Post Sharp Examples of Rollei 600* shots

[jorge_jimenez1]

Reading all the dispersed comments about which is sharpest Zeiss or Schneider

is not very objective. I'm thinking. Let's see some examples of what the

proponents mean. If EACH participant posts ONE example of their sharpest lens,

then we can all see by ourselves. Since we are in the Medium Format level of

photography, we don't really need to know all the technical factors except

focal length(say 120/4), lens type (say Macro-Planar PQS). I'll start it off.<div></div>

[andrew booth]

I'm not sure what anyone will learn with this exercise. Different sized scans of different objects viewed on a screen will give very little information as to the quality of the original lens.

 

I could post a shot from my Fuji zoom P&S camera that would equal the sharpness in your Macro-Planar example, at the file size you've posted.

[stuart_richardson]

I agree, there is not all that much that a screen can show, but let's just seem some images!

Images are pretty and fun to look at. Here is one from the 180/2.8 AF...I think with 1.4xTC

<P><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/north-3rd-river-view.jpg"><P>It's quite

sharp on the slide...<P>The 150mm f/4 Sonnar HFT is also sharp, even if you have to stop it

down to meter. <P><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/rob-

underlit2.jpg"><P>The 80mm is also really sharp, but I don't have anything ready to post

with it at the moment...Frankly, I have found all of the lenses I have used for the 6008 to be

sharp. And they all get a heck of a lot sharper when I use a tripod, lock up the mirror, use a

cable release etc.

[danny_wong2]

This test is only valid if and only if we are all:

 

1. shooting identical image

 

2. under identical lighting conditions

 

3. using the same type of digital back

 

or

 

4. using the same type of film

 

5. processed at tha same lab on the same batch run

 

6. scanned on the same scanner with identical settings.

 

Then you would have to make prints and invite us over to judge them.

[geoffrey goldberg]

OK - Here are some Rollei TLR GX shots:<div></div>

[geoffrey goldberg]

And a crop at 100%<div></div>

[wolf_rainer_schmalfuss]

I guess all these lenses are much better than the films being used! An old photo professor from Vienna has said once to his students: Don't look at what brand of lens it is, make picture!

[jorge_jimenez1]

I agree with Stuart, Can't we all just get along? Post some pictures. They are fun to see. Here is a pic with a 3.5F (why not?)<div></div>

[jorge_jimenez1]

Com'on now Dany, Post something.

[geoffrey goldberg]

with 6003, 150 Xenar, handheld, 800 ASA. The small image doesn't do it justice!

[fwstutterheim]

6008i, 2.8 / 180 mm Tele-Xenar.<div></div>

[tito sobrinho]

All beutiful images!

 

Andrew, please post a picture done with your Fuji Zoom P&S as I'm looking for one, and this thread might help me be able to compare it to Jorge?s Planar sharpness. Provided there?s no interference from photoshop manipulation.

[graham_mitchell]

ok, I'll bite. Here's a panorama made with the 40mm f3.5 lens and stitched. Using a Sinarback eMotion22. The result is about 118 megapixels! <br>

<br>

<img src="http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/panorama_cropped_and_flattened.jpg"><br>

<br>

and a 100% crop. See if you can find this van in the shadows in the main pic!<br>

<br>

<img src="http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/panorama__crop.jpg">

[wayne_crider4]

It's a different world holding a print and looking at 72dpi and resolution is only half the equation at that. Some lenses have qualities that you can't describe or show on a screen. I'd scan one to upload but would have to color correct and manipulate just to "kind" of get close. I believe, and according the some test that I have read, that the Rollei HFT 80mm is one sharp lens. Mine is not only sharp, but has those qualities that go beyond resolution and give it a special charcter.

[jorge_jimenez1]

Tito: Where are your pictures?

[tito sobrinho]

Jorge: Only if you teach me how to post them.

[laurent1]

Fredi : are you taking pictures of old military airfields in the swiss mountain ? I guess that the one that can be seen on the bottom left of the picture is Ambri, which is quite impressive to land on !

Laurent

[jorge_jimenez1]

Tito:

Fill out the Contribute an answer, Pick the HTML text option and then browse your computer until you find your picture. That's all. Make the image no bigger than 350k

[fwstutterheim]

<i>Fredi : are you taking pictures of old military airfields in the swiss mountain ? I guess that

the one that can be seen on the bottom left of the picture is Ambri, which is quite impressive

to land on ! Laurent </i><p>

Laurent: <p>Not really. The airstrip is in the frame by coincidence. I would have preferred

the light to fall on the houses, not on the runway. I had planned to take a shot from the

Gotthard while on my way home to Holland from Tuscany. I was a few hours late and had

already given up when I looked down from the pass road and saw that wonderful sky. I had

just about 5 minutes for a few frames while the weather was deteriorating quickly. <P> The

airstrip is near Airolo at the Southern end of the Gotthard pass road. <p>Ferdi.

[l_a_k_h_i_n_d_e_r]

Jorge, <br> <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0027nt">Here</a> is some information from Dr. Kornelius Fleischer of Zeiss: Basically the 120mm is not optimized for infinity.<br>

As already noted, a small image is not going to show you the sharpness of a lens. I am posting a shot from 120mm PQS lens, focused at approx. 15-20 metres. The final image is about 7000x7000 pixels. The one posted here is only 511x511 pixels. <br>

I believe this lens is much better at closeups. Particularly the kind of photo you have posted. I would not have shot this image if I had some other suitable lens. But I was traveling only with the 120mm lens.<div></div>

[jorge_jimenez1]

Lakhinder:

I wish you would post some other picture from your 120. The Makro-Planar is NOT really a Makro lens. Makro begins at 1:2 and larger scales. The 120 is optimized for 1:8 but equally usable from 1:oo to 1:2. The 150, on the other hand, is optimized for oo to 1:10. It goes to hell at 1:8 and much worse at 1:2. Consequently, the 120 is suitable for more subjects than the 150. I have owned the 150 since 1982. It is a nice lens although I prefer the 120 because I seldom take infinity photos. It is just too far away for my taste and I like to be up close and personal. I also have a 250 that helps me with shy folks.