Rollei 35 Tessar - Sharpest Lens Ever?
Karl Winkler
Germany ca. 1971
The film was Fuji Superia 400, which, although quite good, does show
grain at this magnification. A slower, finer grain film would have
revealed even more detail.
No comment on the subject matter... And the lighting was pretty bad
too...
The full frame photo is here:
http://pages.cthome.net/karlwinkler/ClassicCar.jpg
And the detail shot is here (at full scan resolution):
http://pages.cthome.net/karlwinkler/Watch.jpg
Martin Francis
--
"Everyone's always in favour of saving Hitler's brain, but when you put it
in the body of a great white shark, ohh-ohh-ohh, suddenly you've gone too
far!"
-- Prof. Hubert Farnsworth
T.P.
>The camera was a Rollei 35, with Zeiss Tessar 40mm f/3.5 lens, made in
>Germany ca. 1971
The Tessar is a very simple design with only four elements. Centre
sharpness of a Tessar can be outstanding, but corner sharpness wide
open is difficult to achieve.
The Sonnar design is fundamentally superior, with the greater number
of elements making for better corrections and thus improved corner
sharpness. The Sonnar is also much less likely to show the extreme
light fall-off towards the corners that characterises the Tessar.
The "sharpest lens ever" depends very much on what criteria you set to
define "sharpest". However, it is most unlikely to be a Tessar for
the reasons I stated above, unless you define "central sharpness" as
your main criterion.
William E. Graham
can't read the date on the watch.........
"Karl Winkler" <kwin...@sennheiserusa.com> wrote in message
news:779042cf.02070...@posting.google.com...
T.P.
>The camera was a Rollei 35, with Zeiss Tessar 40mm f/3.5 lens, made in
>Germany ca. 1971
>
>The film was Fuji Superia 400, which, although quite good, does show
>grain at this magnification. A slower, finer grain film would have
>revealed even more detail.
>
>No comment on the subject matter... And the lighting was pretty bad
>too...
>
>The full frame photo is here:
>http://pages.cthome.net/karlwinkler/ClassicCar.jpg
Goodness! What a hideous shot!
And at 373 x 576 pixels you are just wasting people's time.
No-one can possibly judge sharpness from such a small scan.
Try 3730 x 5760 and we might have a better chance, but I
suspect that, in any case, closer examination would destroy
your hypothesis.
Bob Hickey
did sharpness tests, but it was the color that impressed me most. Really
an amazing camera. Led me to start collecting Rolleiflex. The search
ended there. The test says a lot about how good Fuji 400 has gotten as
well. I wonder how Agfa 25 in Rodinal would have looked? Today the time,
tomorrow the date. Bob Hickey
Bob Hickey
Alan Browne
And repeating what T.P. said, this size scan does NOTHING to demonstrate
the sharpness of a lens.
If you want to show sharpness, show us some detail. Center, corners. And
get some finer grained film, too.
Cheers,
Alan
Magnus W
news:3D258E4A...@videotron.ca:
> No comment (guffaw).
>
> And repeating what T.P. said, this size scan does NOTHING to
> demonstrate the sharpness of a lens.
>
> If you want to show sharpness, show us some detail. Center, corners.
> And get some finer grained film, too.
People, do you /read/ the posts?
I quote Karl's original post:
>> The full frame photo is here:
>> http://pages.cthome.net/karlwinkler/ClassicCar.jpg
>>
>> And the detail shot is here (at full scan resolution):
>> http://pages.cthome.net/karlwinkler/Watch.jpg
Note something? Detail shot? What could that be? :-)
T.P.
It says much about your own lack of judgement that you posted this
reply to Alan.
I looked at *both* URLs and I feel sure that Alan did too. The detail
shot is just as dreadful as the full frame shot, and when it comes to
judging lens performance, it is precisely as useless - *totally*.
There is a Kodak single use (recyclable) camera that is easily capable
of producing better shots than this.
Herbert Kanner
T.P. <t...@nomailthanks.com> wrote:
In the process of comparing two films, I took identical pictures with a
Yashica T4 Super (Zeiss Tessar f/3.5 35mm focal length) and a Leica M6
with an old 35mm f/2 Summitar. Looking at the 8x10 prints with a 30X
magnifier, I saw chromatic aberration in the Tessar print, none in the
Summitar one.
Herb
--
In addressing email, replace deadspam.com by acm.org.
--
Herbert Kanner <kan...@deadspam.com>
Gary Frost
Your test shot says more about the film than the lens. Try using velvia
and a tripod if you want to get an idea on lens quality, (..or TMX, etc.)
Bob Hickey
Bob Hickey
leicaddict
posted. And since the detail shot is close to the edge, one must also
be aware that this represents excellent edge sharpness. The hands on
the watch and the numerals are easily discernable. Obviously, the
nasayers know even less about digital resolution than they know about
photography.
kwin...@sennheiserusa.com (Karl Winkler) wrote in message news:<779042cf.02070...@posting.google.com>...
Bill Tuthill
> Soooo? where are these terriffic disposable shots?
One (from the Kodak HQ disposable) was published in Popular Photography
about the time this camera came onto the market. Sorry I do not have
the specific month, but you could find it with a periodical search.
My memory of the HQ picture is that Tony "TP" Polson is right. The main
problem with http://pages.cthome.net/karlwinkler/Watch.jpg seems to be
the lousy multi-specked film grain. See why I don't like Superia 400?
Alan Browne
I wanted to test my scanner (this was a couple years ago), so I set up the
shot below.
It is taken on E100S and a moderately crappy Minolta 28-80 xi f/4.5-5.6
lens, and then scanned on a quite ordinary Minolta Scan Dual at best
resoltion. Admittedly, lighting was quite good, so the contrast is helped a
great deal. (warmish tone is due to photoflood lighting (mixed with
flash)). I shot this at about f/5.6, but might have been as little as f/8.
Full frame: http://pages.infinit.net/alanbrow/Full-frame-406-DPI.jpg
Detail: http://pages.infinit.net/alanbrow/Dollar-detail-2438-DPI.jpg
On the film, the dollar bill measures about
2.25mm (vert.) X 5.4mm
(The white "X" through the dollar bill is to help me stay out of jail)
Conclusion, I don't get too teary eyed over people's claims of this or that
lens vs. other lenses. (Yes, I should repeat this in the corners, etc...)
Cheers,
Alan
Alan Browne
impressed as it is, but there are no numerals that I can see other than two whitish blobs that might be the date. The
fleshtone grain is a bit ... uhmm, lumpy. (due to film, not lens).
See my other post in this thread, as well.
Cheers,
Alan.
leicaddict wrote:
> Clearly, one can easily see that this is a sharp lens from the sample
> posted. And since the detail shot is close to the edge, one must also
> be aware that this represents excellent edge sharpness. The hands on
> the watch and the numerals are easily discernable. Obviously, the
> nasayers know even less about digital resolution than they know about
> photography.
>
> kwin...@sennheiserusa.com (Karl Winkler) wrote in message news:<779042cf.02070...@posting.google.com>...
> > The camera was a Rollei 35, with Zeiss Tessar 40mm f/3.5 lens, made in
> > Germany ca. 1971
>
Mike
Sonnar and the Planar are considered to be better performers.
Still, I had a Rollei 35T, and I took some wonderful photos with it.
Example (sorry about the small photo)
http://host.fptoday.com/melek/photos/Winter%20at%20Morbach.jpg
The Tessar performed admirably with the 35mm format, as well as medium
format. I don't have a large-format Tessar, but I've no doubt it would
do well there too. I also had a Rollei A110 that used a Tessar, and it
took crisp shots, despite that its performance was hampered by the
tiny negative.
I think that nearly all of the Zeiss lenses are exceptional. I'm sure
there were some dogs in the lineup over the years, as you can't hit a
home run every time you come to the plate.
-Mike
Godfrey DiGiorgi
The Rollei 35's Tessar 40/3.5 is definitely a super lens, one of the best
Tessars I've used. However, the Rollei 35S' Sonnar 40/2.8 is an even
better lens... I have both, and use them often. Here's an example of the
Sonnar:
cropped and sharpened:
http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/zurich-98/um-michael.jpg
a raw detail scan at 1:1 on screen:
http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/zurich-98/um-michael-det.jpg
You can't see it clearly in this 2700 ppi scan, but on the back of the
Minox body level with his nose you can see the slightly curved engraving.
On the negative, with a 24x loupe, you can read the word "Wetzlar".
Godfrey
In article <779042cf.02070...@posting.google.com>,
Don Mackie
can see you have Liberace's Greatest Hits on vinyl.
--
"Any PC built after 1985 has the storage capacity to house an evil spirit,"
Reverend Jim Peasboro
Alan Browne
You had me going there for a minute!
Cheers,
Alan
Drew Saunders
me...@fptoday.com (Mike) wrote:
> The Tessar performed admirably with the 35mm format, as well as medium
> format. I don't have a large-format Tessar, but I've no doubt it would
> do well there too.
I do, a Nikkor 200/8 M that I've only had a few months, but its a fine
lens and very popular due to its small size relative to other lenses in
that focal length. Like many Tessars, the coverage is moderate, but
that's what you get for the compact size, and the 210mm or so image
circle is plenty for 4x5. There are a lot of fine Tessar-style lenses
for large format, mostly older lenses. Check r.p.e.l-f if you want a lot
of details.
--
Drew W. Saunders
dru (at) stanford (dot) eee dee you
Herbert Kanner
There is another fault with the Tessar, assuming that the "Zeiss Tessar"
in the Yashica T4 is essentially the same Tessar lens as in the German
cameras. In the course of comparing two films, Agfa Optima and Fuji
Superia, I shot the same pictures for a number of outdoor scenes with
two cameras: a Yashica T4 Super and a Leica with a 35 mm Summicron.
The Summicron was not the recent asph. model; it was approximately 20
years old. I blew up the negatives to 8 x 10. Not only did the Leica
shots appear to be sharper (this could be subjective), but when I
examined the prints with 30X magnification, I saw chromatic aberration
in the print from Zeiss lens, none in the print from the Summicron.
This is, perhaps of no significance, as it could not be seen without all
that magnification. Nevertheless, it surprised me.
Gary Frost
It is not 35mm from the film plane when focused on infininty so I
suspect it hass a mild 'telephoto' design with additional correction
required for this. (like the olympus XA series) ...with additional
falloff/vignette caused by this design as well.
The Tessar coverage is pushed to the limit with 35mm lens(for 35mm film).
They perform much better when used as a standard focal length or longer
lens.
Mike Elek
> in the Yashica T4 is essentially the same Tessar lens as in the German
> cameras. In the course of comparing two films, Agfa Optima and Fuji
> Superia, I shot the same pictures for a number of outdoor scenes with
> two cameras: a Yashica T4 Super and a Leica with a 35 mm Summicron.
> The Summicron was not the recent asph. model; it was approximately 20
> years old. I blew up the negatives to 8 x 10. Not only did the Leica
> shots appear to be sharper (this could be subjective), but when I
> examined the prints with 30X magnification, I saw chromatic aberration
> in the print from Zeiss lens, none in the print from the Summicron.
>
> This is, perhaps of no significance, as it could not be seen without all
> that magnification. Nevertheless, it surprised me.
>
> Herb
>
(rangefinder, SLR) would outperform most lenses of similar design on a P&S.
A better comparison might be a Zeiss-Ikon Contax with the Tessar f/2.8 or
f/3.5 vs. the Summicron. Or better yet the Biogon 35mm vs. the Summicron
35mm. That would be interesting.
-Mike
leicaddict
Rolex Submariner WHICH DOES NOT HAVE NUMERALS. If you go to a site
featuring this watch, and compare it to this scan, then you will see
how really sharpe it is. In fact, in revisiting it, it really is
outstanding. What else you appear to be seeing are, look to me like
dye clumps.
Alan Browne <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<3D2A39CC...@videotron.ca>...
Karl Winkler
Yes, in fact, I've also been using an old Ica camera with 9x12cm
format negs, and a Zeiss Jena 135mm f/4.5 *uncoated* lens. If anyone
is interested (although the scans are small...) check out the "Zeiss
Ica" page on my web site.
Dennis O'Connor
You are obviously confused... Everyone knows that you cannot take those kind
of photos, with that tonality and sharpness, unless your camera body costs
as much as a small car, and the lens is the latest, super multi coated, auto
focus, apochromatic, aspherical, digital wonder...
Go back and check your camera bag... You HAVE to be confused...
Denny
"Karl Winkler" <kwin...@sennheiserusa.com> wrote in > Yes, in fact, I've
Mike Elek
blah, blah, blah ...
> Yes, in fact, I've also been using an old Ica camera with 9x12cm
> format negs, and a Zeiss Jena 135mm f/4.5 *uncoated* lens. If anyone
> is interested (although the scans are small...) check out the "Zeiss
> Ica" page on my web site.
>
> -Karl
> http://pages.cthome.net/karlwinkler
Great shots Karl. The older cameras are really underrated today. And that
6x9 negative is tough to beat. By the way, are you using a roll-film holder
for this? Or are you cutting your own film?
--
Mike Elek
[Remove 'NOSPAM' from the e-mail address]
Read about the Voigtlander Bessa-R camera
http://host.fptoday.com/melek/bessa-r.html
Paul Chefurka
wrote:
>Yes, in fact, I've also been using an old Ica camera with 9x12cm
>format negs, and a Zeiss Jena 135mm f/4.5 *uncoated* lens. If anyone
>is interested (although the scans are small...) check out the "Zeiss
>Ica" page on my web site.
>
>-Karl
>http://pages.cthome.net/karlwinkler
Even on the Web the tonality is gorgeous. Nice work, Karl.
Paul
Karl Winkler
> "Karl Winkler" <kwin...@sennheiserusa.com> wrote in message
> blah, blah, blah ...
> > Yes, in fact, I've also been using an old Ica camera with 9x12cm
> > format negs, and a Zeiss Jena 135mm f/4.5 *uncoated* lens. If anyone
> > is interested (although the scans are small...) check out the "Zeiss
> > Ica" page on my web site.
> >
> > -Karl
> > http://pages.cthome.net/karlwinkler
>
> Great shots Karl. The older cameras are really underrated today. And that
> 6x9 negative is tough to beat. By the way, are you using a roll-film holder
> for this? Or are you cutting your own film?
Thanks, Mike and Dennis, for the kind words. By the way, I found this
thing in an antique shop for $85. I thought it was an amazing bargain,
but then of course it took a while to find some film holders, the 9x12
sheet film is only available in Germany, I had to do some work to get
the film holder/camera back not to leak light, etc. Using the camera
is a very slow process compared to my Contax G1... But I've been
really pleased with the images; it's definitely worth the effort.
I could cut down 4x5 sheets, and indeed, that's what I'll do when I
run out of the second box of Ilford FP4+ I have in 9x12 size. I'm
thinking of trying Agfa Scala next... I did my own film development
for these images, though, and I'd have to send out the Scala.
Decisions, decisions.
Whoops, this thread seems to have headed in the LF direction...