geoffrey goldberg

<p>To answer the question about "which lens will perform better at f11", I'd suggest (at the risk of upsetting someone...) that its really irrelevant. At the quality level of these cameras, any is fine enough. The real issue is the overall workflow and the issues that come up along the way. For example, mirror-induced vibration, out of focus, film that might not be flat, wobbly tripods are far more important than the fine grained discussion of one lens here or another. <br>

Put another way, its the whole sequence that matters, not just one bit or another. Real world experience with MF is a lot different than DSLR. Its not so forgiving and it yields a better result, when you get it right. However, there will be many more misses than one might otherwise expect. </p>

<p>Ray - thanks for this. What does astigmatic mean for a lens like this? </p>

<p>FWIW, a few of us have this lens and it is a remarkable performer. Razor sharp. </p>

<p>Pascal has kindly already uploaded these, both volumes in English and German. See:<br>

<a href="http://www.rolleiflexpages.com/testsandinformation.html">Test reports and other information</a> </p>

<p>One of the beauties of the Hy6 is its ability to use the older lenses, even the manual ones with focus confirmation. While there is some rumor to the effect that the AFD's are too a tighter tolerance (and may well be true) the regular lenses are so darn good.... and its nice to have the aperture ring. </p>

<p>Ferdi - <br>

This is very helpful and quite clear now. Thank you! Glad to know.<br>

Yes, the M is in the display and is what you mentioned.<br>

Geoff </p>

<p>Not apple to apples. Different lenses, different formats. THe question is about lens quality, but they will never be seen against each other. Both are fine lenses, but I really like the Schneiders on the Rollei, and have a bunch of them. The Leica R lenses are fine too, but haven't done a head to head on them. R lenses on the DMR were nice - it would be have been good for Leica to find a current home for all of those good lenses out there.... </p>

<p>Ferdi - <br>

Great information, thank you. I looked at your chart about 6003 Pro, and it seems that its a level 3 electronics, although my 6003Pro sn starts with 102... and has the removable internal film gate. What else to check for to see about its electronics? Has LED for meter setting, and an "M" for something... as well as an ISO adjustment (+1/-1 for example), and an ISO setting on the 6003 right side of the back. Is this inbetween?<br>

Geoff</p>

<p>Stuart's response is very informative. The overall "image chain" is a real and important way to assess this from an overall perspective. It was for this reason that years ago, MF became the way to go - its the largest, most handleable negative.<br>

That said, a Deardorff 4x5 couldn't be resisted, as recently as this past week. Under the skin or in your blood? Both, perhaps. </p>

<p>Tak - that is worthy of a good chuckle. I feel better already. Thought it was just me. I've had such good luck with the lenses that it never seemed to be an issue, but as the stable expands, each item gets less use.</p>

<p>Tak - <br>

Wonderful listing. You are making sense out of confusion. I suppose someone at DHW knew/knows all this, but it is really great to have this out in the open. Maybe this can help eplain my moody bellows where the 150 mm lens sometimes just cycles through its f stop preview as I move the bellows. Maybe wonky wiring connectors. </p>

<p>Graham - <br>

I had a bit of trouble with the same, but traced some of it down to dirty contacts. Might that be part of the problem? But I haven't gone through and done the full analysis you have, so maybe I have some older ones too.</p>

<p>I've used the magnifier on an older TLR, GX and 6003, and while I can push on it, left to its own devices they all stay in place. My guess is that the springs in yours might be a bit tired, and could probably be replaced or improved (Harry Fleenor?). Else, maybe you and the magnifier just are not working out together. Not been an issue for me tho, if that helps. </p>

<p>Hi Graham - <br>

Are you sure the AF adjustment is only for the AF lenses? There seems to be some who have had luck using it for aligning the MF lenses as well. I had some trouble trying to set it up, so I'll bow to others on this one.... </p>

<p>Is the electronic shimming adjustment in the Hy6 only for the AF lenses? I noticed that Eric posted info for some of his manual lenses also. Just wondering if that kind of "built-in shimming" could help </p>

<p>Eric's point on the focus confirmation is possibly key here. It may tell you if the lens is off or the screen is off. Could be one or the other. Is the focus always in front, regardless of the lens? <br>

I seem to recall someone (Phase? Sinar? Hassy?) having little alum strips that you could use to adjust the back or possibly the screen. They came in different thicknesses...some just whispy thin. They were made for this very reason, for adjustment. </p>

<p>If you can, check out the Schneider 300 f4 APO. Its an amazing lens, has become a favorite - and I'm not so fond of tele lenses. This one has changed me around. </p>

<p>Agreed. It takes a few readings, as unlike many brochures, this one is chock full of content. </p>

<p>tried the link but it didn't work. Are you looking at the 645 back? It rotates by "pulling out" and then remounting. The Hy6 mount is just an adapter for the back, which (I believe) keeps its original functionality. </p>

<p>Steven - <br>

You are right about the grip being an issue. With the WLF it can be fit reasonably well into the bottom of the Kata bag - but with the 45º finder, no choice but to go up top. THe issue is as you say about the grip "catching" on the padding. If there are a bunch of lenses stored up top, its a bit more awkward (and thus more deliberate) to get it in/out of the bottom (with WLF). If only 1 or 2 lenses up top, then it goes OK. But thats with the 80. Its a bit tight with the 60 and a Leaf back. Bigger lenses than that won't fit on the camera on the bottom, and so would require a bigger bag. </p>

<p>I'm using a Kata DR 467i, which works nicely. The camera with WLF goes down below, and wrapped lenses up above. With the prism finder, I reverse this, and put a big lens below, the camera loose up above, and couple of wrapped lenses with it, maybe a TX or tubes as well. <br>

There is also room for a PC - a Mac 15" fits in easily. <br>

That works well for like a 300, a 60 with an 80 on the camera. Getting that fourth lens (say a 150) is pushing it a bit too far - especially as the weight gets too much. The more serious answer probably means going up another size level, which I have resisted. Another option is traveling with other lenses in luggage, and changing the pack as you need. Note the 80 w/ 1.4TX is about 110, so that is one way to get some flexibility. </p>

<p>Congrats on the upgrade path. You'll be delighted. We are all looking forward to your comments and observations on the differences. <br>

I too got the RRS plate and attached it to the bottom. Works well enough. Enjoy. </p>

<p>Great response Eric. While MTF charts remain a bit mysterious, the 50 AF seems to show more distortion (bottom right). Does the AF show any signs compared to the other 50's? </p>

<p>take a look at Pascal's Rolleiflex site. I don't think PQ lenses can go on a 6006.... but getting a 6003 or 6008 shouldn't be huge hit either. Both are around for $500-800. </p>

<p>FWIW, the later 40 Schneider PQ is sharp to the corners even wide open. Doesn't help this situation, but thought it worth noting. </p>