Rolleiflex Rolleicord "shootout"

[archeophoto]

I few months back I did a little experiment with two of my Rolleis.

I wanted to know if the Xenotar on the Rolleiflex and the Xenar on the 'Cord have noticeable dfferences. Now keep in mind this is just a few photos (ignore the subject matter) and is by no means meant to be scientific or anything, it was just for my own enjoyment. I didn't even use a tripod 🙂

I totally forgot about it for several month and found it today while cleaning up my Flickr account.
I thought you might enjoy it too.

The Cameras are a Rolleiflex 2.8C serviced by Paul Ebel and a Rolleicord Vb Serviced by myself. Both cameras work perfectly and lenses are perfect. Film was Kodak Tmax in both (I think 100ISO, but it could have been 400)

Here the link
http://www.flickr.com/photos/archeophoto/sets/72157630038105807/

Cheers!

 

[srtiwari]

I cannot see any difference. They both shoot beautifully !
(How did you scan them ?)

 

[archeophoto]

Ah, yes I forgot the scanner. I scanned the negatives with an Epson V750, 2400 dpi (I think) I applied only minimal corrections, like removed huge dust...

 

[lcpr]

The 'cord has that great Xenar/Tessar swirly background blur while the 'flex has that great Xenotar/Planar sharpness and smooth background blur. They're all great!

 

[Dan Daniel]

On the center crops of the rope against the wood, the Xenotar appears to be out of focus.

On the garbage cans edge crop, the extreme corner of each appears to be blurred- probalby the scanner and neagative holders allowing a bit of edge curl to remain. Other than that, the Xenotar has a bit more contrast and crispness.

Thnaks for the link. Another interesting thing form e is to see the difference between 80mm ('flex) and 75mm ('cord). Just a touch, but about the 'touch' I feel when I switch form one to another- a small step or so back for the 80mm in framing a ten foot object?

All in all, I'd use either camera.

I'm going to try something similar with a 2.8C Xenotar and a 3.5E Xenotar in the next few weeks to see if there are differences. I'll post something here.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Xenar versus Planar Lens...

Xenar versus Planar Lens...

This is an interesting topic for me, simply because I have owned and used both Rolleicord and Rolleiflex models, and of course I've read a variety of opinions expressed over the last few years (either here on RFF, or elsewhere on the www) about the relative merits of the lenses fitted to both types of camera. Simply put, these range from—broadly speaking—no practical difference in sharpness, etc. or; Planar and/or Xenotar is sharper wide open than Xenar, to; Planar and/or Xenotar is sharper at all apertures than Xenar.

I should say, explicity, that, personally, I don't think it is really that big a deal. I'm a Rollei apologist. I think they're beautiful. All of them. And I've loved using every Cord or Flex I've handled (and I have a few waiting to live again that I will use, eventually). Apart from a Mamiya C220 in great working order, which I couldn't pass up at the $AUD100 I was offered it for, I don't own another make of TLR, and frankly, don't particularly want to (well, OK, a Kalloflex and Olympusflex would be interesting, and fun). Incidentally, FWIW, I think the Mamiya is not as pretty as a Rollei, but the results from its 80mm lens have been impressive.

So. A couple of years ago I was at the biggest and best celebration of wooden boats in the Southern Hemisphere, the Australian Wooden Boat Festival, in Hobart, Tasmania. (If you will be in Australia next month this bi-annual event is on again, and definitely worth attending, if you have the chance).

I was fortunate to chat to the owner of the 12 metre yacht Gretel II and also to take some photos of her interior and exterior. Those of you who are old enough may recall that, decades before Australia II wrested the America's Cup from the USA for the first time in history, way back in 1970, Gretel II was the best of the internationals, and won the right to challenge Intrepid for the Cup. She put up a valiant effort, was first across the line twice, but went down 4 to 1 to Intrepid after a disqualification. More here.

She had previously been refitted in New Zealand by Dibley Marine at a cost of several million dollars, and was in Hobart looking more beautiful than ever. Not being in any way a yachtie, I confess, I swooned when I saw her. She was in fact the last 12 metre racer ever made of timber. Mike, her current custodian, also asked me if I would like to take some photos of her from a different vantage point—the top of her mast. Not being someone with a particularly good head for heights, I initially declined his invitation. On reflection, I decided that such opportunities aren't extended every day, and a couple of days later I found myself being strapped into a bosuns chair with a line connected to one of the main sail winches for a memorable ride ninety feet up.

I had a Fuji digital, a Canon EOS RT, my Rolleicord Va and my Hasselblad 500C/M fitted with standard Zeiss 80mm CF Planar f/2.8 lens. The Rolleicord was loaded with Fuji Velvia 50. The Hasselblad with Ilford Pan F Plus (ISO 50). I'm including some photos taken of the view from the top with both cameras, looking over Sullivan Cove in Hobart, towards the (in)famous Tasman Bridge across the River Derwent.

