[rollei_list] Re: I'm looking for a Rolleiwide. Is it a sensible pursuit?
- From: Jeff Kelley <jlkphoto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:10:20 -0700
Eric,
You're right. Saran Wrap will take the edge off any super-sharp, clinical
looking image!
I guess with Ebay now the main source for older cameras and lenses, I'd
just buy and test what I was interested in and then resell on Ebay if I
didn't like the results....
Jeff
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
