peter brown - www.peterbro

August 14, 2007

Hi Chad,

I considered both these lenses when making my purchase and I finally went with the

400/5.6 prime.

I don't particularly like zooms anyway (I only own one - the 16-35/2.8 II) so my choice

was made easier because of my love of fast prime lenses.

Admittedly, the 400/5.6 can not be considered a fast lens as far as aperture is concerned

but it is lightening fast at focussing and incredibly quiet - in fact, I can't hear the USM

doing it's job. It is also extremely sharp optically. I own the 85/1.2, 135/2 and 200/2.8,

three of Canon's sharpest lenses, and the 400/5.6 is right up there with them - very

sharp, with great contrast and colour fidelity.

For bird/wildlife photography this is an absolutely fantastic lens and because of it's fast,

accurate focusing it is one of the best flight lenses I have ever used.

Even at f5.6 this lens produces very sharp images across the field with virtually no

vignetting - this is important when shooting birds in flight against a blue sky and it

produces a smooth, evenly exposed sky.

Once stopped down past f5.6 there is a slight improvement but only just noticeable

in real world photography work - perhaps people who photograph brick walls and paper

test charts would see a more marked improvement.

The f5.6 aperture and lack of IS has not been a problem for me - I use a full frame digital

so even when shooting at high ISO (400/800) I can consistently achieve smooth,

noiseless images when I need the extra sensitivity. On a bright, sunny day (we get lots of

them where I live) ISO 100/200 still gives high enough shutter speeds at f5.6/8.

I had the 300/4 IS previously and although this is also a very good lens, I

prefer the 400/5.6 - I found that I didn't use the IS that much (I use a tripod or monopod

regularly), although it worked well when I did but the focusing was a little slower when the

IS was used. Also, as you are probably aware, IS will not help stop blur in moving subjects

if using slow shutter speeds - it is only useful for countering camera shake

Close focus is a bit on the short side with the 400mm at 3.5m but can be improved with a

tele-extender or an extension tube.

For this focal length, the 400/5.6 is small and light, which makes it easy to use both

handheld and on a tripod.

The built-in lens hood is an excellent feature, as is the rotating tripod mount.

I principally use this lens for wildlife/birding photography but also for model/fashion

photography and landscape work.

This lens performs without any problems and I would thoroughly recommend it to

anyone wanting a high quality telephoto at a reasonable price (mine cost US$1090 new),

with fast, accurate focusing, excellent

optics, light weight and which is capable of producing sharp, well exposed images with

lovely bokeh.

Good luck with your choice.

I have uploaded a flight shot taken last week, at 800 ISO, late in the afternoon.

Although they won't show the excellent sharpness & quality of the original, you can get an

idea of how easy flight shots can be with this lens.

Kind regards,

Peter

Peter Brown - Photographer

www.peterbrownphotographer.com

memento mori

January 14, 2004

Hi again Barry,

Yes, you are right, B&H and 17th st won't send EMS so there is not much alternative.

17th st do have some excellent prices though, and this can offset the extra cost of

UPS and the GST costs.

A friend of mine bought a new Canon 300D, 17-40L and 70-200L f4 zooms, 50mm

1.8 and 1.4x converter through 17th st in early December and the all up cost,

including warranty, insurance, UPS delivery and GST was just over A$3,800. Not a bad

deal, considering that the camera alone would cost around A$1900 here in

Australia.

Only thing is, UPS are crap to deal with. He had problems tracking the items and after

telling him that they wouldn't deliver to a PO Box and him driving to the depot on two

occasions to collect the parcel, it eventually ended up in the PO Box two days earlier

than the date they said delivery would take place. Customer service were rude as well

and he sent a written complaint. I've had similar problems myself with UPS.

EMS is far better if the store or seller will send this way and many will but sometimes

only UPS or FedEx are offered. As far as insurance is concerned, I think for items in

excess of US$500, insurance is a good idea but it really depends on how it's being

shipped and from whom. The Post Office, contrary to popular belief, is actually very

safe and so far I have never had any problems shipping through EMS or

registered mail. Items travel by secure means and are checked at each transfer

point.

Greed! That's why we've been ripped off for so many years. There can't be any other

reason - can there? As soon as something is marked as being "photographic"

suddenly the price goes up - maybe they know that we photographers are very rich.

Some people (photographic dealers) will try and tell you it's more expensive to buy

here because you get the support and knowledge of professional staff - yeah right!