I think it's a reasonable comparison since the later Rolleiflex models are also fitted with 80mm Planar f/2.8 lenses. I am quite well aware that in its Hasselblad specification, the 80mm Planar varies from the Rolleiflex version with additional lens elements and of course, a longer register due to the retracting mirror fitted to the C/M. However, my own experience with the 80mm Xenotar f/2.8 fitted to my own 2.8C, and all my observations of images made by other owners of Rolleiflex Planars, informs me that, if anything, the Rolleiflex equivalent of the Planar peforms even better than that produced for the Hasselblad. That's open to debate, of course. But these images were made on the same day, in the same location, within minutes of each other, with both lenses set to infinity focus. If I had owned a Rolleiflex at the time I likely would have had it on me as well as the Cord, but I had yet to acquire one in working condition.

First, here's the view up river from ninety feet taken with the Rolleicord Va and its 75mm Xenar f/3.5. (This camera was a lovely, straight and immaculate example I had for a couple of years. I cleaned the shutter on arrival to rectify some sticking slow speeds and checked focus etc. and put may rolls through it. Sadly I no longer have it as I sold it to finance a Tele Rollei.)

Here's the same scene as captured with the Hasselblad and Zeiss Planar. Of course, the slightly longer 80mm focal length of the Planar means coverage is slightly different.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Following on:
Here are a couple of crops from the centre of both frames. Again, the Rolleicord first.

Now, the Hasselblad:

If it will make comparisonss easier, I've converted the Velvia image from the Rolleicord to B&W in PSE 6.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Here are some crops from the left hand edge. Rolleicord first;

A black and white version of the above shot from the Rolleicord:

Last, a crop from the Hasselblad image:

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Both frames were originally scanned with my V700 @ 3200ppi and saved as 16 bit TIFF, edited in Abobe Camera RAW with adjustments to levels and contrast in PSE6. I'd like to be able to tender them off the scanner with no adjustments but due to the size of these files I don't have unedited versions of them on hand. They were each sharpened with a high pass filter and resized down using a bicubic resharpen and saved as jpeg from the edited TIFF with minimum compression.

I can't supply exact capture details as I didn't record them. However on the day I wasn't aware I'd decide to go up the mast or I would likely have chosen some faster films for the job. Although Gretel II was moored in the calm adjacent Hobart's Victoria Dock, the wind of around ten knots meant that, the end of the mast was swaying several feet most of the time. As I needed both hands to operate the cameras, I was hanging onto one of the mast stay cables with a foot to stop myself swinging all over the shop.

Luckily the sun was kind to me, as I kept the shutter speeds of both cameras on or as close to their respective maximums of 1/500 as I could to maximise sharpness. With ISO 50 loaded, if the sky had been heavily overcast, it would have been blur city. So both images were taken at 1/500 or 1/250 with lenses wide open to minimise any motion blur from the effects of the mast swaying.

The Pan F, as always, was home processed by me in a Paterson tank in Ilford ID-11 @ 20C 1:3 for 15 minutes per Ilford's own recommendations, for economy and best sharpness. The Velvia was lab processed in a replenished E-6 line by the now defunct (and much-mourned) Photo Force in Hobart.

FWIW, my conclusions (accepting, for the time being, for the sake of argument, that a well-kept Rolleiflex with Planar lens would produce sharpness at least as good as my Hasselblad) are:

If you want to make square format landscape images, and you like to do these with your lens open, or nearly, and make large prints with them, you're probably better off with a Rolleiflex, instead of a Rolleicord. At wide apertures, the Rolleiflex is likely to have sharper edges than a Cord. You can see in the respective images, just how much sharper the corrugations in the roof of the warehouse building by the wharf (something like 150-200 metres away from the camera) are in the edge of the Planar image from the Hassy, compared to the Rolleicord. The difference in crops from the centre, on the other hand, are not as pronounced.

If you do more portraiture; tend to use your Rollei stopped down; or don't make really big prints (in other words, the other 99% of cases) I think a Rolleicord is just as nice as a Rolleiflex.

As always, looking through my one eyed point of view, the best idea, I think, is to have one of each. At least one of each! They're all gorgeous cameras able to make simply beautiful images in the right hands.

FYI.
Regards,
Brett

 

[Dan Daniel]

I was recently roaming through old scan files, preparing to archive and change out some hard disks. I came across some shots from a Rolleiflex K4 that I had bought, cleaned up, and sold rather quickly. TOO quickly! Even in small proof scans, I can tell that there is something special about that lens. A lowly Xenar. Best darn Tessar-type lens I've ever owned. It might get its butt kicked in a test situation, but the overall images were special.

The things that make a lens work for someone are so variable. I love, absolutely adore and admire the Xenotar on my 2.8C. It is a far better lens than I will ever be a photographer. But I know that for some people it would be harsh or not work for other reasons. I hear people extol Tessar-types, while they leave me lukewarm- for my work. I see other people's work and find it wonderful. We all work with what we have and find the tools to do the work we want. There's a feedback loop in using any lens, as we learn what works and what to avoid.

If people haven't seen this, a test of a couple of Rollei lenses, Hasselbad lens, and Mamiya 7 lenses-
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html

 

[thegman]

Always appreciate it when someone goes to this sort of effort to demonstrate something. It's an interesting comparison of the films, not just the cameras/lens, Pan F has quite remarkable resolution.