[rollei_list] Re: I'm looking for a Rolleiwide. Is it a sensible pursuit?
- From: Thor Legvold <tlegvold@xxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 22:19:25 +0200
From a practicality standpoint, you can always make a sharp lens soft, with any
number of "fixes" to acheive a wide range of results.
However it's rather difficult to do the opposite, using a soft or
poorly-corrected lens to take a clear, contrasty and sharp picture with little
or no distortion. Sometimes that's the job - delivering sharp and clear
results. Othertimes not.
For professionals, I would think they have and can justify the expense of both
- "character" glass with a glow or some pleasing abberations for portraiture
and the like, and "clinical" glass for counting the number of angels on the
head of a pin.
Cheers,
Thor
On 25. sep. 2012, at 21.34, Eric Goldstein 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
>
---
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:
