hasselblad and Rolleiflex

whitewave wrote:
maybe starting with rolleiflex TLR is cheaper than starting with
Hassie and you can have excellent results: you can have a good
training and some resutls soon.


I don't think it's cheaper. A 500cm+80 black+A12 costs as much as a
Rolleiflex 3.5F and a Rolleiflex 2.8F is more expensive than that
Hassy kit.

First of all, a Rolleiflex with a 2.8 Planar or Xenotar can be found
from about 300 Euro upward. You won't get a Hasselblad this cheap.
A Rolleiflex C, D or E needs a brighter screen than the originally
issued glass screen, but this is about the only problem with this
older models. A F is a joy to use, but well kept C with its
round diaphragm (IIRC 13 segments instead of 5 for all newer Rolleis)
makes excellent bokeh and has no real disadvantages.

Second, even a Rolleiflex T or a 3.5B model (3.5/75 Tessar/Xenar)
will be the equal of a Hasselblad Planar when stopped down
to f5.6-8 or more. These models go for 100-200 Euro.

I made this comparison with several Rollei TLRs (even with
Rolleicord models with Tessar/Xenar) and two 2.8/80mm Planars
for SL66. These are the equal of the Hasselblad Planars. For
studio work, I usually use a RB or SL66 for tight shots and
a Rollei TLR for larger views, and nobody is able to see any
difference in quality between this systems.

Martin

whitewave wrote:
maybe starting with rolleiflex TLR is cheaper than starting with
Hassie and you can have excellent results: you can have a good
training and some resutls soon.


I don't think it's cheaper. A 500cm+80 black+A12 costs as much as a
Rolleiflex 3.5F and a Rolleiflex 2.8F is more expensive than that
Hassy kit.

First of all, a Rolleiflex with a 2.8 Planar or Xenotar can be found
from about 300 Euro upward. You won't get a Hasselblad this cheap.
A Rolleiflex C, D or E needs a brighter screen than the originally
issued glass screen, but this is about the only problem with this
older models. A F is a joy to use, but well kept C with its
round diaphragm (IIRC 13 segments instead of 5 for all newer Rolleis)
makes excellent bokeh and has no real disadvantages.

Second, even a Rolleiflex T or a 3.5B model (3.5/75 Tessar/Xenar)
will be the equal of a Hasselblad Planar when stopped down
to f5.6-8 or more. These models go for 100-200 Euro.

I made this comparison with several Rollei TLRs (even with
Rolleicord models with Tessar/Xenar) and two 2.8/80mm Planars
for SL66. These are the equal of the Hasselblad Planars. For
studio work, I usually use a RB or SL66 for tight shots and
a Rollei TLR for larger views, and nobody is able to see any
difference in quality between this systems.

Martin

First of all, a Rolleiflex with a 2.8 Planar or Xenotar can be found
from about 300 Euro upward.

Where?!? In Italy their price is 900$ (800 euro), on ebay they go for
550-800 $.
Or are you talking about earlier models?

You won't get a Hasselblad this cheap.

700$ for a 500cm + 80 black T* + A12 + waist level finder

A Rolleiflex C, D or E needs a brighter screen than the originally
issued glass screen, but this is about the only problem with this
older models. A F is a joy to use, but well kept C with its
round diaphragm (IIRC 13 segments instead of 5 for all newer Rolleis)
makes excellent bokeh and has no real disadvantages.

Ok, thank for the advice.

Second, even a Rolleiflex T or a 3.5B model (3.5/75 Tessar/Xenar)
will be the equal of a Hasselblad Planar when stopped down
to f5.6-8 or more. These models go for 100-200 Euro.

I would like something "softer" than a Tessar. I will use it for
portraits.

I made this comparison with several Rollei TLRs (even with
Rolleicord models with Tessar/Xenar) and two 2.8/80mm Planars
for SL66. These are the equal of the Hasselblad Planars. For
studio work, I usually use a RB or SL66 for tight shots and
a Rollei TLR for larger views, and nobody is able to see any
difference in quality between this systems.

So you aren't saying Rolleiflex F Planar to be better than Hasselblad
Planar, but that they are quite the same. Is it right?


Martin



......................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it

First of all, a Rolleiflex with a 2.8 Planar or Xenotar can be found
from about 300 Euro upward.

Where?!? In Italy their price is 900$ (800 euro), on ebay they go for
550-800 $.
Or are you talking about earlier models?

You won't get a Hasselblad this cheap.

700$ for a 500cm + 80 black T* + A12 + waist level finder

A Rolleiflex C, D or E needs a brighter screen than the originally
issued glass screen, but this is about the only problem with this
older models. A F is a joy to use, but well kept C with its
round diaphragm (IIRC 13 segments instead of 5 for all newer Rolleis)
makes excellent bokeh and has no real disadvantages.

Ok, thank for the advice.

Second, even a Rolleiflex T or a 3.5B model (3.5/75 Tessar/Xenar)
will be the equal of a Hasselblad Planar when stopped down
to f5.6-8 or more. These models go for 100-200 Euro.

I would like something "softer" than a Tessar. I will use it for
portraits.

I made this comparison with several Rollei TLRs (even with
Rolleicord models with Tessar/Xenar) and two 2.8/80mm Planars
for SL66. These are the equal of the Hasselblad Planars. For
studio work, I usually use a RB or SL66 for tight shots and
a Rollei TLR for larger views, and nobody is able to see any
difference in quality between this systems.

So you aren't saying Rolleiflex F Planar to be better than Hasselblad
Planar, but that they are quite the same. Is it right?


Martin



......................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it

First of all, a Rolleiflex with a 2.8 Planar or Xenotar can be found
from about 300 Euro upward.

Where?!? In Italy their price is 900$ (800 euro), on ebay they go for
550-800 $.
Or are you talking about earlier models?

You won't get a Hasselblad this cheap.

700$ for a 500cm + 80 black T* + A12 + waist level finder

A Rolleiflex C, D or E needs a brighter screen than the originally
issued glass screen, but this is about the only problem with this
older models. A F is a joy to use, but well kept C with its
round diaphragm (IIRC 13 segments instead of 5 for all newer Rolleis)
makes excellent bokeh and has no real disadvantages.

Ok, thank for the advice.

Second, even a Rolleiflex T or a 3.5B model (3.5/75 Tessar/Xenar)
will be the equal of a Hasselblad Planar when stopped down
to f5.6-8 or more. These models go for 100-200 Euro.

I would like something "softer" than a Tessar. I will use it for
portraits.

I made this comparison with several Rollei TLRs (even with
Rolleicord models with Tessar/Xenar) and two 2.8/80mm Planars
for SL66. These are the equal of the Hasselblad Planars. For
studio work, I usually use a RB or SL66 for tight shots and
a Rollei TLR for larger views, and nobody is able to see any
difference in quality between this systems.

So you aren't saying Rolleiflex F Planar to be better than Hasselblad
Planar, but that they are quite the same. Is it right?


Martin



......................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it

And what about Planar 3.5 vs Xenotar 3.5 or Planar 2.8?
......................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it

And what about Planar 3.5 vs Xenotar 3.5 or Planar 2.8?
......................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it

Hi,

Recently, whitewave posted:

Second, even a Rolleiflex T or a 3.5B model (3.5/75 Tessar/Xenar)
will be the equal of a Hasselblad Planar when stopped down
to f5.6-8 or more. These models go for 100-200 Euro.

I would like something "softer" than a Tessar. I will use it for
portraits.

If you want a softer lens than a Tessar, then perhaps the Planar is a
better choice than a Xenotar or Xenar. The Schneider lenses are very
sharp, and considered to have a less pleasant bokeh than the Zeiss lenses.
However, I like both.

I made this comparison with several Rollei TLRs (even with
Rolleicord models with Tessar/Xenar) and two 2.8/80mm Planars
for SL66. These are the equal of the Hasselblad Planars. For
studio work, I usually use a RB or SL66 for tight shots and
a Rollei TLR for larger views, and nobody is able to see any
difference in quality between this systems.

