6x7 system with Zeiss lenses

[Makten]

I've been shooting Zeiss ZF lenses on my D700 for a year or so now, and in my opinion they give a very special "look". I know that many agree with that, but also that some think it's just nonsense, so lets not get too deep into that subject.

Now, lately I've put the digital gear aside and instead I enjoy a Pentax 67II with three lenses. I just love everything about it, including the lenses. But of course I can't help wondering if there is a MF system that uses Zeiss lenses. Because that would be heaven! Yes, I know about Hasselblad, but that's 6x6 and I really prefer 6x7. I don't know about the old Jena glass, but nothing I've seen from that stuff indicates that they would give the "Zeiss look".

Any ideas, or am I restricted to 6x6?

[Graham Mitchell]

You're restricted to 6x6

[Makten]

You're restricted to 6x6

Boo! Alright, but any alternatives to Hasselblad?

[Graham Mitchell]

Boo! Alright, but any alternatives to Hasselblad?

Rollei 6000 series and Hy6/AFi (basically an updated 6000 series). There are both Zeiss and Schneider lenses available for this platform.

[uaiomex]

For what I've seen in the different MF forums, the last glass from the RZ was hard to beat.

[EricWHiss]

Yeah, I was thinking to suggest you check the RZ as well if you like the 6x7 format.  Unfortunately they don't make digital sensors in 6x7 or square formats.

[Makten]

Rollei 6000 series and Hy6/AFi (basically an updated 6000 series). There are both Zeiss and Schneider lenses available for this platform.

I'll check it out, thanks! How do these compare with Hasselblad, in terms of size and weight? I've got the impression that Hassys are quite small for 6x6 (haven't tried one myself).

For what I've seen in the different MF forums, the last glass from the RZ was hard to beat.

Well, I suppose that depends on what you want from a lens. I have yet to see any other manufacturer that have the same "design philosophy" as Zeiss, which means extremely high micro contrast.
Interestingly enough, my D700 with ZF lenses gives more "pop" than what I get out of the P67. The larger format helps by itself, but still doesn't get "there".

This is the look I'm after, if you see what I mean:




The scene looks almost rendered, or "3D" even on the screen. Of course I can just use the D700 for it, but I like film. And I hate the 3:2 aspect ratio!

[Makten]

Yeah, I was thinking to suggest you check the RZ as well if you like the 6x7 format.  Unfortunately they don't make digital sensors in 6x7 or square formats.

Digital MF is way out of my budget, so it doesn't matter.

Edit: What the heck, how about 645 then? Contax? Probably also too expensive for me though.

[yossarians22]

That picture doesn't do anything for me. And your Zeiss MF choices are Hass/Contax/Rollei

[Makten]

That picture doesn't do anything for me.

I wasn't meant to "do" anything. It was about the look that the lens (35/2) gives. If you have examples of any MF system doing the same, I'd like to see it of course.
Edit: Just to make clear; this is not some kind of brand snobbery. I just like Zeiss, but I'm happy with whatever lens/system/manufacturer that gets me what I want.

And your Zeiss MF choices are Hass/Contax/Rollei

Great, then I'll just start the investigation!

[bradleygibson]

Or Sinar M.  (Not a recommendation, just adding to the list.)

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

How much of that "pop" comes from processing?

Best regards
Erik

I'll check it out, thanks! How do these compare with Hasselblad, in terms of size and weight? I've got the impression that Hassys are quite small for 6x6 (haven't tried one myself).

Well, I suppose that depends on what you want from a lens. I have yet to see any other manufacturer that have the same "design philosophy" as Zeiss, which means extremely high micro contrast.
Interestingly enough, my D700 with ZF lenses gives more "pop" than what I get out of the P67. The larger format helps by itself, but still doesn't get "there".

This is the look I'm after, if you see what I mean:




The scene looks almost rendered, or "3D" even on the screen. Of course I can just use the D700 for it, but I like film. And I hate the 3:2 aspect ratio!

[Makten]

Hi,

How much of that "pop" comes from processing?

It depends of what you compare with, of course. But the only thing I've done is sharpening in two steps when downsampling, which I always do.
I'd say that 90% of the pop is from the lens. I've had ~50 lenses in Nikon mount, and only the ZF ones give this sort of look. I also have one Zeiss lens for Leica M mount, and it does the very same thing, both on film and digital.

[parcolide]

Linhof or Arca Swiss or  Ebony or Wista... + Zeiss lenses: Biogon 53mm, Biogon 75mm, Planar 80mm, Planar 100mm, Planar 135mm, Sonnar 180mm, Sonnar 250mm.

Romano

[tsjanik]

This is the look I'm after, if you see what I mean:




The scene looks almost rendered, or "3D" even on the screen. Of course I can just use the D700 for it, but I like film. And I hate the 3:2 aspect ratio!

Makten:

I've seen some of your posts at Pentaxforums and I when I saw some of the images you posted  thought " he really makes the camera and 105 sing".
e.g.  http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-medium-format-645-6x7-645d/134572-nikon-d700-vs-pentax-67ii-pictures.html

I see nothing exceptional in the image you posted.  So I am at a loss to understand

[uaiomex]

I do like Zeiss quality, I have a Hasselblad V system myself. Unfortunately no digital back yet. My dmf criteria is based solely on what I have seen and read on the internet. As a matter of fact, I've never seen a digital back in person. Digital files are crispier than film. In the film days, Zeiss glass was known to be  too clinical for portraiture. Many liked the quality of the RB/RZ glass and they called it "creamy".
The RZ glass renders the most film-like digital images I've seen over the internet. Maybe it is because they don't look "that" sharp. The creamy look give them an organic quality that some hyper sharp digital files totally lack. In my humble opinion the stair image posted by Makten lacks 3D looks. I would say it looks more like a bas-relief work. Carved but still a 2D object. No offense.
Eduardo

[donaldt]

if you dont mind 645
Contax 645 is probably the best overall medium format with AF Zeiss optics
its a dead system but still makes amazing pictures

Rollei is next, but also a half dead system, and more expensive

Hasselblad of course is your best bet

[qwz]

Old Linhof Technika's has Carl Zeiss glass options, like
Biogons 53mm f/4.5 and 75mm f/4.5
Sonnar 180mm f/4.8 and 250mm f/5.6
wonderful Planar 135mm f/3.5
Tessaк 100mm f/3.5

(and this camera offers also really wonderful Shneider lens options too)

But pretty expensive and can be a little tricky to use rangefinder or ground-glass after SLRs

[HarperPhotos]

Hello,

I’ve just had a look at the Hasselblad website for the first time, as I use Mamiya RZ and 645AFDII.

Looking at the lenses in the V System they mention there lenses are made by Carl Zeiss but the lenses in the H System there is no mention of Carl Zeiss.

So I’m I correct in thinking that the H lenses are made by Fuji who also played a major part in the development of the H System camera body?

Simon

[Graham Mitchell]

Looking at the lenses in the V System they mention there lenses are made by Carl Zeiss but the lenses in the H System there is no mention of Carl Zeiss.

That's right - they moved away from Zeiss with the H platform, which irked countless Hasselblad devotees.