Rolleiflex image quality?

How does the image quality of the 80mm Planar 2.8 in the current
Rolleiflex 2.8GX compare to a comparable Hasselblad/Pentax/ etc. lense?

Does this older design give up anything to the newer designs?

Thanks,

Sam

We had a teacher in school who used to say...


"Tisn't the pen at all, 'tis the fella behind the pen"

Sam wrote:
How does the image quality of the 80mm Planar 2.8 in the current
Rolleiflex 2.8GX compare to a comparable Hasselblad/Pentax/ etc. lense?

Does this older design give up anything to the newer designs?


You may want to read http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html
and be surprised.

Martin

Gearóid Ó Laoi/Garry Lee wrote:

We had a teacher in school who used to say...


"Tisn't the pen at all, 'tis the fella behind the pen"

And still some pens cover your fingers with ink the moment you touch them,
blot like there's no tomorrow, scratch the paper, etc. while other pens
don't...

"Sam" wrote in message
...
How does the image quality of the 80mm Planar 2.8 in the current
Rolleiflex 2.8GX compare to a comparable Hasselblad/Pentax/ etc. lense?

Does this older design give up anything to the newer designs?

Doubt it.... it's practically the same as a Hasselblad 80mm Planar, only
with the upside of no mirror slap and the downside of non-TT(taking)L
viewing.

The latter is the main reason I have a 'Blad and not, say, a Rollei Tele and
a Rollei Wide.

--
- Martin Francis

"Two hundred channels, and nothing but cats"
- Jasper

Older is better, both lens are excellent

"Sam" wrote in message
...
How does the image quality of the 80mm Planar 2.8 in the current
Rolleiflex 2.8GX compare to a comparable Hasselblad/Pentax/ etc. lense?

Does this older design give up anything to the newer designs?

Thanks,

Sam

TTL viewing is great for macro or microscope or extreme long lens
work. For 90% of general camera work it's a frill, and a rangefinder
or TLR is so much quieter and less obtrusive.

The 80 Planar is a good lens. It's nothing super-special. People who
extol German optics forget that the most discriminating optical
customer in the world, Panavision, buys very few.

On 18 Apr 2004 14:28:08 -0700, (Jim-Ed Browne)
wrote:

[---]

the most discriminating optical
customer in the world, Panavision

Source ?

"Jim-Ed Browne" wrote in message
om...
TTL viewing is great for macro or microscope or extreme long lens
work. For 90% of general camera work it's a frill, and a rangefinder
or TLR is so much quieter and less obtrusive.

The 80 Planar is a good lens. It's nothing super-special. People who
extol German optics forget that the most discriminating optical
customer in the world, Panavision, buys very few.

I'm one of the few people in the world who don't stop and think "What would
Panavision do?" before buying a lens.

And as a previous owner of a Yashicamat I am well aware of the pros and cons
of non-TT(taking)L viewing. And I happen to do rather a lot of close-up
work, and seldom use a standard lens- so a TLR would find little use with
me. As a hard-up student, I have little room for cameras I don't use.

--
- Martin Francis

"Two hundred channels, and nothing but cats"
- Jasper

On 18 Apr 2004 14:28:08 -0700, (Jim-Ed Browne)
wrote:

TTL viewing is great for macro or microscope or extreme long lens
work. For 90% of general camera work it's a frill, and a rangefinder
or TLR is so much quieter and less obtrusive.


Can't argue with the "quiet and unobtrusive" part, but
TTL viewing has lots of advantages. How else to
visualize the effects of, say, a polarizer or grad-ND
filter? How else to deal with zoom lenses, or sets of
fixed- focal-length lenses.

How else to visualize, precisely, the depth of field
for any given subject, lens, or aperture?

Or to observe (and thus prevent) lens flare from
shooting too close to the sun?

How would you use a tilt/shift/swing lens without
TTL viewing?

The only thing that beats TTL metering is a spot
meter, brain power, years of experience, luck,
and/or bracketing.



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com