Rollei 35 RF

[Huck Finn]

.Good relationship does not mean the 40mm Sonnar was made by Rollei,for the 6x6(120 to US) lenses,yes, but may not be the same story on 135(format,35mm to US) lenses.

The 40mm Sonnar was originally designed for use on 135 & was put into production in 1974 on the legendary Rollei 35 S. This design has now been bult into a removable lens barrel for the Rollei 35 RF. It is, in fact, made by Rollei in Germany. It says so on the lens. It says so on the website. Rollei said so at Photokina a year and a half ago when this question was asked. They said so when I called them in Germany & asked this question.

There is no subterfuge or misrepresentation about this product by Rollei. None. The body is built in Japan. It says so right on the body. They will tell you that if you call & ask them - either in Germany, or in USA, or in UK, etc. The lenses, on the other hand, are built in Germany. You also have the assurance of Carl Zeiss, a separate corporation, who is very strict about how their name & licenses are used.

The 80mm Planar lens, also for the Rollei 35 RF, was originally designed for the medium format Rollei TLR. This design has been adapted for use on 135. It is also a Zeiss design, built in Germany.

 

[Huck Finn]

Do you think Zeiss on Sony digitals was Zeiss Germany made?
I know they have great relationships too..
Marketing and truth, maybe a little bit different.

In the 21st century corporate relationships & production systems are more complex than they were in a simpler time.

From the Zeiss website (www.zeiss.de):

Where are ZEISS lenses for Sony cameras produced?

Sony produces various digital cameras in extremely high numbers in Sony factories in Japan. The lenses for these cameras have to come from lens factories near the Sony camera factories to assure reliable deliveries and minimize the huge economic risk of an interrupted supply.

ZEISS lenses for Sony digital cameras are developed by lens designers at the Carl Zeiss plant in Oberkochen, Germany. This includes designing all required quality assurance measures (test methods, test criteria, test devices, test procedures, lens performance target values, etc.) The lenses are then made in a lens production facility jointly chosen by Sony and Carl Zeiss. Quality assurance specialists from the Carl Zeiss plant in Oberkochen implement the quality assurance system in the chosen facility. ZEISS lens test systems are installed in that factory, which Carl Zeiss audits on a regular basis.

All these measures ensure that ZEISS lenses in Sony digital cameras meet the expectations demanding users associate with ZEISS lenses. Numerous positive test reports in photo and video magazines validate this point.

 

[rover]

We gotta go out and shoot some time Huck.

By the way, it is a little known fact that the Holy Grail is actually currently held in a monastery in the Bronx. It has been since 1920, when a young pitcher named Babe Ruth enjoyed a sip of wine from it and had a single wish granted. It also alleged that that goat from Chicago who was thrown out of Wrigley Field was served as a quite meal at this monastery. The goat's spirit also made a wish. Powerful stuff.

Too much talk about good lenses, I am going back to baseball season.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

rover, I'm going to steal your signature.

Wait a second! Now that I remember, you own a digital camera. Sorry, but you can't qualify as a Luddite.

Huck, thanks for your extensive and instructive post. It was a pleasure to read it! I mean it; hardly does one come across something decently written in the web! 🙂

Now, let's get out and shoot some flowers! 😛 They're in bloom around here!

 

[rover]

True, I do own a digital camera, Minolta F100. It was a present for my wife who wanted something small to use. Just like the EOS IX she wanted but never used, it hangs with the rest of my cameras on the coat rack. But that thing hasn't seen the light of day in at least 6 months. I have a couple things I want to sell on ebay, so it will get some use soon. It actually has help convince me that I want to stay with film. Now, if I had the means to get the Canon 1d mark II, my mind may change.
My advancement in the digital age actully will take another step in July. I am going to take a Photoshop Elements class at the local community college. That will help me get a handle on scanning film and adjusting images.

 

[Huck Finn]

Hi, guys! Just returned from the holiday, spending it at a family reunion.

