Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2022/08/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]This thread caught my eye, as a long time (former) Rollei landscape shooter. I grew up with the twin lens and then went to the SL66, then back to the updated Rollei twin lens. The Planar f/2.8 in the twin lens was different from what was in my SL66. The twin lens had a 5 element 80mm "Planar"; the SL66 had a 6 element version of the 80mm Planar f/2.8 (like the Hasselblad). (Rollei & Zeiss did not, apparently, use the "Planar" name to designate a specific lens formula. It was, [hate to say it] just a marketing designation.) Both were very good for their day. The usual limiting technical challenge for me with both the SL66 and, to a lesser extent, also the twin-lens was to get and keep the film on the film plane. That took some effort. The SL66 back (like the Hasselblad) put the film through what I call a reverse curl. When the part of the film that sat on that reverse-curl roller for a while gets to the film plane, it'll often cause the film to drift off the intended film plane. I shot just every other frame in the SL66. So, my negatives had nice "handles" on them. I also used a variety of rangefinder medium format film cameras. They were not 100% free from the medium format film flatness issues, but the situation was much less severe than with the SL66. In the film era I moved to Rollei & medium format, because medium format film allowed the most portable size that could make wall size prints that were sharp enough to simply eliminate visible softness as an image problem. At normal viewing distance, the eye became the limiting factor with respect to detail. When the M9 came out, that was the end of film for me. Paul www.PaulRoark.com On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 1:31 PM Douglas Barry <imra at iol.ie> wrote: > Yes, the Rolleiflex is better, Lluis. My favourite is "In the Coffee Shop". > Douglas > > > On 30/08/2022 23:34, Lluis Ripoll via LUG wrote: > > I have compared photographs from two 6x6 cameras Rolleiflex with a > Planar 80mm f 2.8 and Zeiss Super Ikonta III 531/16 with a Tessar 75mm f > 3.5. In both I have used the same Ilford FP4 E.I. 100 film, both films have > been developed together in the same tank. The photo that best shows the > different performance is in Roots. Anyway the Zeiss Super Ikonta requires a > calibration of the rangefinder, today I have taken it to the seller's > workshop to adjust it. > > > > In the Cofee Shop > > < > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/luisrq/Medium+Format/2022F080412.jpg.html > > > > Rolleiflex E, Zeiss Planar 80mm f 2.8, Ilford FP4, D-23 1:1 > > > > Light geometry > > < > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/luisrq/Medium+Format/2022F080411.jpg.html > > > > Rolleiflex E, Zeiss Planar 80mm f 2.8, Ilford FP4, D-23 1:1 > > > > Roots > > < > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/luisrq/Medium+Format/2022F080505.jpg.html > > > > Zeiss Super Ikonta III 531/16, Ilford FP4, D-23 1:1 > > > > Roots bis > > < > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/luisrq/Medium+Format/2022F080402.jpg.html > > > > Rolleiflex E, Zeiss Planar 80mm f 2.8, Ilford FP4, D-23 1:1 > > > > Resting on the shadows > > < > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/luisrq/Medium+Format/2022F080509.jpg.html > > > > Zeiss Super Ikonta III 531/16, Ilford FP4, D-23 1:1 > > > > Resting on the Park > > < > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/luisrq/Medium+Format/2022F080504.jpg.html > > > > Zeiss Super Ikonta III 531/16, Ilford FP4, D-23 1:1 > > > > Thanks for looking, your c&c are wecome > > > > Saludos cordiales > > Lluis > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >