[rollei_list] Re: Sweet spot: f8/f11?
- From: Bob James <starboy0@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 16:35:24 -0500
Thanks, Kirk, for the detailed and thoughtful reply. I learned a lot!
Bob
On Oct 24, 2011, at 6:57 PM, Kirk Thompson <thompsonkirk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
