Kristopher
Established
I just got a Rolleiflex T with a 75mm Tessar and was amazed at how 3-D it looks when stopped down. I am sure that the same must be true of the Elmar.
I also like to use the Nikon 45mm f/2.8P, which is a Tessar copy; it is very very good and costs much less than the Leica lens and when mounted on a small nikon body, makes for a very compact package.
Here is a shot (while not particularly impressive) that I think indicates this weird 3-D effect at f/16 on the Rolleiflex T:
I am using extensively a Rolleiflex Tessar, I must say that its sweet spot is a f/8, f/16 is definetly not the best aperture. Furthermore, you will find that this lens is extremely soft at 3.5. Finally, it flares a lot, especially single coated (don't now if Rollei made T* Tessars).
However, the «3-d effect» is a result of two things:
1- the loss of contrast of the background (out of focus)
2- simple pictorial composition. Subject well delemited from the background will give this impression.
By the way, I thing that a lot of buzz around lenses signature are more about composition than lens caracteristics. Sure, lenses do have personnalities, but I think too many persons are looking for the «best lense».
Use the one you have extensively, by this I mean not a couple of days or weeks like a lot of people are doing, but for at least 6 months to a year of use with ONLY on lens. I strongly believe that it is impossible, really, for someone to think he know his lens before this.
It took me a year of extensive shooting with my Rollei to get to know the lens and I had only this camera at this time. Now I have an M6 Elmar, and after about 20 rolls, shooted slowly with patience and care, I am still not able to say that I fully master the lens. And I won't get any other before knowing it. I thinks that trying 20 lenses to find th eone you prefer is a loss of time, its about photography as art, not as a benchmark for lenses bokeh or sharpness which is only secondary to compostion and subject.
Kris
the_jim
human
Not to hijack...sorry...
True, most lenses suffer as a result of diffraction at their minimum aperature. Does that mean that their performance is unacceptable? That depends on the person. I think this photo, while not stunning, is pleasing at f/16.
It's not as sharp wide open as it is at its sweet spot. Ok. That's every lens. I have used the Rolleiflex Tessar wide open and found the results very pleasing and very acceptable.
Example at f/3.5 and 1/30:
Any unsharpness here is probably a result of misfocus or motion blur...as is the case when most people say ABC lens is not sharp wide open.
Agreed.
Agreed. Lenses are a lot like people or cars or whatever. Everything is nuanced. The challenge is to stick around with one long enough to learn it.
Agreed. Photography should be fun and carefree. We shouldnt be wasting our time talking about lenses, but rather using them...still, the lure is there.
True, most lenses suffer as a result of diffraction at their minimum aperature. Does that mean that their performance is unacceptable? That depends on the person. I think this photo, while not stunning, is pleasing at f/16.
It's not as sharp wide open as it is at its sweet spot. Ok. That's every lens. I have used the Rolleiflex Tessar wide open and found the results very pleasing and very acceptable.
Example at f/3.5 and 1/30:
Any unsharpness here is probably a result of misfocus or motion blur...as is the case when most people say ABC lens is not sharp wide open.
Agreed.
Agreed. Lenses are a lot like people or cars or whatever. Everything is nuanced. The challenge is to stick around with one long enough to learn it.
Agreed. Photography should be fun and carefree. We shouldnt be wasting our time talking about lenses, but rather using them...still, the lure is there.
Kristopher
Established
Not to hijack...sorry...
True, most lenses suffer as a result of diffraction at their minimum aperature. Does that mean that their performance is unacceptable? That depends on the person. I think this photo, while not stunning, is pleasing at f/16.
It's not as sharp wide open as it is at its sweet spot. Ok. That's every lens. I have used the Rolleiflex Tessar wide open and found the results very pleasing and very acceptable.
Example at f/3.5 and 1/30:
Any unsharpness here is probably a result of misfocus or motion blur...as is the case when most people say ABC lens is not sharp wide open.
Agreed.
Agreed. Lenses are a lot like people or cars or whatever. Everything is nuanced. The challenge is to stick around with one long enough to learn it.
Agreed. Photography should be fun and carefree. We shouldnt be wasting our time talking about lenses, but rather using them...still, the lure is there.
Well I wasn't saying that your f/16 pc was bad, quite the contrary.
However, I feel like my Tessar is softer, its an old Automat from 1949. The T is much newer I think. But these caracteristics are not an issue if you know hoow to use them.
But after all the biggest difference, I mean the BIGGEST is the neg size. People sticking for ultimate details and texture with 35mm are kind of, pardon me, but loosing their time... When I use 35mm, I am prepared to deal with grain, I have to. I feel like Leica users ( I am one) are so obsessed with the superior status of their cameras that they are pulling it to its limits.
I even had an argument with a guy about Leica, I told him that no, the «best image maker» in the strict sense of details texture and pictorial quality is not a Leica, its MF of LF. HE was disapoinnted since I could not be jaleous of gear that I dont have.
When I show a rollei pic to «digital» friends they can't belive it was made with this funny looking 60 years old camera...
maddoc
... likes film again.
richard_l
Well-known
If anyone wants an Elmar-M, now is a good time. Since it has been discontinued, those who conceive the latest to be the greatest are going after the new Summarit. I'm sure the Summarit is a fine lens, but there is no way that I'm going to get rid of my Elmar.
I wanted Leica to produce a 40mm Summarit like on the Minilux, in Leica bayonet mount, like what Rollei did with the 40mm Sonnar which was on the Rollei 35. I'm slightly disappointed, but I think Leica knows what they're doing. (The M-mount Sonnar sales probably did not meet Rollei's expectations.)
I wanted Leica to produce a 40mm Summarit like on the Minilux, in Leica bayonet mount, like what Rollei did with the 40mm Sonnar which was on the Rollei 35. I'm slightly disappointed, but I think Leica knows what they're doing. (The M-mount Sonnar sales probably did not meet Rollei's expectations.)