Have you ever tried to get something fixed under warranty here (it usually gets sent

overseas anyway) or asked a "professional sales person" a question and got an

intelligent answer? I haven't.

I, for one, will continue to buy from overseas dealers until the Australian dealers get

their act together and either offer better service or lower prices.

I hope the above info helps Barry and good luck with your purchases.

Kind regards

Peter Brown - www.peter-brown-photographer.com

January 14, 2004

Hi Barry,

I've been buying my photographic equipment (among other things) from overseas

outlets for years - who wants to pay the inflated prices Australian photographic

distributors charge? It's a simple procedure and 70-80% of the time the items come

through customs without any GST charged. Remember though, that the customs guys

are not stupid and they are aware of all the tricks with marking things as gifts or at

lower values, etc. They also have a pretty good idea of the value of photo gear.

If you do get asked about the value of the goods, be honest, show what you actually

paid (invoice/receipt/credit card statement, etc) and pay the 10% GST.

On the few occasions that I have had to pay the 10% GST it has only delayed delivery a

few days and the item was still far cheaper than buying here.

Items which are valued over A$1,000 need a formal clearance, which involves some

paper work but you can do this yourself.

There is an administration cost for this of around A$40 and the GST is calculated on

the cost of the item (you will have to show proof of purchase), plus the shipping and

insurance costs, so be prepared for the extra amounts over and above the item cost.

With the Aussie at around 78 cents to the green back, there is even more incentive to

buy

overseas.

I just bought a new G4 powerbook last week at less than half the price of retail here

so it's got to be good. I have had good dealings with Robert White, 17th st photo and

also two Hong Kong dealers, as well as through eBay. I always try and get the items

sent via

the international postal express mail service courier (EMS), as this is very reliable,

cheaper than UPS or FedEx and most of the time the items get through without duty.

There is also tracking and insurance facilities available.

UPS and FedEx always declare the item to customs and you WILL be charged GST!

Most photographic items are free of duty and only GST is charged but check the Aust

Customs web site for the latest info.<br

Good luck with your purchases - do your homework on prices and I'm sure you'll be

very pleased with the amount saved, especially with some of the higher priced gear

where savings are considerable.

Kind regards

Peter Brown - Cairns

August 16, 2003

<blockquote>Hi Lars,

The great photographer Alfred Stieglitz one commented:

"If you place the imperfect next to the perfect,

people will see the difference between the one and the other.

But if you offer the imperfect alone, people are only too apt to be satisfied by

it."

He was probably talking of prints but perhaps this holds true for 'L' series

lenses as well ;-)

Kind regards,

Peter Brown

<a

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

-photographer.com</a>

</blockquote>

July 27, 2003

Hi Tim,

I can clearly see the banding you refer to in both images when viewed on my

monitor at 1280x1024/85hz and higher.

To test my own cameras (10D & 1Ds) and see if the problem exists, I have

tried some test shots at various ISO settings and exposures and cannot see

any banding whatsoever, even in underexposed images.

What ISO setting did you have set, what lens were you using (is this

noticable on other lenses?) and how much is the image enlarged? These

things may have some bearing on the end result although from my own

testing (being unable to reproduce your problem) I think you may have a

problem with the CMOS chip or some other data capture malfunction. Perhaps

a Canon tech could advise you best.

Kind regards,

Peter Brown

<a

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

-photographer.com</a>

</blockquote>

February 16, 2003

<blockquote>Hi Paul,

I agree with Keith and you should consider carefully what will suit your

working style best.

For myself, I have gone in the opposite direction to what you are considering

and dropped using the Ebony 45s with the Sinar zoom back (6x4,5 to 6x12) in

favour of reinvesting in the Rollei 6008i system. Although the Ebony Sinar

back combo produced first class results, I found the Rollei 6008i suits my

working methods better and the Rollei produces results which satisfy myself

and my clients.

I also love the SWC for landscape work because it is a joy to use and

produces fine results.

Just don't opt for using LF gear because you think you will achieve better

images. Before buying into an LF system there are many things which you

should consider carefully even if you intend only using a 6x12 roll film

back.

Consider your working speed. Consider the lens selection you like to use.

Consider whether or not you want SLR viewing or are happy with GG focusing

and composing. Consider weight/bulk of camera, backs and lenses. Consider

tripod weight. These are all questions you should be asking yourself.

If you like the Rollei's electronic & automation features such as motor drive,

auto bracketing, multi or spot metering, etc, then using an LF will be very

disappointing from that point of view.

Of course there is no harm in trying a new system altogether but do think

about what you are going to be doing with the end results, you'll save

yourself much frustration, time and money. If you really like the 6x12 format,

then perhaps a dedicated 6x12 camera such as the Horseman or Linhof

would be a good choice for you.

Good luck in your decision making process

Kind regards,

Peter Brown

<a

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

-photographer.com</a>

</blockquote>

February 7, 2003

<blockquote>Hi Robert,

I have a 1969 model SWC which performs like it did when new. You'd be hard

placed to notice any difference in quality between this model and the newer

versions - they all produce exceptional image quality.

I like the ergonomics of my camera but the newer cameras have had some

improvements which you may like. I like the bubble level on the body of my

version and the metal viewfinder is very solid and works well.

If you have found a good example of an SWC T* at a good price, then I think

you won't regret buying it.

I have a review on my website of my SWC which you may find interesting.

This is the link: <a

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

elblad%20swc%20review.html">SWC review</a>.

Kind regards,

Peter Brown

<a

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

-photographer.com</a>

</blockquote>

January 24, 2003

<blockquote>Hi David,

I have a review on my website of the SWC which you may find interesting.

This is the link: <a

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

lad%20swc%20review.html">SWC review</a>.

Kind regards,

Peter Brown

<a

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

-photographer.com</a>

</blockquote>

January 15, 2003

<blockquote>Hi Juan,

One thing you might consider, especially for closeup work or for more

accurate framing and focusing (no parallax problems - WYSIWYG), is the

groundglass adapter used on it's own with a focusing loupe, or in conjunction

with the RMfx reflex viewfinder (which was designed for the SWC and the

Flexbody) which gives a vertical, un-reversed 3.3x magnified image. I think

these are worthwhile accessories to have and very useful when precise

framing and focusing is required.

The RMfx finder and GG are easily installed and removed in place of the film

back and one thing I really like on the RMfx finder is the ability to have a

correction lens custom made by an optician and then to be able to easily

install it with the supplied diopter correction mounting kit - this is particularly

useful to people like myself who have to have astigmatic correction as well as

correction for short-sightedness and this thoughtful accessory negates the

need for using prescription glasses, making composing and focusing much

easier.

Kind regards,

Peter Brown

<a

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

-photographer.com</a>

</blockquote>

January 8, 2003

<blockquote>Hi Curtis,

I too find the square format very satisfying and tend to use this composition

for most of my imaging. It is not for everyone (some people really hate the

square format) but for those of us who enjoy the challenge to compose within

the 6x6 format, it can produce pleasing images of a variety of subjects.

For portraiture it produces strong images and is ideal for this subject but it

can be equally as good with many other subjects. I have used it successfully

for portraits, nudes, product shots, landscapes, editorial images and so on, I

recently used the 6x6 for some closeup "flower portraits", which have proven

to be popular with my customers, so it works there too.

If you have liked images you have seen, cropped or shot in the square

format, then give it a try, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

Kind regards,

Peter Brown

<a

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

-photographer.com</a>

</blockquote>

January 7, 2003

<blockquote>Hi Geoff,

The SWC has a 67mm screw thread and the Lee filter adapter and lens hood

fits perfectly, as do the Hoya filters but the Heliopan seem to jam after a

couple of turns. It's a bit of a matter of trial and error with the different

brands.

I believe that Kodak series 8 filters will also work well, although I haven't

tried these myself.

The best hood/filter combo I have tried is the Lee hood with single filter slot.

Kind regards,

Peter Brown

<a

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

-photographer.com</a>

</blockquote>

January 1, 2003

<blockquote>Wolfgang,

I live in the tropical north of Australia and have been shooting tropical

beaches, islands, underwater, etc, for professional and personal work for

quite a few years.

I agree in part with Steve and for shots when the trades are blowing, Velvia

will be too slow. Provia 100F is excellent for these times and for shots from

boats or aircraft.

Velvia is wonderful for closeup/detail images and for late & early morning

shots. One suggestion, I would advise that you either don't use a polarizer

with Velvia (especially with wide angle) or if you do be very careful how you

use it. Over polarization in these situations results in almost black skies and

very dark water. Of course for inland tropical rainforest, Velvia & a polarizer

will produce stunning greens.

I hope you have a very enjoyable trip.

Kind regards,

Peter Brown - Cairns/Australia

<a

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

-photographer.com</a>

</blockquote>

December 21, 2002

. . . what is past my help is past my care.

December 20, 2002

<blockquote>Hi Wim,

A nice review and it's interesting to read your comparisons with the Bronica -

something you don't often see Rollei compared with.

I found the text easily readable (although I usually don't like white/gray text

on black) and for someone who's first language is not english it is very well

written and understood.

I hope you get as much pleasure from the Rollei system as you have from the

Bronica and don't forget to try out one of those lovely Distagon 60mm lenses

some time :-)

Have a great time using it over the Christmas holiday season and good light

for your landscapes.

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year,

Kind regards,

Peter Brown

<a

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

-photographer.com</a>

</blockquote>

December 4, 2002

<blockquote>Hi John,

Henrik has outlined some good points and I agree with him wholeheartedly.

If you are going to be using the camera mainly for studio work then you'll be

hard placed to find a better camera system. It is an excellent camera for

portrait/fashion/reportage work.

I have a review on my web site, which may be of interest, about the 6008i

and the 60mm and 300mm lenses (look under: about - equipment) as well as

many portrait/fashion images taken with the Rollei system:

www.peter-brown-photographer.com

This is my camera of choice for most of my work and it is an excellent system.

Although I don't as yet own the AF model I have been reliably informed that it

works extremely well with non-AF lenses by giving very accurate focus point

confirmation. This is a great help if you are using large aperture/shallow DoF

techniques with portraits/fashion and would be a good enough reason for me

to buy the AF model. With the AF lenses that are already available and with

the addition of some great AF lenses to come, for me, there is no other

choice.

If you think trying to get rental Rollei equipment in the USA is difficult, try

Australia - it's almost impossible! This doesn't stop me (and many other

professionals from using the system) but if lack of rental equipment availabilty

is a concern to you, then I think you may be better with the Hasselblad or

another system.

I'd be happy to answer any specific questions you may have.

Kind regards,

Peter Brown - Cairns Australia

<a

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

-photographer.com</a>

</blockquote>

December 3, 2002

Dear Allan & Jean-Marie,

Although I agree with you both that having a bubble level on the camera

body is a good idea, I don't believe that the camera not having one is big

issue - annoying certainly, but not a major problem. Thousands of

photographers have been able to get their horizons straight (certainly good

enough for landscapes) using the P67II and the previous models and I am

one of them. Without a level on the camera, using a ball-head would

certainly make levelling the camera difficult and perhaps a 3-way head with

levels would be a better solution.

"The only way that a spirit level can really be of any use, is if its on the

camera itself . . ." I find this a misleading statement and perhaps

clarifying the statement by adding "with a ball head" would

make it clearer; eg "The only way that a spirit level can really be of any

use with a ball head, is if its on the camera itself . . . etc ". My 3-way

head aligns perfectly with the base plate of the camera and the bubble levels

are very accurate allowing easy adjustment at the horizontal and the vertical.

If they didn't correspond I would have them checked and adjusted. It is a

simple task to adjust a bubble level on a 3-way head.

"You cannot accurately judge how level an image is by eye alone: even

with a gridded focusing screen. If you think that you can, I'd ask you to have

another look at your old transparencies and just check how level the horizons

really are. And yet it is one area that many people seem to ignore or at best

make a guesstimate of what is and isn't level."

You may not be able to do this Allan but please don't assume others

cannot, especially with a grid screen. My horizons are just fine thanks, even

on my old transparencies and of the thousands of images I have shot over

the years, perhaps half a dozen or so have had horizons with which I was

not happy (due to poor or rushed technique) - these were easily corrected

when printing. What are we talking about here anyway - photographing brick

walls, architectural subjects or landscape photography? If a photographer

cannot judge a straight horizon for landscape photography using a tripod and

grid screen, then it's time to brush up on technique.

I'm sure that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, but for

me it is not a worry, I just adapt my technique to suit the

subject/camera/tripod/head combination that I am working with at the time.

It's been nice discussing this with you and you have an interesting point of

view.

Kind regards

Peter Brown - Cairns Australia

www.peter-brown-photographer.com

</blockquote>

December 2, 2002

<blockquote>Hi Allan,

I don't find the lack of a spirit level a problem. I use a tripod which has spirit

levels built-in and so the problem of keeping horizons straight would only be

an issue for me when using the camera handheld with say the 45 or 55 mm

lenses (and this is unlikely for serious landscape work), otherwise it's not a

problem. I do agree that it would be nice to see more cameras with spirit

levels built-in but why not place a couple of stick-on levels onto your tripod?

