[rollei_list] Re: Sweet spot: f8/f11?
- From: Kirk Thompson <thompsonkirk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Rollei List <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:57:10 -0700
Hi Bob,
All of the Zeiss & Schneider lenses were/are fine ones, and because they don't
open to very wide apertures they don't differ to extreme degrees. So the
differences Allen was talking about fall within a fairly subtle range of
differences.
To think about lens renderings (or some folks say 'drawings') that matter in
addition to resolution, consider first the range of Leica lenses, where
different renderings are more extreme. They differ on various continua, but
the main one goes from 'Leica glow' to 'clinical.' You see the 'glow,' which
is an attractive form of aberration, in lenses like the old 50mm 1.5 LTM Zeiss
Sonnar, and the pre-aspherical 1.4 Summiluxes. To many Leica users the finest
lenses were middle-aged ones designed by Dr. Walter Mandler, starting in the
1950s. His designs arrived at a lovely balance among resolution, contrast,
bokeh, and three-dimensionality. The most famous & extreme instance is the
swirling bokeh of the f1 Noctilux. Dr. Mandler thought the 75 1.4 Summilux
captured best of all the values, including resolution, that he wanted in his
lenses.
In contrast (so to speak), the newer Karbe-designed Leica lenses are tack-sharp
& contrasty, at the expense of other values. The designs are computer-driven.
So the most obvious difference between a 'classic' lens and a 'clinical' one is
that the classics yielded lower contrast, softer tonal transitions & a more 3-D
effect. The newer, hyper-sharp 'clinical' lenses force the viewer of the print
or web post to see skin pores & beard stubble, bringing one's attention into
focus more on 'flat' detail & less on the fullness of forms. And contrastier
images have a tendency to appear more 2-dimensional: you see more definite
patterns of alternating B & W, & less subtle roundness. There's enough dislike
of the newer 'clinical' lenses for Zeiss to have re-introduced a 50mm Sonnar
that aims directly to reproduce the old image values.
This brings us to Rollei: When you stop the old Leica lenses down, the
differences are less; they're most apparent in the range f1.4 to f2.8. Rollei
lenses differ in the same dimensions – bokeh, tonal subtlety, contrast, &
desirable/undesirable aberrations – all in addition to resolution. But the
differences are less obvious. They're important enough, though, tso that
Rollei List folks seem to prefer classic Rolleis over later Hasselblads &
Mamiyas.
From this point on, others can discriminate among Rollei lenses better than I
on the grounds Allen was suggesting.
I'm pretty sure you can't show a Leica or Rollei user prints & get consistent
answers to the question 'which lens was this?' But there's enough difference
to pick a different camera for one's particular style or task.
Kirk
PS, FWIW, my own choices are an Old Standard, Automat, 2.8C, 3.5E3, & 3.5F.
For the latter, I was told it matched the highest resolution of any Planar
tested.
The 1934 Ol' Std has an uncoated 3.8 Tessar with lots of flare, which is
sometimes desirable. For example, last week I photographed a ceramics factory
dating from 1870, and it would have photographed marvelously with the Ol' Std –
which was unfortunately in for repair :-(
So I used 2.8C with 'gentle' lens at large apertures, expecting a more classic
& nostalgic look; & E-F with 6-element Planars at f8 (flat surfaces) & f16
(deep space) where detail seemed more important than nostalgia.
PPS, Another motive for choosing a Rollei lens might be its 'period style' – I
regularly photograph with a '56 Automat because that model was the first Rollei
I ever owned. I use it only to photograph things that are as old as it is.
CC: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: starboy0@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Sweet spot: f8/f11?
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:21:14 -0500
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Allen,
I am intrigued by your comment,
" Detail was amazing,but even so, I preferred the Planar image rendering.
There is more to lens
performance than wide aperture resolution."
What is it about the image rendering you prefer? What are some of the
intangibles about lens performance that you refer to?
I'm ready for a little Rollei esoterica!
Bob James
On Oct 24, 2011, at 11:56 AM, Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Allen Zak <azak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It was this issue that brought me to the Rollei group in the first place
back in 1997. At the time, I had recently photographed an orchestra on
stage under ambient light and was surprised at the f5.6 off-axis resolution.
Although not awful, it was noticeably less sharp than the central 1/3 of
the negative. For that occasion, the Rollei had served as a backup camera
for my Hasselblad, which at the same aperture was sharp across the field.
Until then, I had never noticed any sharpness difference between the two
Planars involved. Usually, they were used well stopped down, and when at
wider apertures, it was for subject matter where the edges were out of focus
or unimportant. Edge resolution on my sample didn't really clean up until
f8-ish.
Before this Rollei Planar, my TLR-ography had been exclusively with Tessar
type lenses. Except for its critical sharpness at the center wide open, my
Planar performed otherwise not much different than the better Xenars on
several Rolleicords I had owned over decades. This was a disappointment to
me, since I had assumed that an advantage of the Planar was better edge
resolution at all but the widest f-stops.
Seeking answers, I did an internet search that eventually led me to the
Rollei site. There, I received information about alignment, film plane
variations, properties of various lenses (Planar vs. Xenotar :D) and
recommendations for service. According to Dr. Fleenor, to whom I sent the
camera for a CLA, the lens was fine and in proper calibration. So I learned
to live with it, assuming that lenses were just like that, until several
years later when I came into an all too brief ownership of a Mamiya 6. Its
75 mm f3.5 lens was crisp at center and edges wide open, and outperforming
both Rollei and Hasselblad until @ f8 on either one. Detail was amazing,
but even so, I preferred the Planar image rendering. There is more to lens
performance than wide aperture resolution.
Allen Zak
This is great real life experience. Our Rollei TLR lenses are great
lenses, but not necessarily the highest performance lenses ever
designed. They may have been at one time, but lenses such as those for
the Mamiya MF rangefinders were of higher performance, being designed
30 years later to a high criteria. Those of the Contax 645 system are
also likely of higher performance, though I don't know this from
direct experience, only observation. Even the 58 mm and 135 mm lenses
I shoot with my Kona-Omegaflex 67 are higher performance lenses than
the classic Rolleiwide and Tele in terms of corner performance.
However the character of the 80/2.8 Planar and the 135/4 Sonnar for
the Tele are wonderful and while they may not be the best technically
they are still great optics...
Eric Goldstein
---
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:
