Hello,
Anyone else using this lens?
Mine is a QBM mount, Rollei 35mm SLR.
The decal on the lens cap shows HFT (Zeiss licensed coating?), but not on the lens itself.
I'm seeing some strange bokeh, and some good bokeh.
Shrug, i guess this can be true of all lens?
Maybe I was looking for it this time?
*8^)
Oh, the lens itself is pictured here: http://captjack.exaktaphile.com/rollei/Rolleilenses.htm
Anywho, I hope to get better "normal" situation captures this weekend.
buggz2k wrote:
I'm seeing some strange bokeh, and some good bokeh.
Nice colors. I think this lens is supposed to be practically identical to the Contax Planar 501.7, which is known for it's bokeh that can get quite crazy wide open. The Planar 50/1.4 does the same thing (Contax and Zeiss Z*).
HFT is the Zeiss coating used on Rollei lenses that were made by Zeiss. In my experience, if it doesn't say HFT on the lens (or VMC, SMC, T*, or whatever), then it's not HFT.
I've compared the Contax Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/2.8, Rollei Distagon 35/2.8 HFT, and Voigtlander Color Skoparex 35/2.8 AR. The Contaz Zeiss was much better than both QBM lenses (even the Rollei made by Zeiss), and so I stick with Contax Zeiss, rather than further exploring the Rollei 35mm QBM lenses. OTOH, the modern Voigtlander SL and SL II lenses are very nice, and so are Leica-R, but they're getting a bit spendy.
AhamB wrote:
Nice colors. I think this lens is supposed to be practically identical to the Contax Planar 501.7, which is known for it's bokeh that can get quite crazy wide open. The Planar 50/1.4 does the same thing (Contax and Zeiss Z*).
Could be one of 3 lens designs. A true Ultron with a concave front element, a modified ultron with a slightly convex front element and still 7 elements in 6 groups or a simplified planar design of 6 elements in 4 groups.
The Contax 50/1.7 is a Planar design with an extra element in the rear group, whereas the Ultron design has an extra element in the front group.
Aside from both being double-gauss in essence, they are quite different lenses and I'd say they're as similar as an Olympus 55/1.2 and a Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2 ... that is to say, apples and oranges in the world of 50's.
EDIT:
Had a look at the link to pictures of the lens, and it is definitely the modified ultron design.
Many thanks to both of you for the information!
Very good to know.
Corrected WB of the bokeh difference of this lens:
Cosina Image Thread https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/936376
HFT is the Zeiss coating used on Rollei lenses that were made by Zeiss. In my experience, if it doesn't say HFT on the lens (or VMC, SMC, T*, or whatever), then it's not HFT.
I've compared the Contax Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/2.8, Rollei Distagon 35/2.8 HFT, and Voigtlander Color Skoparex 35/2.8 AR. The Contaz Zeiss was much better than both QBM lenses (even the Rollei made by Zeiss), and so I stick with Contax Zeiss, rather than further exploring the Rollei 35mm QBM lenses. OTOH, the modern Voigtlander SL and SL II lenses are very nice, and so are Leica-R, but they're getting a bit spendy.
buggz2k wrote:
Another thing I should have mentioned from day one is,
this does NOT infinity focus on my 5DMkII.
I would watch out with that. On the mflenses forum someone managed to crash his 5DmkII's mirror into the lens, actually damaging the glass of the mirror. I don't know what he exactly did, but it doesn't sound nice.
Wow! Thanks for the warning!
I can actually feel it when adjusting the focal length to infinity, right at the end, it feels like it is coming into contact w/ something.
When I felt this, I knew not to try and take a pic.
Yes, as I said, I should have stated this from the start.
It works okay on the 40D, and I guess, any other 1.6 crop body.
AhamB wrote:
I would watch out with that. On the mflenses forum someone managed to crash his 5DmkII's mirror into the lens, actually damaging the glass of the mirror. I don't know what he exactly did, but it doesn't sound nice.
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Bessa_RF_histo.html