View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina
|
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 4:13 pm Post subject: Schneider SL-Xenon 1.8/50mm in QBM |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
Anybody has experience with it, or know about his IQ?
Thanks in advance.
Rino. _________________ Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Sorry, I don't, but may I ask, is this lens Schneider's equivalent to a Zeiss Planar T*? _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina
|
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
Thanks.
This is the Scheider xenar for the Rolleiflex SL 35 cam. I think that it's the only one 1,8 xenar lens in 50 mm.
Similar to the planar, yes. But not identical. The xenar is 6/4 and the planar made by rollei is 7/5. The previous planar, made by Zeiss don't know.
It's seems to be not interesant at all, or very uncommonm or very bad lens. Only one comment.
Rino. _________________ Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Minolfan
Joined: 30 Dec 2008 Posts: 3438 Location: Netherlands
|
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Minolfan wrote:
The lens should have a compairable IQ like the Rollei Planar/Voigtländer Ultron lens.
Less common, I think that is the reason of little reactions.
Schneider made an nice Xenon for Kodak Retina Reflex too.
Sorry I don't have one. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I am interested in Schnedier lenses. We hear so little about them compared to Zeiss.
Everyone seems to agree that Zeiss Contax T* lenses are among the very best.
Those were made in West Germany, at the same time Schnedier were also making lenses in West Germany.
Surely this is akin to BMW and Mercedes and they both produced the best possible lenses?
Or were Schneider more Volkswagen to Zeiss' Mercedes and they produced Golfs and Jettas while Zeiss made luxury cars? _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Minolfan
Joined: 30 Dec 2008 Posts: 3438 Location: Netherlands
|
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Minolfan wrote:
I think its closer to comparising Mercedes vs BMW. Rodenstock and Schneider are top notch, but with other production programs (enlarger lenses, large format etc.). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
BRunner
Joined: 29 Jul 2009 Posts: 705 Location: Czech Republic
|
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
BRunner wrote:
I have this lens...I like it's rendering - different to all my other 50mm lenses...very "bright" and little desaturated colors, very fine bokeh and probably my sharpest fast 50 for close distances (wide open even better than Planar/Ultron 1.8/50). Unfortunately it hits mirror on 5D, so I didn't used it much. I'm planning to make replaceable mount to M42 and use it on my Pentax.
Few snapshots, nothing special. Everything on 5DmkI wide open except #5 which is @f2.8.
Especially #2 and #3 shows how good is this lens wide open at close distances.
_________________ .: APO-Maniac :. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
BRunner
Joined: 29 Jul 2009 Posts: 705 Location: Czech Republic
|
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
BRunner wrote:
I've forgot to mention build quality of this lens, which is better than my Rollei and Contax Planars and is almost equal to Leica lenses. _________________ .: APO-Maniac :. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Maple Wang
Joined: 07 Jul 2009 Posts: 37 Location: Taiwan
|
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Maple Wang wrote:
BRunner wrote: |
I have this lens...I like it's rendering - different to all my other 50mm lenses...very "bright" and little desaturated colors, very fine bokeh and probably my sharpest fast 50 for close distances (wide open even better than Planar/Ultron 1.8/50). |
According to these samples, I don't think it's inferior to Leica 50/2 _________________ Maple
In order not to interfere with other member's searching, my gear list is here:
http://www.flickr.com/people/maple122/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina
|
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
Thanks for all, guys.
Thanks for the images too. Very informative by itself.
One thing more, it has only five blades?
And the price?
THanks again, for all.
Rino. _________________ Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
BRunner
Joined: 29 Jul 2009 Posts: 705 Location: Czech Republic
|
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
BRunner wrote:
Yes it has 5 aperture blades, but it's not much difference to 6 blades lenses.
It's rarest 50 for QBM and price reflects this. I was lucky, got mine for 60€ with SL35 body, but the auction had bad photos attached and without description of lens type. More realistic prices are ~100€. _________________ .: APO-Maniac :. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
IAZA
Joined: 16 Apr 2010 Posts: 2587 Location: Indonesia
|
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
IAZA wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
I am interested in Schnedier lenses. We hear so little about them compared to Zeiss.
