PDA

View Full Version : Hasselblad Planar vs. Rolleiflex Planar


ishpop
04-23-2009, 11:16
Specificaly, the Hasselblad Planar T, and the Rolleiflex 2.8 TLR (Not the 6006). I realize these are different camera categories, but I would say these two camera/lens combos produce my favorite square format photos while scanning other people's work.

What is the primary difference in the design of these lenses?

I now own the Planar T, and I am very much enjoying my results.

I also own a much older rolleiflex with the Opton Tessar, which is very nice also, but definitely different.

However, I've seen many Rollei 2.8 photos that I really dug, and maybe they seemed "creamier" than the Planar T.

I realise this could all be a figment of my imagination, and that "creamy" is a subjective description.

Any thoughts?

ferider
04-23-2009, 11:24
http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/009Ype

ishpop
04-23-2009, 11:30
http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/009Ype

Thanks for the link and apologies for not checking photo.net first, seems like every topics has been hashed out there before. :)

Al Kaplan
04-23-2009, 11:32
Are you sure that they're not Schneider Xenotar, Zeiss Jena Biometer, or Tessar photos?
Rolleiflexes were available at various times and places with all of them as 80mm f/2.8 optics. The Xenotars were usually considered a bit "creamier" than the Planars. The Planar on the TLR Roleis had one less element than the one on the Hassselblad.

Chriscrawfordphoto
04-23-2009, 12:19
Are you sure that they're not Schneider Xenotar, Zeiss Jena Biometer, or Tessar photos?
Rolleiflexes were available at various times and places with all of them as 80mm f/2.8 optics. The Xenotars were usually considered a bit "creamier" than the Planars. The Planar on the TLR Roleis had one less element than the one on the Hassselblad.

That's because the Hasselblad body is too thick for an 80mm lens, due to the mirror, so the extra element makes it able to work at a longer flange focal distance than the normal Planar design. I woner what the difference between them in image quality is. i've got a Hasselblad 80mm CF T*. I've never tried the 2.8 Rollei with the Planar

colker
04-23-2009, 12:23
That's because the Hasselblad body is too thick for an 80mm lens, due to the mirror, so the extra element makes it able to work at a longer flange focal distance than the normal Planar design. I woner what the difference between them in image quality is. i've got a Hasselblad 80mm CF T*. I've never tried the 2.8 Rollei with the Planar

coating. it's the biggest difference. i heard both rollei 2.8 and hassel 80 use the exact same shutter btw.
i like the rollei w/ the 75mm 3.5...ooh baby.

b.espahbod
04-23-2009, 12:30
Hasselblad's Planar 100mm 3.5 is the real symmetric planar the formula is very close to Dr. Rudolf's Design and Linhof-Planar 135mm f/3.4, distortion is zero, maximum performance at corners even at open wide aperture and the singanture is much closer to symmetric Rollei TLR Planar.

Al Kaplan
04-23-2009, 12:34
At a lower price point the Rolleiflex T came with a Zeiss Tessar while the Rolliecord had a Schneider Xenar, both 4 element 75mm f/3.5 "Tessar" designs. Unless you're printing 16x20, and even then, I doubt that most people could tell the difference.

Chriscrawfordphoto
04-23-2009, 12:39
coating. it's the biggest difference. i heard both rollei 2.8 and hassel 80 use the exact same shutter btw.
i like the rollei w/ the 75mm 3.5...ooh baby.

The probably use the same size shutter, but it isn't the same mechanical device. The Hasselblad cameras use a leaf shutter that is designed to work with SLRs. An SLR with in-lens shutters needs the shutter to be open and the aperture to be open for viewing. When you push the shutter release, the shutter actually closes (and the aperture stops down), then the mirror goes up and the light blocking flaps in the back of the Hassy open, THEN then the shutter opens and closes to make the exposure!

On a Rollei, the shutter is a standard leaf shutter of the type used on any type of camera where the user does not compose through the taking lens. TLRs, rangefinders, folders, etc. use this simpler leaf shutter. It is always closed until the shutter release is pressed, and the aperture always at the set value.

historicist
04-23-2009, 12:48
I've used both and the Rollei Planar is a bit better, but there's not a lot in it. The only disadvantage is veiling flare from light sources in the frame, to which the Rollei is very prone.

I've also used the Planar on the SL66 (which should be the same as the CFT* apart from the coating) and it is better than the blad lens, again only marginally, and only my unscientific feeling. Maybe the condition of the lens or variation plays a role?

mfogiel
04-23-2009, 13:09
My feel is that sharpness wise in real life use, there is little difference, but there is some difference in contrast and flare resistance, so if you like to shoot colour go with the Hassy, if B&W go with the Rollei.

Hassy 80 Planar wide open:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/248/2468027141_2cf64cba86_b.jpg
Rollei 80 Planar at f5.6 I believe:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3057/2762687062_3292bc34cf_b.jpg

colker
04-23-2009, 13:13
The probably use the same size shutter, but it isn't the same mechanical device. The Hasselblad cameras use a leaf shutter that is designed to work with SLRs. An SLR with in-lens shutters needs the shutter to be open and the aperture to be open for viewing. When you push the shutter release, the shutter actually closes (and the aperture stops down), then the mirror goes up and the light blocking flaps in the back of the Hassy open, THEN then the shutter opens and closes to make the exposure!

On a Rollei, the shutter is a standard leaf shutter of the type used on any type of camera where the user does not compose through the taking lens. TLRs, rangefinders, folders, etc. use this simpler leaf shutter. It is always closed until the shutter release is pressed, and the aperture always at the set value.

it seems right... though i was quoting a repairman around here who works on hassles and rolleis for years.

ishpop
04-23-2009, 13:20
Considering I just bought my Hassy, I doubt I will purchase anything more for a while.

Mainly I wanted to understand the differences.

At some point, I will likeley decide between the two options though, as I really do not need so many square format options (I currently have the Exakta 66, the old Automat Rollei, a Yashica 635, and now the Hassy).

I think I like carrying my TLRs more than the Exakta or Hassy, but the Hassy feels the most "solid" (not heavy, thats the exakta). So if I felt that a Rollei 2.8, preferrably a newer one, was slightly better than my Hassy, and despite the ability to use alternative lenses, I might make the switch at some point.

At the end of the day though, my biggest motivation to even think about all this, is portraits. So maybe I should try the 100mm planar mentioned earlier in the thread to see how it renders Bokeh and DoF. If that worked out, I might never look back. The 80mm Planar seems fine so far, but I cant help but feel odd about the fact that my Automat seems creamier than my Hassy, maybe just the oldness of the lens. Sort of like some of the recent Summar portraits posted by SandersNYC, so smooth.

Benjamin Marks
04-23-2009, 13:21
I think it is a little difficult to tell the difference in real life. There are so many variables: weight of the camera, need for a tripod, moving mass of the shutter/mirror. I have 75/3.5 Xenotar and a 80/2.8 Planar as well as Hassies with an 80C and 80C/T* lenses. Use of a hood could tip the quality balance one way or the other.

Ben Marks

ferider
04-23-2009, 13:25
Add a 50mm Distagon and 150mm Sonnar, a couple of Proxars, stay with the Hassi and never look back :) The 150 Sonnar is the coolest Portrait lens I every used ....

colker
04-23-2009, 13:25
Considering I just bought my Hassy, I doubt I will purchase anything more for a while.

Mainly I wanted to understand the differences.

At some point, I will likeley decide between the two options though, as I really do not need so many square format options (I currently have the Exakta 66, the old Automat Rollei, a Yashica 635, and now the Hassy).

I think I like carrying my TLRs more than the Exakta or Hassy, but the Hassy feels the most "solid" (not heavy, thats the exakta). So if I felt that a Rollei 2.8, preferrably a newer one, was slightly better than my Hassy, and despite the ability to use alternative lenses, I might make the switch at some point.

At the end of the day though, my biggest motivation to even think about all this, is portraits. So maybe I should try the 100mm planar mentioned earlier in the thread to see how it renders Bokeh and DoF. If that worked out, I might never look back. The 80mm Planar seems fine so far, but I cant help but feel odd about the fact that my Automat seems creamier than my Hassy, maybe just the oldness of the lens. Sort of like some of the recent Summar portraits posted by SandersNYC, so smooth.

portraits? you want the sonnar 150mm/4.0.
it's the classic hassel tele.
though i never liked it for available light. always used it on studio w/ lights.

120 cameras shine w/ wides. 50mm distagon, 60mm plannar.

having said that, i never loved hasselblads too much.

ishpop
04-23-2009, 13:28
I think it is a little difficult to tell the difference in real life. There are so many variables: weight of the camera, need for a tripod, moving mass of the shutter/mirror. I have 75/3.5 Xenotar and a 80/2.8 Planar as well as Hassies with an 80C and 80C/T* lenses. Use of a hood could tip the quality balance one way or the other.

Ben Marks


Yeah, too many variables to really say with confidence which one is "better". I guess I am less pre-occupied with sharpness, and more pre-occupied with tonality and OOF elements.

I've seen some shots taken with the Exakta Schneider-Kreuznach Xenotar that are some of the sharpest and most interestingly rendered 6X6 photos i've ever seen.

Ah well, this thread is a sign that I spend too much time thinking about the machine, and not enough about the process. :angel:

ishpop
04-23-2009, 13:31
portraits? you want the sonnar 150mm/4.0.
it's the classic hassel tele.
though i never liked it for available light. always used it on studio w/ lights.

120 cameras shine w/ wides. 50mm distagon, 60mm plannar.

having said that, i never loved hasselblads too much.

I now own a Arsat 30 and a Flektogon 5, so it should be interesting shooting with those, picked them up both cheap. The Arsat has had one roll, and its pretty impressive. A funny looking lens.

I should check out that tele though. Will see if some flickrities from Seattle have one I can borrow.

Frank Petronio
04-23-2009, 13:38
My friend's Hasselblad 100/3.5 is the sharpest, the Rollei 2.8 Planars in E and F are the smoothest. The Hasselblad 80/2.8 is just... kind of a bore.

ishpop
04-23-2009, 13:48
My friend's Hasselblad 100/3.5 is the sharpest, the Rollei 2.8 Planars in E and F are the smoothest. The Hasselblad 80/2.8 is just... kind of a bore.

haha. Thanks for the honesty. Maybe "smooth" was the word I was looking for.

I should just find someone with a E or F and do a side by side shot comparison of "smoothness" to determine which I prefer.

FWIW, I shoot mostly color. Still learning B/W, but very noob-ish with it right now.

raid
04-23-2009, 14:13
Is there a difference between the Planar lenses of the 2.8C/D/E/F ?

Nokton48
04-23-2009, 14:52
Ishpop,
Good to hear about your Exakta 66, I have a MK2, myself. Yes it's heavy, but the focal plane shutter makes it very useful. Nicely complements my four V-Blads. You will like the Arsat, the other lens you should consider for the EX66 (especially for portraits) is the 180mm F2.8 CZJ Sonnar. I have the Blad 100 F3.5 Planar, and the 120mm F5.6 Planar-S, they are both great. The 80mm Planar is highly underrated as an all-around lens. I enjoy mine.

ishpop
04-23-2009, 14:59
Ishpop,
Good to hear about your Exakta 66, I have a MK2, myself. Yes it's heavy, but the focal plane shutter makes it very useful. Nicely complements my four V-Blads. You will like the Arsat, the other lens you should consider for the EX66 (especially for portraits) is the 180mm F2.8 CZJ Sonnar. I have the Blad 100 F3.5 Planar, and the 120mm F5.6 Planar-S, they are both great. The 80mm Planar is highly underrated as an all-around lens. I enjoy mine.

Sadly, my Exakta 66 MK2 needs a CLA. The winding mechanism is just too inconsistent. Often I do not know what frame I am on, and many of my rolls come back with 3-4 un-exposed shots. Its a beautifull camera, maybe the prize of my collection, but it needs some love. So going to send to the magic Yashica man in Georgia as he apparently worked for a russian camera factory for a while and can do repair on Exaktas.

Windscale
04-28-2009, 08:24
I had the Exakta 66 (Mark I) and the Schneider-Kreuznach 150 was very good. As I was getting older and weaker I got rid of the whole system (1 body, 80, 150, 50 Flektogon and 180 Sonnar). It was a much better system than the hasselblad to take on holidays. I also got rid of the Hass system around the same time. I became stuck with Rolleiflex TLRs, a few folders and a few self-converted cameras since then.

MaxElmar
04-28-2009, 12:07
Raid asked: "Is there a difference between the Planar lenses of the 2.8C/D/E/F ?"

Raid, the 2.8 lenses are the same, but the D/E/F models have fewer aperture blades. I don't see any difference, but because of that, some say the "C" is the "King of Bokeh" among Rolleis - that goes for Planar or Xenotar versions.

The biggest difference between the outstanding lenses on the Rollei or Hasselblad is that the Hassy lens is attached to a body that is (to me) barely (if at all) hand holdable and pretty loud in use. Just my opinion....

raid
04-28-2009, 12:10
Raid asked: "Is there a difference between the Planar lenses of the 2.8C/D/E/F ?"

Raid, the lenses are the same, but the D/E/F models have fewer aperture blades. I don't see any difference, but because of that, some say the "C" is the "King of Bokeh" among Rolleis - that goes for Planar or Xenotar versions.



Hi Chris,
Is this a myth or factual? Are there side by side comparisons which clearly show the 2.8C to have nicer looking bokeh?

I have seen such claims.

colker
04-28-2009, 12:16
Hi Chris,
Is this a myth or factual? Are there side by side comparisons which clearly show the 2.8C to have nicer looking bokeh?

I have seen such claims.

it makes sense. more blades make for a difference.
otoh... if you are noticing the bokeh then the picture is not good enough.:D

colker
04-28-2009, 12:18
I had the Exakta 66 (Mark I) and the Schneider-Kreuznach 150 was very good. As I was getting older and weaker I got rid of the whole system (1 body, 80, 150, 50 Flektogon and 180 Sonnar). It was a much better system than the hasselblad to take on holidays. I also got rid of the Hass system around the same time. I became stuck with Rolleiflex TLRs, a few folders and a few self-converted cameras since then.

hassels are great if you get 2 assistants to help you change magazines, change film, lenses, viewfinders and then carry the heavy camera case around.:D:bang:

MaxElmar
04-28-2009, 18:04
"Is this a myth or factual? Are there side by side comparisons which clearly show the 2.8C to have nicer looking bokeh?

I have seen such claims."

I have not seen any comparison that would bear out those claims. I have seen wonderful images made with either version. If I ever get a 2.8F I will attempt a comparison and post the results here. I will say my Xenotar 2.8C delivers a beautiful image. Here's an example:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3041/2743967281_343211e5df.jpg

To me, the bokeh is not remarkable, it just doesn't call attention to itself. Maybe that's the point?

Xax
04-28-2009, 19:19
here's a picture where DOF is the concept and it shows the 2.8F's bokeh clearly. different if you ask me? yes.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2236/2399977528_12bb47d987.jpg

MaxElmar
04-28-2009, 19:35
And a fine image, I'd say... but just a completely different photo - it doesn't tell me anything about how the bokeh might compare. You want a real comparison you shoot the same subject(s) at the same distance at the same F stop with the same materials and scanned by the same process.

Al Kaplan
04-28-2009, 20:19
When I was shooting Hasselblad I dicovered the side grip from the Mamia 645 was a perfect fit if you filed a couple millimeters off the two pins on either side of the tripod screw. The Mamiya has holes for the pins but the Hassy doesn't. The shutter release on the Mamiya grip lines up perfectly with the Hasselblad release. It's much nicer than the Hasselblad's standard side grip.

Look around for a Hasselblad meter prism with a dead meter. They sell for a fraction of the price of a meterless prism.

The 120mm lens makes as great portrait lens if you use it wide open at f/5.6. Wide open it lacks the brutal sharpness that it has when stopped down a bit.

raid
04-29-2009, 07:54
Maybe a side by side Rollei comparison is being planned here?
2.8C/2.8D/2.8E/2.8F plus some Automats and Rolleicords?

colker
04-29-2009, 08:57
well at least you get the choice with a hassleblad system to change the lenses and backs, or even viewfinder if you want, not that people tend to change that over often.

of course i see the humour in your exaggeration, and Hassy v Rollei is another of those things people love to debate (argue) over, though i can never really see why...it not like nikon v canon or holden v ford (i suppose that might be GMH v Ford for americans), that are basically the same and work in the same way.

i have always seen the hasselblad and rollei for two completely different uses, if you want system camera with extra backs so you can carry say colour and b&w film (or any other variation) it makes it easy to change from to another, being able to change focal lengths has its obvious advantages as well...if you like to stick to using up one roll of film at a time and only use a fixed focal length then the rollie...i have never really understood why rollei folk get so down on the blad system....hehe (i hear Frank crooning, fly me to the moon...) jealous the rollei didnt go to the moon maybe (JK)

rollei wide angle, rollei tele and rollei normal. ;)
hassle has one big advantage: shooting polaroids. i had 2 hassles... the 120 cameras i used the most were pentaxes.

Frank Petronio
04-29-2009, 09:28
Walker Evans travelled on his shoots for Fortune magazine with a Halliburton full of two each of the Rolleiflex Wide, Normal, and Tele cameras. Pretty slick. Likewise Avedon and Penn had multiple bodies and had assistants feed them loaded cameras through out a shoot.

Polaroid was pretty much required after that time period and the only Rolleiflex Polaroids were beastly home-made jobs. But some people just used a separate Polaroid camera or even a Blad dedicated to Polaroid duty. The Rolleiflex still handles better than the Blad, and it is quiet and provides constant viewing (no mirror) so it is better for that alone. The Hasselblad or other SLRS are a lot more "in your face".

Todd.Hanz
04-29-2009, 10:57
'blad's focus closer but then you have the mirror slap to contend with vs. the leaf shutter on the Rollei. You can use the Rolleinar to focus closer on the Rollei but the depth of field is shallower. I have both and use both depending on my mood ;)

these are posted for bokeh purposes only, very similar I'd say.
'blad with 80/2.8 at 2.8
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2100/1537664604_2ac2884745_o.jpg

Rolleiflex 80/2.8
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/229/474025460_d430b2e722_o.jpg

Todd

Todd.Hanz
04-29-2009, 11:01
Rolleiflex's work well for portraits...but that's just me ;)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2322/2096944047_d5557d1a36.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2037/2096944043_f175a515eb.jpg

use whatever tool you have or fits best at the time.

Todd

Darkhorse
04-29-2009, 11:08
I like to manipulate a camera a lot, and felt that a Hassy, while beautiful, was just too cumbersome for me. Having said that I do miss its Planar, and I'm wishing my Yashica 124g was a Rolleiflex.

Here's some more Hassy Planar Bokeh

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3615/3485164700_7a04645b6f.jpg?v=0

rlouzan
04-29-2009, 11:33
Film flatness is one of the biggest problems of MF cameras. Some Camera Technicians have gone as far as placing a extra spring in the film back.
Optically they are both superb:D.

35mmdelux
04-29-2009, 11:43
The Hasselblad 80/2.8 is just... kind of a bore.

Mean comment.

I just snagged a 80mm CFE that Im about to given a test drive. Mostly I shoot wit the 100/3.5 -- very sharp and nice bokeh. (I carry a 60mm Distagon WA in the bag).

Of the Rollieflex 2.8 GX, after shooting 'blad for years (90% Leica, 10% 'blad) I was very impressed wit the GX rendtion in terms of color, bokeh, and OOF (Fuji 160 NPS). Most definitely its diff than the 80mm Planar T* -- The Rollie had kind of a "skylight" amberish ting of color that the 'blad does not. Beautiful results. In this sense, I would say the 'blad is more clinical.

Gumby
04-29-2009, 11:46
Mean comment.

... and not very enlightened. I'm surprised Frank said that vs. "I find other Hassy lenses to be more favorable for portaiture." ;)

kross
04-29-2009, 19:17
Maybe a side by side Rollei comparison is being planned here?
2.8C/2.8D/2.8E/2.8F plus some Automats and Rolleicords?

i certainly hope so!:D

Ezzie
05-11-2011, 12:37
Never had the opportunity to try out the Hassy Planar 80, but I sure do like how the Rollei version performs so far. It blows my Tessar clone Belar equipped Flexaret out of the water, and sure gives my poor man's Hassy, the Kowa SIX system 85mm f2.8 a run for it's money.

On the picture with the car with registration visible I can read the bar code on the tax sticker on the original scan, and that's from a lowly v500 @ 2400dpi. Its sharp alright. I also like the moderate contrast levels.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2587/5709850929_27c2f23701_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ezzie0304/5709850929/)
Galvanised (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ezzie0304/5709850929/) by Eirik0304 (http://www.flickr.com/people/ezzie0304/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2553/5709851465_7332ee64f2_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ezzie0304/5709851465/)
Momentary silence (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ezzie0304/5709851465/) by Eirik0304 (http://www.flickr.com/people/ezzie0304/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2105/5709850633_c96db0e322_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ezzie0304/5709850633/)
Hermine (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ezzie0304/5709850633/) by Eirik0304 (http://www.flickr.com/people/ezzie0304/), on Flickr

Ronald M
05-11-2011, 12:59
I have read a lot of documentation over the decades and the TLR 80 is the superior lens.
100 3.5 is a best pick

ianstamatic
05-11-2011, 13:33
http://iankraus.com/2011image/rolleisky1.jpg
http://iankraus.com/2011image/IanKraus345lewiboat.jpg

both rolleiflex 2.8E planar i think its a very smooth lens
only had mine for a little while. I use RZ67 in the studio. though have also used the rolleiflex with rollinar lens. Diacords, autocords and ikoflex are also nice tlrs