Had one but sold it. Fantastic lens just like the Hasselblad. Just don't care that much for tele's.
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.
I already own a RB67 and I could get an affordable 6x6 back for it.
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 was under the impression that you can get a 6x6 back for the RZ but not the RB.
I think the 127mm KL is the most compact and lightest lens as well.
I have one but have yet to use it. Thanks for reminding me.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.
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.
No doubt! But you are stuck with one telephoto focal length, obviously.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.
Arthurwg said:I think the 127mm KL is the most compact and lightest lens as well.
JPD said: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 said: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.
btaylor said: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.
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?
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.
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.
135 in Hass mount is a macro lens technically for bellows use, but there is also helical mount for it to stick directly on camera and use as regular 135.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.
Why don't you do the test?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 was under the impression that you can get a 6x6 back for the RZ but not the RB.
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'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.
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?