Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,007   Posts: 1,524,564   Online: 1019
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,039
    Images
    38
    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.
    Dennis

  2. #12
    RobertP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,130
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Rolleiflexible View Post
    For our purposes, it refers to the manner
    in which a lens renders out-of-focus areas.
    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.
    Last edited by RobertP; 06-10-2008 at 05:33 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,101
    Images
    9
    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

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Francisco Cal.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1

    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

  5. #15

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    central anatolia, Turkey
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    412
    Images
    16
    no. of blades also adds more star lines to point source lights ( streetlights ) as you stop down.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    NW Chicago 'burbs
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    11
    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..
    http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-ROLLEIFL...QQcmdZViewItem
    is this fungus or what? everything else about this specimen seems fine...

  7. #17
    outwest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    317
    Images
    3
    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.

  8. #18
    Rolleiflexible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,274
    Images
    31
    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.

    Sanders

  9. #19
    JPD
    JPD is offline
    JPD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by Master_of_Reality View Post
    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..
    http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-ROLLEIFL...QQcmdZViewItem
    is this fungus or what? everything else about this specimen seems fine...
    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.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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