| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
who
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Posts: 41
|
 Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 9:13 am Post subject: Rollei QBM 135 f/2.8 vs f/4 |
 |
|
who wrote:
Hi,
Can anyone give a comparison of these two lenses? From a quick search I understand the F/4 has a different (later?) coating. Does this improve contrast/quality at all or should one look only at the 2.8 and disregard the 4?
How would you expect the prices to compare?
Thanks
Mark |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
yalcinaydin
Joined: 20 May 2008
Posts: 825
Location: Izmir, Turkey
|
| Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yalcinaydin wrote:
We need detailed and exact naming, do ypu mean these two?
Rolleinar 2.8/135 MC
Carl Zeiss Tele-Tessar 4/135
_________________
My name is "Yalcin", and exactly "Yalçın" and here you can find my MF samples:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yalcinaydin/sets/
Right now switching back to AF because of work needs but I still love the MF lenses  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
who
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Posts: 41
|
| Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
who wrote:
The info I have is:
Rolleinar-MC 1:2.8 135mm lens (52mmø)
Range f2.8 to f22
Focus 1.5m to 20m (5 – 50ft) and ∞
Rollei HFT Tele-Tessar 4/135 135mm Lens (49mmø)
Range f4 to f32
Focus 1.6m to 20m (5.5 – 50ft) and ∞
So I guess that the tele-tessar is the CZ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yalcinaydin
Joined: 20 May 2008
Posts: 825
Location: Izmir, Turkey
|
| Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yalcinaydin wrote:
I sold 4/135 and have used 2.8/135 for a year. If you can live with maximum aperture of f:4 then I can say that 4/135 is a little bit sharper but 2.8/135 is still sharp and one of the sharpest lenses in this league, ahead of Leica, Canon, Nikon, Pentax and behind of the Contax (according to German ColorFoto mag.) so I would go for the Rolleinar, and I had sold Tessar and kept Rolleinar, as you have the chance of buying this underestimated beauty just for something 20-30USD. I had opened topics for both of them.
Flickr photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yalcinaydin/sets/72157607509023705/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yalcinaydin/sets/72157607965182709/
_________________
My name is "Yalcin", and exactly "Yalçın" and here you can find my MF samples:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yalcinaydin/sets/
Right now switching back to AF because of work needs but I still love the MF lenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
who
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Posts: 41
|
| Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
who wrote:
Thats great.
Very nice images. And indeed both look to be pretty good in terms of image quality.
Thanks Yalcin!
I expect delivery to be the middle of next week. Samples will follow.
regards
Mark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
taunusreiter
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 127
|
| Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
taunusreiter wrote:
Look for a Zeiss Sonnar 135/2.8. Great lens. Arguably the best QBM 135er. Not much bigger than the Tele-Tessar, too (which isn't a bad quality lens either)
The Rolleinar 135/2.8 is cheap to have, but not nearly up to their quality, both optically and mechanically
See them on my website
_________________
My flickr Gallery
My Classic Camera Website |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aykman
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Aykman wrote:
this message is outdated and deleted! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
