hasselblad and Rolleiflex

Bob Monaghan wrote:

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? ;-)

I don't. ;-)

Planars comes in many shapes and forms, as do Sonnars, Tessars, Biogons,
Distagons, and what have you.
Zeiss uses generic names to denote similar, but not necessarily the same,
designs.
Design families, in fact, in which one particular design may bear only the
slightest resemblance with a very much earlier member of the family, though
the two are still related: the one begot another which in turn begot etc.

So just because they are all Planars, all f/2.8 all 80 mm, and all made to
cover 6x6, doesn;t necessarily mena they should be all the same.
The 80 mm made for the Hasselblad cameras, for instance, needs to be very
slightly "retro focussy" so the mirror will have a clear way up (the famous
viewfinder vignetting is caused by the mirror still not having the necessary
space when the 80 mm Planar is on the camera, so they just made the mirror a
bit shorter too.) On Rolleflex TLRs, there is no mirror behind the taking
lens, so the design was freed from that constraint, and the lens could be
made differenlty (which indeed is why the "NASA-Planar" is 100 mm instead of
80 mm: long enough to be far away enough from the mirror, and be free from
that sort of constraints.)

And then there are other considerations leading to different designs. Like
how much effort you can, or want to, put into a design. How much a lens may
cost. What aberration you like corrected most. What, what sort of
photography, is is intended to do. Etc.

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

Indeed. ;-)

Bob Monaghan wrote:

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? ;-)

I don't. ;-)

Planars comes in many shapes and forms, as do Sonnars, Tessars, Biogons,
Distagons, and what have you.
Zeiss uses generic names to denote similar, but not necessarily the same,
designs.
Design families, in fact, in which one particular design may bear only the
slightest resemblance with a very much earlier member of the family, though
the two are still related: the one begot another which in turn begot etc.

So just because they are all Planars, all f/2.8 all 80 mm, and all made to
cover 6x6, doesn;t necessarily mena they should be all the same.
The 80 mm made for the Hasselblad cameras, for instance, needs to be very
slightly "retro focussy" so the mirror will have a clear way up (the famous
viewfinder vignetting is caused by the mirror still not having the necessary
space when the 80 mm Planar is on the camera, so they just made the mirror a
bit shorter too.) On Rolleflex TLRs, there is no mirror behind the taking
lens, so the design was freed from that constraint, and the lens could be
made differenlty (which indeed is why the "NASA-Planar" is 100 mm instead of
80 mm: long enough to be far away enough from the mirror, and be free from
that sort of constraints.)

And then there are other considerations leading to different designs. Like
how much effort you can, or want to, put into a design. How much a lens may
cost. What aberration you like corrected most. What, what sort of
photography, is is intended to do. Etc.

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

Indeed. ;-)

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:

Planars comes in many shapes and forms, as do Sonnars, Tessars,
Biogons,
Distagons, and what have you.
Zeiss uses generic names to denote similar, but not necessarily the
same,
designs.
Design families, in fact, in which one particular design may bear only
the
slightest resemblance with a very much earlier member of the family,
though
the two are still related: the one begot another which in turn begot
etc.

For example. Bert Stern, when shooting Jazz on a Summer's Day,. fitted a
150mm Sonnar to his 35mm Arriflex (hand-held!) motion picture camera. At the
time (1958) he used a Hasselblad 1000F for much of his 6x6 work, I highly
doubt the Sonnar he fitted to the Arri had a shutter.

Mike Lachance

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:

Planars comes in many shapes and forms, as do Sonnars, Tessars,
Biogons,
Distagons, and what have you.
Zeiss uses generic names to denote similar, but not necessarily the
same,
designs.
Design families, in fact, in which one particular design may bear only
the
slightest resemblance with a very much earlier member of the family,
though
the two are still related: the one begot another which in turn begot
etc.

For example. Bert Stern, when shooting Jazz on a Summer's Day,. fitted a
150mm Sonnar to his 35mm Arriflex (hand-held!) motion picture camera. At the
time (1958) he used a Hasselblad 1000F for much of his 6x6 work, I highly
doubt the Sonnar he fitted to the Arri had a shutter.

Mike Lachance

Michael R. Lachance wrote:

For example. Bert Stern, when shooting Jazz on a Summer's Day,. fitted a
150mm Sonnar to his 35mm Arriflex (hand-held!) motion picture camera. At
the
time (1958) he used a Hasselblad 1000F for much of his 6x6 work, I highly
doubt the Sonnar he fitted to the Arri had a shutter.

If it was a lens he used on his 1000F, i doubt it was a 150 mm lens. ;-)
The Sonnar available then was 135 mm. Great lens!

But, being 1958, it may have been a 150 mm (shuttered) lens he used on his
500C?
;-)

Michael R. Lachance wrote:

For example. Bert Stern, when shooting Jazz on a Summer's Day,. fitted a
150mm Sonnar to his 35mm Arriflex (hand-held!) motion picture camera. At
the
time (1958) he used a Hasselblad 1000F for much of his 6x6 work, I highly
doubt the Sonnar he fitted to the Arri had a shutter.

If it was a lens he used on his 1000F, i doubt it was a 150 mm lens. ;-)
The Sonnar available then was 135 mm. Great lens!

But, being 1958, it may have been a 150 mm (shuttered) lens he used on his
500C?
;-)

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

If it was a lens he used on his 1000F, i doubt it was a 150 mm lens. ;-)
The Sonnar available then was 135 mm. Great lens!

But, being 1958, it may have been a 150 mm (shuttered) lens he used on his
500C?
;-)

Good info!
I'll double check my reference on this, as he talked about it in his own
words... but its been a while since i checked..

Mike Lachance

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

If it was a lens he used on his 1000F, i doubt it was a 150 mm lens. ;-)
The Sonnar available then was 135 mm. Great lens!

But, being 1958, it may have been a 150 mm (shuttered) lens he used on his
500C?
;-)

Good info!
I'll double check my reference on this, as he talked about it in his own
words... but its been a while since i checked..

Mike Lachance

Checked my sources:
The lens was a 180mm Sonnar which Stern normally used in his still
photography work. He adapted it to his 35mm Arriflex.
So, what do we know about the 180 Sonnar of late 1950's vintage?

Mike Lachance


"Michael R. Lachance" wrote in message
k.net...

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

If it was a lens he used on his 1000F, i doubt it was a 150 mm lens. ;-)
The Sonnar available then was 135 mm. Great lens!

But, being 1958, it may have been a 150 mm (shuttered) lens he used on
his
500C?
;-)

Good info!
I'll double check my reference on this, as he talked about it in his own
words... but its been a while since i checked..

Mike Lachance

Perhaps to answer my own question?

http://medfmt.8k.com/sam/

Just found this on the web. Although thuis article discusses fitting to a
Bronica, the lens shown is the exact make/model that Stern used, (ive seen
actual pictures the lens fitted to his Arri.)

Im pretty sure he was normally using this on his Hassy. 1000F, Does this
make sense?

Mike Lachance


"Michael R. Lachance" wrote in message
k.net...

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

If it was a lens he used on his 1000F, i doubt it was a 150 mm lens. ;-)
The Sonnar available then was 135 mm. Great lens!

But, being 1958, it may have been a 150 mm (shuttered) lens he used on
his
500C?
;-)

Good info!
I'll double check my reference on this, as he talked about it in his own
words... but its been a while since i checked..

Mike Lachance