[rollei_list] Re: 135 vs. 135
- From: CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:58:19 -0300
Claus Prochnow comments some details about the Carl Zeiss Magnar
·"telescope attachment" manufactured from 1939 to 1941 for 6x6 and 4x4
Rollei TLR cameras, it was introduced at the Leipzig Trade Fair in
March 1939, staff memebrs received these instructions "for their own
use only":
"With 6x6 cameras, the maximum speed is f/9, with 4x4 cameras f/7.3.
Exposure should be "generous" (to be mentioned only on direct
questioning). At full aperture, the 6x6 image _will be sharp only an
area of 3x3cm_, f/22 being required for sharpnessright out to the
edges. IN CONJUNTION WITH A ROLLEIKIN, "OPTIMUM SHARPNESS" IS
GUARANTEED AT ANY APERTURE".
It was what I wrote in my nessage below.-
Carlos
2009/11/17 CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Elias, while you can use a MF lens for the 35mm format, try to use a
> 35mm lens for MF, there are lot of adapters to use MF lenses on 35mm
> but it's very difficult, almost impossible to find an adapter to use
> a 35mm lens on a MF camera, these facts are telling us something.
> MF lenses and 35mm lenses are designed to cover different frame sizes,
> BTW MF lenses a bigger area and then you have that a MF lens on 35mm
> film uses the central part only, the part with the highest optical
> correction and without fall-off, in the other hand a 35mm lens for
> 35mm film needs to use the entire lens including the surfaces close to
> the edges and the edges themselves appearing some residual optical
> problems and fall-off, the problems and aberrations could only
> increase for a bigger film format.
> Using Rollei MF lenses for 35mm you only can obtain excelllent to
> superb results with the 24x36mm format.-
>
> Carlos
>
>
> 2009/11/16 <eroustom@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> A brief discussion arose in the Pure Silver list about 135 film in MF
>> cameras (ie my Rolleiflex and Yashica).
>> I said I found that my TLRs do a better job on my 135 film than my Canon FD
>> lenses. I was asked what I based that on, as
>> (apparently) lenses made for 135 cameras resolve more lines than lenses for
>> 120 cameras...
>> I found some supporting documents online for this, but I still think my
>> Rollie makes better 135 negatives than my Canons do.
>> Am I imagining the sharpness and contrast improvement? Am I the only
>> Rolleikin user who thinks this?
>>
>> Even if it's true, I don't really care. I'm fond of the TLR method, and the
>> results suit me just fine, but I'm curious.
>>
>> If I run a test, do I compare my 80mm Planar with my 100mm FD lens?
>>
>> Elias
>>
>>
>
---
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:
