[rollei_list] Re: Subject: Re: Rollei 3003
- From: CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:43:36 -0300
Jan:
For some reason Canon is Canon, it is beyond any discussion; my
approach on tele lenses is different, I like the 200mm focal length
because it still allows head portraits with a complete separation
subject- background without the annoying image flattening you can
perceive for longer focal lengths, 200mm could show a bit of image
flattening depending about focusing distance, but it's minimal in
comparison with longer FL, 200mm also offers a good balance between
angle of view and tele effect for landscapes and then, for my kind of
photography, 300mm and 400mm are long too much, since I rarely needs
these focal lengths, I have a Yabe 2X for the Rolleinar 200 and a Hoya
3X for the Pentax 200mm, this way I have 400mm and 600mm, BTW, the
lens optical performance diminishes, with the 3X specially, but I use
them sometimes and I know where and how to use them.
800mm and 1000mm are interesting to me, these are the right focal
length to take birds and other animals photographs in their natural
environment.
Carlos
2010/3/31 Jan Decher <Jan.Decher@xxxxxxx>:
> Carlos,
>
> Still the Rollei 2000/3003 system is insignificant when you see what Nikon,
> Canon ad Olympus and even Minolta and Pentak had to offer by 1980. The
> 4.5/500mm Mirotar and 8/1000 Tele Tessar were not ideal choices for the
> sports or willdife photograper and, AFAIK, had to be special-ordered.
>
> Canon, by comparison offered 300, 400, 600, and 800 mm lenses in several
> price categories
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_FD_lens_mount#Telephoto).
>
> I wished it had been different, but in 1979 with a few hundred bucks earned
> in the steel factory in my home town in Germany during summer vacation, the
> choice was a no-brainer. The Canon F1 with 1.4/50, 1.8/85 and 2.8/200
> became my basic outfit, which I used until ca. 1992.
>
> After a brief interlude with Olympus I switched to Contax C/Y, N and 645
> Systems, where I would still be had Kyocera not decided to pull the plug on
> the camera branch. Same problem there though: Zeiss/Kyocera was slow in
> producing the long teles. I never even saw the N4/400 mm Apo-Tele-Tessar,
> for example, anywhere.
> I now have a light-weight Canon EF L 5.6/400 - a great lens! (also see this
> opinion:
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml)
> Jan
>
>
> On Mar 31, 2010, at 1:06 AM, FreeLists Mailing List Manager wrote:
>>
>> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:11:51 -0300
>> From: CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Jan:
>> Rollei QBM cameras including 2000/3000 have a very complete
>> long lenses line, from the 2.8/135 Rolleinar; 3.5/200 Rolleinar,
>> 5.6/400mm Rolleinar, Schneider Variogon 4/80-240, 2.8/135 Zeiss
>> Sonnar, 4.5/500mm Mirotar; 8/1000mm Tele Tessar, the impressive Night
>> Observation Device RF 900 , the Night Vision system SL 2000F, etc. I
>> have the 3.5/200mm Rolleinar, it's an excellent lens.
>> ...
>> Carlos
>
> ---
> 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:
