Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: dergiman on December 22, 2010, 01:52:51 pm
-
Currently i am using a Schneider 80mm AF PQS on a Hy6/AfI. The lens is really sharp and has good color but i am a not so happy with its´image rendering style. The subject just doesn´t stand out as much (especially at f2.8). Is the Zeiss 80mm PQS different in this regard? How about the older 80mm versions, like Planar 80mm PQ or the cheap Rolleigon (does this even work on the Hy6)?
Philipp
-
I briefly had the 80mm AF Xenar PQS and the Planar PQ. Both were similar in terms of sharpness, but I preferred the Schneider Xenar for bokeh and overall look. Actually I find almost no complaint with the Schneider version and frankly am surprised to read you were not impressed with the lens. In general terms the Schneider optics for Rollei 6000 are more advanced designs and have better resistance to flare and lower distortion. OOF rendering or bokeh is probably subjective however I preferred the xenar and sold the planar.
-
I have been finding a HUGE number of bad lenses as I attempt to re-build my collection. My original AFD 80mm was malfunctioning and had to be replaced. If you can get your hands on another copy of the lens, you may find that you like it just fine. I had an 80mm f/2 previously and thought the design was rather poor, based on the IQ I was getting. I used Eric's about a month or so ago when I visited him, and his was a world apart in quality. It turns out I had had a bad copy.
To answer your question, the Schneider Xenotar 80mm AF PQS (is f/2.8, not f/2), the Schneider Xenotar 80mm f/2, the Zeiss Planar 80mm f/2.8 and the Rolleigon 80mm f/2.8 will all work on the HyFi.
My current AFD 80mm is very nice. If you would like me to send you some shots to compare the image quality, just let me know. Then you will know whether it's the design you don't like or the specific copy of the lens you have.
Subjectively, I also prefer the Schneider glass to the Zeiss in terms of rendering. I find that while the Zeiss' can be just a hair more peak sharpeness, the Schneiders offer incredibly smooth bokeh--the best way I can describe the feel is they wrap my subject gracefully and with elegance... :)
But really, both lines are very good, you might prefer some of Zeiss' characteristics. Note that all AF lenses are Schneider designs, except for the upcoming AFD 120mm M-Apogon (believed to be Zeiss Makro-Planar) and the AFD 35mm Flektogon (Flektogon, in name at least, is a Zeiss Jena design).
HTH,
-
Have a look at the charts that Pascal has put up on the Rolleiflexpages..... http://www.rolleiflexpages.com/lenscharts.html
The MTF's show the Schneider Xenotars to be sharper wide open. And the zeiss planar 80mm PQS lens has almost 1.5% distortion while the Schneider Xenotar PQS has only about .5%
-
True--wide open. Interestingly, for sharpness with the 80mm f/2.8's, the situation reverses itself by f/8. This is an example of what I mean by some might prefer the Zeiss characteristics.
-
Agree with above posts on 80 mm Schneider. Happen to really like all the Schneider glass on the Rollei platform - as in: can't pry out of dead hands.... IMHO, the 80 2.8 AF is just about flawless.
-
I have been finding a HUGE number of bad lenses as I attempt to re-build my collection. My original AFD 80mm was malfunctioning and had to be replaced. If you can get your hands on another copy of the lens, you may find that you like it just fine. I had an 80mm f/2 previously and thought the design was rather poor, based on the IQ I was getting. I used Eric's about a month or so ago when I visited him, and his was a world apart in quality. It turns out I had had a bad copy.
Hi Philipp, as I have also Hy6 with the same AFD 80mm Schneider lens, I can offer you to compare it with your own lens. I´m located in 1020 Vienna, close to Augarten, so not far from you. ;-)
-
I don´t think that i have a bad copy of the 80mm Xenotar. It is really sharp and contrasty. I am just looking for another "look". How many aperture blades do the Zeiss Planars PQ and PQS have?
-
A few shots in California bay area over Xmas with 80 AF Xenotar and Leaf AFI II 7. Mostly 200 or 400 ISO. Depth seems OK to me.
-
Geoff,
I do agree that these shots do have a real depth or 3D look to them, particularly in Calif 12.10.36.jpg.
Thanks for sharing!
Eric
-
Hi, Phillipp,
I can't say for sure, as I don't have one. If I come across the info, though, I'll let you know. My suspicion is Rollei used the same mechanism as they use in the Xenotars, but as I say, I don't know for sure.
-
How many aperture blades do the Zeiss Planars PQ and PQS have?
5 blades.
-
5 blades.
Thank you, Eric. Are you sure that you aren´t confusing it with the Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad?
-
Thank you, Eric. Are you sure that you aren´t confusing it with the Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad?
I no longer have my 80 planar, but that's my recollection and I think most if not all Rollei 6000 series lenses are 5 blades though I've read that the schneider have more rounded aperture blades than the zeiss, I've no proof of that. I'm curious though why you ask about aperture blades? Fully open there should not be a difference.
-
I no longer have my 80 planar, but that's my recollection and I think most if not all Rollei 6000 series lenses are 5 blades though I've read that the schneider have more rounded aperture blades than the zeiss, I've no proof of that. I'm curious though why you ask about aperture blades? Fully open there should not be a difference.
The number of aperture blades has some effects on how the out of focus areas are rendered, when stopped down that is. Once had a Contax 50/1.4 with five blades and i liked it´s rendering a lot.
-
In a lot of images with specular flare taken with small apertures the shape of the aperture is visible in the rendered flare. I don't really like the 5 sided shapes because then the illusion of the image being real is destroyed. Some from the forums will remember my informal tests for this kind of flare - the conclusion being that the older zeiss lenses are much more prone to it than the Schneider lenses. The Zeiss 120mm macro was the worst. Very sharp lens indeed, but if you wanted to shoot a product shot with something shiny such as a metal watch or something you'd be made miserable with the flare from each piece of the metal band. This is the kind of situation where I wish these lenses had more aperture blades than five.
-
Eric -
Is this still an issue, or was this with the older lenses, older coatings, and has been improved? Weren't there some similar issues with OOF rendering that Sean Reid had found on some Voigtlander lenses some time ago? It seems that the logic then was more blades gave a more rounded flare pattern.
-
Geoff,
Good question and I'll be able to let you know about the 120mm (zeiss) macro as I just bought an newer PQS version of that lens. I had previously an older PQ version that flared terribly so I'm hoping that they have improved the coatings as it was a sharp lens. In any case I have not see much of a problem with the Schneider lenses at all and I think their coatings are quite good. Also keep in mind that all lenses are subject to this kind of flare. I only brought it up because its related to the aperture blade / bokeh issue.
Eric
-
Hi Eric,
I have a 120PQS and it easily flares. The regular 80-250mm hood doesn´t do a good job with the Zeiss makro, the bellows hood with the inserts is definitely needed but then the results are superb.
Philipp
-
Hi Eric
I to am a hy6 user - though due to a massive unexpected tax bill might have to be selling my gear etc - see the sale section. Anyway - there's no difference re these lenses as frankly on this level it's about you - the photographer and your lighting and understanding. Honestly - I'm tired of the endless comparing of stuff no one can see anyway - look at Newton, Penn, Avedon etc - they used pretty standard pro stuff - don't get lost in the endless BS etc - you have great equipment - now develop your eye. I shoot for 'decent' fashion titles in London and NY - and I'm exotic using a hy6. Every time I see examples of work posted by those comparing the the 'differences' - 9 out of 10 times it's dread. I get the feeling some people take pictures to use equipment - and the others are photographers
Laurence
-
::)
-
Post edited following a gracious resolution of the issue.
John