Sinar Hy6/Leaf AFi and Sinar eMotion/Leaf Aptus series backs

[Carsten W]

The Schneider look sounds more like Leica, being lower overall contrast with a gentle sharpness transition. I love both the Leica and Zeiss looks, so no problem for me there.

Hmm, I was hoping you wouldn't answer like that... I think I will probably end up with both I'll start with the 40, and see where I go after that, which may depend on what comes up on eBay.

[JV]

I love both the Leica and Zeiss looks, so no problem for me there.

I actually prefer the 80mm Zeiss Planar to the 80mm Schneider Xenotar but I might be the only one.

The Zeiss Planar 110mm/f2 is excellent.  Mine frequently has a tendency to underexpose though. Not sure why. 

I own the Zeiss Sonnar 150mm/f4 PQS but I am still to be convinced.

I also own the Zeiss Sonnar 250mm/f5.6 PQS but hardly use it.

The two lenses I use the most are probably the 50mm and the 180mm, both Schneiders.

[Gigi]

Interesting. Favorites here are the 60 Curtagon, the 80 2.8, and the 150 Telexenar, all Schneiders. The 150 4.6 on the bellows is just superb, but limited to in studio or indoors, but a remarkable lens. Its distortion curve is just plain old flat. Also the 300 Apo is rather special. 

[dergiman]

The 150mm APO-Macro is definitely on the list of lenses i want to try.

[Carsten W]

Here is a list of all available lenses for the system, put together by Thierry some time ago. O means out of production, X means still in production, P means planned, at least at the time of his post:

Zeiss F-Distagon (Fisheye) PQ 3.5/30 mm (X)
Schneider Super-Angulon PQ 3.5/40 mm (X)
Zeiss Distagon PQ 4.0/40 mm (O)
Zeiss Distagon FLE PQ 4.0/40 mm (O)
Schneider Super-Angulon PQS 2.8/50 mm (O)
Schneider AF-Super-Angulon PQS 2.8/50 mm (X) / AFD-Super-Angulon PQS 2.8/50 mm (P)
Zeiss Distagon PQ 4.0/50 mm (O) / Distagon EL PQ 4.0/50 mm (O)
Zeiss Distagon FLE PQ 4.0/50 mm (O)
Schneider PCS-Super-Angulon (Shift) PQ 4.5/55 mm (O)
Schneider Curtagon 3.5/60mm (O)
Zeiss Distagon PQ 3.5/60 mm (O)
Schneider Xenotar PQ 2.0/80 mm (O)
Zeiss Planar PQ 2.8/80 mm (O) / Planar EL PQ 2.8/80 mm (O) / Planar PQS 2.8/80 mm (O)
Schneider Xenotar PQS 2.8/80 mm (X) / AF-Xenotar PQS 2.8/80 mm (X) / AFD-Xenotar PQS 2.8/80 mm (X)
Schneider Apo Symmar Macro PQS 4.0/90 mm (X)
Zeiss Planar PQ 2.0/110 mm (X)
Zeiss Makro-Planar PQ 4.0/120 mm (O) / Makro-Planar PQS 4.0/120 mm (X)
Zeiss Sonnar PQ 4.0/150 mm (O) / Sonnar EL PQ 4.0/150 mm (O) / Sonar PQS 4.0/150 mm (X)
Schneider AF-Tele Xenar PQS 4.0/150 mm (X) / Tele Xenar PQS 4.0/150 mm (P) / AFD-Tele Xenar PQ 4.0/150 mm (O) / AFD-Tele Xenar PQS 4.0/150 mm (P)
Schneider Apo-Symmar Macro PQ 4.6/150 mm (O)
Schneider Tele-Xenar PQ 2.8/180 mm (O) / AF-Tele-Xenar PQ 2.8/180 mm (X) / AFD-Tele-Xenar PQ 2.8/180 mm (X)
Zeiss Sonnar PQ 5.6/250 mm (O) / Sonnar EL PQ 5.6/250 mm (O) / Sonnar PQS 5.6/250 mm (X)
Schneider Apo-Tele-Xenar PQ 4.0/300 mm (X) incl. lens hood
Zeiss Tele-Tessar PQ 5.6/350 mm (O) incl. lens hood
Zeiss Tele-Tessar PQS 5.6/350 mm (O) incl. lens hood
Zeiss Tele-Tessar EL PQ 8.0/500 mm (O) incl. lens hood / Tele-Tessar PQ 8.0/500 mm (O) incl. lens hood / Tele-Apo-Tessar PQS 8.0/500 mm (O) incl. lens hood
Zeiss Tele-Tessar PQ 8.0/1000 mm (O) incl. lens hood
Schneider AF-Variogon PQS 4.6/60-140 mm (X) incl. lens hood / AFD-Variogon PQS 4.6/60-140 mm (P) incl. lens hood
Schneider Variogon PQ 4.5/75-150 mm (O) incl. lens hood
Schneider Variogon PQ 5.6/140-280 mm (X) incl. lens hood

Per suggestion, I have grouped the lenses in, let's say, strongly related designs, i.e. same manufacturer, same focal length and aperture, with only PQ/PQ EL/PQS and MF/AF/AFD differences. This should give a better idea of how many "unique" designs there are. Note that certain lenses may have had improvements hidden behind these differences.

[paratom]

Hi Carsten,
I dont remember my exact workflow because ist too long ago.
Some comments:
-I allmost allways had to do Manual WB afterwards or adjust WB manually.
-Exp metering with the Hy6 did not seem very accurate to me, so some exp variations make sense.
-I had the Schneider 40mm and think to remember that it is generally prefered over the Zeiss 40mm
-The 110/2.0 is a great lens. However in the end I found the Xenotar 80mm also very nice but in a much smaller size.
-I have to check - eventually I have some Rollei things left which I dont Need any more which might be usefull for you. I think step up rings, SCA Flash Adapter, cable release and some other stuff. I will check and pm you
-Overall I found the Hy6-LV75 great but it takes much more effort to ge the final result compared to my Leica S which is as easy as a DSLR. On the other side the IQ from the Rollei lenses with the DALSA sensor is very Special and the Hy6 gives a very nice medium Format Feeling and the viewfinder is great too.
I also found the AF problematic and therefore used the Hy6 more in Manual focusing mode.

[Gigi]

Haven't used the Hy6 with a Sinar back, but extensively with a Leaf AFI II-7 (33mp) back. No real issues. The AF works fine for me, esp. with the 50 and 80 (just tried the 180 and its OK, but not as seamless as the other two).

The list of lenses made is impressive, but could be edited by simply noting the PQ and PQS as two available shutters for a given lens. The optics didn't change.
There is an inevitable discussion of the difference between a manual focus lens, the AF, and then the AFD (sometimes improved and different).

One of the hidden benefits of this system is the ability to use manual focus lenses (not so expensive on the used market), top tier quality. easy to use with the Hy6 focus confirmation. Compared to other systems (e.g. Leica S) with expensive lenses, one can build a Hy6 system with several additional lenses. And have lenses one would normally not spring for. I'm not saying they are cheap but at c. $2k for the Hy6 MF lenses, its not out of the realm to add a few. Having started with Rollei 6003 in 1992, the lens stable has gotten a bit fuller over the years.

One could also pick favorites on that list of lenses. I'm not a fan of the zooms, which are behemoths, but I've seen results from the 60-140 AF on an 80 mp back, and it was impressive (assuming weight/size were not an issue!).

[EricWHiss]

Carsten,
I haven't used the Sinar backs personally so can't weigh in on the software, but can comment on the lenses.  I've tested them all with imatest at apertures from wide open to f/16.  The sharpest lens in the whole lineup is the 90mm APO macro, but many are quite close.  The differences between Zeiss and Schneider are largely the look in the rendering of the out of focus areas - where some prefer one or the other.  Both makes of lenses achieve quite excellent results but the Schneider lenses are typically sharper wide open than the Zeiss, though there are a few exceptions - 110/2 and 120 macro being good wide open on the zeiss side and the 40mm schneider which is sharp in the center and middle wide open but not the edges until it is stopped down some.   The schneider lenses are all color matched and the rendering is the same from lens to lens which provides some consistency in projects where you use multiple focal lengths.   Also worth mentioning - the schneider lenses typically have lower distortion or less complicated distortion than the zeiss lenses - though there are some exceptions. I think of the schneider lenses as more neutral rendering and the Zeiss as having a bit more color contrast built in.    The 40mm and 50mm FLE lenses from Zeiss are newer designs than the older distagons and are quite nice.  I noticed with the FLE lenses that getting the rear element really correct made a difference - this means setting it in between the click stops when needed.    I wish I had the time to put together sample images from all of these lenses.  I test every lens I take in on trade for sale in my used dept, and also for a long time before when I was just a user.   Normally there isn't much sample variation from copy to copy like you might see with some other brands, and mostly when I compare two samples I can't really tell them apart from the test images which is really a good thing.

[Carsten W]

Thanks for the comments everyone. As per the suggestion, I have edited the list to group "strongly related" designs.

I am *very* interested in hearing which lenses are people's favourites, and why. I have just a 50/60/80/150Z/150S set right now, which represent some of the budget lenses, and am looking at expanding with some more "advanced" lenses.

I have also changed the thread's name to include the very similar Leaf products, to be more inclusive. It isn't like we are drowning in posts here, and including more will possibly let the thread appeal to more.

It might also be interesting for people to post approximate prices in Euro and US Dollars, to give an idea of costs of the various lenses.

[JV]

The AF works fine for me, esp. with the 50 and 80 (just tried the 180 and its OK, but not as seamless as the other two).

I would agree with this.  The 180 AF is slightly more hesitant than the 50 or 80.

Another thing about the AF is that is not very good in low light situations.  I usually switch to manual focus then.

[Carsten W]

How do you focus on an eye with the 180/2.8? Focus, recompose? Which focusing screen do you use?

[paratom]

The 110/2.0 is great for Portraits IMO. Very smooth Rendering, ist good to Focus manually (the shallow DOF helps focusing) and you can get very close.
The 40mm for a nice wide angle and small size of the lens.
And the 80 Xenotar for ist OOF-Rendering, Color and small size.
I found the 180/2.8 very nice but also very big and a tad too Long for my taste I prefered the 110/2.0.

http://www.pbase.com/tstreng/image/108063159&exif=Y

[Guillaumeperret]

Hi everybody,
Interesting topic!
Sorry about my english. I do my best! ;-)

I bought on this forum a Hy6 with a Leaf altus 10R and 80mm.
I upgraded to Hy6 mod2 two years ago.
I upgraded to Leaf Credo 60 last winter.
I bought the 110mm f2, the 50mm afd, the 40mm f3.5 Schneider Super-Angulon, the 90mm Apo.Symmar f4 makro and 3 months ago the 80mm f2.
I do portraits.
For me I use the 40mm and the 110mm a lot.
Here are some picture I did yesterday with the 110mm.
A few other portraits on my web site are made with the 80mm f2.8

Guillaume

And I want to say thank you to EricWHiss at rolleiflex.us. He has the answer at everything about Rolleiflex!

[Guillaumeperret]

Parato, we said the same feeling in the same time!

I just want to add that I have bought a Sinar 54LV to attach to my Bronica ETRSi (with a V mount) and I have a adapter to attach the Sinar 54LV to my Hy6. I want to try it next days.

[Theodoros]

What is the "Schneider look", compared to the Zeiss look (and Leica, etc.)?

That's easy to answer... Schneider is lacking some contrast when compared to Zeiss... It seems to be a result of Zeiss (traditionally) being more flare resistant than any other lens which adds "bite" in its looks... In combination with a Sinarback e-motion back, (which also looks less contrasty than comparable Kodak sensors like P45+) Schneider may look dull in comparison... but this is only before processing... OTOH, the Schneiders may offer more processing latitude, they resolve as much as any and are extremely colour neutral....

[Gigi]

One of the things that is delightful about this system is that it is modular so  you can change from one use to another easily. Film back, digital back, or change the viewer, pick a lens to go light or heavy, etc. Only wish the handle was removable like the 6003, so that you could pack it easier!

Eric is right about the distortion on the Schneiders being easy to correct: once used the 50AF to shoot architectural drawings (the drawings were very big, flat on the floor, and didn't have enough height to use a longer lens). After a  bit of barrel distortion correction in C1, they came out fine. And this is a tough test. Any wobble in the one below is from the mylar not being flat.

[dergiman]

Good to know that the AFD 50mm is good enough for repro!

[EricWHiss]

That's easy to answer... Schneider is lacking some contrast when compared to Zeiss... It seems to be a result of Zeiss (traditionally) being more flare resistant than any other lens which adds "bite" in its looks... In combination with a Sinarback e-motion back, (which also looks less contrasty than comparable Kodak sensors like P45+) Schneider may look dull in comparison... but this is only before processing... OTOH, the Schneiders may offer more processing latitude, they resolve as much as any and are extremely colour neutral....

It's not my observation that the Zeiss lenses are more flare resistant to the Schneider lenses in this system - actually if anything the opposite might be true.  The great thing is there are two excellent sets of lenses out there for the platform.

[Carsten W]

i suppose if the statement that Schneider lenses have less global contrast is true, then that can quite easily be perceived as having less flare resistance under certain circumstances.

Anyway, this is all useful information, thank you all very much. I know that I love Zeiss lenses and the Zeiss look, but I am also keen on trying some Schneiders, so I will find out sooner or later. I do have both the 150/4 lenses, so that will be my first test. I suspect that I will order the 120/4 Makro next, since it would make for a nice 40/80/120 kit, and it is half the price of the 90, and for me a better general focal length on the 1.17x crop factor of the 36x48mm sensors.

[JV]

Two older threads on the Hy6 and its glass:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=76060.msg615365#msg615365
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=82794.msg668848#msg668848

The first one is really on the Pentax 645D lenses but at the end of page one lacunapratum does a very good job IMO on comparing the glass of the two systems and highlighting which lenses shine on the Hy6.

The second thread is on using PQS glass on the Hy6 with shutter speeds of 1/1000.

You might have already found these threads, if not they are worthwhile reading IMO.