[rollei_list] Re: Planar vs. Xenotar test
- From: Slobodan Dimitrov <s.dimitrov@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 21:54:39 -0800
That's the thing with Rollei, a well appointed shooter will have the
right Rollei at hand for virtually any situation.
Quibbling over a lens is just cold feet over the next acquisition.
S. Dimitrov
On Jan 8, 2005, at 9:09 PM, Peter Kotsinadelis wrote:
> Mark,
>
> Absolutely wrong on both. Its the Tessar that produces the best
> resolution and bokeh.
>
> Peter K
>
>
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 20:12:04 -0800, Mark Rabiner
> <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wr=
> ote:
>> I've been up all night for several nights wondering about if I should
>> tra=
> de
>> in my Rolleiflex with 2.8 Carl Zeiss Planar.
>> The guy sitting next to me on the bus says the Schneider-Kreuznach*
>> Xenot=
> ar
>> has better resolving power in the corners stopped down in lower light
>> lev=
> els
>> close in with an orange filter.
>> =20
>> Or as found in the FAQ says
>> The CZ or JSK? Say what!?!
>> =20
>> CZ is Carl Zeiss of course.
>> =20
>> *And JSK is Jos. Schneider, Bad-Kreuznach.
>> What happened to "JSB-K"!?!?
>> =20
>> Apparently these do not come out of the "Bad" School of Lens design
>> so I'=
> m
>> not worrying about that.)
>> =20
>> Also while we're at it for backup which is better:
>> =20
>> The CA Tessar or the JSK Xenar?
>> =20
>> I'm interested in results from shots taken at infinity with a dark
>> green
>> filter at high light levels in the Adirondacks.
>> =20
>> Mark Rabiner
>> Photography
>> Portland Oregon
>> http://rabinergroup.com/
>> =20
>> =20
>
>
> --=20
> Peter K
> =D3=BF=D5=AC
>
>
Slobodan Dimitrov
Photography
Other related posts:
