SLR Lenses and RF Lenses: Differences?

[raid]

As many of you here, I own and use both type of lenses (SLR and RF). Other than the obvious differences between the two types of cameras, what can you detect in your own lenses a major differences between your favorite SLR lenses and your favorite RF lenses?

I recently used an old Zeiss Planar 50mm/1.4 in Rollei QBM mount for the Rolleiflex 35mm SLR system, and I used on the same week a Canon 50mm/1.4 RF lens. I find both lenses to be giving me excellent quality images.

Now that people, such as Amedeo, offer SLR lenses in RF mount, other than the size and weight, is there a major [optical] difference? Will you get "more" or "less" from SLR lenses when compared to RF lenses?

One observation is that RF lenses keep their values better, but I am more interested in finding out from you what you see as the differences from the optics themselves and not so much other factors.


For example, how would you compare a recent ZM 50mm with an SLR Planar 50mm lens and an older RF Planar 50mm lens? Is there anything that seems to be consistently different between the SLR lens and the RF lens?

I hope that your weekend is going well for you.

[raid]

I may have asked a question that for many is too obvious to answer.

[Joe Brugger]

Originally Posted by raid

I may have asked a question that for many is too obvious to answer.

Something like that.

Think I understand the question, but there are so many variables -- there are dogs and gems in both categories and the whole RF/SLR list of advantages and disadvantages. Some are pitched to the mass market, some to connoisseurs. It goes on and on.

Sitting closer to the film plane means a nice wide angle can be a lot simpler design than a comparable SLR lens.

No easy response, maybe no valid response at all.

[ferider]

There really are only two fundamental differences:

1) for an SLR higher lens speed also increases usability. For example, my 28/2 and 35/2 Zuikos are clearly optimized for high resolution at f5.6 and good bokeh close up and wide open. Still, the lens speed is also useful at f5.6 since the viewfinder is brighter.

2) (like Joe said) wider angles (and 50mm Sonnars ) can be closer to the film plane and one can get higher lens performance with less elements and design/implementation costs. The CV color skopars demonstrate that nicely. Outstanding performance that is hard to equal with older SLR lenses.

All other differences are dependent on the specific lens you pick.

I am very interested in the bokeh and general performance of your Rollei lens, Raid.

Cheers,

Roland.

[raid]

Originally Posted by ferider

I am very interested in the bokeh and general performance of your Rollei lens, Raid.

Cheers,

Roland.

Roland,

I have some recent photos with this lens. There is a website by someone from RFF in which he claims that this lens is the sharpest 50mm SLR lens ever made by anyone. I don't know how accurate the claim is, but I find the colors and the sharpness first class. I may have 3-4 Zeiss 50mm lenses for the Rollei. Some claim that the 50mm/1.8 is even sharper than the 50mm/1.4. The extra stop is useful to get though.

[Brian Sweeney]

It's difficult to answer on such a broad basis.

You will not find 50mm Sonnar formula lenses for SLR's. Reason enough to use a rangefinder.

[ampguy]

I thought the early versions (5/3) of the Nikon 105/2.5 F SLR lens are supposed to be a Sonnar design (5 elements in 3 groups), later going to 5 elements in 4 groups?

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...kkor/index.htm

Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney

It's difficult to answer on such a broad basis.

You will not find 50mm Sonnar formula lenses for SLR's. Reason enough to use a rangefinder.

[Brian Sweeney]

> You will not find 50mm Sonnar formula lenses for SLR's. Reason enough to use a rangefinder.

Originally Posted by ampguy

I thought the early versions (5/3) of the Nikon 105/2.5 F SLR lens are supposed to be a Sonnar design (5 elements in 3 groups), later going to 5 elements in 4 groups?

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...kkor/index.htm

It is possible to find Sonnar formula Telephoto lenses for SLR cameras. But there was only one "normal" lens made in Sonnar formula, for a Pentax ages ago. I think it was a 5.8cm lens.

The original 105/2.5 in F-Mount is a Sonnar forumula lens, as are the 135/3.5 and original Nikkor-Q 135/2.8. The 135/3.5 was virtually unchanged from 1950 through the 80s when it went out of production.

[raid]

Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney

It's difficult to answer on such a broad basis.

You will not find 50mm Sonnar formula lenses for SLR's. Reason enough to use a rangefinder.

Brian,
The Sonnar RF lenses are simply great. So are many of the Zeiss SLR lenses.

[gb hill]

Raid, I have been contemplating some Soviet made m42 lenses for my Spotmatic. Here is a thread I started on flickr if any one is interested. I was suprised how well the !61 is in m42. The Mir10 is another fantastic & sharp lens.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/1060189...7616164397319/

[Spider67]

I like the size of the RF lenses. It's much more comfortable using RF WA's

[raid]

Originally Posted by Spider67

I like the size of the RF lenses. It's much more comfortable using RF WA's

I also prefer small RF lenses when I travel over "full size" SLR lenses. Still, how would you compare a RF 25mm/4 to a Canon 24mm/2.8 ... etc.?

[payasam]

Wide angle lenses should show differences more clearly than longer lenses, in which flange-film distances do not differ so much or at all.

[edit] Sorry, that should be distances from rear element to film.

[raid]

Originally Posted by payasam

Wide angle lenses should show differences more clearly than longer lenses, in which flange-film distances do not differ so much or at all.

[edit] Sorry, that should be distances from rear element to film.

Does this imply that some of the older style SLR wide angle lenses, such as the first model Canon 19mm 3.5 FL which are similar or even identical to their RF counterparts, are they somehow "better" than retrofocus design SLR lenses?

[raid]

I am finding lenses from both types of cameras useful. There are long tele SLR lenses that don't have counterparts as RF lenses. Some of the old style SLR wide angle lenses were not retro focus, so such lenses also came close to the film plane

Roland: My Planar lens is an SLR lens and I hesitate having it modified to a RF lens.

I am still waiting for Amedeo to inform me whether he was able to create an adapter for G1/G2 lenses. Now such an adapter would be a "miracle" indeed.

[raid]

This is a small crop from a photo taken with the ZeissPlanar 50mm/1.4.










Such an SLR lens is the type oflens that keeps me attached to some of my SLR gear. The old style Zeiss SLR lenses can be superb. Their market values are not high.

[raid]

There is a place for SLR equipment side by side with RF equipment. The older Zeiss lenses can be relatively inexpensive to buy these days. Where else could you buy a beautiful Zeiss Planar 50mm/1.4 at $100?

[bkrystad]

I'm keeping one foot in each camp. Minolta CLE with an M-Rokkor 40mm from the CL. Fabulous images, and a pleasure to use. Then I have a Minolta XD-11 SLR kit with a handful of Rokkor primes (24/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.7, and soon a 135/2). Same kind of glass on an RF would be a lot more $$$US. I value the piece of mind of getting versatility and very nice results without handling the big investment. That doesn't mean I don't covet every RF I see go by on the classifieds, of course.