It is pronounced like Bouquet... I think. And the 2.8 Xenotar is the best of the Rollei lenses. the 2.8 Planar has a little more flare though that was corrected with the HFT coating. The 3.5 lenses seem to have a bit more depth of field due to shorter focal length. But they are not sharper no matter how many people say they are.
Which is why it was adopted as a photographic term. George, just look at shots made with lenses such as an archromatic meniscus or a petzval design. The Verito shot wide open is a good example. As is most portrait lenses. It is basically a lens that hasn't been corrected to the point where it eliminates all the aberrations. But any lens shot wide open regardless of design will usually have some type of bokeh (fuzzy) out-of-focus areas.
Originally Posted by Rolleiflexible
Last edited by RobertP; 06-10-2008 at 06:33 PM. Click to view previous post history.
This is getting a bit off topic – but I can recommend the following article: http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf for those who are interested in the concept of Bokeh.
For those who are into subjective ranking lists – download Mike Johnson’s Lens Bokeh Ratings at: http://www.lulu.com/bearpaw
Old rollei freak
Hi guys, I'm new here, just retired finally and will have more time to spend on photography. I am 3rd generation serious photographer in our family..and yes, there is a fourth gen. a young niece who has taken to roaming the world with a camera. I will post her url later.
To the point: I bought the 2.8C Planar when it first hit the stores in about 195?.. I was roundly chastised by my friends for spending so much .. was it nearly $300 ? Then my photo friends jumped on me for choosing Planar over Xenotar. I never regretted my choice. It served me well until about 5 years ago. Not ever a problem. gorley
no. of blades also adds more star lines to point source lights ( streetlights ) as you stop down.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
personally, i don't care if it's a planar or xeontar... i wont be making enlargements to the point where it will critically make a difference.. however, i am leaning toward the Schneider, just because it kinda goes against the grain (knowing that all the rollei guys i know shoot with zeiss lenses...)
but, yeah, i'm really bent on getting the 2.8C ... i found a nice one on the 'bay, however, the lens looks like it has water marks.. check it out..
is this fungus or what? everything else about this specimen seems fine...
If the price stays low, go for it. I have a 2.8C that has about 20% separation on one side of the lens, but as long as you keep the hood on, it makes beautiful images. Which brings up the problem of the hood and the filters - Bay III ain't cheap or even easy to come by. I also have a 3.5F Planar and that is one picture taking machine - maybe the best ever. The main thing I have against the 2.8C, as someone already mentioned, is the magnifier. They just didn't have that quite right. I saw a nice 2.8C today, with the hood, for $399. I'm halfway tempted to get it. By the way, there is nothing wrong with a 3.5E in either the Planar or Xenotar.
The taking lens on that camera looks
pretty hideous. The wind-side body
(photo 5) also looks to have something
odd going on under the leather, in the
vicinity of the film counter and strap
lug. Expect to have to sink a lot of
cash into rehabilitating this one, if
you win the auction.
I wouldn't buy it. The metal looks corroded, and it could have been stored in a humid place. The taking lens is ugly indeed.
Originally Posted by Master_of_Reality