Rollei/Zeiss Questions

[joshua_i._divack]

I am coming a bit closer to purchasing a MF camera to supplement my

4x5 outfit, which I have been using for about 8 years now. I have

always been intrigued by the Rollei 600X system, even from before I

bought my 4x5, and after handling the likely candidates (Mamiya 7-II

and RZ Pro II, Pentax 67II, Rollei, Contax 645, Hasselblad) at Photo

East, I am still intrigued by the Rollei. I have read through the

archived threads in detail, and have a few lens-related questions.

 

1. In a post on December 21, 1999 regarding the merits of Zeiss

and Schneider lenses for the Rollei, Kornelius Fleischer stated with

respect to the Rollei 80/2.8 Planar that "... the lens design was

licensed from Carl Zeiss several decades ago and was not updated ever

since (as opposed to the 80 mm Planar for Hasselblad). It is produced

today with Asian components to provide a rather low cost standard

lens to the Rollei 6000 system. Compared to a current authentic Zeiss

Planar for Hasselblad the image quality is visibly lower." Does this

statement still hold true for the currently manufactured lens?

 

2. In a post on November 15, 2002, Mr. Fleischer stated that "all

Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad available today have been newly

calculated in the last 3 years." What about the Zeiss lenses for the

Rollei? Which, if any, are "new and improved"?

 

3. My standard lens for my 4x5 is 210mm. Am I correct in my

understanding that an equivalent lens for 6x6 format would be in the

90mm to 110mm range, rather than the 80mm that is sold with the 600x

kits? As between the Schneider 90mm and the Zeiss 110mm, which is

more of an "all-rounder"?

 

Thanks very much. -Josh

[ernie_gec]

Mr. Fleischer is a good man who always contributes much on these threads. His company obligations also compel him to sing the praises of new products. The problem with zeiss lenses is that they are all so good, even the older ones, that few consumers feel the need to ditch them for newer ones, thus affecting current sales. There is strong pressure therefore to magnify the slightest improvements & call them "revolutionary."

 

Would Mr. Felischer be willing to stake his reputation on a a/b comparison between equivalent pictures taken with silver "C" single coated lenses and the most current versions of the same thing? Not "into the sun" shots; just normal photos with proper lens shades?

 

He might be able to do it, but I'd bet only with much squinting and umming & awing. And then as to whether the newer lenses provide a superior aesthetic... well thats another debate again.

[wim_van_velzen]

Hi Joshua,

<p>

I think those old designs are pretty good as well, unless you are into real technical uses of photography where every line/mm counts.

<p>

If you do a lot of landscapes, you will be stopping down the lens a lot. Differences in sharpness between lenses of this level, are really minute then.

<p>

If you do portraits and people photography, the performance of lenses in the edges are of less importance.

<p>

If you do a lot of landscapes/nature, go for the 90 macro; if you are into people photography, I would go for the 110 (and a 60 as a companion).

<p>

Just my � 0.02, <a href="http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl">Wim</a>

[peter brown - www.peterbro]

<blockquote>Hi Joshua,

<p>

I agree with the points that Wim makes and there is little difference between

the older versions of the Carl Zeiss lenses and the newer ones. The main

reason for buying the newer PQ/PQS lenses is to be able to use ALL the

features of the new camera models such as the 6008i and for the 1000th sec

speed of the PQS lenses.<p>

Perhaps Mr Fleischer was referring to the Rolleinon lens in his post about the

Asian lens component. I'm not into all the technical stuff, but I can say that

the german-made Carl Zeiss 80mm HFT (non PQ) lens that I had on my

6002/6006 cameras some years ago was as good as the CZ 80mm HFT PQ

that I am currently using.<p>

You are correct in assuming the 210mm in 4x5 is about the equivalent of the

90/110 range in 120 format but I have found that in 4x5, the image always

has a wider look than the equivalent lenses in the smaller formats and you

may find that the 80mm translates better for your type of photography. If

possible try and compare some similar images taken with the 80-110 lenses

on 120 with the images you take with your 210mm in 4x5. You may be

surprised at how you interpret them. <p>

I think that if you like a slightly more tele effect from normal then go with the

90/110 and if you like a little more info in the image go with the 60/80 lenses.

The 90mm would probably be a better "all rounder" as it offers macro

capabilities.<p>

I think the 60mm is a great standard lens for 120 format and you can read my

comments about this lens here: <a

href="http://www.peter-brown-photographer.com/equipment%20page/dista

gon%20PQ%2060mm%20review.html">Carl Zeiss Distagon 60mm HFT PQ

review</a>.

<p>

Kind regards<p>

Peter Brown/Cairns Australia<p>

<a href="http://www.peter-brown-photographer.com">

www.peter-brown-photographer.com</a>

[wayne_crider4]

I just had to conribute on this thread since I shoot a Rollei with

older 80mm HFT lens and have the Mamiya produced Rolleigon

150mm lens, both being very capable. Josh if you have done

alot of reading around you should have come across info on the

Rollei lenses and their production, especially the old coatings

debate. I can't compare the new to old lenses, nor do I shoot a

Hasselblad, but I have to expect that at this level of equipment,

most of it has to be pretty dam good with few exceptions on

either side. I don't belive you have anything to worry about when

buying Rollei outside of what focal length you need. Now, if you

want to talk bodies and who has been the technology leader

there, you know that Rollei has pioneered many things in the 6x6

field including AF. Personally the more I shoot the Rollei, the

more I like it.

[OCULUS New York]

Hello Josh,

As a new MF (and Forum) user, I may have some insight for you. First, I have the new 6003 Pro which came with the Rollei 80 lens. I find both great. In fact, I think the Rolei 80 is better than a stellar lens that I also bought (because I got a great deal on it)--the Schneider 75-150 f4.5 Variogon. I thought this lens would be a great all-rounder, as you have with your current set up, but here's the rub. First, I don't think it's as sharp as some other lenses, including the 80. Second, you must refocus at full 150 tele each time, then rezoom down to whatever frame you desire. Third, it is huge and heavy, to the point that I have renamed it VeryOhMyGod! After you've lugged that beast around all afternoon at a hot outdoors event, hooking a monopod to the lens for balance, you'll know what I mean. Finally, it is no longer catalogued, so I can only assume that it sank under its own weight and cost, (and perhaps could not be cost-justified to upgrade to PQS speed, but that's just a guess.)

 

So, my newbie advice to you is get a package 80 for starters; you won't be disappointed. Also, you may want to consider the 6003 if you don't do studio work and don't need the additional programming attachment capability. Otherwise, I believe they are now the same camera, except for the Zeiss 80. But, I have also noticed the 6008i prices have come down dramatically, so you may just want to go that route and be ready for all eventualities.

 

FWIW, my favorite of the few lenses that I have is the Schneider 180 2.8. Wonderfully fast, and to my eye, about "right" in terms of view of singular objects. In other words, I don't find it that "tele"--rather, able to pleasingly segregate my subjects from surrounding clutter, and be capable in not-so-hot lighting conditions. Similarly, though, I'd be interested to hear how the 180 E version from Rollei measures up against this more expensive model.

 

Best wishes, have fun,

Ray Hull

[joshua_i._divack]

Thanks everyone for the good responses, esp. Peter for your comments about the "slightly wider look" of 4x5 which I will have to investigate (and also for your very helpful review webpage) and to Ray, who I suspect shares my sentiment from 35mm that primes suffer when compared to variable focal length lenses only with respect to convenience (although some will argue this point as well).

 

My years of toil with 4x5 have accustomed me to fine German glass, although I have no basis even to question those who maintain that Mamiya and Pentax glass is as good or better as Zeiss/Schneider; I just can't get that excited about the Mamiya and Pentax bodies from having handled them, and I have since 1993 had a fascination with the 6003/8.

 

As to bodies and lenses, pure economics may dictate the purchase of a body/80mm lens combo, especially if I choose the new AF body over the 6008i, the price of which has fallen even below the 6003 for a kit package in NYC. The attraction of the -significantly- more expensive 6008AF body, which I handled at Photo East, is (a) primarily to future-proof the investment against a future need for AF (I'm 38 now but hey, you never know), (b) I would prefer not to have to make a major investment in MF more than once, and at this level of investment I might as well buy the current state of the art if I can swing it, e.g. if I ever decide that I am interested in flash photography, the AF body would have the latest TTL/fill flash technology.

