Vince Lupo
Whatever
Looks like Union Station in Toronto?
antistatic
Well-known
Another
l-noir
Newbie
thanks martin.
good eye, it is from union station in toronto. Here's a couple more:
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
Oh golly: I've shot thousands of rolls
of Tri-X through my Rolleiflexes so
picking one as a favorite is impossible.
But I like this one a lot. (Tele Rolleiflex
with stacked Rolleinars.)
of Tri-X through my Rolleiflexes so
picking one as a favorite is impossible.
But I like this one a lot. (Tele Rolleiflex
with stacked Rolleinars.)
Windscale
Well-known
Nice pic. edodo,
This is what I mean by the kind of 3D feel of the older German lenses. It may not be the sharpest to look at (compared to modern Japanese lenses), but it is definitely most comfortable to view for a long time without eye fatigue. Thanks.
This is what I mean by the kind of 3D feel of the older German lenses. It may not be the sharpest to look at (compared to modern Japanese lenses), but it is definitely most comfortable to view for a long time without eye fatigue. Thanks.
unclescarMT
Established
I just finished a book of portraits that I took using a couple of yashica d's (with kodak portra VC). Absolutely love the TLR as a portrait camera. There is something about it that really seems to disarm the subject, resulting in consistently interesting results.
[
]
[
]
You can take a preview of the book here: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/646864
[
[
You can take a preview of the book here: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/646864
Last edited:
WDPictures
Established
Here is another one. This time from a Lubitel 166-U. Still haven't mastered its quirks. The Lubitel is a bit rough around the edges, difficultly to focus is an obsticle and prone to flare... Not love yet but we'll see.
Last edited:
edodo
Well-known
Thanks Windscale! In fact I took that photo three years ago but just got a scanner to see it! The Rolleicord is dating 1936, still working (slow speed a bit slow anyway!) The front lens had cleaning marks so I got it polished and recoated by a company I won't make promotion here.
I remember sending the front lens in a bubble letter from france to ukraine saying to myself that if it doesn't come back, I would be stuck with this blind rolleicord I paid 100 euros for! Was so glad with it when it was back!
Anyway the photo is shot at F8 F11, so any kind of old lens would make fine shots at this aperture! I agree with you, I love the smoothness of vintage german lenses, the 1957 Rolleiflex 2.8E I recently got! The things I dislike is the heavier weight (really heavier than the 'cord) and the two side operation (I was used to the only knob on the right from the 'cord) still believe it is more graceful and practicall, if you don't count all the missed shots due to forgetting to advance the knob doh!
mr. mohaupt
Member
T
tedwhite
Guest
Nicely done, Mike. Is that a Vespa? Or perhaps a clone such as the Stella?
mr. mohaupt
Member
Looked like a Vespa to me but I couldn't entirely sure. Thanks for the comments!
~m
~m
Windscale
Well-known
I love Rolleiflexes as well. But I never liked the 2.8 versions as they are too heavy and they (both Planar and Xenotar) did not perform well wide opened. However, both Planar and Xenotar 3.5 performed very well wide opened. And they are much lighter. But now I tend to favour my Tessar 3.5 which is even lighter. I don't mind the two side operation. The place where you sent the lens for recoating, is it the one which no longer operates?
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
Of course I cannot contradict your experience
but what you've experienced is not inherent
in the 2.8-series Rolleiflexes. The 2.8-series
lenses perform at least as well as the 3.5-
series Planars and Xenotars wide-open, and
will outperform the 3.5-series lenses when
stopped down to f/3.5. See, for example,
this test of a 2.8E and a 3.5E using a USAF
Resolution Test chart:
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html
Variations among cameras after 50 years of
use makes any generalization suspect, but
there is no apparent reason to prefer the 3.5s
over the 2.8s as a rule for their performance
wide open.
Windscale
Well-known
I do not dispute with the hevanet findings at all. As far as the Mamiya 7 outstanding contrast is concerned, I can say the same with the Mamiya 6 lenses (I have not tested the 7 lenses)which performed the same way. They are the sharpest by far but also what I have stressed in many posts that this is the sharpness and contrast that lacked the 3D (creamy effect) and shadow details of the older German lenses and easier to cause eye fatigue. The pics produced just do not look quite right when compared with those produced by older German lenses, especially in landscape and buildings. No doubt for forensic pictures, the Japs do excel.
Regarding the Rolleiflexes. Planars are generally sharper than Xenotars, but the latter produce more vibrant colours. In fact, I do prefer the Xenotars to the Planars but there is really not too much between them. When comparing a 80/2.8 to a 75/3.5 lens one cannot just look at the pictures taken at the same point as in the USAF test. The magnifications are different albeit by that little bit. There are also many more variables to consider. But I am not a scientist and will not present any further views.
In the past, what yours truly and friends have done was to take pictures at the same point using same film and identical D&P. With slides, we looked at them via 8x and projected. With prints, we blow them up to 30x30 or 24x36 crops. Then we started the comparisons. Afterall, pictures are supposed to be looked at by human beings at reasonable and comfortable distances rather than for counting lines in LPM tests. These tests, in fact, mean very little to the human eye as they involve enlarging ratios which are too big and far beyond the sizes of pictures to be appreciated at home or even in art galleries, unless one's eyes are microscopic! We may not be the most scientific or technical but we do let the human factor of sense come into play. By analogy, an ordinary conservatoire violinist may play a concerto without mistakes but one can only give him say 80 marks. But one can award Yehudi Menuhin 98 marks for the same piece even if he has made a couple of mistakes! So, whilst I do not, and indeed cannot, dispute with scientific and technical findings, I would ask the scientists to do what we have done and then form their opinions. Some interesting views may emerge! Afterall, photography is an ART and one should believe one's own eyes and feelings.
Regarding the Rolleiflexes. Planars are generally sharper than Xenotars, but the latter produce more vibrant colours. In fact, I do prefer the Xenotars to the Planars but there is really not too much between them. When comparing a 80/2.8 to a 75/3.5 lens one cannot just look at the pictures taken at the same point as in the USAF test. The magnifications are different albeit by that little bit. There are also many more variables to consider. But I am not a scientist and will not present any further views.
In the past, what yours truly and friends have done was to take pictures at the same point using same film and identical D&P. With slides, we looked at them via 8x and projected. With prints, we blow them up to 30x30 or 24x36 crops. Then we started the comparisons. Afterall, pictures are supposed to be looked at by human beings at reasonable and comfortable distances rather than for counting lines in LPM tests. These tests, in fact, mean very little to the human eye as they involve enlarging ratios which are too big and far beyond the sizes of pictures to be appreciated at home or even in art galleries, unless one's eyes are microscopic! We may not be the most scientific or technical but we do let the human factor of sense come into play. By analogy, an ordinary conservatoire violinist may play a concerto without mistakes but one can only give him say 80 marks. But one can award Yehudi Menuhin 98 marks for the same piece even if he has made a couple of mistakes! So, whilst I do not, and indeed cannot, dispute with scientific and technical findings, I would ask the scientists to do what we have done and then form their opinions. Some interesting views may emerge! Afterall, photography is an ART and one should believe one's own eyes and feelings.
Last edited:
Darkhorse
pointed and shot
Speaking of colors, and I may be way off base here. But I've been comparing shots on flickr between Yashica-Mats and Autocords - just because I've got experience with the Mat and I'm getting an Autocord in the mail soon. Now, and it may be my imagination, I've noticed that the Autocord produces much more accurate colors. Does anyone have any experience with both to confirm this?
Joe Vitessa
Well-known
Darkhorse,
I'm not sure about color accuracy of the Minolta versus the Yashica-Mat, but I found that my Autocord produces 'more pleasing' colors than the 'Mat. Maybe it's accuracy, maybe it was contrast. I'm not sure. Anyway, I sold the Yashica and kept the Autocord.
Joe
I'm not sure about color accuracy of the Minolta versus the Yashica-Mat, but I found that my Autocord produces 'more pleasing' colors than the 'Mat. Maybe it's accuracy, maybe it was contrast. I'm not sure. Anyway, I sold the Yashica and kept the Autocord.
Joe
easyrider
Photo addict
Some stunning shots in this thread!
Some stunning shots in this thread!
My own favourite are these two shots of a friend's boat, taken in 1982 with my 3.5 Tessar Rollei MX Type 1. I was in a Boston whaler and got thoroughly soaked along with the camera. Just wiped it off and it works to this day. It was on Lake Ontario, not salt water.
Some stunning shots in this thread!
My own favourite are these two shots of a friend's boat, taken in 1982 with my 3.5 Tessar Rollei MX Type 1. I was in a Boston whaler and got thoroughly soaked along with the camera. Just wiped it off and it works to this day. It was on Lake Ontario, not salt water.
Last edited:
Nando
Well-known
I only had my Rolleiflex 2.8 GX for a few weeks but this one is my favourite so far:
My mom:
My mom:
