The utility of the test would be limited by film flatness. If they all had a vacuum back that would help.
I don't recall ever seeing a side by side test of a MF lens. I've seen a few tests of 50mm lens like the Sigma , Nikon and Zeiss 50 1.5 by Pop Photography, never of MF lens. Not many would have access that that many platforms, if you referring the the Tele Rolleiflex that is somewhat rare. My guess is that all would resolve Tmax 200 at 200 LPM, but there might differences distortion and contest depending on the age of the lens and the coatings used.
The utility of the test would be limited by film flatness. If they all had a vacuum back that would help.
Hmm...I bet the RB67 has one. I'll look into that. I wouldn't use a vacuum back often though.
Okay, so basically you wouldn't expect a noticeable difference in sharpness between the three?
Sharpness is only one of many aspects when comparing lenses.
The OP gave no clue as to what he hopes to glean from such a comparison, sharpness wasn't mentioned.
Any of the lenses mentioned should be more than adequit from a sharpness point of view unless defective.
Yes, but we are talking about cameras not going what 45 to 50 years old, many well used. The rollie being fixed lens will have fewer issues as there no play in the lens mount. My Kowa seem pretty solid, but the breech collar is going to become lose with use. So testing against cameras with interchangeable lens who knows if the difference is the in the lens or just wear and tear. So, yeah, not sure what P.O want to know and why he wants to know it.
A good comparison would be Rollei lens and Hasselblad lenses since both are made by Zeiss.
A good comparison would be Rollei lens and Hasselblad lenses since both are made by Zeiss.
At least in the normal lenses, its often said that the Rolleiflex lenses are better than their Hasselblad counterparts. The 80mm Hasselblad Planar IIRC uses a mild amount of retrofocus, where the Rolleiflex lens doesn't need to. MOST Hasselblad 80mm Planars are 7 elements, barring the very early ones and the late CB 80mm(I actually have a 6 element Planar that came with my first Hasselblad, a 1960 500C-it was the only one I used up until honestly earlier this year when I got a mid-60s 80mm on another 500C. I don't see much difference...although the 100mm Planar was supposed to fix the "shortcomings" of the 80mm.
It would be difficult to compare Tele directly too, since the only 135mm Hassy lens I'm aware of is the short-mount Planar, very much a special purpose lens. The 150mm Sonnar, though, is legendary of course and might be a favorable comparison...
Also, don't forget that Schneider supplied quite a few Rolleiflex lenses, where the only Hassy lens I'm aware of they made was the 140-280 f/5.6 zoom behemoth. Legend has it that Schneider lenses are often better than their Zeiss counterparts, or at least on US market cameras since Schneider was trying to "prove themselves". I live in low rent Rolleiflex territory, with a couple of early Automats, all with 75mm f/3.5 Xenars(Tessar-equivalent) that I've never been disappointed in, and the only Zeiss Rolleis I've had have been Triotars.
You know what...I assumed the C330 and 135mm blue dot combo is much heavier and larger than the Tele Rolleiflex based on pictures and video. I will double check that.Since Hasselblad is outside the the OP's budget....how about comparing the Mamiya C330 and a 135mm blue dot... since 6x6 is a closer comparison that the RB67?
Unfortunately, the entry cost, maintenance cost, and replacement cost of the Hasselblad system is out of my price range. It would be interesting though!
You know what...I assumed the C330 and 135mm blue dot combo is much heavier and larger than the Tele Rolleiflex based on pictures and video. I will double check that.
I already own a RB67 and I could get an affordable 6x6 back for it. I'm looking for the most portable Mamiya RB67 alternative (based on size and weight) in that narrow focal range (125mm - 150mm) with the least tradeoffs. I landed on the Tele Rolleiflex.
Tele-Rolleiflex weight= 1,535 grams
Mamiya C330 + 135mm f/4.5 blue dot lens weight = 1,835 grams
Mamiya C220 + 135mm f/4.5 blue dot lens weight = 1,520 grams
The Mamiyas are definitely larger.
I only have examples from the Mamiya, but anyways, here is one:
Down and Up Again - Tynehead Park (MSA Gentle, Low, Slow Light)
- MattKing
- 8
Another for the current MSA. This time looking from the forest, through an opening, to the...
I understand.... though there's not many Tele Rolleiflexes around and nice ones go for real money.
All things being equal they'd be my choice too.
Have seen tele Rolleis for <$1500, so maybe you can find one
Not seen a test comparison, but this is a pretty interesting (and famous) test of two TLRs and a Hassy, and Mamiya. Pretty interesting results too:
four cameras test
The utility of the test would be limited by film flatness. If they all had a vacuum back that would help.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?