Rover, it sounds like a Yankees-Sox game is in order. We could do some real street shooting in the Bronx! I also bought a digital camera for my wife a couple of Christmases ago.

Solares, thanks for the kind words. I guess I'm willing to put some effort into sharing what I learned from my own research because there is so much bad information passed around on the web. Inuendo helped to kill the Konica Hexar RF - a real shame. It seems that marketing departments have not yet figured out how to adjust to the stream of information that runs over the internet. Other than adding websites to their repertoire, they simply proceed in the old ways as though these cyber-conversations don't take place. They need to be more frank & open with their consumers & give real answers to real questions. On the other hand, the constant hype which rises to the mystical level helps keep Leica going despite ownership's (no longer Leitz) best efforts to kill their product. I remember once reading a terrific quote from Dante Stella about how Leica, which once made its reputation with stellar cameras like the M3 & truly groundbreaking innovations like the first 50 Summicron, now makes money "by casting metaphysical doubt into the heads of the weak minded." Because of the low profile of the rangefinder market, it seems even more important to make good information available to potential buyers.

 

[Doug]

Huck, I think you're right about the companies' inability to effectively deal with the flood of misinformation spread on the internet. Or even unwanted disclosure of fact! But this is really nothing new (except for the scale of it, I suppose), as before it was the spread of rumor and misinformation across the counter at the camera shop. 🙂

I'm put in mind of the publicity damage suffered by Bronica with the RF645 when they recalled bodies and 135mm lenses.

For the combination of body and 135mm in some instances the manufacturing tolerances stacked in such a way as to cause poor focus at wide apertures and close distances.

I think this black eye, along with the coincident decline of the medium format market, has doomed this dynamite system to a very minor market position. I'd love to see a 30mm lens offered for it, but that seems unlilkely now.

But I also think Bronica erred in not giving it a wider-based RF, opening up possibilties of faster and longer lenses. Likewise, it seems Konica erred in not making darn sure their lens and body mounts adhered closely to the Leica specs!

 

[pvdhaar]

.. Likewise, it seems Konica erred in not making darn sure their lens and body mounts adhered closely to the Leica specs!

I think the Hexar RF failed for quite another reason, at least where I live. I believe it's mayor fault was the price point at which it was marketed.

It's too expensive to really take a bite out of the camera market as a whole. Most first time buyers would go for a nifty AF-SLR ($350) for less than one fifth of the price of a Hexar RF kit ($1750 at the time).

This relegates it to a niche market, a niche market that is already mined by the L-company. And many people that are willing to cough up the price of the Hexar-RF will be able to go all the way and buy a veritable M6 for no other reason than that they can.

I think Voigtlander/Cosina got this right, for less than twice the cost of an AF-SLR you can have a rangefinder with lens.

I chose the Hexar RF for no other reason than that I had prior exposure to Konica lenses...

 

[rover]

You are right there Peter, it is simple supply and demand. At the Hexar RF's price point they were competing for the small loyal army of Leica customers while there was a larger group of us wanna-bees waiting for the answer supplied by the Bessas. And we don't want to really look at those AF SLRs because you can't beat them when it comes to bang-for-the-buck. Luckily, photography is so simple you can do it by pushing a hole in a shoe box and some math, so we can survive without all of that wonderfully amazing electronic stuff in the Elan 7ns of the world if we want to.

 

[Huck Finn]

I think the Hexar RF failed for quite another reason, at least where I live. I believe it's mayor fault was the price point at which it was marketed.

This relegates it to a niche market, a niche market that is already mined by the L-company. And many people that are willing to cough up the price of the Hexar-RF will be able to go all the way and buy a veritable M6 for no other reason than that they can.

I think Voigtlander/Cosina got this right, for less than twice the cost of an AF-SLR you can have a rangefinder with lens.

I chose the Hexar RF for no other reason than that I had prior exposure to Konica lenses...

A niche within a niche . . .

Good point, Peter, but here's the thing. The Hexar RF offered features that the M6 did not - as you know being an owner of one. Enough Leica owners wanted these features for Leica to eventually come out with the M7 - staying behind the curve as usual. The issue of incompatibility with Leica lenses killed the Hexar RF with this group.

 

[jdos2]

I had no trouble with Leica lens compatibility; I might be lucky in that regard.

I didn't like my Hexar because I couldn't quite tell when stuff was in focus. Just because it lined up in the rangefinder didn't mean that when I shifted my eye just a bit in the low-magnification finder that the images would stay lined up- and that was a problem for me. If I held the camera just so then I was certain of focus. If I tried a vertical composition, I could never be sure.

I said "to heck with it," sold it to someone with a better vision than I (and who has already taken wonderful pictures with it) and continue to use a camera with a BIG rangefinder (the Mamiya Universal) and an M3, where the focusing is far more certain (and DOF is indicated in the RF!)

 

[Huck Finn]

Addendum to my post above . . .

After thinking about this Hexar RF conversation a little further this morning, I remembered an article by David Stella that I read some time ago. He actually agrees with both sides. (Like most things in life, it's usually not an either-or question - but it's that both sides have a valid point. A friend of mine likes to say: "I feel strongly both ways." 😉 )

Interesting to read . . . His points about the Hexar RF's demise are actually contained in a nice review of the Hexanon 50/2 lens, standard on that camera. He also points out that the incompatibility issue was refuted & was certainly contested by numerous users - like jdos.

www.davidde.com/articles/konica50.html

 

[Huck Finn]

Jdos2, can you tell us non-Leica users more about how DOF is indicated in the RF. Sounds neat! 🙂

 

[Doug]

Huck, it's the same with the RF spot on the Leica M2... There's a small projection upwards in the middle of the top border of the RF spot, and a narrower one along the bottom border. The width corresponds to an offset of the two parts of the double image when out of focus. THIS amount out of focus for that item in the scene... And THIS amount, equal to the width of the projection is the DOF limit for a certain lens at a certain f/stop. Since there are two projections of different widths, that gives two reference amounts for two different f/stops on a given lens.

I admit not using this quick reference, but it's there... 🙂

 

[Huck Finn]

Jdos2, can you tell us non-Leica users more about how DOF is indicated in the RF. Sounds neat! 🙂

Thanks, Doug. Sounds like a neat feature. I wish they had kept this.🙁

 

[Huck Finn]

So Sonnar 40 2.8 is a full blood German breed which deserves premium price tag.

Hi, Taipei🙂 -

The 40/2.8 is a premium German lens. Does it deserve the price tag? I don't know that any of these high end products deserve the price that is charged. Pricing is determined by anticipated sales & desired profit. Costs of production are spread over the expected number of units to be sold & then balanced against the manufacturer's best guess of what potential customers will be willing to pay. From anything I've read, sales have been slow, so Rollei guessed wrong about what customers would be willing to pay. (Or Rollei anticipated small volume sales & figured that the only way they could make money was to start out at a high price.) So either way the market place has said that this product does not deserve its premium price tag. From the point of quality, it is as good as some other products (Leica) which do command this premium price tag. Go figure. Ultimately an individual buyer has to decide what it is worth to him. As prices come down, I think that it becomes more attractive. Since it was dismissed as overpriced when it was released, it has become overlooked within the rangefinder community. At the current USA price of $1499 for the kit, it is worth considering - especially for fans of Zeiss lenses. If it comes doen to the $1000 - $1200 price range, currently available in Japan, it will be a jewel. I was interested in Joe's (backalley photo) post this morning about the lousy strap & the instruction manual that was a mess that accompanied his new Voigtlander Bessa R. In contrast, everything I received with my Rollei was first class - from the deluxe camera strap to the glossy manual printed on durable, heavy stock to the 2-year manufacturer's warranty. It's simply another alternative.

