[rollei_list] Re: Lens Tests
- From: Dennis Purdy <dpurdyphoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 08:50:25 -0800
Eric
Thank you for going to such effort to create and share your results. I
personally appreciate compulsive obsessive behavior.
On my monitor, the second close up of the machine screw head seems far
and away sharper in the 3.5E image. Your analysis says it is slightly
less sharp and contrasty than the Mamiya 7 image. Perhaps you got the
jpgs mixed up? Of the 4 cameras on that test the 3.5 Xenotar looks
significantly sharper.
I was personally of the opinion that pristine, haze free lenses are
nearly impossible to find on Rolleis older than the F. You undoubtedly
made certain of that. A little bit of haze would create a bit of flare
and perhaps flatten the image some and maybe lower apparent resolution?
I am glad to see someone else finally noticed the flare of Planar
lenses. You mention that both the 2.8E Planar and the Hassy Planar had
flare bleeding off the image. I had owned several Rolleis for sometime
but always Xenotar or Tessar. Then last year I decided I wanted to get
the best and I picked up a 2.8F Planar. The first thing I noticed was
flare, especially using close up Rolleinars. With a back lit situation
I got so much flare the image was unusable, with bleed off into the
next image. The people here in RUG assured me that Planars don't have
more flare than Xenotars. I decided that I must have a bad one. I
could detect with a flashlight shinning through the lens that there was
a slight flaw to the front element coating. I finally got so
frustrated with the flare that I sent the camera in to John Van Stelten
to have the lens polished and recoated. With shipping costing me 400
dollars. 3 months later I got the camera back and the flaw was gone
and the lens was crystal clear. I immediately did several flare tests
and the lens was a little better but the flare was still there. It
still bled off into the next image if there was sky or back lit
situations.
3 days after finally getting that 2.8F Planar back from Stelten I ran
across a very late 2.8F Xenotar on ebay. It was in the 2957xxx serial
numbers and looked to be nearly pristine, and it had been posted on
ebay late at night for $865 "buy it now". I bought it.
When I got that camera I checked the lenses and they were like brand
new, unmarked and absolutely clear. I had gone way over my budget for
Rolleis so I had to decide right away which of the two to sell. I ran
some very precise tests with both the Planar and the Xenotar using the
same heavy tripod and switching the cameras on the tripod after every
test so that the cameras were in exactly the same position and
everything. For sharpness I did a large wall of news paper making very
certain to have the cameras squared up to the wall and paper. And for
flare I did a series of tests with and without Rolleinars shooting a
dark subject against back lighting.
For the sharpness test I put the negs in my enlarger at maximum height
and looked at them through a grain focuser. They were identical at all
fstops. The Xenotar might have been just a tiny bit sharper in the
middle at f8 but I nearly gave myself several new floaters in my eye
trying to see it. I already knew the Planar was sharp so mostly I just
wanted to see that the Xenotar was just as sharp and it was.
For the flare test I just looked at the film on a light box. The
Planar lost that contest big time. The Xenotar had none of the obvious
bleed off the edges of the exposure that the Planar had. And I could
see that the Planar negs had significantly more density in the shadow
(zone 1,2,3) areas. The extra density was flat looking and obviously
from light scatter. The Xenotar negs were perfect.
I know that Richard has said on numerous occasions that there should be
absolutely no difference between the Xenotar and Planar in either
sharpness or flare, but at least in the cameras I tested there was a
difference. The Planar I had wasn't absolutely pristine, but dang
near. I think it had one light scratch on the rear element. And there
was a very fine (nearly invisible) mark left on the inside by Van
Stelten when he recoated the lens.
So I am done stressing over which camera I should have. I am happy as
can be with my 2.8F Xenotar and I sold the Planar for quite a lot more
than I thought I would get on ebay. Now to spend more time taking
pictures.
thanks
Dennis Purdy
On Sunday, Mar 27, 2005, at 00:56 US/Pacific, Fred Fichter wrote:
> Rollei vs Hassy vs Mamiya...
>
> http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html
>
>
> On Feb 24, 2005, at 2:49 PM, Eric Goldstein wrote:
>
>> Might be of some interest:
>>
>> http://kievaholic.com/lenstests2.html
>>
>>
>> Eric Goldstein
>>
>
>
Other related posts:
