bradleygibson Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 I recently bought a new Rollei 1.4x Longar from B&H and it came, shrink-wrapped in a box labelled Longar, with a brochure labelled Longar, but the actual optic labled Apogon. Instead of "Schneider-Kreuznach AF-Longar 1.4x HFT System Rolleiflex 6000 Made in Germany", mine says "Rolle AF-Apogon Converter 1.4x HFT System 6000 Made in Germany". Everything seems legitimate--the serial number of the unit matches the Test Certificate stamped by Rollei, etc., so I'm not concerned about any foul play--I'm more interested in the optical formula and performance of an Apogon vs. a Longar. My research so far has revealed that the Longar is, in fact, a Schneider brand, and that the Longar was designed by Schneider specifically to integrate with the optics of the Xenotar 80/2.8, Tele-Xenar 180/2.8 and Apo-Tele-Xenar 300/4 (although it works with other lenses as well). I cannot find any information on the Apogon 1.4x TC. It is a Rollei brand, and that's about all I know. Can anyone shed some light on the Apogon 1.4x TC's optical formula, design, and/or history? Much appreciated, Brad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradleygibson Posted June 19, 2008 Author Share Posted June 19, 2008 Whoops, I need to proofread better! Two things: My optic says "Rollei AF-Apogon Converter 1.4x HFT System 6000 Made in Germany" (not "Rolle") and I've learned that the Longar is designed as part of the the Xenotar 80/2.0's optical formula (not the 2.8). -Brad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erichiss Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Hi Brad, I did some checking too and AFIK there is no difference optically. And yeah you don't want to try your 80mm f/2.8 on this.... scratch! Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markusglueck Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 AFAIK the name changed with the AF version. Not sure why. BTW You can use the Schneider Xenotar 2.8/80mm with the longar, but not the Zeiss 80mm Planar! Best regards, Markus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradleygibson Posted June 19, 2008 Author Share Posted June 19, 2008 Markus, there is an AF-Longar out there, so I'm certain the change came after the AF. I've ping'ed F&H to see if they can shed some light on this. Thanks to both of you for the heads up on the 80/2.8. -Brad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuart_richardson Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Mine says: Rollei AF-Apogon Converter 1,4x HFT System 6000 AF Made in Germany, so it appears to be the same as yours (unless yours does not have AF after 6000, like in mine). Whatever it says, it works pretty well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuart_richardson Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 I just found this...it is a German photo store, and they have pictures of a teleconverter. Theirs says Schneider-Kreuznach AF-Longar 1,4x HFT System Rolleiflex 6000 Made in Germany....so it is a little different in naming and so on, but it looks like Rollei might have just taken over the production (at least in name), and as such, they changed it from a Schneider name to a Rollei name. <P>http://www.fotopartner.de/cgi-bin/fotopartner? HTML=show/standard.htm&VS_TAB_NAME=W_ROL_6000_OBJ&VS_PARENT_ID=11310543005062&VS_INDEX=11313 63481164&VS_PROD_POS=13&ID=6SKDNWZqvALCFOmx.0.1213885023 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urs_bernhard1 Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 I phoned Franke&Heidecke yesterday to ask about: Since a while the 1,4 TC is named APOGON instead of the "older" LONGAR-name, but lens-design and mechanical construction is the same. A good tool btw, I have one, I use it with the 2,8/180 and I like it a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradleygibson Posted June 21, 2008 Author Share Posted June 21, 2008 Thank you, Urs! I appreciate that! I used my Apogon yesterday for the first time on the 300, and it was as excellent & unobtrusive to image quality as everyone has suggested. I didn't do any rigorous testing, but I didn't see any image degradation for having used it. Good to know that it is the same optical formula. Thanks again, Urs, Brad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now