Your reunion of high school mates sounds like a lot of fun! Certainly a good example of how digital has taken over the camera market. I read a year ago that Kodak is no longer doing R&D on film. They will continue to produce the film products they have already developed, but all future research will be on digital products. Sign of the times. So, you're certainly right about digital contributing to the demise of the Konica Hexar RF.

Cheers,
Huck🙂

 

[Huck Finn]

Hexar RF is one of the most beautiful camera.
I don't think you are going to mail order your Rollei from Fujiya Camera of Tokyo,$1 only worth 113 Yen today.
Rollei could've put out a better lens than that 40 2.8 old design.For $1,400(B&H),the photographers deserve better.
What's so difficult about new lens?Yeah...the frame lines..
The 35mmf2.8 on the Nikon 35ti is,a re-designed,all new, all ED glass 6-element lens.

Taipei, I agree with you that the Hexar RF is a beautiful camera. I fell in love with it first time I saw it.

In regard to the Nikon 35 ti, I don't care how new the lens design is, what matters is the pictures. See the websites I listed above & tell me what you think of the pictures. Regardless of how old it is, that 40 mm Sonnar takes beautiful pictures.

Kyocera makes Contax cameras with Zeiss lenses. They used the same Sonnar design on the Contax T2 as Rollei used on the 35 RF except that they modified it slightly to 38mm rather than the original 40mm. They were dissatisfied with the results, so they refined it for the T3, the next version of this camera. It's safe to say that the Rollei 40 mm Sonnar is better than the original effort on the Contax T2. Nonetheless, when "foto magazin" of Germany did a side-by-side comparsion of the optics on the T2 and the Nikon 35 Ti, they rated the T2 better. Here are the results of that test:

Contax T2 (Sonnar 38/2.8):
Resolution (smaller is better) - .015 center, .016 edge
Contrast (higher is better) - 78% center, 50%edge
Optical Performance - 9.4
Rating ****

Nikon 35 Ti:
Resolution (smaller is better) - .015 center, .018 edge
Contrast (higher is better) - 72% center, 45% edge
Optical Performance - 9.2
Rating ***

Even with an inferior version of this lens design, the Contax T2 showed superior edge-to-edge sharpness as is characteristic of Sonnars.

Cheers 🙂

 

[Huck Finn]

Hi, Taipei -

I agree with everything you said. First, the R6 was a piece of junk at any price. Second, 38mm vs 35mm is a big difference; the wider you go, the harder it is to get excellent results. Third, German lenses are overpriced & I too hate to spend money on overpriced products.

I can't rationalize splurging on this camera/lens combination. It is an indulgence for me & not as bad as had I gone Leica. I'm usually pretty frugal. For example, a car for me is basic transportation, so I buy a car that gets good gas mileage & doesn't cost a lot. Yet, I see people spend $10,000 more on a car than they need. I decided I could spend a few hundred dollars extra on my hobby. When I looked at it that way, it didn't seem so bad. Besides, I had read so much about German lenses, I just had to find out for myself. In that context, the cost seemed fairly reasonable. It will probably be the last German lens I buy - . . . unless I can get a good buy on a 50 Sumicron. Damn! There I go again; I've been bitten by that bug!

You make great points. I think you are becoming my conscience.

 

[Rich Silfver]

I still think Zeiss is damn good - regardless if it's 1950 or 2004.

 

[Huck Finn]

I'm sure those 50mm lenses tested by Popular Photography were all razor sharp. Its the lens characteristics that interest me. What I've noticed with my Zeiss (Rollei) lens is its rendition of color. Nice warm tones . . . and flare is just a non-issue.

Where Leica lenses - especially the 50mm Summicron-M - seem to excel is at full aperture. Although the Contax Zeiss G 45/2 has the highest photdo MTF rating, The Leica 50 Summicron-M is substantially better shot wide open. This is great for rangefinder enthusiasts who love to shoot available light. Interestingly the photodo runnerup at f/2 was not Zeiss but Konica Hexanon 50/2.

BTW, in the Popular Photography shootout all were SLR lenses.