Hasselblad Planar vs. Rolleiflex Planar

Ishpop,
Good to hear about your Exakta 66, I have a MK2, myself. Yes it's heavy, but the focal plane shutter makes it very useful. Nicely complements my four V-Blads. You will like the Arsat, the other lens you should consider for the EX66 (especially for portraits) is the 180mm F2.8 CZJ Sonnar. I have the Blad 100 F3.5 Planar, and the 120mm F5.6 Planar-S, they are both great. The 80mm Planar is highly underrated as an all-around lens. I enjoy mine.
 
Nokton48 said:
Ishpop,
Good to hear about your Exakta 66, I have a MK2, myself. Yes it's heavy, but the focal plane shutter makes it very useful. Nicely complements my four V-Blads. You will like the Arsat, the other lens you should consider for the EX66 (especially for portraits) is the 180mm F2.8 CZJ Sonnar. I have the Blad 100 F3.5 Planar, and the 120mm F5.6 Planar-S, they are both great. The 80mm Planar is highly underrated as an all-around lens. I enjoy mine.
Click to expand...

Sadly, my Exakta 66 MK2 needs a CLA. The winding mechanism is just too inconsistent. Often I do not know what frame I am on, and many of my rolls come back with 3-4 un-exposed shots. Its a beautifull camera, maybe the prize of my collection, but it needs some love. So going to send to the magic Yashica man in Georgia as he apparently worked for a russian camera factory for a while and can do repair on Exaktas.
 
I had the Exakta 66 (Mark I) and the Schneider-Kreuznach 150 was very good. As I was getting older and weaker I got rid of the whole system (1 body, 80, 150, 50 Flektogon and 180 Sonnar). It was a much better system than the hasselblad to take on holidays. I also got rid of the Hass system around the same time. I became stuck with Rolleiflex TLRs, a few folders and a few self-converted cameras since then.
 
Raid asked: "Is there a difference between the Planar lenses of the 2.8C/D/E/F ?"

Raid, the 2.8 lenses are the same, but the D/E/F models have fewer aperture blades. I don't see any difference, but because of that, some say the "C" is the "King of Bokeh" among Rolleis - that goes for Planar or Xenotar versions.

The biggest difference between the outstanding lenses on the Rollei or Hasselblad is that the Hassy lens is attached to a body that is (to me) barely (if at all) hand holdable and pretty loud in use. Just my opinion....
 
Last edited:
MaxElmar said:
Raid asked: "Is there a difference between the Planar lenses of the 2.8C/D/E/F ?"

Raid, the lenses are the same, but the D/E/F models have fewer aperture blades. I don't see any difference, but because of that, some say the "C" is the "King of Bokeh" among Rolleis - that goes for Planar or Xenotar versions.
Click to expand...

Hi Chris,
Is this a myth or factual? Are there side by side comparisons which clearly show the 2.8C to have nicer looking bokeh?

I have seen such claims.
 
raid said:
Hi Chris,
Is this a myth or factual? Are there side by side comparisons which clearly show the 2.8C to have nicer looking bokeh?

I have seen such claims.
Click to expand...

it makes sense. more blades make for a difference.
otoh... if you are noticing the bokeh then the picture is not good enough.:D
 
Windscale said:
I had the Exakta 66 (Mark I) and the Schneider-Kreuznach 150 was very good. As I was getting older and weaker I got rid of the whole system (1 body, 80, 150, 50 Flektogon and 180 Sonnar). It was a much better system than the hasselblad to take on holidays. I also got rid of the Hass system around the same time. I became stuck with Rolleiflex TLRs, a few folders and a few self-converted cameras since then.
Click to expand...

hassels are great if you get 2 assistants to help you change magazines, change film, lenses, viewfinders and then carry the heavy camera case around.:D:bang:
 
"Is this a myth or factual? Are there side by side comparisons which clearly show the 2.8C to have nicer looking bokeh?

I have seen such claims."

I have not seen any comparison that would bear out those claims. I have seen wonderful images made with either version. If I ever get a 2.8F I will attempt a comparison and post the results here. I will say my Xenotar 2.8C delivers a beautiful image. Here's an example:

2743967281_343211e5df.jpg


To me, the bokeh is not remarkable, it just doesn't call attention to itself. Maybe that's the point?
 
here's a picture where DOF is the concept and it shows the 2.8F's bokeh clearly. different if you ask me? yes.

