What is your favourite Rolleiflex SL66 landscape lens?

[Leader Jones]

Hi Rolleiflex SL66 users,

What is your favourite landscape lens? Do you have sample photos?

I already have a 50mm but I was wondering what people think of the the 40mm and the 30mm (fisheye?).

Leader.

 

[Leader Jones]

I do like the tilt feature but it's a bit fiddly...

 

[ic-racer]

I used the monster 40mm Distagon since the early 1990s on a SLX. As much as I like very wide lenses on 35mm format, the extensive foreground the lens provides can be difficult to manage. So I don't have as many good prints as I might have imagined. Here is one:

 

[Leader Jones]

I used the monster 40mm Distagon since the early 1990s on a SLX. As much as I like very wide lenses on 35mm format, the extensive foreground the lens provides can be difficult to manage. So I don't have as many good prints as I might have imagined. Here is one:
View attachment 262876

Hey ic-racer, that's a super cool image!

Leader.

 

[Leader Jones]

I used the monster 40mm Distagon since the early 1990s on a SLX. As much as I like very wide lenses on 35mm format, the extensive foreground the lens provides can be difficult to manage. So I don't have as many good prints as I might have imagined. Here is one:
View attachment 262876

Did you use the tilt?

 

[ic-racer]

My lens is for the SLX and 6000 series and does not offer any front tilt. The lens optics, I believe are identical to the SL66 version and the Hasselblad version.

 

[Leader Jones]

My lens is for the SLX and 6000 series and does not offer any front tilt. The lens optics, I believe are identical to the SL66 version and the Hasselblad version.

View attachment 262913 View attachment 262912

I see, it looks very much like the SL66 and the Hassy. It must be quite heavy!

 

[narsuitus]

I used the monster 40mm Distagon since the early 1990s on a SLX. As much as I like very wide lenses on 35mm format, the extensive foreground the lens provides can be difficult to manage. So I don't have as many good prints as I might have imagined. Here is one:
View attachment 262876

Love the contrast and detail in your 40mm Zeiss image.

 

[voceumana]

I suspect the contrast in that image is mostly the result of the choice of developer--though the lens is certainly an excellent performer.

 

[Leader Jones]

I suspect the contrast in that image is mostly the result of the choice of developer--though the lens is certainly an excellent performer.

From what I understand, they never made an FLE version for the SL66...

 

[etn]

Pardon my heretic proposal, but what about a longer lens, such as 180?
Just speaking about focal length, I am not familiar wih the SL66 system - but a lens around 180mm should exist.

 

[Leader Jones]

Pardon my heretic proposal, but what about a longer lens, such as 180?
Just speaking about focal length, I am not familiar wih the SL66 system - but a lens around 180mm should exist.

According to the SL66.com website there was a Carl Zeiss (Jena) Sonnar 180mm f/2.8. I have never seen one. I wonder what it is like?

Leader.

 

[etn]

According to the SL66.com website there was a Carl Zeiss (Jena) Sonnar 180mm f/2.8. I have never seen one. I wonder what it is like?

Leader.

There is a picture (of the lens, that is) in this photo.net thread:
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/carl-zeiss-sonnar-180-f2-8.505695/

I too wonder how pictures look like, and whether this lens is the same as the 180 2.8 of the Pentacon Six (which gets rave reviews)

 

[Leader Jones]

There is a picture (of the lens, that is) in this photo.net thread:
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/carl-zeiss-sonnar-180-f2-8.505695/

I too wonder how pictures look like, and whether this lens is the same as the 180 2.8 of the Pentacon Six (which gets rave reviews)

Oh, no! You made me want to get that! Ha!

 

[etn]

Leader,
coming back to your original question and the "why" of my idea of a longer lens.
I think that a longer lens is very useful for landscapes. It allows isolating some parts of it, which comes handy in densely populated countries (like your or mine) where you (too) often have power or telephone wires or similar inelegant items. More importantly, it compresses perspective and provides a "different" point of view.

Obviously, it all depends on what you want to do Wide angle is the "traditional" way of doing landscapes, and is so for a reason. But if you already have a 50mm, a 40 might not buy you much. 30mm more so. And a long lens even more. I mentioned 180mm as it is one of my most used lenses (and one of Hasselblad's best) but obviously a 150 or 250 will do too.

Here a couple examples, taken with the Hasselblad 180mm.

California:


Not coming close to Ansel:


Alps near Munich:


Same location, taken with a 50mm lens:


Hope this helps Good luck with your decision, let us know what you choose!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have used a wide range of focal lengths for landscapes from the 30mm Fisheye to 1,000mm [2XE + 500 mm Hasselblad lens]. It all depends on your vision. Pun very much intended.

 

[etn]

Oh, no! You made me want to get that! Ha!

My usual quote to Hasselblad owners was "You'll end up owning all lenses eventually." Prices have skyrocketed so much in the recent years that it has become an unrealistic proposition. But it might still be accessible to SL66 owners??

 

[Sirius Glass]

My usual quote to Hasselblad owners was "You'll end up owning all lenses eventually." Prices have skyrocketed so much in the recent years that it has become an unrealistic proposition. But it might still be accessible to SL66 owners??

30mm Fisheye, 38mm SWC, 50mm, 80mm, 100mm, 150mm, 250mm, 500mm + 2XE tele-extender.

 

[Leader Jones]

Leader,
coming back to your original question and the "why" of my idea of a longer lens.
I think that a longer lens is very useful for landscapes. It allows isolating some parts of it, which comes handy in densely populated countries (like your or mine) where you (too) often have power or telephone wires or similar inelegant items. More importantly, it compresses perspective and provides a "different" point of view.

Obviously, it all depends on what you want to do Wide angle is the "traditional" way of doing landscapes, and is so for a reason. But if you already have a 50mm, a 40 might not buy you much. 30mm more so. And a long lens even more. I mentioned 180mm as it is one of my most used lenses (and one of Hasselblad's best) but obviously a 150 or 250 will do too.

Here a couple examples, taken with the Hasselblad 180mm.

California:
View attachment 262988

Not coming close to Ansel:
View attachment 262989

Alps near Munich:
View attachment 262985

Same location, taken with a 50mm lens:
View attachment 262986

Hope this helps Good luck with your decision, let us know what you choose!

Very cool images! Exactly, why limit to wide? I especially like the close to Ansel one. Thank you.

Leader.

 

[etn]

30mm Fisheye, 38mm SWC, 50mm, 80mm, 100mm, 150mm, 250mm, 500mm + 2XE tele-extender.

Here goes for the "pissing contest"
38 SWC, 50, 60, 80, 100, 120, 135 (bellows), 150, 180, 250 SA, + 2XE
I'd love to get my hands on a 30mm. I'll let you win, if only for that one

 

[Pieter12]

You might want to see if you can find Barry Thornton's books, "The Edge of Darkness" or "Elements." He shot mostly with a SL66, used tilt a lot and gives technical details on all the shots, including film, developing and printing.

 

[etn]

Very cool images! Exactly, why limit to wide? I especially like the close to Ansel one. Thank you.

Leader.

Thank you for the compliment

 

[Sirius Glass]

Here goes for the "pissing contest"
38 SWC, 50, 60, 80, 100, 120, 135 (bellows), 150, 180, 250 SA, + 2XE
I'd love to get my hands on a 30mm. I'll let you win, if only for that one

I considered the 120mm and the 135mm but I just do not do enough close up work. I barely use the 150mm other than to flatten prints because I rarely do portraits so no 180mm although I did think about it. The 30mm and the 500mm were offered at a price I could not refuse.

 

[etn]

I considered the 120mm and the 135mm but I just do not do enough close up work. I barely use the 150mm other than to flatten prints because I rarely do portraits so no 180mm although I did think about it. The 30mm and the 500mm were offered at a price I could not refuse.

The 120mm is my most used lens, for a variety of purposes (from portraits to landscapes, real "macro" is probably the thing I use it the less for) I just like its angle of view, I really feel at home with that lens.

Like you, I had a couple offers at a price I could not refuse: the 135, 150, and even the 250 SA (although that one was a bit more expensive.)
The 135 has become my "scanning lens", together with a CFV ii digital back. It's a terrific lens for that purpose.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The 120mm is my most used lens, for a variety of purposes (from portraits to landscapes, real "macro" is probably the thing I use it the less for) I just like its angle of view, I really feel at home with that lens.

Like you, I had a couple offers at a price I could not refuse: the 135, 150, and even the 250 SA (although that one was a bit more expensive.)
The 135 has become my "scanning lens", together with a CFV ii digital back. It's a terrific lens for that purpose.

Perhaps I might weaken and but the variable length extension tube and the 135mm for the heck of it. So much available money and nothing to spend it on. Oh me, oh my, such troubles.