Zeiss 110 for Rollei 6008i

[bobby_cranford]

I am about to expand my lens selection for my Rollei 6008i.

Currently, I have only the 80mm. I want to add the 40mm Schneider

which gets rave reviews, but would like something longer than the 80

for portraits and some landscape. The 180 and 300 seem like great

lenses, but are also heavy. Looking at the type of pictures I take,

they seem to be too much in focal length. I wanted to hear some

opinions from people using the Zeiss 110/2 on the Rollei. It appears

to be a wonderful lens. My intended usage would be for portraits and

some landscape work. Also, I am pondering using it with a 2x

converter to get some distance. I would like comments on the 2x as

well. I just cannot see needing a long telephoto for the type of

shooting I do. A larger range of lenses would be ideal, but like

most good products, these Rollei lenses don't come cheap.

[edward_s_carmick]

Bobby:

The 110 mm is nice; I own one. I works nicely with the 1.4X extender giving you a 154 mm f 2.8. It is big and heavy and as I travel with my cameras I usually don't take it along. In a "normal" focal I like the 90 mm the best. Very sharp and versatile. It is also large and bulky but light in weight. For portraits I prefer my 150 mm f 4 Tele-Xenar over the Zeiss and my 180 mm.

Ed Carmick

[thomas_diekwisch1]

I agree with Ed in that the 40 and the 90 Schneider are pretty much the best choices in these areas. I don't have the 110, but most of the others, and I am planning to get a 110. The 300 Schneider, particularly with 1.4x converter, is another good fit. I have the 120 Makro-Planar, the 150 Tele-Xenar, and the 180 Tele-Xenar in the middle and I am still undecided about which one is best. The 150 is in the middle, and it is more compact and less sensitive to stray light than the 180. However, its close focusing distance of 1.4m is not very convenient. The 120 and the 110 are more practical with a 0.8m closest focusing distance. I don't have the 2x converter, but most users believe that the results are worse than magnifying the corresponding negative area. The 1.4x however is fine. Thus, a 110mm with 1.4x seems to be the perfect match, except that it's a little on the heavy side.

[edward_s_carmick]

I have more complete MTF curves on the Schneider "old" amd "new" lenses which I have compared with the Zeiss in the small Rollei lens book and Hasselblad literature. The 150 mm Schneider is the sharpest, the 150 mm Sonnar is next and the 180 mm Schneider is last. Also the 150 mm has floating elements so it is even better closeup.

All these lenses can be helped with the addition of the 17 mm extension tube. I remember Phil Greenspun felt the 120 mm flared badly. According to Kornelious Fleischmier this has been rectified with extensive baffling and other techniques. I asked Rollei what was the first serial number with these changes. They never told me.

The excellent MTF curves of the 120 mm are at a 1:8 reproduction ratio. At infinity they are not as good. I am sure it is fantastic at a portrait length. I have twelve lenses for my Rollei but consider the 40 mm f 3.5 Schneider, 60 mm f 3.5 Schneider, 90 mm, 150 mm f4 Tele-Xenar, and 300 mm to be the cream. I think it is agreed that the 1.4X extender is sharper than the 2X. I love the 1.4X; I don't own the 2X. My $.02 worth.

Ed Carmick

[roy_jackson]

The Zeiss 110mm excels at low light portraiture. When used close up at f 2.0 or 2.8 the depth of field is very shallow and produces photos with very distictive character and wonderfully out of focus backgrounds (and foregrounds). Of course the viewfinder image is also bright and easy to focus. Haven't tried it with the 1.4X Longar. It is quite heavy however. If I could have only one lens for the Rollei system this would be it. It is also very sharp and will do your landscapes proud.

[darrill_stoddart]

I use the 110 as my general purpose lens. It is heavy but very easy to focus because of the bright finder image. The slight telephoto effect suits my style of photography. I also have the 180 and use it only for portraits when I am at a fixed location. I find it too bulky to take when travelling or when walking around. I do not think the 180 is very sharp and overall, having rented a 150, I am leaning towards trading for the 150. I have the 2x but with size and softness consider it unacceptable with the 180. Good luck with your choice. Darrill

[tak_l._poon1]

Dear Bobby,

 

I have the 2x and I regretted that I have bought it. Its performance is dissappointing. The image is downgraded more than you would expect. I am now saving money for the 1.4x Longar which I hope would be much better.

 

Regards,

 

Tak

[iain_bain]

Excellent lens, i have the 60mm and 110mm which i find perfect for wedding and portrait use. The 110mm is great for available light work, this replaced a 120macro and is far more versatile. At 2-2.8 i find the results look stunning with great out of focus backgrounds. You shouldn't regret this purchase.

[javier_saturno1]

Ed, Thomas,

what are the options in new lenses in 150-180 focal lengths? I have seen the Schneider Tele-Xenar 150/4 PQS mentioned recently but cant find it listed anywhere. I think that only the Zeiss sonnar 150 and Tele-Xenar 180 are currently available. Is the 180 noticeably softer? Do we know anything (optically) of the new 180 AF?

Thanks for the info

Javier

[thomas_diekwisch1]

Javier, some comments to the 150 Sonnar or 180 Tele-Xenar choice. The 150 Tele-Xenar hasn't been made for a while but you can get used ones from time to time. Might be worth while since in terms of image quality it's the best of the three, with beautiful sharpness, "bokeeh", and floating elements for close focusing. Hopefully it'll reappear since the 2.8/80mm Xenotar apparently seems to re-appear as an autofocus version.

 

My 150 Sonnar possibly has the highest contrast and the least sharpness of the three, still excellent however. Among the two lenses still available new it is the one that's most compact and most resistant to flare. It's a classic lens, very good and useful for many purpuses, including traveling.

 

All the stuff about the 180 Tele-Xenar being soft is nonsense IMHO. Under normal conditions, the lens is very sharp and has also very good contrast. However, if you use it against the light, it is very suceptible to flare and straylight. It really becomes "soft" when you take portraits against the sun and you'll find reflections or highlights of bright spots on your image in places where they don't belong. Right now I have asked a mechanic to build an extended hood for the lens, and that will take care of some of the issues, but not all of them. I am sure it'll improve portraits with stray light significantly. Some highlight reflections occur on the big lens elements themselves and may be incurable. Having said all of this, the 180 is still an outstanding lens for many applications, just under certain conditions it has some weak spots.

 

The 180 is one of the strengths of the 6008i system, and I believe it is for good reasons that Rollei chose it as the first lens for the autofocus version. Portraits at 2.8 and 4.0 with 180mm are something in a class of their own. At 4.0 you have some focusing reserve, but 2.8 is definitely managable, particularly with Rollei's bright screen. The 180 gives you a slightly more distant perspective. The lens is heavy, and many may hold this quality against it, but in practical every-day use the weight allows you to get really sharp images already at 1/125 of a second hand held, which I wouldn't say of the 150. I know there will be some now coming up with their stories about how they got this award-winning shot hand held at a 1/8 of a second, but that's not what I am talking about. I mean every day shots without falling into coma due to lack of breath etc.

 

If it was me, I'd go for the 180, just for the experience. It also compensates well with the 120 Zeiss Makro or the 110 Zeiss Planar.

[vijay_nebhrajani]

I must agree with Thomas about the 180. Its MTF curves probably do not tell the whole story. It *is* sharp. It may have other design related issues, but poor sharpness it does not.