[rollei_list] Re: xenar test roll is back
- From: daxelb@xxxxxxx
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:39:48 -0500
Hi,
Another rub: what about the possible variations among (supposedly) exact same
lenses? Has anybody found that to exist to a point where it is apparent?
I had that experience with a Nikkor 50mm enlarging lens. A friend of mine has
the same lens and it gets a full grade of improved contrast over my own. I
occasionally borrow her lens when I have a really flat negative and I can get a
beautiful print from a #4 filter where with my own lens the image would print
too flat.
David Baumbach
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu, Feb 4, 2010 12:50 pm
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: xenar test roll is back
This is just the tip of the iceberg relative to lens and camera
testing... so many variables and so much to go wrong. Not to mention
the preconceived notions and biases of the testers. I'm always
suspicious of someone who tells me that, realtive to Rollei Xenar
versus Tessar or Xenotar versus Planar, one is generally superior to
the other, as the design specifications for these lenses was the same
from F&H...
So I'll say again that my own biased experience is that the Xenar on
my 'cord III is about the same performer as the recalculated Tessar on
my T under substantial enlargement. They both need to be stopped down
to about f/8-11 to get sharp in the corners, and they are fine even at
f/4 in the center...
Eric Goldstein
-
Other related posts:
