ishpop
tall person
Specificaly, the Hasselblad Planar T, and the Rolleiflex 2.8 TLR (Not the 6006). I realize these are different camera categories, but I would say these two camera/lens combos produce my favorite square format photos while scanning other people's work.
What is the primary difference in the design of these lenses?
I now own the Planar T, and I am very much enjoying my results.
I also own a much older rolleiflex with the Opton Tessar, which is very nice also, but definitely different.
However, I've seen many Rollei 2.8 photos that I really dug, and maybe they seemed "creamier" than the Planar T.
I realise this could all be a figment of my imagination, and that "creamy" is a subjective description.
Any thoughts?
What is the primary difference in the design of these lenses?
I now own the Planar T, and I am very much enjoying my results.
I also own a much older rolleiflex with the Opton Tessar, which is very nice also, but definitely different.
However, I've seen many Rollei 2.8 photos that I really dug, and maybe they seemed "creamier" than the Planar T.
I realise this could all be a figment of my imagination, and that "creamy" is a subjective description.
Any thoughts?
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
ishpop
tall person
Thanks for the link and apologies for not checking photo.net first, seems like every topics has been hashed out there before.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Are you sure that they're not Schneider Xenotar, Zeiss Jena Biometer, or Tessar photos?
Rolleiflexes were available at various times and places with all of them as 80mm f/2.8 optics. The Xenotars were usually considered a bit "creamier" than the Planars. The Planar on the TLR Roleis had one less element than the one on the Hassselblad.
Rolleiflexes were available at various times and places with all of them as 80mm f/2.8 optics. The Xenotars were usually considered a bit "creamier" than the Planars. The Planar on the TLR Roleis had one less element than the one on the Hassselblad.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
That's because the Hasselblad body is too thick for an 80mm lens, due to the mirror, so the extra element makes it able to work at a longer flange focal distance than the normal Planar design. I woner what the difference between them in image quality is. i've got a Hasselblad 80mm CF T*. I've never tried the 2.8 Rollei with the Planar
colker
Well-known
coating. it's the biggest difference. i heard both rollei 2.8 and hassel 80 use the exact same shutter btw.
i like the rollei w/ the 75mm 3.5...ooh baby.
b.espahbod
Optophile
Hasselblad's Planar 100mm 3.5 is the real symmetric planar the formula is very close to Dr. Rudolf's Design and Linhof-Planar 135mm f/3.4, distortion is zero, maximum performance at corners even at open wide aperture and the singanture is much closer to symmetric Rollei TLR Planar.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
At a lower price point the Rolleiflex T came with a Zeiss Tessar while the Rolliecord had a Schneider Xenar, both 4 element 75mm f/3.5 "Tessar" designs. Unless you're printing 16x20, and even then, I doubt that most people could tell the difference.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
The probably use the same size shutter, but it isn't the same mechanical device. The Hasselblad cameras use a leaf shutter that is designed to work with SLRs. An SLR with in-lens shutters needs the shutter to be open and the aperture to be open for viewing. When you push the shutter release, the shutter actually closes (and the aperture stops down), then the mirror goes up and the light blocking flaps in the back of the Hassy open, THEN then the shutter opens and closes to make the exposure!
On a Rollei, the shutter is a standard leaf shutter of the type used on any type of camera where the user does not compose through the taking lens. TLRs, rangefinders, folders, etc. use this simpler leaf shutter. It is always closed until the shutter release is pressed, and the aperture always at the set value.
historicist
Well-known
I've used both and the Rollei Planar is a bit better, but there's not a lot in it. The only disadvantage is veiling flare from light sources in the frame, to which the Rollei is very prone.
I've also used the Planar on the SL66 (which should be the same as the CFT* apart from the coating) and it is better than the blad lens, again only marginally, and only my unscientific feeling. Maybe the condition of the lens or variation plays a role?
I've also used the Planar on the SL66 (which should be the same as the CFT* apart from the coating) and it is better than the blad lens, again only marginally, and only my unscientific feeling. Maybe the condition of the lens or variation plays a role?
mfogiel
Veteran
My feel is that sharpness wise in real life use, there is little difference, but there is some difference in contrast and flare resistance, so if you like to shoot colour go with the Hassy, if B&W go with the Rollei.
Hassy 80 Planar wide open:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/248/2468027141_2cf64cba86_b.jpg
Rollei 80 Planar at f5.6 I believe:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3057/2762687062_3292bc34cf_b.jpg
Hassy 80 Planar wide open:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/248/2468027141_2cf64cba86_b.jpg
Rollei 80 Planar at f5.6 I believe:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3057/2762687062_3292bc34cf_b.jpg
colker
Well-known
it seems right... though i was quoting a repairman around here who works on hassles and rolleis for years.
Last edited:
ishpop
tall person
Considering I just bought my Hassy, I doubt I will purchase anything more for a while.
Mainly I wanted to understand the differences.
At some point, I will likeley decide between the two options though, as I really do not need so many square format options (I currently have the Exakta 66, the old Automat Rollei, a Yashica 635, and now the Hassy).
I think I like carrying my TLRs more than the Exakta or Hassy, but the Hassy feels the most "solid" (not heavy, thats the exakta). So if I felt that a Rollei 2.8, preferrably a newer one, was slightly better than my Hassy, and despite the ability to use alternative lenses, I might make the switch at some point.
At the end of the day though, my biggest motivation to even think about all this, is portraits. So maybe I should try the 100mm planar mentioned earlier in the thread to see how it renders Bokeh and DoF. If that worked out, I might never look back. The 80mm Planar seems fine so far, but I cant help but feel odd about the fact that my Automat seems creamier than my Hassy, maybe just the oldness of the lens. Sort of like some of the recent Summar portraits posted by SandersNYC, so smooth.
Mainly I wanted to understand the differences.
At some point, I will likeley decide between the two options though, as I really do not need so many square format options (I currently have the Exakta 66, the old Automat Rollei, a Yashica 635, and now the Hassy).
I think I like carrying my TLRs more than the Exakta or Hassy, but the Hassy feels the most "solid" (not heavy, thats the exakta). So if I felt that a Rollei 2.8, preferrably a newer one, was slightly better than my Hassy, and despite the ability to use alternative lenses, I might make the switch at some point.
At the end of the day though, my biggest motivation to even think about all this, is portraits. So maybe I should try the 100mm planar mentioned earlier in the thread to see how it renders Bokeh and DoF. If that worked out, I might never look back. The 80mm Planar seems fine so far, but I cant help but feel odd about the fact that my Automat seems creamier than my Hassy, maybe just the oldness of the lens. Sort of like some of the recent Summar portraits posted by SandersNYC, so smooth.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
I think it is a little difficult to tell the difference in real life. There are so many variables: weight of the camera, need for a tripod, moving mass of the shutter/mirror. I have 75/3.5 Xenotar and a 80/2.8 Planar as well as Hassies with an 80C and 80C/T* lenses. Use of a hood could tip the quality balance one way or the other.
Ben Marks
Ben Marks
ferider
Veteran
Add a 50mm Distagon and 150mm Sonnar, a couple of Proxars, stay with the Hassi and never look back The 150 Sonnar is the coolest Portrait lens I every used ....
The 150 Sonnar is the coolest Portrait lens I every used ....colker
Well-known
portraits? you want the sonnar 150mm/4.0.
it's the classic hassel tele.
though i never liked it for available light. always used it on studio w/ lights.
120 cameras shine w/ wides. 50mm distagon, 60mm plannar.
having said that, i never loved hasselblads too much.
ishpop
tall person
Yeah, too many variables to really say with confidence which one is "better". I guess I am less pre-occupied with sharpness, and more pre-occupied with tonality and OOF elements.
I've seen some shots taken with the Exakta Schneider-Kreuznach Xenotar that are some of the sharpest and most interestingly rendered 6X6 photos i've ever seen.
Ah well, this thread is a sign that I spend too much time thinking about the machine, and not enough about the process. :angel:
ishpop
tall person
I now own a Arsat 30 and a Flektogon 5, so it should be interesting shooting with those, picked them up both cheap. The Arsat has had one roll, and its pretty impressive. A funny looking lens.
I should check out that tele though. Will see if some flickrities from Seattle have one I can borrow.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
My friend's Hasselblad 100/3.5 is the sharpest, the Rollei 2.8 Planars in E and F are the smoothest. The Hasselblad 80/2.8 is just... kind of a bore.
ishpop
tall person
haha. Thanks for the honesty. Maybe "smooth" was the word I was looking for.
I should just find someone with a E or F and do a side by side shot comparison of "smoothness" to determine which I prefer.
FWIW, I shoot mostly color. Still learning B/W, but very noob-ish with it right now.