Have you ever seen 1:1 comparisons of the Tele Rolleiflex 135 Sonnar against other lenses?

[Certain Exposures]

Had one but sold it. Fantastic lens just like the Hasselblad. Just don't care that much for tele's.

Thank you. I assume prints from it would look great next to the RB67's 127mm KL if it was the Hasselblad's equal.


@Nokton48 welcome back to the studio!

ic-racer:

Maybe I will rephrase for clarity.

I suspect the differences between the lenses, when tested wide-open in the cameras with film, will be less than the differneces in frame by frame film flatness.

So, which ever lens has the lest amount of cleaning marks and haze; that would be the best one.

@ic-racer okay, I understand, thank you. The link @GG12 shared implied the same thing as your last sentence about the cameras (none I'm considering) in that test.

 

[Arthurwg]

I already own a RB67 and I could get an affordable 6x6 back for it.

I was under the impression that you can get a 6x6 back for the RZ but not the RB.

 

[Arthurwg]

Thank you. I assume prints from it would look great next to the RB67's 127mm KL if it was the Hasselblad's equal.

I think the 127mm KL is the most compact and lightest lens as well.

 

[JPD]

The Zeiss Sonnar on the Tele-Rolleiflex is of course excellent, but for closer portrait than upper body you need the 0,35 Rolleinar.

I sold mine because I didn't have much use for the tele and it's a heavy camera. But I had no complaints about the image quality.

The Rolleiflex 4,0 FT with the multicoated Tele-Xenar 4/135 has a modern lightmeter and closer focusing than the classic Tele-Rolleiflex, but it's expensive.

 

[loccdor]

I don't know how closely these lenses are related, but I made a test of the 6x6 180mm f/2.8 Zeiss Sonnar with K-6B 2x Arsenal Teleconverter.

My findings were that stopped down to f/5.6, even with the teleconverter, it outresolved my 36MP Pentax K-1 with top of the line macro lens and pixel shift enabled when copying the film at 1:1. That's around 4800 dpi.

That means without the teleconverter and stopped down to f/5.6, it has the ability to make at least a 2 meter print. More than most people would ever need, and of course your technique in all steps in your process has to be very on-point to achieve that resolution.

Without the teleconverter and wide open, it can make at least a 1 meter print.

With the teleconverter and wide open, about 20 inches - resolves what an Epson flatbed at ~2200 true dpi can pick up.

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

I was under the impression that you can get a 6x6 back for the RZ but not the RB.

I've never seen one, but then I haven't really looked for one. Not that it's relevant to this, but there was definitey a 645 back-I had one, a Pro-SD back no less.

With that said, Graflex made one, and Graflex backs will work on an RB67. Most are knob advance(the lever backs are better in almost every way if you can find them), and of course you have to manually trip film transport unlock, but they do fit and work.

 

[btaylor]

There are lots of the Graflex 6x6 backs available, and for very little money. As elegant as the Tele Rollei is I think it’s hard to see its overall utility if you already have the RB which is so much more versatile. The Mamiya lenses are as good as anything out there in my experience. I have a bunch of relatively modern MF cameras and looking at prints I doubt I could tell you which camera was used.
At one time I lusted after both the tele and wide Rollei TLRs, but in the end it was impractical compared to SLRs.

 

[GregY]

I think the 127mm KL is the most compact and lightest lens as well.

which doesn't mean much when we're talking Mamiya RB/RZ 67......

 

[Arthurwg]

I've never seen one, but then I haven't really looked for one. Not that it's relevant to this, but there was definitey a 645 back-I had one, a Pro-SD back no less.

I have one but have yet to use it. Thanks for reminding me.

 

[Arthurwg]

There are lots of the Graflex 6x6 backs available, and for very little money. As elegant as the Tele Rollei is I think it’s hard to see its overall utility if you already have the RB which is so much more versatile. The Mamiya lenses are as good as anything out there in my experience. I have a bunch of relatively modern MF cameras and looking at prints I doubt I could tell you which camera was used.
At one time I lusted after both the tele and wide Rollei TLRs, but in the end it was impractical compared to SLRs.

Well, it's easy to carry the Rollei into the field or up on a mountain. It's somewhat more difficult to do that with an RB67, so there's some utility there.

 

[btaylor]

Well, it's easy to carry the Rollei into the field or up on a mountain. It's somewhat more difficult to do that with an RB67, so there's some utility there.

No doubt! But you are stuck with one telephoto focal length, obviously.

 

[Certain Exposures]

I think the 127mm KL is the most compact and lightest lens as well.

I am looking around for one so we shall see!

The Zeiss Sonnar on the Tele-Rolleiflex is of course excellent, but for closer portrait than upper body you need the 0,35 Rolleinar.

I sold mine because I didn't have much use for the tele and it's a heavy camera. But I had no complaints about the image quality.

The Rolleiflex 4,0 FT with the multicoated Tele-Xenar 4/135 has a modern lightmeter and closer focusing than the classic Tele-Rolleiflex, but it's expensive.

Thank you. "Expensive" is a good way to scare me off so I won't look into the Tele-Xenar much.

I don't know how closely these lenses are related, but I made a test of the 6x6 180mm f/2.8 Zeiss Sonnar with K-6B 2x Arsenal Teleconverter.

My findings were that stopped down to f/5.6, even with the teleconverter, it outresolved my 36MP Pentax K-1 with top of the line macro lens and pixel shift enabled when copying the film at 1:1. That's around 4800 dpi.

That means without the teleconverter and stopped down to f/5.6, it has the ability to make at least a 2 meter print. More than most people would ever need, and of course your technique in all steps in your process has to be very on-point to achieve that resolution.

Thank you, I will look into it. I'm looking for a compact 6x6/6x7 lens in the 127mm - 150mm range in an affordable system. Have you tested any?

As elegant as the Tele Rollei is I think it’s hard to see its overall utility if you already have the RB which is so much more versatile. The

At one time I lusted after both the tele and wide Rollei TLRs, but in the end it was impractical compared to SLRs.

Yes, I understand your rationale. The Rolleiflex is lighter like Arthur mentioned. I tend to roam outdoors to save on studio costs.

 

[Dan Daniel]

As a sample from the Tele-Rollei, I'll put this image up. Not a good shot, but does give a feel for its OOF rendering. And it probably won't come across after the internet stomps on it, but there is something I like about the crispness of the metal pole against the soft background. Again, not presented as a decent image but as a sample of how the Tele-Rollei can render in a situation close to a portrait.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'd love to see a side by side of the Tele Rolleiflex 135mm Sonnar lens against the Mamiya RB67's 127mm Mamiya KL f3.5 (with the 6x6 film back or cropped) and SMC Pentax 67 Macro 135mm f/4 (cropped to 6x6). Ideally the 1) same scene, 2) same model, 3) same subject distance, 4) same film, 5) same aperture. I'm sure someone has already done this somewhere out there? Have any of you ever come across a link?

I'd love to see a side by side of the Tele Rolleiflex 135mm Sonnar lens against the Mamiya RB67's 127mm Mamiya KL f3.5 (with the 6x6 film back or cropped) and SMC Pentax 67 Macro 135mm f/4 (cropped to 6x6). Ideally the 1) same scene, 2) same model, 3) same subject distance, 4) same film, 5) same aperture. I'm sure someone has already done this somewhere out there? Have any of you ever come across a link?

No, I haven't, but I doubt you would notice much, if any, of a difference.

 

[Paul Howell]

"Thank you, I will look into it. I'm looking for a compact 6x6/6x7 lens in the 127mm - 150mm range in an affordable system. Have you tested any?"

I have a Kowa, SL66 and Super with the 150mm. The lens is sharp, has good coverage, average speed for a MF camera. The 80mm 2.8 is as sharp as any normal 6X6 lens, it was tested by a reviewer in Shutterbug and tested as good as a Zeiss. There are 2 versions, of the 150, the early version has a 72mm filter thread the later version 67mm with better coating. I have the early version. The Super 66 has internal changeable backs. Only drawback is that the system is going on 50 years old, parts and servicing are hard to come by. Hasselblad are more expensive but seems to be much more serviceable.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

I was suggesting to see to MTFs plots of two difference designs for TLR versus SLR at the same or similar focal lengths.

 

[Slixtiesix]

I think these are all good lenses. The choice may rather depend on preference for a particular camera system than image quality. However, the Rollei Sonnar cannot focus very close without the aid of close up lenses.
As for the Hasselblad question, I am sure that in the close range (below 2m) the 135mm S-Planar has the edge over the 135/4 Sonnar. Being a macro lens, it is naturally sharper, while the Rollei´s image quality is diminished by the Rolleinar lens.