[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 16:54:58 -0400
Sorry for the typo Thor, it is the S4 series.
There were S2 and S3 series before, and they were noted for
exceptional character but not always exceptional performance.
I believe the S4s may have won an Academy Award for Technical Achievement...
Eric Goldstein
--
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Thor Legvold <tlegvold@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> yes, there are always exceptions, and in most fields there are certain brands
> or models that distinguish themselves as being something special.
>
> I haven't been to the Santa Anita track in ages, thanks for bringing back
> memories. And you're right, the short you linked to looks wonderful.
>
> Thor
>
> On 25. sep. 2012, at 22.24, Eric Goldstein wrote:
>
>> Interestingly enough Thor the Cooke S2 Prime series of motion picture
>> lenses was well know for providing a high level of technical
>> correction needed for large screen projection and the romance many
>> directors are looking for. So one does not exclude the other...
>>
>> Here is an example of these exceptional lenses hung on a modern DSLR
>>
>> http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?tag=cooke-s4-primes
>>
>>
>> Eric Goldstein
>>
>> --
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Thor Legvold <tlegvold@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>> ---
>> 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:
