hasselblad and Rolleiflex

Because it's the top brnd for lenses and because in ebay era a 500cm
or a Rolleiflex is only a bit more expensive than Mamiya 645 and
RB/RZ, Pentax 645 ecc.

Some people might agree with you, many others would disagree and say that
there isn't any single "top brand for lenses." I'm in the latter category.
In my experience you will see no consistent, recognizable difference in the
quality of images produced by lenses of the same format and design from any
of the major manufacturers. The biggest difference is often in prices.
However, prices of lenses made by the major manufacturers today are mostly a
function things like the number of middlemen involved in getting the lens
from manufacturer to photographer, the profit margins of the various parties
involved, labor and material costs in the country of manufacture, taxes,
import duties, desired profit margins, etc., not the quality of the
photograph the lens is capable of producing. In medium format photography
Pentax, Mamiya, and Zeiss lenses are all capable of producing technically
excellent photographs.

For quite the same price you can have a 80 made by zeiss, and e
reliable body, so why should I look to other brand?

The reason why you might think of other brands is that the six specific
cameras you mention fall within three fairly distinct categories of medium
format cameras. Among these categories the size of the negatives is
different, the aspect ratio of the negatives is different, the features of
the cameras are different, their size and weight are different, and their
primary intended use is different. While the brand of lens is also
different, that's one of the lesser important differences among them. Of far
greater importance is the type of photography you plan to do and how well
the characteristics of these different cameras fit that type of photography.

"whitewave" wrote in message
...
Il Tue, 07 Sep 2004 15:38:32 GMT, "Shelley" ha
scritto:

I'm considering only zeiss (or Schneider on
Rolleiflex),

Why?

Because it's the top brnd for lenses and because in ebay era a 500cm
or a Rolleiflex is only a bit more expensive than Mamiya 645 and
RB/RZ, Pentax 645 ecc.
For quite the same price you can have a 80 made by zeiss, and e
reliable body, so why should I look to other brand?
.....................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it

Bob Monaghan wrote:

[...] The result of his work was TWO lens
designs, one being the 5-element design used in the Rolleiflex TLR from
1955 until 1996 and the other the 6-element Planar used on the Hasselblad
C system and the Rolleiflex SL66 and 600x systems.

Only the very early Planar lenses made for Hasselblad had 6 elements. From
about 1960 the design was changed, and the lens since then has 7 elements.
The CB Planar that came and went away again was again a 6 element design,
but i don't know if it was the same as the very early C lens.

The above lenses are all f/2.8 80 mm Planars.
There are other Planars too of course.

Bob Monaghan wrote:

[...] The result of his work was TWO lens
designs, one being the 5-element design used in the Rolleiflex TLR from
1955 until 1996 and the other the 6-element Planar used on the Hasselblad
C system and the Rolleiflex SL66 and 600x systems.

Only the very early Planar lenses made for Hasselblad had 6 elements. From
about 1960 the design was changed, and the lens since then has 7 elements.
The CB Planar that came and went away again was again a 6 element design,
but i don't know if it was the same as the very early C lens.

The above lenses are all f/2.8 80 mm Planars.
There are other Planars too of course.

Hi QGdeB ;-)

thanks for the update and extension notes ;-) yes, this adds to Mr.
Small's notes on the SLR vs. TLR points, and to Neil's notes on SLR vs SLR
Hassy v. Rolleiflex SL66.. ;-) I find it surprising that so many variants
of the basic (great) design were tweaked and produced over time? ;-)

but this does gives those collectors out there something to do once they
have the basic kit ;-) they can start collecting lens variants too ;-)

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

Hi QGdeB ;-)

thanks for the update and extension notes ;-) yes, this adds to Mr.
Small's notes on the SLR vs. TLR points, and to Neil's notes on SLR vs SLR
Hassy v. Rolleiflex SL66.. ;-) I find it surprising that so many variants
of the basic (great) design were tweaked and produced over time? ;-)

but this does gives those collectors out there something to do once they
have the basic kit ;-) they can start collecting lens variants too ;-)

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

yes, some excellent points. See Danny Gonzalez' great hands-on pro
photographer's review of MF cameras at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/gindex.html
see mf/pick.html on picking MF camera tips, and mf/features.html on some
MF features not seen in 35mm and their value and use in MF work etc.

hth - regards bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

yes, some excellent points. See Danny Gonzalez' great hands-on pro
photographer's review of MF cameras at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/gindex.html
see mf/pick.html on picking MF camera tips, and mf/features.html on some
MF features not seen in 35mm and their value and use in MF work etc.

hth - regards bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

yes, some excellent points. See Danny Gonzalez' great hands-on pro
photographer's review of MF cameras at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/gindex.html
see mf/pick.html on picking MF camera tips, and mf/features.html on some
MF features not seen in 35mm and their value and use in MF work etc.

hth - regards bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...

Hi Neil,

I'm not sure the lenses are "equivalent" in a technical sense (though they
are in performance in my experience)...

quoting zeiss lens expert and author Marc J. Small:

Zeiss has used the "Planar" name a gazillion times, beginning with
Rudolph's symmetrical six-element design of 1896. In the 1930's, Ernst
Wandersleb, who began his career as Rudolph's assistant, assigned to HIS
assistant, Dr Hans Sauer, the reworking of the Planar to accomodate the
existence of new optical glasses and lens coatings. Sauer worked on this
for fifteen years, a decade at Jena and, following the division of the
Zeiss entities, at Oberkochen. The result of his work was TWO lens
designs, one being the 5-element design used in the Rolleiflex TLR from
1955 until 1996 and the other the 6-element Planar used on the Hasselblad
C system and the Rolleiflex SL66 and 600x systems.
endquote (from http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/hassy.html )

as Mr. Small notes, some authors such as the notable Kingslake have
claimed otherwise, so it may be worthwhile to pass on this correction...


Anyone know if this applies to the Schneider case as well as the Zeiss? ie,
is the Xenotar in the Rolleiflex TLR the same design as the one in the 600x
and E66 systems?

(Just curious...)



Peter

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...

Hi Neil,

I'm not sure the lenses are "equivalent" in a technical sense (though they
are in performance in my experience)...

quoting zeiss lens expert and author Marc J. Small:

Zeiss has used the "Planar" name a gazillion times, beginning with
Rudolph's symmetrical six-element design of 1896. In the 1930's, Ernst
Wandersleb, who began his career as Rudolph's assistant, assigned to HIS
assistant, Dr Hans Sauer, the reworking of the Planar to accomodate the
existence of new optical glasses and lens coatings. Sauer worked on this
for fifteen years, a decade at Jena and, following the division of the
Zeiss entities, at Oberkochen. The result of his work was TWO lens
designs, one being the 5-element design used in the Rolleiflex TLR from
1955 until 1996 and the other the 6-element Planar used on the Hasselblad
C system and the Rolleiflex SL66 and 600x systems.
endquote (from http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/hassy.html )

as Mr. Small notes, some authors such as the notable Kingslake have
claimed otherwise, so it may be worthwhile to pass on this correction...


Anyone know if this applies to the Schneider case as well as the Zeiss? ie,
is the Xenotar in the Rolleiflex TLR the same design as the one in the 600x
and E66 systems?

(Just curious...)



Peter