Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,741   Posts: 1,515,575   Online: 914
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,206
    Images
    21
    From my own limited experience, I'd say the Planar is decisively sharper off-center, somewhat sharper in the center, and has a certain "pop" factor the Tessar types lack---but it might fairly be accused of a certain modern, "clinical" look that isn't always what you want. But neither one will ever, *ever*, be accused of being a technically inadequate lens, except by someone who's got something wrong with them!

    We may lose sight of this aspect sometimes, inveterate gearheads that many of us are---it's easy to get caught up worrying about the difference between "really really good" and "technically better than practically anyone needs".

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  2. #12
    cjbecker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    IN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    734
    Images
    19
    I havea rolleifcord III and it is the xenar which is the schneider copy of the tessar. I really enjoy the lens it just has to have a hood on. At f4 I really like what comes out of the camera and at f11 it's the sharpest thing I have shoot in medium format. Compared to hasselblad 50 fle and 80. The images are lower contrast to more modern lens but I just print on higher contrast paper.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    186
    I think the best thing for me to do is to try one and eventually get the other and then decide from there. I'll probably fall in love with both lenses anyways. You can never have too many rolleis...right?

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    357
    I'm quite surprised at some of the negative impressions about Tessars, as my Rolleiflex T with Tessar lens is pinsharp (could there be alignment issues with other cameras?) Having said that, I prefer the bokeh of the Planar on my 2.8GX.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Aalen, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    592
    I used to have the Rolleiflex T. Very nice close to wide open for portraits or stopped down a bit for landscapes. A few examples:

    wide open


    around f/4


    around f/4


    around f/16

  6. #16
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,039
    Center sharpness and resolution never was a Tessars weak point quiet the contrary in the center a coated Tessar should be the planars equal.
    For portraits and subjects were I want to draw the viewers attention to the center of the frame I prefer the tessar. When I need corner to corner sharpness (some architecture and some landscape work) I use the planer (rarely). The Planar Rolleis are usually a little heavier than the Tessar Rolleis so for hikes and street the Tessar is the better choice. If I had to choose between the Tessar and the Planar I'd choose the Tessar because it's lighter and because the picture it makes draw the viewer in whereas the planar creates a uniform neutral image.

    Dominik

  7. #17
    cjbecker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    IN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    734
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Matus Kalisky View Post
    I used to have the Rolleiflex T. Very nice close to wide open for portraits or stopped down a bit for landscapes. A few examples:

    wide open


    around f/4


    around f/4


    around f/16

    The images look great, i really like the first 3. What post did you do on the images?

  8. #18
    Frank C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    24
    The Planar will give you better sharpness to the edge for landscapes. However when shooting landscapes a tripod will allow you to close down to a small aperture making the difference between the two lenses less pronounced. I have a MX-EVS and love it, however given a choice I would opt for the Planar if the price is right.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Aalen, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by cjbecker View Post
    The images look great, i really like the first 3. What post did you do on the images?
    Thank you. Pretty much all the processing was Levels, Curves and bit of edge burning. No "funky" stuff All were made on BW film (the teddy bear is PanF, the rest is FP4+).

    If one follows the link from the color image you get 4 Mpix Coolscan 9000 scan - gives some idea about the detail captured (it was sharpened).

  10. #20
    cjbecker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    IN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    734
    Images
    19
    Thanks for the info. When I scan my negs from the rolleicord they are not quite as sharp as your but I don't apply any sharpening. I do mess with levels and curves to give more local contrast. But now since I have a darkroom I don't do any scanning of negs. I scan the prints that I make. With the darkroom i prefer printing negs from the rolleicord because the image is actually bigger then the other cameras that I shoot. I also happen to like working with a rolleicord neg compared to a hasselblad negative because of the smoothness when large f-stops

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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