So you aren't saying Rolleiflex F Planar to be better than Hasselblad
Planar, but that they are quite the same. Is it right?

Zeiss makes Planar lenses for both Hasselblad and Rollei. The lenses are
equivalent. However, these are two different kinds of camera systems, and
you may find that those differences affect the end result, not because of
the lens quality, but in the way that the cameras are best used.

Since you are a student, and presumably have many years of photography
ahead of you, I'd really recommend that you start with a Rollei TLR. This
will give you the opportunity to learn about the important aspects of MF
shooting; the square frame; the "normal" 75 - 80 mm lens view; the
differences between films; etc. Once your preferences develop, your next
kit can be tailored to suit your tastes, and you will may spend less in
the long run.

Neil

Hi,

Recently, whitewave posted:

Second, even a Rolleiflex T or a 3.5B model (3.5/75 Tessar/Xenar)
will be the equal of a Hasselblad Planar when stopped down
to f5.6-8 or more. These models go for 100-200 Euro.

I would like something "softer" than a Tessar. I will use it for
portraits.

If you want a softer lens than a Tessar, then perhaps the Planar is a
better choice than a Xenotar or Xenar. The Schneider lenses are very
sharp, and considered to have a less pleasant bokeh than the Zeiss lenses.
However, I like both.

I made this comparison with several Rollei TLRs (even with
Rolleicord models with Tessar/Xenar) and two 2.8/80mm Planars
for SL66. These are the equal of the Hasselblad Planars. For
studio work, I usually use a RB or SL66 for tight shots and
a Rollei TLR for larger views, and nobody is able to see any
difference in quality between this systems.

So you aren't saying Rolleiflex F Planar to be better than Hasselblad
Planar, but that they are quite the same. Is it right?

Zeiss makes Planar lenses for both Hasselblad and Rollei. The lenses are
equivalent. However, these are two different kinds of camera systems, and
you may find that those differences affect the end result, not because of
the lens quality, but in the way that the cameras are best used.

Since you are a student, and presumably have many years of photography
ahead of you, I'd really recommend that you start with a Rollei TLR. This
will give you the opportunity to learn about the important aspects of MF
shooting; the square frame; the "normal" 75 - 80 mm lens view; the
differences between films; etc. Once your preferences develop, your next
kit can be tailored to suit your tastes, and you will may spend less in
the long run.

Neil

Hi,

Recently, whitewave posted:

Second, even a Rolleiflex T or a 3.5B model (3.5/75 Tessar/Xenar)
will be the equal of a Hasselblad Planar when stopped down
to f5.6-8 or more. These models go for 100-200 Euro.

I would like something "softer" than a Tessar. I will use it for
portraits.

If you want a softer lens than a Tessar, then perhaps the Planar is a
better choice than a Xenotar or Xenar. The Schneider lenses are very
sharp, and considered to have a less pleasant bokeh than the Zeiss lenses.
However, I like both.

I made this comparison with several Rollei TLRs (even with
Rolleicord models with Tessar/Xenar) and two 2.8/80mm Planars
for SL66. These are the equal of the Hasselblad Planars. For
studio work, I usually use a RB or SL66 for tight shots and
a Rollei TLR for larger views, and nobody is able to see any
difference in quality between this systems.

So you aren't saying Rolleiflex F Planar to be better than Hasselblad
Planar, but that they are quite the same. Is it right?

Zeiss makes Planar lenses for both Hasselblad and Rollei. The lenses are
equivalent. However, these are two different kinds of camera systems, and
you may find that those differences affect the end result, not because of
the lens quality, but in the way that the cameras are best used.

Since you are a student, and presumably have many years of photography
ahead of you, I'd really recommend that you start with a Rollei TLR. This
will give you the opportunity to learn about the important aspects of MF
shooting; the square frame; the "normal" 75 - 80 mm lens view; the
differences between films; etc. Once your preferences develop, your next
kit can be tailored to suit your tastes, and you will may spend less in
the long run.

Neil