Thank you Carlos,
Javier
El lun., 20 ene. 2020 a las 14:36, CarlosMFreaza (<cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>)
escribió:
Javier:
This article written by Carl Zeiss engineers about "Resolving
Power and contrast" (partial transcription) is a good explanation:
http://dobleobjetivo.blogspot.com/2007/11/
Carlos
El lun., 20 ene. 2020 a las 10:23, Javier Herraiz Veliz (<
javierherraizveliz@xxxxxxxxx>) escribió:
Yes, Carlos,
".*..Tessar and Xenars could be more contrasty from the point f view
they they give more direct black and whites without transition due to they
offer less tonal variation"*
I do agree with that, according to my own experience. I wonder if
this has any relation with “perceptived sharpness” versus "real
resolution" measured in lines per millimeter. I find Tessar lenses
extremely sharp, but I know that there is more than resolution in
evaluating sharpness and that contrast plays an important role in apparent
sharpness.
Javier
El lun., 20 ene. 2020 a las 13:47, CarlosMFreaza (<cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>)
escribió:
Javier:
I add to Richard comment my own experience as photographer, I
find my Planars and Xenotars at f 4,5,6 and 8 give a touch ( I say a touch)
of more tonal variations than Tessars and Xenars at the same f stops.
Tessars and Xenars pass from black to white showing less tonal variations
than Planar and Xenotars talking about same film and same process, Planar
and Xenotar have a more rich tonal transition form black to white than
Tssars and Xenars at wider f stops. Tessar and Xenars could be more
contrasty from the point f view they they give more direct black and whites
without transition due to they offer less tonal variation and the
difference is more perceptible according the print or digitized image size,
. This issue has nothing to do with sharpness, Tessar and Xenars are very
sharp lenses too. Anyway, it's a matter of taste and each individual lens
could have a different performance beyond the standard specs; some images I
take with my Rolleiflex T Xenar show a peculiar glow I like very much and I
never saw this glow in my 'cord IV Xenar despite both lenses have an
identical performance in general.
Carlos
El lun., 20 ene. 2020 a las 5:21, Javier Herraiz Veliz (<
javierherraizveliz@xxxxxxxxx>) escribió:
Carlos, if I understand correctly, you seem to say that Planar/Xenotar
lenses have better contrast that Tessars. I have always thought that Tessar
is more contrasty and less prone to flare, as it has less glass
groups/elements.
Regards,
Javier
El lun., 20 ene. 2020 a las 2:42, CarlosMFreaza (<cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>)
escribió:
Thank you Charlie, Happy New Year and Best Wishes to you too.
El dom., 19 de ene. de 2020 20:41, Charlie <
dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> escribió:
Excellent comments Carlos...and I particularly appreciate you
pointing out that choosing the 'right' tool for the job is a very
critical
part the photography process. The camera/lens with the highest
resolution
is not always the best choice.....and knowing your likely aperture is so
important as well.
Likewise having lightweight camera that actually ends up being
carried is the most important thing
Happy New Year and Best Wishes
Charlie Silverman
------------------------------
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 CarlosMFreaza <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Yes Richard, the Rolleicord IV is my lightest TLR and it's an
excellent camera to shoot with, however talking about landscapes and the
like, Planars and Xenotars give me more trust than Tessars and Xenars at
f
4, 5,6 and 8 taking in mind a touch of better contrast for the firsts
mentioned lenses, using the same film ad same film processing. I think
the
difference disappears from f 11. The 3,5F third version and 2,8F have the
same mechanism exactly, the difference is the lens weight and lens
carrier
weight, the 3,5F is even lighter than the 2,8C, a simpler camera
mechanically. In the other hand, I like the 'cord IV for portraits very
much.
The photograph shows the starting point (or ending point) to hike,
this small natural Park has some nice places to see.
Carlos
El dom., 19 ene. 2020 a las 17:02, `Richard Knoppow (<
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>) escribió:
Its amazing how much difference a few ounces make. Thats one
reason I like the Rolleicord IV, light weight.
That scene looks rather like some hiking areas around here. I
have trouble hiking these days because of my back but getting out
in the woods was my favorite place to escape starting from my
childhood.
On 1/19/2020 8:25 AM, CarlosMFreaza wrote:
Yesterdaysome of my children and I visited a Natural Park 70km
from my city; I took some photographs with the Rolleiflex 3,5F
Planar and Kodak tmax 400 developed in Romek PQ7 1+3. The 3,5F
is lighter than the 2,8F and you perceive the difference when
you have long paths to walk.
https://flic.kr/p/2ih5uyF
Carlos
PS: Flickr zoom has two sizes now, the first click is a medium
size and a second click is the full size.-
--
Richard Knoppow
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
WB6KBL
---
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