2399977528_12bb47d987.jpg
 
And a fine image, I'd say... but just a completely different photo - it doesn't tell me anything about how the bokeh might compare. You want a real comparison you shoot the same subject(s) at the same distance at the same F stop with the same materials and scanned by the same process.
 
When I was shooting Hasselblad I dicovered the side grip from the Mamia 645 was a perfect fit if you filed a couple millimeters off the two pins on either side of the tripod screw. The Mamiya has holes for the pins but the Hassy doesn't. The shutter release on the Mamiya grip lines up perfectly with the Hasselblad release. It's much nicer than the Hasselblad's standard side grip.

Look around for a Hasselblad meter prism with a dead meter. They sell for a fraction of the price of a meterless prism.

The 120mm lens makes as great portrait lens if you use it wide open at f/5.6. Wide open it lacks the brutal sharpness that it has when stopped down a bit.
 
Last edited:
Maybe a side by side Rollei comparison is being planned here?
2.8C/2.8D/2.8E/2.8F plus some Automats and Rolleicords?
 
chippy said:
well at least you get the choice with a hassleblad system to change the lenses and backs, or even viewfinder if you want, not that people tend to change that over often.

of course i see the humour in your exaggeration, and Hassy v Rollei is another of those things people love to debate (argue) over, though i can never really see why...it not like nikon v canon or holden v ford (i suppose that might be GMH v Ford for americans), that are basically the same and work in the same way.

i have always seen the hasselblad and rollei for two completely different uses, if you want system camera with extra backs so you can carry say colour and b&w film (or any other variation) it makes it easy to change from to another, being able to change focal lengths has its obvious advantages as well...if you like to stick to using up one roll of film at a time and only use a fixed focal length then the rollie...i have never really understood why rollei folk get so down on the blad system....hehe (i hear Frank crooning, fly me to the moon...) jealous the rollei didnt go to the moon maybe (JK)
Click to expand...

rollei wide angle, rollei tele and rollei normal. ;)
hassle has one big advantage: shooting polaroids. i had 2 hassles... the 120 cameras i used the most were pentaxes.
 
Walker Evans travelled on his shoots for Fortune magazine with a Halliburton full of two each of the Rolleiflex Wide, Normal, and Tele cameras. Pretty slick. Likewise Avedon and Penn had multiple bodies and had assistants feed them loaded cameras through out a shoot.

Polaroid was pretty much required after that time period and the only Rolleiflex Polaroids were beastly home-made jobs. But some people just used a separate Polaroid camera or even a Blad dedicated to Polaroid duty. The Rolleiflex still handles better than the Blad, and it is quiet and provides constant viewing (no mirror) so it is better for that alone. The Hasselblad or other SLRS are a lot more "in your face".
 
'blad's focus closer but then you have the mirror slap to contend with vs. the leaf shutter on the Rollei. You can use the Rolleinar to focus closer on the Rollei but the depth of field is shallower. I have both and use both depending on my mood ;)

these are posted for bokeh purposes only, very similar I'd say.
'blad with 80/2.8 at 2.8
1537664604_2ac2884745_o.jpg


Rolleiflex 80/2.8
474025460_d430b2e722_o.jpg


Todd
 
Rolleiflex's work well for portraits...but that's just me ;)

2096944047_d5557d1a36.jpg


2096944043_f175a515eb.jpg


use whatever tool you have or fits best at the time.

Todd
 
I like to manipulate a camera a lot, and felt that a Hassy, while beautiful, was just too cumbersome for me. Having said that I do miss its Planar, and I'm wishing my Yashica 124g was a Rolleiflex.

Here's some more Hassy Planar Bokeh

3485164700_7a04645b6f.jpg
 
Film flatness is one of the biggest problems of MF cameras. Some Camera Technicians have gone as far as placing a extra spring in the film back.
Optically they are both superb:D.
 
Frank Petronio said:
The Hasselblad 80/2.8 is just... kind of a bore.
Click to expand...

Mean comment.

I just snagged a 80mm CFE that Im about to given a test drive. Mostly I shoot wit the 100/3.5 -- very sharp and nice bokeh. (I carry a 60mm Distagon WA in the bag).

Of the Rollieflex 2.8 GX, after shooting 'blad for years (90% Leica, 10% 'blad) I was very impressed wit the GX rendtion in terms of color, bokeh, and OOF (Fuji 160 NPS). Most definitely its diff than the 80mm Planar T* -- The Rollie had kind of a "skylight" amberish ting of color that the 'blad does not. Beautiful results. In this sense, I would say the 'blad is more clinical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom