C
Cwoodhou
I know the CZ 80 f2.8 is not compatible with the 1.4 converter, but does anyone know if the Schneider version is OK?
CI Photocommunity
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I'm 99% sure the 1.4AF converter works with the 80/2.8AF Xenotar. If I remember correctly, Rollei, not very long ago, was throwing in for free, a 1.4AF, when you bought the basic AF kit (body & AF Xenotar). I'm not sure if you are asking about the manual versions or the AF type---there may be a slight difference. Give Rollei a call to verify if nobody else answers that has the combo you asking about.
C
Cwoodhou
It was the manual version I was interested in. I sent an email to Rollei, but have had no answer.
C
Cwoodhou
Rollei gmbh confirmed that the 1.4 converter is NOT compatible with the Xenotar 80 f2.8.
C
Cwoodhou
Apologies all, I misread the email from Rollei GMBH. I skipped a line when reading their resonse. They were referring to the CZ lens. The 80 f2.8 Schneider is OK with the 1.4x converter.
C
Cwoodhou
I finally tracked down a used 80mm Schneider and a 1.4x converter. They are NOT entirely compatible. The rear element of the lens fouls with the converter just before you get to the infinity mark on the lens. I guess if you are doing portraits or using a hyperfocal distance then you are OK, but it is pretty poor show that Rollei don't know their own products better.
C
Cwoodhou
I only have the 60 / 80 and 150 Schneiders. I'm still saving for the 180!
I chose the 150/4 over the 180/2.8, mainly because of size and weight. I do have the 80/2, and am planning on getting a 40/3.5.
I haven't heard much about the 60, it's a focal length I don't have much experience with. How do you like it, do you find it useful, and what is it best at? Is it as nice as the other Schneiders?
Thor
I haven't heard much about the 60, it's a focal length I don't have much experience with. How do you like it, do you find it useful, and what is it best at? Is it as nice as the other Schneiders?
Thor
C
Cwoodhou
I originally started off with CZ 60, 80 and 150 and gradually changed over to the Schneiders. I was careful to make a comparative test of both lenses during each changeover. The 60 Schneider has similar improvements over its CZ cousin as the 150's. Resolution is higher, especially in the outer fields, which for landscape work and fine grain film is a benefit. I actually use the 60 as a standard lens when I'm out in the field or doing wedding group shots. The 80 is typically used for figure work and with extension tubes. Keeping things in perspective, the Schneiders are better, but not so much that the improvement cannot be destroyed by sloppy technique. I quite liked the idea of having them all the same and it has been exciting winning them from ebay sales.
Having said all that I have a suspicion that the 150 Xenotar flares more easily than the CZ. I don't have enough body of evidence to be conclusive, but I have recently had a few cases where I either had fogging during development or flare.
I will run some converter resolution tests next weekend to see if on something like Acros, if it is better to enlarge more or use the 1.4x.
Chris Woodhouse ARPS
Having said all that I have a suspicion that the 150 Xenotar flares more easily than the CZ. I don't have enough body of evidence to be conclusive, but I have recently had a few cases where I either had fogging during development or flare.
I will run some converter resolution tests next weekend to see if on something like Acros, if it is better to enlarge more or use the 1.4x.
Chris Woodhouse ARPS
Funny you should mention flare.
I haven't tried the Zeiss, but everything I could find online referring to it basically described it as a dog (the Macro-Planar 120/4), extremely flare prone and soft at infinity, while exceedingly sharp at close (macro) range.
I've been very satisfied with the Schneider. The first one I picked up was damaged, had finger marks (!) inside the lens elements and was IMHO someone trying to rip off an unsuspecting buyer. I sent it back for a full refund. One of the problems was excessive flare (actually increasing with smaller apertures if I recall correctly). I think this was due to the marks on the glass, or possibly inept reassembly.
The next one I got has been excellent.
Thor
I haven't tried the Zeiss, but everything I could find online referring to it basically described it as a dog (the Macro-Planar 120/4), extremely flare prone and soft at infinity, while exceedingly sharp at close (macro) range.
I've been very satisfied with the Schneider. The first one I picked up was damaged, had finger marks (!) inside the lens elements and was IMHO someone trying to rip off an unsuspecting buyer. I sent it back for a full refund. One of the problems was excessive flare (actually increasing with smaller apertures if I recall correctly). I think this was due to the marks on the glass, or possibly inept reassembly.
The next one I got has been excellent.
Thor
C
Cwoodhou
Test results from 80 / 150 Schneiders with 1.4x converter I tested on Acros 100 in a fine grain developer on a sturdy tripod and with mirror lock up etc. For the 80 and 150 I full-framed my USAF resolution test target and exposed at f4 and f11 and then without moving the tripod, slipped on the 1.4x and took the same photo, at f5.6(f4 on lens) and f16(f11 on lens).
In the darkroom I printed a maximum enlargement for the shots taken without the 1.4 converter and then reduced the height of the enlarger so that the images taken with the 1.4x were the same size on paper. The enlarger lens was a Nikon 80mm, set to its optimum aperture of f8.
The negatives were also examined under a x100 microscope too.
In both cases the prints from negatives taken with the 1.4x have better resolution and marginally less contrast, more so in the case of the 80 / 1.4 combination. Clearly grain was proportional to negative enlargement and more importantly, if these images were to be scanned, my effective scanner resolution would be reduced by 30% if I were cropping the shots taken without the converter, which is critical if you are using one of the cheaper flatbed/hybrid scanners.
Under the microscope, the film is almost at the limit of its resolution. If the converter was perfect, I would expect about a 40% increase in resolution, along with the image magnification. It looks like I'm getting closer to 25%, not bad. Edge resolution was similarly impressive. Having said that, Acros 100 has high resolution, so practically, with colour materials or faster film, it will always be the film that will limit the ultimate resolution, making the quality gap larger between the results ( I think)
Overall I'm very impressed with its effectiveness and it will be interesting to use it on a 180 or 300 if I ever get lucky on ebay!
In the darkroom I printed a maximum enlargement for the shots taken without the 1.4 converter and then reduced the height of the enlarger so that the images taken with the 1.4x were the same size on paper. The enlarger lens was a Nikon 80mm, set to its optimum aperture of f8.
The negatives were also examined under a x100 microscope too.
In both cases the prints from negatives taken with the 1.4x have better resolution and marginally less contrast, more so in the case of the 80 / 1.4 combination. Clearly grain was proportional to negative enlargement and more importantly, if these images were to be scanned, my effective scanner resolution would be reduced by 30% if I were cropping the shots taken without the converter, which is critical if you are using one of the cheaper flatbed/hybrid scanners.
Under the microscope, the film is almost at the limit of its resolution. If the converter was perfect, I would expect about a 40% increase in resolution, along with the image magnification. It looks like I'm getting closer to 25%, not bad. Edge resolution was similarly impressive. Having said that, Acros 100 has high resolution, so practically, with colour materials or faster film, it will always be the film that will limit the ultimate resolution, making the quality gap larger between the results ( I think)
Overall I'm very impressed with its effectiveness and it will be interesting to use it on a 180 or 300 if I ever get lucky on ebay!
Anybody know if the 1.4 converter (or the 2X) will work with the Schneider 90 mm lens? Just wondering.... I have the 90, and might sometime want to shoot long with it.
But in general I too shoot with the 60 mm Curtagon as my standard lens, and just can't figure a reason to ever take it off the camera. Its that nice. LF quality and hand hold-able.
Geoff
But in general I too shoot with the 60 mm Curtagon as my standard lens, and just can't figure a reason to ever take it off the camera. Its that nice. LF quality and hand hold-able.
Geoff