Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Rolleiflex SL35 Zeiss on Canon, any experience?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 1:33 pm    Post subject: Rolleiflex SL35 Zeiss on Canon, any experience? Reply with quote
I was following, bidded and outbid on this and other listing by the same seller. This particular one looks like a very nice Zeiss 25/2.8. Click here to see on Ebay (despite having sluggish blades) and the ending price was not that high (I think?).

Anyone here has any experience with Rolleiflex SL35 lens on Canon mount? I know adapters for QBM are available but I have not read it being discussed extensively like the Contax or M42 adapters. I would appreciate if you could share your thoughts, both on Rolleiflex lens and the adapters.

Cheers.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have some Rollei lenses:

- the Planar 1.8/50 Rollei branded, made in Singhapour (Mamiya), bayonet mount
- the Tele-Tessar 4/135, Zeiss branded, made in West Germany
- the Sonnar 2.8/85, Rollei branded, made in West Germany

They are all sweet lenses and work fine on EOS cameras. The Planar 50 used to not clear the 5D mirror before I shaved it. It works fine on APS-C camera. The other two lenses work fine on all EOS models.

I have not found any problem in the Singhapour lens compared to the West Germany lenses; it is consistent in both build and optical quality with the West Germany lenses that I have.

As for results, the Planar 1.8/50 resembles the Contax 1.7/50; the Tele-Tessar is a typical Tele-Tessar lens, quite different from the Sonnar, people may like it or not.
The Sonnar 2.8/85 is the best of the bunch, perhaps not as sharp as the Contax version, but sharp enough and with all the other qualities you expect from a Zeiss lens that are colour density, microcontrast, resistance to flare, geometrical precision.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Orio. Glad to see you becoming active here again.

Had I known this, I would have probably increase my bid Sad. I put in a lower bid as I was worried that I may encounter issues and may need to resell. Maybe I can keep my eyes open from now on. Look at the price for the 25/2.8.

The final price are

Zeiss

Sonnar 85/2.8 = USD 108.50
Planar 50/1.8 = USD 60.00
Distagon 25/2.8 = USD 173.50

SK

Tele Xenar 135/3.5 = USD 82.00


PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The behaviour is the same as with the C/Y-mount.
Optically they are very close too.
My wife loves her EOS 400D and therefore I bought her this adaptor.
- In reality she wanted to use these fine manual focus lenses but quite never really did.
Therefore I sold them here on the forum to Yalcin.
There just isn't an adaptor to use them on Pentax K-mount.....
Smile Paul


PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A couple things to be cautious about.

Yes I am repeating myself but the message will be in the correct thread at least Wink

The Adapters for these lense is quite critical. In particular for the wides.
I have read that many of the cheaper adapters will not allow infinity with the wide angle lenses in this mount.
I have a 85mm planar with QBM and a Kindai adapter.
The lens does reach infinity at the infinity mark even (hurray!).
This adapter came with the lens and is quite expensive otherwise.
With this lens I would not worry about unfinity often.
If you where to take the 25mm it is a diferent story of course.

The next issue is more for Cropped Camera users.
These adapters do not leave space for an AF chip.
Focus will be all up to the user and his viewfinder.
In a Full frame or with longer FL's, no problem aye?
Wider FL's and CC different story.

Khidhir
Search KEH for these also.
They offer excellent prices and right off return
Also the inventory of Rollei SL (QBM) is pretty good at times Wink


PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Andy. I kept forgetting about KEH. I have my eyes on a few Contax Zeiss lens there, but I am waiting for the availability of BGN units. I can't afford the EX rating units for now.

The QBMs looks very affordable there. Hmmmm.....

I was looking through the adapters and noticed that most ebay sellers did not mention anything about infinity focus. I think only one guarantees that, which is doubtful after some experience with other adapters. Most of these adapters give be beyond infinity, whatever that means. I guess they are cheaper to produce, less manufacturing tolerance.

Kindai....I heard those are expensive, but VERY good.

Is it safe to say that those Rollei Zeiss are pretty much similar in image quality to their Contax counterparts, assuming used with good adapters?


PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio is better equipt to answer that last question.
In comparing the two planar 85's I see little difference other than the Bokeh
There are a few Rollei HFT lenses that have an odd three bladed aperture.
The Planar 85 and Dist 1.4/35 are two not sure of others.
These have different OOF highlights then the Contax counterparts.
Otherwise I think that you are quite safe to think that if it says Planar, Sonnar, or distagon and has HFT coating....It is nearly the same.
Wait for a reply from Orio to be more conclusive as he has more experience with Rollei branded Zeiss then I have.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
F16SUNSHINE wrote:

In comparing the two planar 85's I see little difference other than the Bokeh
There are a few Rollei HFT lenses that have an odd three bladed aperture.
The Planar 85 and Dist 1.4/35 are two not sure of others.


Now that's curious, my version (M42) of the Rollei Sonnar 2.8/85 has six blades. Smile


PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Check out this post for some pics of the 3 bladed oddity.

Warning: Drooling may occur Laughing
http://forum.mflenses.com/something-a-bit-planar-t7742.html

Cool


PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
bawang wrote:

Is it safe to say that those Rollei Zeiss are pretty much similar in image quality to their Contax counterparts, assuming used with good adapters?


I only have three Rollei lenses, I think they are too few to allow me to draw a funded conclusion.

One thing that is fairly safe to say is that the Rollei line of Zeiss lenses is older than the Contax/Yashica line. In fact, chronologically, the Rollei line came after the Contarex line (from which many lens models were derived) and before the Contax/Yashica line.
Since Zeiss has continuously improved their lenses over the time (one example is the Distagon 18mm, which is said to have been continuously improved with small changes since it's introduction in the Contarex line), and since there is a hiatus of about 20 years between the end of production of the two lines of lenses (Rollei and Contax/Yashica), I think it is fairly safe to say that you have better chances to get better lenses if you buy the Contax/Yashica models, especially the MM ones.
On the other hand, there is people (I read some on the internet) who claim that the bokeh of the Rollei lenses is better than that of the Contax/Yashica lenses; I read this referred to the Distagon 25 (which is not a focal lenght that is usually evaluated on the basis of the bokeh, but this is it). I am unable to speak about this because sincerely, I do not notice particular differences in bokeh in the three lenses that I have... but Andy for instance said he does. In any case I think we are speaking of small differences, not huge ones.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
3 aperture blades?
Only the 1.4-versions of the 35 and 85mm.
The differences of the other lenses are mainly depending on new versions of Zeiss or the different coatings.

I had many of these 28 - 200 mm primes with Rollei and Contax/Yashica mount.
I found the Rollei Planar 1.8 to be better than the C/Y-1.7-version.
The scientific tests of ColorFoto showed that the Rollei version has a better transmission of light than all the other 50mm-lenses (> 98% IIRC)

For 85mm I never had a C/Y-version...
But I read a big 85mm-lens-test in german ColorFoto in the early 1980's where those were optically nearly same level - despite the 1.4-versions with different numbers of aperture blades.

The 2.8/28mm and 2.8/35 are improved versions with C/Y: Far better!
I had them both.

The 2.8/135 are both very good but I found the C/Y to be a tad better. Not much....
Both were better than the Leica R 2.8/135, Pentax K 2.5/135 and OM 2.8/135.
The 3.5/200 were practically the same.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Paul wrote:

I found the Rollei Planar 1.8 to be better than the C/Y-1.7-version.
The scientific tests of ColorFoto showed that the Rollei version has a better transmission of light than all the other 50mm-lenses (> 98% IIRC)

Paul, reading this was very relaxing cause I was still thinking of buying C/Y 50/1.7 so I guess there is no need Smile I've 2 Rolleri Planar 50/1.8, one Zeiss coming from Germany (thanks to Paul) and one Rollei HFT from UK, when I get them both and my new 40D I will make a test and let you know the performance of these two.

I've bought a C/Y adapter for just planning to buy C/Y Palanar 50/1.7, I guess I can sell this or wait for a nice C/Y lens offer Very Happy

My Rollei QBM adapter is from big_is (I've made a huge buy after I had red about they're trustable here) and it's just 9$+shipping. As I have sold most of my M42s and have 7 Rollei QBM's at the moment we will wok on a adapter that we can put a chip on Smile Impossible? then I can change the flange Smile
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1