fuwen
Well-known
jsuominen said:May I ask, where did you find this diagram?
I took a closer look at page http://www.rollei.jp/e/pd/35RF.html diagram under the Rollei 35S photo. I can't still be 100% sure, that the diagram is referring on that page the new Sonnar 40mm F2.8 HFT LTM-lens. It might as well be the original Rollei 35S lens diagram...
In the link in my post above I have just added the lens diagram from a Rollei Classic ( same as Rollei 35S) brochure and the lens diagram from the Rollei 35RF brochure and putting them side by side.
Sonnar2
Well-known
This is correct, Jari. There isn't a diagram in the papers Rollei delivered with the lens, or in the technical specs.
I'm quite sure Rollei couldn't use the whole formula (lens radii and sizes, distances, glass types, refractive indices) for their remake, if just for the reason many glass types with certain refractive indices containing heavy metals, which were common in the past, are no more available. In such a case a design needs to be recalculated completely. Even more it's usefull when glass types developed in the last 30 years having better characteristics, or simply are cheaper. Every lens designer in the world will look which he can use of newly developed glass against the - well known - limits of this 30 year old lens. Summarizing I estimate the remake design looks 90% like to the original and probably from the diagrams no difference can be found.
I'm quite sure Rollei couldn't use the whole formula (lens radii and sizes, distances, glass types, refractive indices) for their remake, if just for the reason many glass types with certain refractive indices containing heavy metals, which were common in the past, are no more available. In such a case a design needs to be recalculated completely. Even more it's usefull when glass types developed in the last 30 years having better characteristics, or simply are cheaper. Every lens designer in the world will look which he can use of newly developed glass against the - well known - limits of this 30 year old lens. Summarizing I estimate the remake design looks 90% like to the original and probably from the diagrams no difference can be found.
Huck Finn
Well-known
This link makes it clear that the diagram is for the new 40/2.8 Sonnar:
babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/t...union.net/bingqiku/rollei/35mm/rollei35rf.htm
babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/t...union.net/bingqiku/rollei/35mm/rollei35rf.htm
sepiareverb
genius and moron
jsuominen said:May I ask, where did you find this diagram?
I took a closer look at page http://www.rollei.jp/e/pd/35RF.html diagram under the Rollei 35S photo. I can't still be 100% sure, that the diagram is referring on that page the new Sonnar 40mm F2.8 HFT LTM-lens. It might as well be the original Rollei 35S lens diagram...
Jari- I got this from the pdf of the Rollei 35RF system brochure, downloaded from the Rollei website some time ago. Seems to have been published in March of '03.
jsuominen
Well-known
This might be an interesting information - or maybe not? - from Rollei Germany. I received it today for my question about design and formula of the lens:
------
"The Rollei 35S was developed and manufactured many years ago, so the fixed
lens of this camera model does not have anything to do with the exchangeable
lenses of the Rollei 35 RF which was an independent development.
With best regards from Braunschweig,
Andrea Fahlbusch
Manager Service & Logistics
Rollei GmbH"
-------
------
"The Rollei 35S was developed and manufactured many years ago, so the fixed
lens of this camera model does not have anything to do with the exchangeable
lenses of the Rollei 35 RF which was an independent development.
With best regards from Braunschweig,
Andrea Fahlbusch
Manager Service & Logistics
Rollei GmbH"
-------
sepiareverb
genius and moron
The lens diagrams are apparently identical- coincidence? I think not.
I suppose they might have some troubled consumers if it was known the latest and greatest 40mm was designed in the seventies.
I suppose they might have some troubled consumers if it was known the latest and greatest 40mm was designed in the seventies.
Huck Finn
Well-known
I'm not sure what Rollei is getting at. The Rollei Sonnar lens is a Zeiss patent, which Rollei manufactures only on license from Zeiss, according to Zeiss specifications, to Zeiss quality control standards with which they must comply in accordance with terms of the license.
The comment seems to be beating around the bush. Rollei knows if they requested a redesign from Zeiss or if a redesign was required for application to LTM & M-mount. Why not just come out & say that this is a new design if that is the case? However, every piece of marketing literature which they released in connection with the promotion of this lens stresses its link with the Sonnar lens for the Rollei 35 S, as exemplified by the postings even on this thread. So, for them to say that the lens for the 35 S ". . . does not have anything to do with the exchangeable lens of the Rollei 35 RF . . ." is completely disingenuous.
To give a further example of how disingenuous this is, compare the quoted comment from Rollei with a correspondence that I had with Rolle several years ago when I purhased the 35 RF kit with the 40/2.8 Sonnar. In reply to some of my questions about the capabilities of the lens, I was told that the whole rationale for the release of the camera with this lens is that the Sonnar from the 35 RF is one of the best lenses they ever made & that its performance capabilities are well known. Why would they make such a statement if the 2 lenses hadd nothing to do with each other?
The bottom line is that Rollei did not modify the design of this lens. Legally they had no right to do that because Zeiss owns the patent to the lens & modifying it would violate the terms of the licensing agreement. Rollei would not jeopardize their relationship with Zeiss for such a small niche product.
The comment seems to be beating around the bush. Rollei knows if they requested a redesign from Zeiss or if a redesign was required for application to LTM & M-mount. Why not just come out & say that this is a new design if that is the case? However, every piece of marketing literature which they released in connection with the promotion of this lens stresses its link with the Sonnar lens for the Rollei 35 S, as exemplified by the postings even on this thread. So, for them to say that the lens for the 35 S ". . . does not have anything to do with the exchangeable lens of the Rollei 35 RF . . ." is completely disingenuous.
To give a further example of how disingenuous this is, compare the quoted comment from Rollei with a correspondence that I had with Rolle several years ago when I purhased the 35 RF kit with the 40/2.8 Sonnar. In reply to some of my questions about the capabilities of the lens, I was told that the whole rationale for the release of the camera with this lens is that the Sonnar from the 35 RF is one of the best lenses they ever made & that its performance capabilities are well known. Why would they make such a statement if the 2 lenses hadd nothing to do with each other?
The bottom line is that Rollei did not modify the design of this lens. Legally they had no right to do that because Zeiss owns the patent to the lens & modifying it would violate the terms of the licensing agreement. Rollei would not jeopardize their relationship with Zeiss for such a small niche product.
Angles of view for approximately 40mm lenses...
50° Contax-G 45mm f/2.0 Planar T* (true focal length 46.9mm)
53° Pentax-L Special 43mm f/1.9 SMC
54.9° Sonnar 40mm f/2.8 HFT (from post #4 specs)
??? Leica 40mm Summicron, Minolta 40mm M-Rokkor...
56° Voigtlander 40mm f/1.4 Nokton Classic
57° Voigtlander 40mm f/2.0 Ultron SL
Note:
46° Typical 50mm lens for 35mm cameras (Skopar, Heliar, Sonnar-ZM etc)
53° Pentax-67 90mm f/2.8
56.4° Bronica 65mm f/4.0 Zenzanon-RF for RF645
63° Contax-G 35mm f/2.0 Planar T* (true focal length 35.1mm), typical for 35mm lenses.
50° Contax-G 45mm f/2.0 Planar T* (true focal length 46.9mm)
53° Pentax-L Special 43mm f/1.9 SMC
54.9° Sonnar 40mm f/2.8 HFT (from post #4 specs)
??? Leica 40mm Summicron, Minolta 40mm M-Rokkor...
56° Voigtlander 40mm f/1.4 Nokton Classic
57° Voigtlander 40mm f/2.0 Ultron SL
Note:
46° Typical 50mm lens for 35mm cameras (Skopar, Heliar, Sonnar-ZM etc)
53° Pentax-67 90mm f/2.8
56.4° Bronica 65mm f/4.0 Zenzanon-RF for RF645
63° Contax-G 35mm f/2.0 Planar T* (true focal length 35.1mm), typical for 35mm lenses.
Last edited:
Sonnar2
Well-known
Huck, where do you know that a licence exist, or how the agreement Rollei<>Zeiss exactly looks like? From my decent knowledge, Zeiss developed a lens as a contractor for Rollei, for whichever use, more than 30 years ago. Next, Rollei sold at least 400.000 of these lenses with their camera, probably paying Zeiss more money for it than anyone expected in their muggiest dreams. This for a very simple, basic design. There was a German patent for a 4-or 5-element Ernostar type lens (as far as I remember, long focus lens!); Glatzel et.al, first realized for the Contarex mount 135/2.8 and 180/2.8 Sonnar, later on 85/2.8. As far as I know international patents are valid 18 years, so this is long gone. In the 70's, 80's this type get broadly common by many companies, Miranda, Konica, even Canon (FD 1.8/85) and Nikon (P 2.8/135), before the new telephoto designs blow them away alltogether...
Even a company like Zeiss isn't able to claim a monopol for the invention of this genious Mr. Bertele for a period as long as 80+ years...
I stated it right after Rollei's first press release: A poor marketing claiming to release a 1000 EUR camera with a "famous lens" (30 years old) that (in case of German market) every potential buyer already have unused and gaining dust for a couple of years in the house, or at least can buy hundredfold at the used market for 150-200 EUR. Consequently (but a shame for the good lens), the R35RF lost completely on the market. A few hundreds sold of the 40/2.8. Still lots on stock. As for the 80/2.8, less than 100 I guess. As for the 50/1.8, not a single one ever seen. Let's wait 30 years and look how the prices develop.
Raid's recent 35/40mm test showed the excellent performance of the new lens. The old lens wasn't on the same level. I can assure it since I have used them both.
Even a company like Zeiss isn't able to claim a monopol for the invention of this genious Mr. Bertele for a period as long as 80+ years...
I stated it right after Rollei's first press release: A poor marketing claiming to release a 1000 EUR camera with a "famous lens" (30 years old) that (in case of German market) every potential buyer already have unused and gaining dust for a couple of years in the house, or at least can buy hundredfold at the used market for 150-200 EUR. Consequently (but a shame for the good lens), the R35RF lost completely on the market. A few hundreds sold of the 40/2.8. Still lots on stock. As for the 80/2.8, less than 100 I guess. As for the 50/1.8, not a single one ever seen. Let's wait 30 years and look how the prices develop.
Raid's recent 35/40mm test showed the excellent performance of the new lens. The old lens wasn't on the same level. I can assure it since I have used them both.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
How much of this could be accounted for by improved coatings and the much larger physical size of the RF version?
raid
Dad Photographer
I tried out Huck Finn's Sonnar 40/2.8 in the lens testing project of 35m-40mm lenses. It seems like a wonderful combination of modern lens design with near-vintage look to the images. I just picked up another roll taken with this lens (and the ZeissBiogon 35/2). I used f 5.6 for the portraits. The images came out very nice looking; sharp in the face but not surgically sharp. Colors lokk very nice too.
Raid
Raid
fuwen
Well-known
sepiareverb said:
Just curious, from my observation the glass elements on the Rollei 35S and the 40mm Sonnar are identical (at least the front and the rear elements), are u sure the physical size of the glasses are bigger? Or just the lens metal construction bigger?
I doubt Rollei has the financial strength to redevelope the Sonnar. Also the original design consideration I believe is to cater for a collaspable moderate wide angle and therefore the rear elements cannot protrude too far to the film plane. If a completely new design they would have removed that constraint and get a new design with less distortion. Just my guess.
The new lens has to be bigger to cater for the range finder focusing mechanisms.
raid
Dad Photographer
I have just uploaded a few photos taken with Huck Finn's Rollei 35mm/2.8 lens. I used Kodak Portra 160NC in a Bessa T.
Raid
Raid
raid
Dad Photographer
raid
Dad Photographer
raid
Dad Photographer
As you can see, these snapshots of my daughter turned out nice with this lens. I used aperture 5.6 in the open shade and hand held.
Raid
Raid
raid
Dad Photographer
I also used for the last few frames on that roll a Zeiss Biogon 35mm/2 from Huck Finn. There is a difference in that my second daughter showed up, and things were not as static anymore. I am not suggesting any comparisons to be made here.