Yes, the meter needs to be used wisely and as I mentioned in my review, I

believe the spot meter provides better control than the multi-segment

metering. All lightmeters can be tricked, as you know and I also use a

handheld meter to compare readings in difficult situations. Overall I found the

meter to be accurate as long as you use the right metering mode for the right

situation.

That's a good point about the ease with which the screens can be changed

and having that feature is an improvement.

Kind regards,

Peter Brown

<a

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

-photographer.com</a>

</blockquote>

December 2, 2002

<blockquote>Hi all,

I have just added a review to my web site about the Pentax 67II camera

with AE finder for Pentax owners or anyone interested.

This is the link: <a

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

x%2067II%20camera%20review%20.html">Camera Review</a>.

Kind regards,

Peter Brown

<a

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

-photographer.com</a>

</blockquote>

December 2, 2002

<blockquote>Hi all,

I have just added a review of the Pentax 67II camera with AE finder for

Pentax owners or anyone interested.

This is the link: <a

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

x%2067II%20camera%20review%20.html">Camera Review</a>.

Kind regards,

Peter Brown

<a

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

-photographer.com</a>

</blockquote>

November 28, 2002

<blockquote>Hi James,

The above posters have given some excellent advice and as a professional,

people photographer for more years than I care to remember, here is mine.

I have only ever encountered a similar problem once and this was resolved by

my refunding the model her fee.

Your suggestion to your client, to show you some photos of images that she

likes, can give you a much better idea of what she wants and this is also a

solution I often use with people who may be unsure of the final images they

want. Shooting polaroids as you go is also a good tool for getting feedback

from your model during a shoot and this can tell you if you're both working

towards the same end result.

Marc's suggestion to have a photographic makeup artist involved is

good advice. Just using street makeup is not usually enough and

photographic makeup artists should also know about lighting and how the

results will translate to film. Having a hair and/or clothing stylist is also

worthwhile if the budget will allow it. These people can give valuable advice

and a good makeup artist can perform miracles.

Another old trick of portrait photographers has been to show the model the

images reversed. The rationale behind this is that this is how a person sees

themselves in a mirror and therefore are more familar with this image of

themselves. Maybe worth a try with a difficult client.

If after your reshoot and having tried all the advice from the above posters

the client is still not happy with the results, then perhaps she would be better

off visiting a psychiatrist rather than a photographer. ;-)

Kind regards,

Peter Brown

<a

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

-photographer.com</a>

</blockquote>

November 20, 2002

<blockquote><h4>David,</h4>

Not quite correct - better to quote the entire sentence so that it's not taken

out of context or has another implied meaning.

The reviewer actually said " I find the lens performs well at all,

apertures (including wide open) but, of course works

best (like most lenses) in the f8-f11 sweet zone."

Yes, this should be familar to any photographer - what's your point?

Kind regards,

<h4> Peter Brown - "the reviewer"</h4>

November 19, 2002

<blockquote><h4>Hi David,</h4>

Are you comparing Rollei's Carl Zeiss Distagon 60mm f3.5 HFT PQ lens with

electronic linear drive shutter to Mamiya's 55/2.8 N/L lens with the Seiko #0

mechanical shutter or the 55/2.8 which does not have an internal leaf

shutter?

Your comments regarding the Mamiya being half the weight of the Zeiss lead

me to believe you must be referring to the Mamiya lens which does not have

the internal leaf shutter, because as you will be aware the 55/2.8 N/L lens is

considerably heavier, in fact almost twice that of the 55/2.8.

I'm sure these factors will have some bearing on price comparisons and really

isn't it better to compare apples with apples? I'm also pleased you were

able to get your new 55mm lens for US$250 which is a quarter of the price I

paid for my US$1,000 CZ 60mm. I consider this price to be good value for the

Distagon 60mm considering the lens has an internal shutter, is compatable

with all the Rollei 6000 series cameras and is a high quality lens which

provides me with fantastic results. Lets face it, quality is remembered, long

after the price is forgotten.

As far as mtf curves go, I believe that they have some value for technicians,

engineers or lens designers but are really not much use to working

photographers, apart from giving a bit of an indication on how the lens may

perform under ideal conditions. When working in the field there are far too

many variables for mtf curves to be significant.

