Will I get much more out of a Hassy/80 Planar or SL66/80 Planar set-up vs. my Rolleiflex 2,8E Planar?

[rich815]

I currently have a beater Rolleiflex 2,8E Planar that I picked up

last year for a very good price, and I really like my results I'm

getting from this lens. I've always wanted a Hasselblad with the 80

Planar or (after getting into Barry Thornton's techniques and seeing

his results) a Rollei SL66, either body with a 80 Planar lens.

Anyone with any experience in these set-ups have any thoughts as to

whether I would see any significant difference in my results from

either of the latter set-ups versus my current owned Rolleiflex with

it's Planar? Of course the interchangeable lenses are a benefit but

that aside for a moment (as I truly love the 80mm 6x6 perspective)

what might I gain from considering either adding a Hassy or SL66 or

even selling off my Rolleiflex in exchange for the other? Any

thoughts welcomed. TIA.

[rich815]

And yes, I know I get interchangeable backs as a benefit as well, but I'm mainly wondering from a lens performance perspective.

[robert_nancarrow]

No, you will not see an appreciable difference in the results. There is a site that tests the Hassy vs 2 Rolleiflex vs Mamiya 7 and the Mamiya wins out but the Rolleis very much hold their own vs the Hassy. Try googling the 3 cameras and you might find the site or maybe another forumer will help. I have Hassy with 100mm lens and have used a Rollei and the difference is not noticeable, they are so close you should make your deciding factor either the lens change, weight or the handling. I am thinking of selling off my Hassy gear and getting a Rollei because I shoot mostly digital now but have gobs of 120 film in the freezer and don't want to completely abandon MF. The Hassy is just too much hassle, weight, tripod, meter, lens weight, hoods, etc. Let me know if you want to sell the Rollei, I'll be looking for a user with a perfect lens. Thanks, Bob.

[donald_brewster]

If you handhold, you're better off with the Rolleiflex as the Hassy is heavy, and the SL66 is heavier still. If you use a tripod for most of your shots I don't think you'll see any appreciable difference in your shots, but you would have more flexibility with the interchangeable backs and lenses of the Hassy and SL66.

[cpj]

"Will I get much more out of. . . ." The simple answer is "no." The Rolleiflex 2.8E Planar is

an excellent and time-proven lens which, as long as it is well-sealed and securely

mounted in your Rollei, will go on forever producing top images.

 

On the other hand, there have been several versions of the 80mm Planar for the

Hasselblad over the years. They used different construction and glass mounting methods

as well as changes in the internal light reflection baffling required by the need to make the

lens 'interchangeable."

 

While the designation "Planar" generally indicates a Zeiss 5-element lens design (which at

one point had a sixth element added as a field flatener--later found to be of no real

effect--and more recently a seventh element for Macro versions) the lenses are actually

constructed differently depending on year manufactured.

 

The very first series of Hasselblad lenses--1948 to 1957-- were not fluoride coated to

reduce flare. In 1957 the lens mount itself was changed with the appearance of the C

model cameras and C-type lenses.

 

From 1957 on, all Zeiss lenses for the Hasselblad had at least one coating. Lenses with the

T* [T-Star] designation indicated it had multi-surface coatings to further reduce internal

reflections.

 

In 1982 the entire new line of CF lenses appeared in a newly designed lens

barrel with a completely different internal shutter, and all lens elements were multi-

coated.

 

These lenses were later supplanted by the CFi versions with an improved shutter material

and more recently with the CFE lenses which can be used on both the C-series and 200-

series bodies. So a lot depends on exactly which lens series you are considering and how

it was constructed. The very fact that the Planar for the Hasselblad cameras had to be

designed around and interchangable barrel opened both ends to damage from abrasion

and weather, as well as producing a more complex internal light path.

 

There are really two answers:

(1) If you are talking about an older, used 80 mm Planar, there are variations in coatings,

shutters, light baffles and interior reflection absorbing paint, all affecting performance.

The fixed Rollei Planar has a much better chance of remaining in "factory new" condition.

 

(2) If you are considering a modern Hasselblad 503CW with the CFE 80mm f2.8 Planar, I

don't know the answer.

 

I actually own both a Rollei with an 80mm 2.8E Planar and a new 503cw with a CFE 80mm,

Planar but I never choose between them based on any perceived difference in lens

performance. And with both lenses I shoot color transparencies exclusively, having 20x24

Chromira prints made on Fuji Crystal Archive continuous tone glossy paper.

 

(I've been at this 40 years and I see no performance difference between a coated 1960's

Planar fixed in a Rollei and a new Zeiss Planar on a Hasselblad.) The Rollei is just a lot

handier for grab-and-shoot situations, especially when the light is changing rapidly at

sunrise or sunset.

[donald_brewster]

Here is the link to the site Robert mentioned. Chris Perez made a comparison between two Rolleiflex, a Mamiya 7, and Hassy w/Planar 80mm lenses: http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html

[kelly_flanigan1]

Re <I>The very first series of Hasselblad lenses--1948 to 1957-- were not fluoride coated to reduce flare. </i><BR><BR>The Eastman Kodak Ektars made for the 1000F were coated; single coated lenses. Kodak's 35mm Ektra Ektars were coated lenses; even the ones made before the Pearl Harbour Attack. <BR><BR>The 2.8 Planar in the E model tlr has less elements than the Hassy 2.8 Planar; but of similar design and performance. Worn and hacked TLR's can have missaligned viewing/taking lenses; that rob performance too.

[christopher perez]

The single coated c.1956 Rolleiflex TLRs I've used had better internal baffling than a c.1989 Zeiss Planar CT* multi-coated optic. The differences are mainly in how the Rolleis handle extremely bright areas. The differences are slight, but noticable in a side by side comparison.

 

Its incredible how sharp and contrasty Rollei TLR optics are (both Xenotar and Planar versions in either f/2.8 or f/3.5). Very surprising, actually.

 

Perhaps you could try finding a Rollei TLR in better physical condition? Assuming, that is, you find you don't need interchangable backs or lenses.

[roger krueger]

The Rollei should beat the snot out of the 'Blad handheld at slow speeds, but due to lack

of miror slap, not (mostly) due to weight. Strongly backlight situations and light sources

in-scene will favor the 'Blad's more modern coating.

[johnmarkpainter]

I have a Rollei MX/EV 3.5 Xenotar, a Rollei Planar 2.8C (mint) and a Hassy 80C.

 

Ignoring handling and ergonomics issues...I prefer the Hassy for Color and the Rolleis for

B&W.

 

jmp

[Jerry_]

...if you ever intend to do any type of close-up photography, the Hasselblad with 80mm lens and (one or two) extension tube(s) is going to give you results you cannot get with your Rollieflex TLR. You will be able to see what you want (through the lens) rather than try to line up the bottom lens to where the top lens was before taking a close-up.

[tito sobrinho]

Since I practice the Zone System,I like my Hasselblad with 4 backs (N+1, N, N-1, N-2). Therefore, I can obtain darker Zones with detail as well as higher Zones also with detail. With the newer CF lenses, I don't need a yellow filter, since the clouds "jump out". Excellent overall and local contrast.

 

OT, with the Hasselblad I can use my 50 CF (FLE) as well my 150 CF. Both very contrasty and resolving minute details (local contrast) especially with the 50 CF ...details on the foreground as well as at infinity; I'm able to count grass leaves on the foreground, bricks and roof tiles at infinity.

 

I also like my Rollei 2.8 for family pictures and gatherings.

[feli]

Depends on your shooting style. Shooting hand held, I would put my money on the

Rolleiflex. You can't beat the lack of mirror slap and the leaf shutter at slow shutter

speeds. What you may want to do is send your 2.8E to Harry Fleenor and let him do a full

CLA on it, so it performs to full spec. (www.rolleirepairs.com). That would be money well

spent.

 

The Rollei 80 is a stellar performer and in the same class as the Hassy 80. A while back I

seem to remember reading that the Hassy 80 was a touch sharper in the field at certain

apertures, but unless you enjoy shooting test charts and newsprint mounted on the wall,

you'll probably never see the difference.

 

feli

[martin_reekie]

The SL66 will win every time. You have the added advantage over all the other cameras of dropping or raising the front panel. The 80mm lens has the coverage to cope with this. So huge depth of field, no contest!

[q.g._de_bakker]

CPeter,<br><br><i>The very first series of Hasselblad lenses--1948 to 1957-- were not fluoride coated to reduce flare. [...] From 1957 on, all Zeiss lenses for the Hasselblad had at least one coating.</i><br><br>I'm afraid that this is incorrect.<br><br>Even the very earliest Zeiss lenses available for Hasselblad (1952 - ) were coated. Even the Kodak Ektars that preceded the Zeiss lenses (1948 - until stock ran out) were "Luminized", i.e. coated.<br>Please do remember that anti-reflection treatment was first invented way back in 1903-1904 (or even earlier: Taylor, who artificially "weathered" glass surfaces), and that Zeiss patented their T-coating in 1935. It was not a new thing in the 1950s.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Oh, and... (i forgot)<br><br>There were only three versions of the 80 mm Planar made for Hasselblad.<br>- The one first introduced in 1957, which was a 6 element design.<br>- The next version introduced in 1960, which was a 7 element design (still with us today).<br>- The CB version introduced in 1997 (gone again not much later) which again was a 6 element design.<br><br>The second version is the one that you find everywhere. The other two (or one; they may have been the same design in different guises) are rather rare.<br>Despite its evolution from C through CF and F to CFE, the second one has remained virtually unchanged through all these years (1960 to 2004. Not bad. ;-)). The only real changes were in the barrel and shutter. The difference in performance between a 1957 C-version and a 2004 CFE-version is very, very hard to detect. If at all.

[omar_ozenir2]

I have both a Rolleiflex 2.8GX and a Hassy 501C with an 80mm lens. My observations are below. FWIW, I only shoot B&W and print traditionally in my own darkroom.

 

Lens performance: I "feel" that there is a difference. It's hard to put into words. The Hassy is brutally sharp, fantastic resolution. The Rollei is also superb, but it has more "roundness", more "creaminess". The quality of the out of focus areas is different. With the Hassy, bright spots turn into distinct pentagons, sth I find rather annoying. So, I always take extreme care with background choice when using the Hassy. The Rollei's out of focus areas are markedly smoother.

 

General Build: The Hassy is clearly more refined, sturdier and smoother than the Rollei. Also, my Rollei's shutter release is a bit stiff.

 

Viewfinder: I have an Acute Matt screen for the Hassy and a Beattie screen for the Rollei. The Hassy screen is easier to focus.

 

Shutter noise: If you ever want to do street photography, the Rollei is better, because of the lack of mirror slap. The Hassy is rather loud. I do it with both and they both work, but I feel more comfortable with the Rollei.

 

Other issues: Hassy filmbacks can malfunction. I've head three backs, two of which developed light leaks and/or overlapping frames. It can be fixed of course, but at a stiff price (at least here in the UK). Never had problems like this with the Rollei.

Close up photography is easier with the Hassy; extension tubes work just fine.

 

All in all, I don't think you will see much difference in your results. I would never sell the Rollei though.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Here's a consideration that will help make the matter less clear ;-)<br><br>If the choice is between crisp, "brutally" sharp, and more "creamy" results, consider that the choice of film will be of influence too.<br>For instance, i find a softer, more "rounded" result can be achieved using "brutally sharp" optics when using Agfa B&W film, compared to Kodak B&W film. So if i want either of the two, i don't think about using different optics, just different film.

[tito sobrinho]

" The Rollei is also superb, but it has more "roundness", more "craminess"

 

Now, you are describing the TriX B&W pictures taken with my chrome single coated Planar C f2.8. I have two, and I like them very much.

[luisarguelles]

Q.G., You have raised and excellent pont here. In my experience my Zeiss lenses for the Contax G system, or the Planar in my Rolleiflex 3.5E produces superb results with Agfapan 100. A winning combo, in my opinion.

[luisarguelles]

By the way Richard, I've just scanned a picture that I took last week that would have been imposible to take with a Hasselblad: http://www.photo.net/photo/2875848

</p>

Tri-X, Rolleiflex 3.5E with Planar f/3.5 75mm. 1/8s handheld wide open.

[bill_dewberry]

The flex will win everytime as there is no mirror to instigate shutter slap.

[jeff_drew4]

<<. . . what might I gain from considering either adding a Hassy . . . >><p>

Richard,<p>

The advice and opinions above are valid. However, two big reasons I just bought more Hasselblad and will keep it are; prices are coming down on bodies AND digital backs! Imacon and Hasselblad have merged and there are some really neat tools coming from that new collaboration. Spendy? I'm sure! Rollei and Hasselblad SLRs will have some gonzo, affordable digital backs. Of course none of this matters because you will want to keep using your TLR occasionally and the emotional feeling you get when hearing the whisper-click versus the slapping "ka-thunk!" of the SLR will make the decision to own both very worthwhile!

[rich815]

Thanks for all the great input, opinions and thoughts everyone. I'll certainly keep the Rollei as it does give great results and is whisper quiet, but in the times I've used a Hassy 50x (once rented for a product shoot, once rented just for a weekend shoot around) I loved them immensely. Not only the results but the feel and useage of the system. Prices seem to be getting nothing but better and I imagine I'll add one to the collection one day anyway. Just not as soon now.

[wes_baker1]

I have a Rolleiflex 2.8D Xenotar, and a 1977 80 Planar C T* I use on my Hassys. A few months ago, I loaded a Hassy and the flex with rolls of Kodak's new hypersaturated transparency film I got from a dealer as a demo. I mounted both cameras on the same tripod, and shot the same subject at the same shutter and aperture settings.

 

I honestly cannot detect any appreciable difference. One shot from the Hassy may look infinitesimally better, but at a different setting the Rollei may be just a tiny bit better. I'm sure the differences came from slight uncontrollable variations in shutter speeds, lighting, etc. from second to second. Admittedly, these shots were all outdoors focussed at nearly infinity, so the test could have been more complete if I'd added additional subjects, types of lighting, etc. But I was going only for max available sharpness with this test.

 

I concluded from this that handling issues and so forth were far more important to image quality than performance differences between these two superlative lenses. I'd love to test a flex with a Planar against my Xenotar, but only for curiosity: I now think anyone that turns down one or the other for performance reasons is just silly.

 

I absolutely agree with what others have said about the flex having an advantage for handheld work, but it is clearly less flexible since it has only one (superb) lens choice. It is for these reasons that I take the Rollei to places like Afgahnistan and Cambodia, but use the Hassy for most tripod situations.

 

My Rollei improved tremendously when I had it overhauled by a specialist, and a new Maxwell screen installed. I would recommend that you consider this for any old TLR because it made a huge differenece for me. And used Hassys can suffer from any number of expensive ailments as well.

 

On the other hand, I forsee the day not too long in the future where a nice old Rolleiflex will actually cost more than a good user Hassy w/ lens. It's simply a matter of supply and demand. People come up to me all the time and complement me on the Rollei. But when they see a Hassy, they assume I'm a pro and keep their distance.

 

Others may disagree of course.

 

Wes Baker