[vatovec]

I`m an amateur photographer for six years and have purchased a Mamiya RB 67 proS this year. I thought that quality of lens question were significant only in 35mm (btw i have a EOS sistem with 3 prime lensen, never been satisfied with zooms - even the "L" ones), and tthen i discovered photo.net, where every pixel or l/mm counts! So i come across this thread c`mon guys you are ridicolous! You even argue qality within the same manufacturer (that btw is ZEISS)!!!

My teacher/guru once said to me: if You are unsatisfied with the quality of lenses jump up to a larger film size!

As for the focal lenght the 210 mm is 1,3125x normal lens for the format (160mm) so the 6x6 equivalent would be 110mm - the normal lens for 6x6 is 85mm. As for the format effect - if the enlargment is made to the same final size the same visual effect should be given.

 

Bye You lucky guy - i have only Mamiya glass :-)

[fwstutterheim]

Joshua, The Asian component Mr Fleischer is refering to, might be the built in shutter. Several years ago Rollei ditched (Zeiss Stiftung made) Synchro-Compur shutters for Seiko or Copal ones. Ferdi.

[yongfei]

I can clearly see the difference between sivler C and T* under high key (white) studio back lighting. Anybody wants a C from me?

 

>Would Mr. Felischer be willing to stake his reputation on a a/b >comparison between equivalent pictures taken with silver "C" single >coated lenses and the most current versions of the same thing? >Not "into the sun" shots; just normal photos with proper lens >shades?

[jim_chow]

I thought Kornelius was referring to the low-cost EF lenses (or

whatever they're called), the ones that don't use all-metal

components. I know that back in '98 when I bought my second

6008i, Rollei was changing the 80/2.8 planar so the bayonet was

black aluminum. I prefer the chromed brass bayonets and got

one of those.

 

Anyways, if it helps, I have the 40/3.5, 80/2.8, 90/4, 180/2.8, 300/

4, and 1.4x schneider/zeiss lenses, and have used the 55/4.5 tilt-

shift, 110/2 planar, 150/4 tele-xenar, and 60/3.5 curtagon. I also

have a 4x5 (Toyo VX125) w/ 90XL, 150XL, 210 apo symmar, and

300mm lenses. I'd say the closest lens to the 210mm apo

symmar is the 90/4 schneider apo-makro symmar for the Rollei,

both in sharpness and focal length. Of my LF lenses, the 210/5.6

apo symmar is the sharpest (followed closely by the 150 super

symmar aspherical). I, too, like the 210mm focal length over 150,

but when in doubt, I use the 150 since I can crop. With MF,

there's not as much area to crop! (I've been spoiled w/ 4x5 :-) ).

For stuff like weddings, I like the 80/2.8, since it's noticeably

wider than the 90, which is useful for tight spaces. But for

landscape/nature photography, it seems like whenever I have

the 80/2.8, I wish I had the 90 instead. Sometimes, it's lack of

DOF (90/4 stops down one more stop than the 80), sometimes,

its lack of macro, etc. The 90/4 is sharper than the 80/2.8 at all

distances and all apertures. I use the 80/2.8 for star trail shots,

partly because it's 1 stop faster, partly because I don't mind

leaving the less expensive 80 exposed to the elements for

prolonged periods instead of my precious 90.

[joshua_i._divack]

Jim:

 

Thanks for the detailed answer. Is the 90/4 so superior to the 80/2.8 that I should forego the advantageous kit pricing and just buy the body and the 90/4?

[wm._mitchell]

I agree with the other contributors that the 90macro is the superior lens. Just remember that while somewhat lighter in weight, it is a bulky lens. Another option would be 2 lenses: 60 & 150 Schneider or Zeiss + an ET.[note: the 60 Schneider is only available in the used market; perhaps also the 150 Schneider].

Happy shooting!

BILL