[rollei_list] Re: Sweet spot: f8/f11?
- From: Edward Meyers <aghalidebw@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 07:08:43 -0400
In Modern Photography Magazine where I worked in the 1960s, amonst the many
columnists I was given to edit was Norman Rothschild. He wrote and I edited
a column on color photography. In it he mentioned the use of the Rolleikin
for his Rolleiflex. He used it to photograph children in the 1930s or 40s.
He especially liked to use the Rollei with the Rolleikin since the image
was rendered in a vertical rather than a horizontal making it more
efficient for portraiture.
Ed Meyers
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Bob James <starboy0@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts: