p.1 #1 · Rolleiflex 80 mm F 2.8 Zeiss TLR equivalent?
I love the look of my Tri X 400 B&W prints from this camera at all apertures at 20" or 24" square. At F2.8 they are centrally sharp with excellent subject isolation with a very creamy fall off. At higher apertures there is delightful tonality, microcontrast and sharp detail.
How can I get close to this tonality and microcontrast with a digital set up, at close to those print sizes? What 50 mm f 1.4 lens could I use on my Canon 5DII, or should I be looking at a Leica MM or the new M240 with a Leica or Zeiss 50?
p.1 #3 · Rolleiflex 80 mm F 2.8 Zeiss TLR equivalent?
You will not get the exact subject isolation and focus fall-off simply because of the huge difference in format size between 2 1/4 and FF 35. The other thing you did not mention is which lens you used on the TLR - was it a Planar or Tessar? They render a bit differently with the Tessar being more what I would consider having a creamy fall off. The Planar's I have used on the Rolleiflexes were super sharp but the bokeh was not generally creamy.
Edit. Thinking about it, you must be referring to a Planar since I do not believe the Tessar was offered in 80mm, but 75mm on the Rollie TLR's
p.1 #4 · Rolleiflex 80 mm F 2.8 Zeiss TLR equivalent?
you did not mention is which lens you used on the TLR - was it a Planar or Tessar? They render a bit differently with the Tessar being more what I would consider having a creamy fall off. The Planar's I have used on the Rolleiflexes were super sharp but the bokeh was not generally creamy.
Actually I did - only the Planars are f 2.8. I would describe the fall off/boke as very creamy, nevertheless.
p.1 #7 · Rolleiflex 80 mm F 2.8 Zeiss TLR equivalent?
I don't think print size will be an issue at all with whatever you choose. There are probably two ways to look for what you want. If you are a little flexible on focal length, you could do as suggested above and use a slightly longer lens. The other option is to find a really exceptional 50 1.4 (exceptional when shot wide open that is). That way, you could achieve something close to a similar dof look at 1.4 on FF 35 as the Rolleiflex shot at 2.8. I'm not sure if the standard Zeiss Planar ZE 50 is that great wide open which is one reason I suggested the Makro. I'm curous what others will suggest - perhaps it will end up being a modern, fast Leica Summilux?
p.1 #8 · Rolleiflex 80 mm F 2.8 Zeiss TLR equivalent?
I dont think the MP has a stylistic rendering anywhere close to a Rolleiflex 2.8 Planar.
the ZM planar isn't that far I guess off but is a bit tight compared to the Rollei. probably has something to do with the ZM planar being fairly symmetrical. fwiw I consider the ZM planar, and to a great extent the Rolleiflex planar (which I own and used to own, respectively) as being frustratingly boring lenses. I will admit I sometimes look at images made by the MP and contemplate it but I will never be able to ditch the Leica body.
if you truly desire the MF look in 35mm then I dont think you can top the 50 Lux ASPH. it gives the look of a longer focal length without losing the field of view.
p.1 #9 · Rolleiflex 80 mm F 2.8 Zeiss TLR equivalent?
Any experienced advice?
Well, this is an observational advice - How about the Contarex Planars? It's from the same family and rather exceptional at wide open. I've no idea how it could be attached to a 5DII, having a register of 46mm and no aperture ring, but Flickr got plenty of samples with Nikon and Canon FF. Here are some (I already had it compiled some time ago for a friend):
I thought all the Tessar's used were 75mm.