Planar lens picture quality - depends on camera?

[mikhail_fedorov]

<p>Hi there!<br>

I had a chance to see portraits shot with Rollei SL66 with Planar lens. I really love the picture! The colors are like watercolor, bokeh is just enchanting for me.<br>

Now, I want to buy an SLR for the portraits. Here is my newbie question - the point of the picture quality is <em>only</em> the Planar lens? Or maybe the Rollei camera improves it too? <br>

I'm asking it because I want to know if I can buy Rollei 600x or Hassy 500CM with the Planar lens and get just the same beautiful picture?<br>

Thanks so much!</p>

[tom_harvey3]

<p>It's just the Planar lens.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Be warned: trying to buy something in the hope that having it will ensure you get the results someone else got with the same stuff is a hazardous enterprise, more likely to end in disappointement than in success. There's more than just a lens, or camera, or film, or... that determines how the end result will look.

[mikhail_fedorov]

<p>Tom, thank you!</p>

<p>Q.G. de Bakker, I'm not really an amateur photographer, I've a rather big experience with different cameras, but all technic features don't come easy to me)</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Mikhail,<br><br>I wasn't saying anything about whether you are an accomplished photographer or not. Just saying what i said.<br><br>As you, i have used many lenses. The 80 mm Planar available for both SL66 and Hasselblad is not one that makes itself known in the pictures it produces. It does not stand out as something that leaves a peculiar signature. It's very good, but no special colour rendition, no extraordinary bokeh, or anything like it.<br>So (and that's what i was saying) what you saw is probably due to a number of things, of which the lens is only one. Knowing the thing, probably not a major contributor. So if it were me, i would also look at what else (film, paper, exposure, filtration, processing, etc.) helped make the pictures you like what they are.<br><br>A Planar that does stand out among other lenses, both from Zeiss and other makers, is the f/2 110 mm Planar (when used wide open).

[leicaglow]

<p>Mikhail, A Planar is a design, just as an automobile starts from a design. If it happens to have four wheels and tires, an engine, and a place to sit while you steer the car, that's just part of the design.</p>

<p>Who made it? How was it implemented? These are all issues of the build of the design. Just as the Ferrari might have independent wishbone suspension, while another vehicle has a straight axle, a Planar lens might have tweaks to it, like various coatings, or what type of glass was used in building the Planar design.</p>

<p>So the equipment maker definitely affects the outcome of the images, as does the film, photographer, and post processing. As suggested, especially comparing a Rollei with a Hasselblad, you are going to see more differences resulting from the film and photographer than the lens itself.</p>

[mikhail_fedorov]

<p>Q.G. de Bakker, Michael, thank you!<br>

Being a picture editor in a magazine, I used to see this photographer working with the light, I also bought him the film (only Kodak Portra and Fuji PRO) and sent it to the photo lab. So I could analyse the influence of all these factors. But I saw the difference in the picture that could be created only with the camera.. Maybe he has the f/2 110mm lens, I'm going to ask him! By the way, what's the feature of this lens?</p>

[michaelging]

<p>I had Planars on my Hassys, my Rollieflex, and my Contax, and all were wonderful, sharp contrasty lenses. In fact, I just ran a roll of Film though my 2.8, 80mm Rolliflex today and can't wait to see the negs. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Mikhail,<br><br>The f/2 110 mm Planar is one of the fastest lenses available in medium format. It's also a bit longer than the usual 'standard' lenses.<br>Wide open, depth of field is shallow. And it gets even more shallow when coming closer to the subject, for instance at portraits distance. Depth of field is then almost non-existant (making focusing rather difficult).<br>The in focus parts of the images it produces are sharp, but the out of focus bits are rather soft. Especially the tonal transitions in the out of focus parts are very soft, with tones merging into each other almost unnoticable.<br>Sharp edges/sudden transitions in tone in the subject however can result in double-contour bokeh in the image.<br>Used stopped down to f/4 or slower, the 'magic' disappears, and the 110 mm Planar is 'just another lens'. Not even one of the best ones.<br><br>The f/2 110 mm Planar in the Hasselblad version has no shutter, so it must be used on a camera that has a focal plane shutter in the body (like the Hasselblad 2000- or 200-series models). The version Zeiss made for Rollei later does have a shutter, and can be used on Rollei 600x cameras.<br>As far as i know, it never was available for the SL 66, so if the images you saw were produced using that camera, it will not be a f/2 110 mm Planar that made them. It must have been either the f/2.8 80 mm Planar, or the f/4 120 mm S-Planar/Makro Planar.

[q.g._de_bakker]

A Planar is a 'design idea', a particular solution to the question how to produce a good lens. Though there indeed are variations possible, they are all variations on that particular 'theme' (two Gauss telescope lenses, back to back, i.e. a Double-Gauss). So quite a bit more specific than "an automobile" already.<br>Who made it is easy to answer: if it is called a "Planar", it must have been Zeiss (it's a Zeiss trademark, after all), though possibly manufactured under license by either Kyocera (they manufactured the 35 mm format versions for Contax cameras) or Rollei. If made by Rollei (or Kyocera), Zeiss made sure that their performance is indistuingishable from the ones made by Zeiss themselves.<br>So if it was an f/2.8 80 mm on that SL 66, it happens to be the same design, producing the same image quality, as the f/2.8 80 mm lenses made for Rollei 6000X and Hasselblad cameras.

