Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,295   Posts: 1,535,640   Online: 1108
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 50
  1. #21
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,043
    Images
    38
    If budget isn't a problem the later version 2.8 Planar on the Rollei GX and FX is sharper wide open than the older lenses. In all my tests with the older cameras you will not be able to tell a difference. Except that the Xenotar is a little more contrasty and the Planar is a little more flare prone especially when using close up attachments (Rolleinars).

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Aalen, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    592
    I got myself a Rolleiflex T in a great technical order for very reasonable money. It has a Tessar lens. Although it is a common knowledge that tessars are not at their best wide open - my photos taken at f4 - f5.6 are plenty sharp and it gets to unbelievable sharpness at f11. An I like the out of focus are as well. Planar would have cost me 3 times more although to be able to shoot at 2.8 I sometimes miss. You have to choose. If I would he the possibility - I would have hard time to pass on the newest FX model with built in TTL, but for that money one could get a nice motorbikel .. OK - or mamya 7 II.

    Look at the attachement - first full frame taken at f4 on the tripod (fp4+ in Pyrocat HD) - second is the crop from file that printed 15x15cm (I felt that this size fits the photo) at 300 dpi. Both were sharpened in PS though ..
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails BILD_033_web.jpg   BILD_033_15x21_crop.jpg  

  3. #23
    Uncle Goose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Gent (Belgium)
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    412
    Images
    1
    When you are on a budget you can always look into a Meopta Flexaret, the ones with a Belar Lens are really great (but be sure to have one that had a CLA recently).

  4. #24
    Schlapp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Isle of Lewis, Scotland
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    738
    Images
    99
    .. or a Voigtlander Perkeo. Great lenses, unbeatable 6x6 portability

  5. #25
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,591
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Jersey Vic View Post
    Rolleicords are smaller, simpler and lighter and come with Tessars and Xenars. Great carrying-around cameras and cheap.
    I will agree with that. I have a Rolleicord V and I am always amazed at the sharpness of the images. And apart from having a fixed lens (use your legs to change viewpoint) it is, for me, an ideal carying around camera.


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  6. #26
    JohnArs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Switzerland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,068
    Images
    40
    I have the old Rolleiflex from about 1950 with the 3,5 Tessar it is sharp quite sharp at f 8-16 the Rolleiflex GX from 1991 with the Planar is sharper in the f2,8-8 region and from f 8 up I can not see a difference in my opinion!
    Good luck, Armin
    Good light and nice shadows!

    www.artfoto.ch

  7. #27
    eddym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,927
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm View Post
    But TLRs aren't portable. And if you're going to shoot handheld tremor will beat any increase in sharpness you might gain by going to a better(?) lens.
    I disagree strongly. TLR's, especially Rolleis, are very portable. I've used one for street shooting for 30 years. No, it's not as portable as a Leica, but for a medium format camera, it's quite easy to carry and shoot. And without a moving mirror to induce vibration, handheld shots can be quite sharp.
    Eddy McDonald
    www.fotoartes.com
    Eschew defenestration!

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,183
    Images
    107
    I find my lubitel 166B sharper than sharp enough. old WWII rolleiflex automat iii is even better.
    The universe is a haunted house. -Coil
    .

  9. #29
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,591
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by eddym View Post
    I disagree strongly. TLR's, especially Rolleis, are very portable. I've used one for street shooting for 30 years. No, it's not as portable as a Leica, but for a medium format camera, it's quite easy to carry and shoot. And without a moving mirror to induce vibration, handheld shots can be quite sharp.
    I agree with your disagreement (!!). My Rolleicord is my favourite carrying around camera. I usually don't bother with a bag for it and just carry it, a few rolls of film, a meter and sometimes a few filters.


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,101
    Images
    9
    I only have experience of Rollei TLR’s; more specifically a bastard 2.8 E2 body fitted with a 2.8 F Planar from the mid sixties, an early fifties Automat with Tessar optics and a pre-war Rolleicord with a Triotar lens. They are all good cameras and I find them quite portable and easy to use hand held. Hardly surprisingly I rate the Planar as the sharpest of the three and quite usable wide open. Coupled with a sharp film and developer combination (e.g. EFKE R 25 and Beutler) it’s able to produce results sharp enough to make your teeth tingle… However, my main reason for liking this lens, and the Tessar, is its tonality.

    Anyway, as stated before on this thread, later models are usually sharper but it all comes down to the condition of the camera.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin