SLR Lenses and RF Lenses: Differences?
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.
Last edited by raid : 04-04-2009 at 07:12.