[rollei_list] Re: I'm looking for a Rolleiwide. Is it a sensible pursuit?
- From: Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:34:41 -0400
Hi Jeff -
Photoshop... the Saran Wrap of the modern digital shooter ;-)
Again Jeff I don't want to (and am in fact going to great pains to
avoid) sound(ing) like I am saying one lens is "better" than another.
I happen to Iike authentically romantic lenses... I used to drive my
DPs crazy searching for a particular series of prime lenses (Cooke
S2s) to shoot in the film moving picture days because of the romance.
You didn't want to be photoshopping thousands of frames of film to
achieve a look at that point in time.
Others on this list in the past have expressed their love of the
sharpest lenses they could get their hands on without any utterance of
a preference for any other characteristic. That's fine, too.
What is not fine is leaving someone considering a Rolleiwide purchase
with the impression that a classic Distagon is a well-corrected high
resolution optic by modern standards. It is not. TLR or SLR, the old
ones from the 50s/60s just were not great performers relative to
corrections. But depending upon how you prefer to shoot, that may be
just what the doctors ordered...
Eric Goldstein
--
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Jeff Kelley <jlkphoto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Eric,
>
> I agree to some extent since I have owned the 6x9 Fuji Rangefinders( both
> the 90mm and 65mm versions) and still own the Pentax 67 system, (including
> the 45mm, 55mm, 100mm macro) however, I have also honed my Photoshop skills
> over the last 20 years so that scans of shots taken with any of these
> cameras & lenses can lead to breathtaking images without the sterile or
> clinical look often associated with this, or other, very sharp glass.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> I have to agree with this. I feel the same way about some of the
>> Pentax 67 glass. I also find the Fuji Wide rangefinder glass clinical,
>> sterile, and not something I would shoot, and they are well corrected
>> high resolution lenses.
>>
>> This is why I never say one lens is "better" than another. When
>> someone talks about what a wonderful performer an old Distagon is
>> under enlargement, I share my experience that these lenses are not
>> high resolution or particularly well-corrected optics, and that this
>> will easily become obvious at magnification. That does not make them
>> bad lenses; that depends upon the shooters tastes and the requirement
>> of a particular project...
>>
>>
>> Eric Goldstein
>>
>> --
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:16 PM, CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > 2012/9/25 <vick.ko@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> >
>> >> So, how is it compared to the Hasselblad 50mm FLE lens? Is that lens
>> >> significantly different than the 4.0FW?
>> >> Too sharp maybe?
>> >
>> > The first difference for practical purposes is that the Distagon 4/50
>> > FLE for Rollei 6000 cameras and Hasselblad has two focusing rings and
>> > the FW only one focusing ring, two focusing rings make the lens
>> > operation more complex, it happens because the Floating Lens Elments
>> > works to improve the lens performance for short focusing distances and
>> > it needs to be focused separately; the FW Schneider Super Angulon lens
>> > is a very modern design, it is distortion free for almost any
>> > practical purpose and is very well corrected for optical aberrations
>> > even for the short focusing distances, I don't think you could find a
>> > significant difference about quality in the real life. Anyway, as
>> > Peter wrote, your eyes will remain the judge.
>> >
>> > Carlos
>> >
>> > PS: Some lenses like those for the Mamiya RF are too sharp for my
>> > taste, they can sometimes produce too hard images for B&W specially.
>> > ---
>> > Rollei List
>> >
>> > - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
>> > in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>> >
>> > - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
>> > 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>> >
>> > - Online, searchable archives are available at
>> > //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>> >
>> ---
>> Rollei List
>>
>> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
>> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
>> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Online, searchable archives are available at
>> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>>
>
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
