backs don't interchange unless you modify the camera,
which no one in the US does, and they are evidently a pain in the ass
and shunned by pros.
The RB/RZ are too big and awkward for extensive handheld use, the
Bronicas are electronic and not as rugged as Hassy, and the SLR
Rolleis are even more expensive than the overpriced Hassy and their
lenses-apparently the same glass in different mounts-also even higher.
The Pentax 67 is still available but doesn't have interchangeable
backs.
So you might as well just buy the Hasselblad.

Do you really need an SLR for all your shots? The M7 is a tad sharper at the
same magnification* and is 23% (linearly!) larger if you make 1:1.414
prints. M7 + 43 + 65 + <something else for closeups, tele, portraits> is
what's looking good here.

*: http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

[Ted Azito]

"David J. Littleboy" <***@gol.com> wrote in message

<<snip>>

Post by David J. Littleboy
Do you really need an SLR for all your shots? The M7 is a tad sharper at the
same magnification* and is 23% (linearly!) larger if you make 1:1.414
prints. M7 + 43 + 65 + <something else for closeups, tele, portraits> is
what's looking good here.

No and yes. I now own one and I love it. There are times when a SLR
or TLR would be better but the 7 II is a very fine camera. It doesn't
have 70mm or Polaroid or interchangeable backs at all but it does have
the 35mm pan adaptor, the optics are good, the camera seems reasonably
durable. And it's definitely more agile than a system MF camera.

But a SLR is definitely better for extremely long lenses or technical
photography and a lot of other studio and lab apps.

Generally, I don't think there will be a lot of overlap with the
Mamiya 7 and a Hassy. The RB/RZ are more its competitors. And if it's
never leaving the tripod I'd go RB or RZ.