[JDMvW]

<p>As Q.G. says, it's an idea, but what an idea. It's amazing when you look at the legendary 'normal' to short tele lenses in many different formats how many of them are either double Gauss or some very similar construction.</p>

[mikhail_fedorov]

<p>Q.G., thanks so much! I begin to understand it</p>

[wolf_rainer_schmalfuss]

<p>O.G.,<br>

you've forgot one, I have also Planar glasses for my Contax 645 AF, made my KYOCERA!</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

I mentioned that Kyocera made Zeiss lenses, haven't i? ;-)

[mikhail_fedorov]

<p>Guys, sorry for misleading you but the photographer says that he uses 150\4. looks like Sonnar?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Indeed: Sonnar.<br>The Zeiss f/4 150 mm Sonnar made for the SL 66 is the same as the one made for Hasselblad (and the Rollei 6000-series).

[mikhail_fedorov]

<p>Q.G., thanks!<br>

Is it famous for the pictures it produces? colors/sharpness/bokeh...</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

It, like all Zeiss lenses, is famous, perhaps, for being a high resolution, good contrast lens. Nothing wrong with the colour rendition either.<br><br>Famous for bokeh, i believe (with the possible exception of the f/2 110 mm Planar mentioned earlier), no Zeiss lens is. In fact, some people complain about it being a bit harsh. Often contributed to the 5 blade diaphragm - which would not explain that it's still the same when the lens is used wide open.<br>Bokeh depends for the biggest part on the correction of spherical distortion. Using well corrected lenses, there is no 'dreamy' bokeh to be expected. And being such, Zeiss lenses may not be the things to look for if you like things like the Petzval Swirl, or (less extreme) a fairly soft bokeh.<br><br>Having said that, the f/4 150 mm Sonnar is a popular lens, for general and for portrait photography alike.

[Rob F.]

<p>I think the right answer is "yes and no." "Yes, the camera matters" because a badly made camera, lacking precision, would not realize the full performance of the lens. The lens might not be mounted normal to the film plane; or the focus might be off.</p>

<p>Then again, "No, it doesn't matter" because no one is going to put an expensive Zeiss Planar on a bad camera in the first place. Rollei and Hasselblad are both top quality. So in practice, "no" wins.</p>

[geoff_r1]

<p>How much does the Zeiss Planar vary from one camera to the next? Say, 80mm for 6x6 to keep constant. I have owned both the CB and CFE versions for Hasselblad, and found them to be very different lenses. Both excellent, but produced different results. The CB has one less element. I am currently buying a Rolleiflex 2.8E, and I imagine this planar will be very different again. At least I hope so, don't want two cameras the same! </p>

[Rob F.]

<p>OK then the question might be, not so much how well made or how good the camera body is. It might be about possible variations of the Planar <em>per se </em>as supplied for various camera makes and models. Geoff's comments about a Planar that has a different number of elements reminds me that I read (somewhere) that Zeiss added an extra element to the Planar in some particular Rolleiflex model, expecting it to deliver a flatter field; and subsequently, <em>in </em>the field, in daily use, no one could tell the difference.</p>

<p>Now, where did I read that? On a website devoted to Rollei models, I think. I'll see if I can find it.</p>

[Rob F.]

<p>Here it is. Some parts of this discussion may be helpful:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/003Sho</p>

 

[geoff_r1]

<p>Thanks for the link. It seems there were many differences over time as improvements were made, as well as ammendments necessary to suit different camera bodies. I imagine all will give a different image, and that has been my experience with the C, CB, and CFE 80mm planars I have owned. </p>

 

[q.g._de_bakker]

The Planars and Sonnars that were available for the SL66 (let's not drift away from the topic too far) are the same as the ones of the same focal length available for the Hasselblad.<br><br>The earliest Hasselblad 80 mm Planar is indeed of a different design. But good luck finding one of those... ;-)<br>That design was never available for the SL66, or other Rollei SLR.<br><br>Fleischer/Müller talks about the TLR not needing the newer design. But that design was not introduced to make the lens suitable for SLRs (if so, how on earth would it have been possible to use the old design on SLRs too?) And the Rolleiflex TLRs too got the newer design lens when it became available.<br>Fleischer/Müller also mentions that the 100 mm Planar would be copletely without "retrofocus aspects". That's not correct. Though not necessary to clear the mirror (it was not a design constraint), it (just like any other lens) is not symmetrical, and the constraint-free design of the 100 mm turned out to be even more retrofocus than the 80 mm Planar. (Remember that asymmetry is a tool used to make lenses better than simple symmetric lenses could be.)<br><br>As long as a lens allows a distance from it to the film long enough to accomodate the space the camera needs, the only adaptation needed is the different mount is has to go in.<br><br>So (again) the Planars and Sonnars that were available for the SL66 are the same as the ones of the same focal length available for the Hasselblad.<br>And the latest CFE 80 mm Planar is the same lens as the bulk of the C 80 mm Planars. The CB 80 mm Planar is indeed a different lens.

[Rob F.]

<blockquote>

<p>Though not necessary to clear the mirror (it was not a design constraint), it (just like any other lens) is not symmetrical, and the constraint-free design of the 100 mm turned out to be even more retrofocus than the 80 mm Planar. (Remember that asymmetry is a tool used to make lenses better than simple symmetric lenses could be.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Q.G., where did you get this from? Let's consider the following logical syllogism:</p>

<p>A. It is known that retrofocus lenses produce distortion.<br>

B. It is known that the 100mm Planar is a very low (practically zero) distortion lens.<br>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>

C. Therefore, the 100mm Planar is not a retrofocus lens.</p>

<p>Besides, Kornelius said it wasn't retrofocus.</p>

<p>I'm not saying you're wrong; just asking for a source on this.</p>