[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 13:55:19 -0700
Here ya go...a full set of Cooke S4 prime lenses for $1000/day rental fee.
http://www.abelcine.com/store/Cooke-S4-Prime-Lens-Set/
Jeff
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 1:48 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
>
>
Other related posts:
