Most of the field is quite sharp by f5.6 on a good Tessar, (of which the Yashinons and Rokkors on TLRs are) other than the extreme corners of the frame, and those too are quite sharp by f8. F16 is definitely not quite as good as f8, due to diffraction effects.Not sure f5.6 is the best aperture for a Tessar/Xenar, more like f11/f16, although the Yashinons and Rokkors are more modern designs and you might find f8 is ok at a push, but it depernmds what you shoot. For landscapes f16 is best with 4 element lenses.
Ian
Most of the field is quite sharp by f5.6 on a good Tessar, (of which the Yashinons and Rokkors on TLRs are) other than the extreme corners of the frame, and those too are quite sharp by f8. F16 is definitely not quite as good as f8, due to diffraction effects.
I beg to differ
f11/f16 are excellent no drop off in qualityThat's from years of practical experience.
Ian
Wide open the softness lends itself to portraits.
Rolleiflex's, are the 2.8 versions heavier than the 3.5 versions? Any differences in the cameras themselves other than the 1/2 stop of aperture?
I'm still stuck on the close focusing. This is important to me, but I've ruled out the Mamiya's because of weight and not having the need to change lenses. Can anyone with either a Rolleiflex 2.8 or 3.5, Autocord, or Yashica confirm how close the lens focuses?
Not sure f5.6 is the best aperture for a Tessar/Xenar, more like f11/f16, although the Yashinons and Rokkors are more modern designs and you might find f8 is ok at a push, but it depernmds what you shoot. For landscapes f16 is best with 4 element lenses.
Ian
Brian -
Yes, the 2.8 versions are heavier. Not by a huge amount, but noticable. No difference in 3.5 vs. 2.8 provided they are both Planar or Xenotar models. Many of the Rolleiflexes were made with 3.5 Tessars, however - those are different.
I have owned Rolleiflex (many models), Autocords, and 2 Yashica-Mats. They all focus no closer than 3 feet. Even if they did, you would be having serious parallax problems at that point. Using the close up lens sets correct the parallax and allow you to focus very closely. They are not a pain to carry - they are the size of a filter and attach the same way.
BTW - after all the TLR's I have owned, the only one I kept was my Ricohmatic 225. A nice camera similar to an Autocord.
I'm still stuck on the close focusing. This is important to me, but I've ruled out the Mamiya's because of weight and not having the need to change lenses. Can anyone with either a Rolleiflex 2.8 or 3.5, Autocord, or Yashica confirm how close the lens focuses?
True, but the accessories for Bayonet I are generally cheaper than for Bay II and III.As Paul says accessories for TLR's can be very pricey, even simple things like lens caps, filters etc.
True, but the accessories for Bayonet I are generally cheaper than for Bay II and III.
That's about where I've experienced that my Tessar-clone on my Koni-Omega is sharpest, but I can't say that I complain about its performance at wider apertures. Wide open the softness lends itself to portraits.
While TLRs are great and can be versatile cameras, I don't think they (except for the Mamiyas) are the best tool for the job if close-up shooting is important.
It can be done, but it's not nearly as simple as using a medium format SLR.
I think it really is about using the best tool (camera) for what you want to do.
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?