I'm unable to give you my opinion on the comparison you ask about as I have

never tried the Mamiya 55mm lenses and therefore I can only comment on

the excellent results I obtain with the Distagon 60mm, which is more than

sharp enough for any application I need. I believe that the 250 lp/mm that

the Distagon 60mm resolves is one of the highest tested and is only equalled

by the Superachromat 250/5.6. The well-respected Zeiss Biogon 38mm only

tested to around 200 lp/mm, so in terms of resolving power the 60mm seems

to me to be well in excess of that needed to record a very sharp image on

either Provia or Velvia.

I cannot agree with you that 2/3 of a stop faster with apertures in the 2.8 -

3.5 range would make for significantly more accurate focusing, at these

apertures and with the High Definition screen in the 6008i I cannot imagine

any advantage.

I'm sure you will get plenty of debate about which of these two lenses is the

best and I'm equally as sure that you will continue to use your Mamiya 55/2.8

lens to make great photos - I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help in justifying

your decision to buy into the Mamiya system but I'm sure you've made the

right decision.

Thanks for your comments which are much appreciated and I'll leave you with

a comment from the great photographer, Alfred Stieglitz;

<h4> "If you place the imperfect next to the perfect,

people will see the difference between the one and the other.

But if you offer the imperfect alone,

people are only too apt to be satisfied by it."</h4>

Kind regards

Peter Brown/Cairns Australia

November 19, 2002

<blockquote>Hi Joshua,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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>.

Kind regards

Peter Brown/Cairns Australia

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

November 18, 2002

<h4>Hi Scott,</h4>

<blockquote>Thanks for your comments. I agree that the cost of getting a

custom plate is probably not that much, but when you buy an expensive lens,

although I only paid US$1990 for my new 300mm, you really don't expect to

have this problem, even if it is minor. It is a hassle though to have to design

your own plate when a company with Schneider/Rollei's reputation should

have thought things out a bit better and done a proper job.

The P67II review should be ready to post by the end of this month. It is a

great camera too, but quite different in use to the Rollei. Check back to my

site in December and I hope I can help with some of my comments.

The only SLR camera that currently seems to me to come close to what you

are after, is the Fuji GX680 III. I have looked carefully at this camera and

apart from the slight drawbacks of weight and bulk (although it's not a worry

for me) this camera offers formats from 6x4.5 through to 6x8cm along with

the benefits of tilt and shift capabilities. I will be buyng into the Fuji GX680

system next year and will post my review of the camera then.

For some examples of excellent use of the square format for landscape

try here: <a href="http://www.f45.com">website</a>.

and here: <a href="http://www.michaelkenna.net">web site</a>.

The beautiful work of these two talented photographers may change your

way of looking at the square format for landscape. ;-)

<h4>Hi Felipe,</h4>

<blockquote>Thanks for your comments also.

I agree that the best way of using the 300mm is on a tripod (which I state in

my review) and I'm not sure why you find the focusing slow, even when

handholding the lens it snaps into focus quickly and easily for me and unless I

happen to be focusing over a broad focusing range (not very often) then it is

just as fast for me as most of my other lenses. I did qualify my statement;

"Focusing the 300mm is smooth and quick for such a large lens" - as you see

I did say "for such a large lens". I don't find it as fast as perhaps the 60mm

but for a telephoto it is fine. I suppose it comes down to different focusing

techniques and what you are used too. I appreciate your point of view -

thankyou.

<blockquote>Thanks for your comments also. You make a valid point and for

projection it is certainly easier and cheaper to find a projector for 6x6 than

6x7. It's much the same for presentation mounts as well - at least here in

Australia anyway.

Thanks everyone, for all the above comments - much appreciated.

Kind regards

<h4>Peter Brown - Cairns /Australia</h4>

</blockquote>

November 18, 2002

<blockquote>Hi all,

Thanks for all your comments above, I'm glad that the review was of interest

and I'm not alone in my enjoyment of the 6008i.

I have just added a review to my web site of the Carl Zeiss Distagon

60mm f3.5 HFT PQ Lens

for Rollei (or Hassleblad) owners and also a review of the Schneider

APO-Tele-Xenar 300mm f4 HFT PQ Lens

for Rollei owners or anyone interested.

Here are the links: <a

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

%20PQ%20300mm%20review.html"> Tele-Xenar 300mm review</a>.

and: <a

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

gon%20PQ%2060mm%20review.html">Distagon 60mm review</a>.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by peter brown - www.peterbro