Everyone seems to agree that Zeiss Contax T* lenses are among the very best.
|
In my opinion, Schneider isn't inferior against Zeiss. If you see the going price now, for example at ebay, their lenses higher than zeiss in equal lens.
but I'm interested in Schneider too, I have 5 now _________________ nex5, Olympus EPM1, yashica half 14, Canon eos 650 want to see samples of mine? please click My lenses
and My gallery
~Suat~ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina
|
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
Thanks guys.
The price seems to be very up.
My son in law asked me about which lens can he buy for E 34, a fujinon 3,5/135 or the xenon QBM lens. Both at the same shop. And the money for only one lens.
The xenon should be the answer. At least, for me.
Rino. _________________ Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jmiro
Joined: 22 Feb 2009 Posts: 55 Location: Chicago USA
Expire: 2012-03-03
|
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:01 am Post subject: Xenon lenses |
|
|
jmiro wrote:
The original Planar of 1896 was a perfectly symmetrical "double Gauss" 6/4 design.
The Xenon is a slight variation of that design into a slightly asymmetrical 6/4 design first developed and manufactured by Schneider in 1924.
(Xenar is Schneider's name for the classic Tessar 4/3 design and should not be confused with the Xenon.)
The slightly asymmetrical Xenon design is exactly the same as the later Zeiss Contarex Planar 50 f2, Zeiss Contax G Planar 45 f2 and Leitz Summicron 50f2.
What has varied since 1924 in Schneider's, Zeiss's and Leica's use of the same general design are coatings and different glass both individually and in combination. However all versions of these are for practical purposes symmetrical.
Symmetrical lenses if the aperture size is not more than in this case f2 (1.9 and 1.8 are here just marketing numbers) are known for their sharpness at full aperture, their flatness of their field (i.e. sharp across the frame even to the corners) and also good control of aberrations including CA. Good quality enlarging lenses made since the 1950s have been of this 6/4 design and are known for their sharpness wide open and across the field and control of aberrations. I fully agree with BRunner that the Xenon 50 f1.8 for Rollei (the 50 f1.9 for others) is among the sharpest f2 35mm lenses I have used. (The other competitors are the the G Planar 45/2, Contarex 50 f2 and late Summicron 50f2) To stay with European lenses the very atypical 7/6 design found in the Rollei Planar 50 f1.8 and Voigtlaender Color Ultron
are the next sharpest I have used but the long sides and corners are not as sharp as the Xenon types. Then comes the Pancolar 50 f1.8 in a good sample (more sample variation than the Xenon types by Schneider or Zeiss or the Rollei 7/6 types). It is an "ultron" type
of a 6/5 design. The center can be as sharp as the Xenon 6/4 or Rollei 7/6 but is even less good than at the long ends and corners than the Rollei. When I say less good in all these cases I mean less than the Xenon flat field at wide apertures. Also the differences only become fully apparent if printed at large sizes or by pixel peeping though the Xenon type is more contrasty at wide apertures (less flare) than the others without post processing and often even with. Usually by f4 and certainly by f5.6 they perform equally well in my experience in terms of crisp clarity ("sharpness") across the field whether full frame or half frame.
There is also another 6/5 variation of the following type
favored by among others Pentax in their 55 f1.8 or f2 Takumars or their bayonet 50 f1.7s. Then there is the Contax CY 50 f1.4 and 1.7 that have the same design - some other great lenses - with a 7/6 design very different from the Rollei 7/6.
(Notice that each has only one doublet that needs to be centered and cemented.) But enough of design formats for now.
What is surprising to many is how good many maker's 50 f2 lenses can be. Nikon had a 6/4 50 f2 for many decades and many were and are surprised that it had crisper clarity across the field wide open than Nikon's faster 50s. (Nikon stopped making that lens in the early 80s and made instead a 50 f1.8 and still does. It is a 6/5 of the Pentax type. One hypothesis is that it is cheaper not to cement and center a doublet rather than use 2 single elements.)
The same is also true of other maker's 50 f2s that are of the Xenon type. In general they are for most users and practical purposes just as good as the Xenon or Zeiss or Leica. If you are a lens fanatic like many of us there are subtle but real differences due to acceptable manufacturing tolerances including precise spacing of the front and rear elements from each other as well as centering the cementing of the doublets, quality control, glass and coating used, etc.
Schneider supplied practically all of the lenses for the Kodak Retinas (they were made in Stuttgart) from the late 30s on. Once coating was available most Retinas had Xenons instead of Xenars. (Coatings made possible a similar change in medium format Rolleiflexes from Tessars and Xenars to Planars and Schneider Xenotars and also in large format lenses that were for a long while after WWII dominated by Schneider and Zeiss,)
I have used large and medium format Schneider and Zeiss for over 50 years and my "travel camera" from the mid 60s until the late 90s were Retina IIcs that had Xenons on them. Nesster has many pix on MFLenses taken with that camera. Crisp overall, great colors and smooth oof. I have owned and used and still use a Schneider Xenon 50 f1.9 since the mid-70s made in 1971 in M42 mount for SLRs. It even has a M/A switch, very well made (as BRunner said), and needs little to be done to it to avoid mirror problems on the 5D. The main difference is the length of the protective fin that sticks out to a greater and lesser degree from around the rear cell. The purpose of that is to precent damage to the rear element if put down flat on some surface. Both the Rollei Planar and Voigtlaender Color Ultron QBM and also the Color Ultron M42 as well as the Xenon for Rollei have fins that stick out more than on the f1.9 Schneider. It is easy to take out the rear cell of the f1.9 and sand the fin down so that there is no mirror hit. It is a bit trickier with the Rollei f1.8 lenses whatever the name since Rollei presumably specified a longer fin though the build of their lenses is the worst of any I have mentioned here. The worst fin is on the last Summicron R 50 f2. With earlier Summicrons the fin was part of a cylinder that went around the rear elements tube and was simply glued to the another part of the lens. It could be easily removed if needed though one did not have to do that for it to work as is with a Leitax Pentax mount even on a 5D. But the last Summicron R 50 has a much longer fin and the tube was part of the entire lens metal molding. For it to work with a Leitax Pentax mount on a 5D, for example, one needs to grind the fin down after taking out the rear lens elements. I had the main Leica person in the US do that since it is easy to put the rear elements back incorrectly and loose proper spacing so important to the symmetrical formula. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina
|
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
Thank jmiro, very much.
Very informative and formative. Easy to read and to understand too.
Regards.
Rino _________________ Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rafa1981
Joined: 15 Jul 2010 Posts: 142
|
Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
rafa1981 wrote:
BRunner wrote: |
I have this lens...I like it's rendering - different to all my other 50mm lenses...very "bright" and little desaturated colors, very fine bokeh and probably my sharpest fast 50 for close distances (wide open even better than Planar/Ultron 1.8/50). Unfortunately it hits mirror on 5D, so I didn't used it much. I'm planning to make replaceable mount to M42 and use it on my Pentax.
Few snapshots, nothing special. Everything on 5DmkI wide open except #5 which is @f2.8.
Especially #2 and #3 shows how good is this lens wide open at close distances.
|
Do you know at which distance does it begin to hit the mirror, and if it is salvageable filing a little the upper part or is the same lens that it is hitting? _________________ My flickr.
Gear: Constantly evolving. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kram
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1344 Location: Portland, OR
|
Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kram wrote:
estudleon wrote: |
Thank jmiro, very much.
Very informative and formative. Easy to read and to understand too. |
+1
I have this lens and it has very high IQ. Smooth "polite" bokeh and sharp. I haven't had the chance to shoot it much. I bought it with the Rollei HFT 50/1.4 Planar with the idea of selling the Xenon but now that I see how good it is- I hesitate.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
taunusreiter
Joined: 20 Mar 2007 Posts: 127
|
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
taunusreiter wrote:
The SL-Xenon (50/1.8 ) is a 6/4 design, according to an old Rolleiflex SL35 brochure.
No diagram published with it.
So my best guess is a "Planar" formula, as published by Schneider with the M42/ Wirgin or Eakta Xenon (which was a f/1.9)
This is a bit mysterious, because development already went to the 6/5 (Ultron) designs in the 1960's and also Schneider had build them. They eventually faced some engineering ressource problems at Schneider after the demise of designers like Tronnier, and the sudden death of one young engineer (told by Dr. Tronnier jr., don't remember the name), so they went back to a Planar style.
Nevertheless: the SL-Xenon is one of the best 50mm lenses. Reminds me to the concave Zeiss Ultron 50/1.8. Color characteristics on the cooler side also. _________________ My flickr Gallery
My Classic Camera Website |
|
Back to top |
|
|
simbon4o
Joined: 19 Dec 2011 Posts: 390 Location: Bulgaria
|
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
simbon4o wrote:
So I have and idea now why my SMC M 50 1.7 is so much like Planars in rendering . Thanks for the info! _________________ 10-300мм 4.0 - 1.2 - 4.5 NIKON&Sony bodies / Sony 10-18, Pentax 28 2.8 II, CZJ 35 2.4, Nikkor DX 35 1.8, Samyang 35 1.4, KMZ 50 1.7, FDn 50 1.2 L, Nikkor 55 2.8, Rokkor 58 1.2, Soligor 85 1.8 Preset, Samyang 85 1.4, Canon FDn 85 1.2 L, Tokina AT-X 90 2.5, Canon FDn 135mm 2.0, Nikkor 180 2.8 ED, Tair 300 4.5
________
snimo.net |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lord Minty
Joined: 22 Oct 2010 Posts: 24 Location: Bedford, UK
|
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:26 pm Post subject: Re: Xenon lenses |
|
|
Lord Minty wrote:
jmiro wrote: |
Then there is the Contax CY 50 f1.4 and 1.7 that have the same design - some other great lenses - with a 7/6 design very different from the Rollei 7/6. |
As I understood it the Contax C/Y Planar 50 1.7 is the same design as the Rollei 50 1.8, and the Rollei was itself a redesign of the Zeiss Ikon Contarex Zeiss Planar 50 f2 which dates from 1959. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
BRunner
Joined: 29 Jul 2009 Posts: 705 Location: Czech Republic
|
Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:24 am Post subject: Re: Xenon lenses |
|
|
BRunner wrote:
Lord Minty wrote: |
jmiro wrote: |
Then there is the Contax CY 50 f1.4 and 1.7 that have the same design - some other great lenses - with a 7/6 design very different from the Rollei 7/6. |
As I understood it the Contax C/Y Planar 50 1.7 is the same design as the Rollei 50 1.8, and the Rollei was itself a redesign of the Zeiss Ikon Contarex Zeiss Planar 50 f2 which dates from 1959. |
Nope, Contarex Planar 2/50 is 6/4 scheme, Rollei 1.8/50 Planar is actually recomputed Ultron. Both C/Y Planars share same 7/6 scheme as most fast 50mm lenses of last 30 years. Images from Marco Cavina article about Planar evolution.
_________________ .: APO-Maniac :. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
l9magen
Joined: 13 Jul 2011 Posts: 326 Location: Calgary, Canada
Expire: 2016-10-21
|
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
l9magen wrote:
I was reading this threadvwith great interest because one of these lenses was going on eBay ($230 buy-it-now), but it sold this morning before my paycheck arrived.
C'est la vie, shall have to start looking again.
Is there any difference between this lens and the Xenon 50/1.9 in M42 mount?
Thanks _________________ Lochlann
Digital Camera: Leica MM246 & M10
RF lenses: Zeiss ZM, assorted Japanese LTMs & Nikkor-S |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jmiro
Joined: 22 Feb 2009 Posts: 55 Location: Chicago USA
Expire: 2012-03-03
|
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jmiro wrote:
l9magen wrote: |
Is there any difference between this lens and the Xenon 50/1.9 in M42 mount? Thanks |
No. The 1.8, 1.9 is just a marketing difference.
The same lens is also available in a DKL mount that was the Kodak Retina Reflex (as well as for these practical purposes the Bessamatic, Ultramatic) mount. But the Xenon 50 DKL was only available in Kodaks. DKL to M42 adapters are readily available. They allow the aperture to be changed on that form of the lens.
This same lens (Xenon 50/2) was used in many folder Kodak Retinas from the mid-50s on. But they are not detachable as are ones spoken of above. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|