The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Rollei Bokeh

David Klepacki

New member
Wow, I am really shocked by this thread. The images being criticized here as being inferior due to the lens aperture designs are actually due to poor lighting control and photographic technique. And, they have nothing to do with bokeh. Bokeh is all about the tonal quality of the out of focus areas. In general, the bokeh from the Zeiss lenses, whether it be from the Hasselblad V or Contax 645, is as good as it gets. Typically, any images containing undesirable specular reflections are from amateur snapshots or photojournalistic situations (like war zone documentary) where lighting control is not possible.

Photography is all about working with and controlling the light. There are professional photographers all over the world who use lenses with 5-blade iris aperture mechanisms, like the Hasselblad V/500 series lenses. In fact, even the latest Rodenstock APO Sironar/HR and Schneider APO digitar lenses, which are used on a wide range of professional cameras including those from Alpa, Linhof and Sinar (even the new arTech) all depend on shutters with 5-blade iris aperture mechanisms. Yet, you do not see see these professional photographers having issues with hex-shaped specular reflections in their work. Why? Because they have the knowledge, skill and expertise in working with light to create their image.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
I think you underestimate the impact of pentagonal irises on specular highlights. Yes, it is possible to avoid this in certain situations, but not in all. Lenses with circular blades avoid this problem entirely without otherwise changing the optical performance, and thus are preferable. It is a bit simplistic to say that if you get pentagonal specular highlights then you are a bad photographer. The reason that many of the professional lenses have 5 bladed irises is because they are inherently more reliable and quicker to stop down, particularly when the larger barrels of medium format lenses are considered. The 110/2 planar which has the great circular iris also frequently jams. It has happened to mine, and I have read many other cases of it as well. So while you don't have to worry about pentagonal shapes in the bokeh, you have to live with a greater instance of failure.
And please don't misunderstand us (or at least me) -- I don't think there is anything optically inferior about 500 series Zeiss or Contax 645 lenses, I just think that the choice of pentagonal irises is less than ideal. Rollei has chosen to go with more circular aperture blades and it has a positive effect on the out of focus areas.

For example, here is a photo taken with the 110/2 at around f/4:

Notice the tree -- had the blades been more pentagonal, the tree would have had much more pronounced pentagons. Would that make me a bad photographer for taking that image? You are free to think so, but I think it is more fruitful to have a lens that does not create those impressions in the first place, and then you don't have to worry about them. If you shoot frequently outside, this is an advantage. If you are always in the studio, then yes, it is in your power to eliminate the effect. In my mind, it is all about maximizing the positive results of the equipment and minimizing the negative -- if the manufacturers can solve a potential problem simply by changing their iris design, why wouldn't they? It is de rigueur in the better made 35mm lenses -- portrait lenses and fast lenses (for example, almost all Leica, ZM, Canon L and Voigtlander lenses) have rounded blades. For whatever reason, medium format companies have not made it a priority, but that does not mean if you don't like this you are some sort of amateurish hack.
 

EH21

Member
Well said Stuart!

David,
Actually it is very much a part of the bokeh - object edges that are in the OOF regions will be handled similarly by the lens as flare - its just that you don't see it as clearly as with the specular light which is even higher contrast. A good lens has better coatings to control flare and the optical design can attenuate various kinds of flare as well. However even with good hoods, specular flare coming in at small incident angles from the optical axis will be hard to control because neither the hood, the coatings, or the opto/mechanical designs are working to stop light close to the axis - they are all designed to let that in. Pin point streams of light (such as you'd get from sun light columated through holes in tree cover or reflections from dew drops) coming in close to the optical axis, but originating from areas outside the focal plane will be rendered very large and often will image the aperture blades. btw this is what makes creamy bokeh, the larger rendering of neighboring objects in OOF regions as they overlap each other on the film or sensor and become smooth. How a lens handles low and high frequency contrast will determine how much of an edge of an OOF object you will see in the bokeh.

I haven't read anywhere about this but its my theory that these types of light which enter the lens at a small angle are also reflected off the sensor much more so than with film so damage the image in a secondary way and the effect is more pronounced with DBs than with film.

Here we really are talking about how a good lens allows the shooter more freedom to shoot into the light and not have this kind of flare take over the image. What good would it be if you were limited to shooting only certain angles with certain lighting? Besides the optical design and coatings, the shape and number of aperture blades has an important effect. Seems like many of the MF system optics have only 5 blades, but some are straight and some are rounded. The rollei blades are rounded. Zeiss makes lenses for the Rollei too and they get rounded aperture blades for that mount. I wonder if we will see different aperture blades in future lenses?
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
I agree that at times the "Chysler Logos" of 500 series optics all over the background are just not acceptable ... and sometimes unavoidable depending on the need of any given shot. This tends to rear it's head in outdoor situations when shooting close-ups with wider lenses and stopping down ... where the specular highlights peeping through distant trees are sometimes rendered as pentagons. :thumbdown:

We determine the strengths and weakness of each lens system right down to individual lenses with-in a system when considering applications ... and act accordingly.

For me, most Medium Format portrait work is the domain of either the H system 100/2.2 or 150/3.2 and occasionally the 300/4.5 with their beautiful OOF areas ... and is my choice for candid portrait work because of the H system's swift AF ...

OR ... the 203FE using the 110/2FE, 150/2.8FE, 250/4FE and ocassionally the close focusing 350/4FE. As a focal plane camera, it offers shutter speeds that allow larger aperture shooting in bright conditions. Prior to that the Contax 645 served that function with it's Zeiss 80/2 and 140/2.8, 350/4 and up to 1/4000th shutter. There is no need to defend the Bokeh of either of these Zeiss lens systems ... they are legendary for that property.

One thing I DO look for in portrait type work is how the near OOF areas of the main subject are rendered. In Bradley's posted example above, the Bokeh in the background is the least important to my eye, and the distorted rendering of the right eye and cheek of the key subject would be undesirable to me ... strictly my opinion, I'd delete this shot, not publish it as an example of great OOF areas.

The Dancer shot is really lovely, and I love the natural lighting effect (Bravo!) :thumbs:... yet, like Peter A, my eye is distracted from all that subtility of tonal rendering of the subject by the double line OOF rendering of the window.

The babe-a-licious outdoor shot brings up another not often discussed aspect of OOF areas ... the rendering of darks as opposed to lights. "Black holes" with abrupt transitions can clutter the background and be as distracting to the eye as light areas can be.

Point is, nothing is perfect, and it is only the knowledge of the strengths and weakneses of any given piece of gear which relies on the skill of the user to magnify the strengths while minimizing the weakneses.

This stuff is not easy, there are so many variables to consider ... and those who consistantly make it look effortless are to be applauded.

So far, my favorite lens of them for all this sort of stuff is the H/C 100/2.2 ... not perfect for sure ... but it renders specular highlights as soft circles, rarely creates "black Holes" in the background, rarely creates double lined Bokeh ... and most importantly renders the near OOF areas without odd edging or distortions. I've posted plenty of examples shot with the H/C 100/2.2, 150/3.2 and 300/4.5 before (as mentioned by David K.) Here are a few recent ones: Not everyone's cup of tea ... but most certainly is mine ;)
 
Last edited:

woodyspedden

New member
Marc

I just received my 100 2.2 for the H3D and agree completely with your conclusions. I really look forward to getting used to this piece of glass.

Woody
 

EH21

Member
Marc,
I've heard as much about the 100/2.2 lens but never used it. Wasn't clear if the three samples you posted just now were all 100/2.2 or 100,150,300. In any case the first image must be the 100/2.2 and I thought it was curious how the specular flare came through as orange instead of white - made for an interesting effect. This is how the 110/2 draws the flare as well big circles but I haven't seen it hold the color - Guessing you lit the model with different temp lighting?

Eric
 

David Klepacki

New member
I do agree that more circular aperture blades can be helpful when absolute control of lighting is not possible, like some of the outdoor shots posted above.

However, this thread started as how wonderful the Rollei lenses are in a studio environment. In a studio where one has total control of the lighting, there is no excuse for having undesirable pentagonal shapes in the image, from any lens. In such an environment, any undesirable reflections in the image are not the fault of the lens but of the inexperience of the photographer.
 

David K

Workshop Member
Fascinating discussion... one of the best on the subject I've read. You guys take your bokeh seriously that's for sure.
 

EH21

Member
I'll admit I was mostly talking about use outside because seriously how many studio shots have bokeh to discuss anyhow? David Klepacki, I'm not familiar with your work but do you only shoot in the studio or what? I know a lot of guys that take their MF outside and do all kinds of adventurous things with them. I certainly don't limit my work to the studio though I have one.
 

David Klepacki

New member
I'll admit I was mostly talking about use outside because seriously how many studio shots have bokeh to discuss anyhow? ...
Obviously, the person who started this thread believed it to be important to discuss....it is not my thread. Also, my comments were not directed at your posts.

My only objection is to the inaccurate, or at least incomplete, depiction of Rollei lens performance in this thread. There are many people who silently read these threads to learn about digital MF, and a thread like this would mislead them into thinking that the Rollei lenses are somehow superior, and due to their bokeh, and in studio conditions. This is simply not true.

BTW, I happen to also like and use Rollei lenses, as I do the Hasselblad lenses. Like any tool, it is up to the photographer to make the best use of them.
 

EH21

Member
Obviously, the person who started this thread believed it to be important to discuss....it is not my thread. Also, my comments were not directed at your posts.

My only objection is to the inaccurate, or at least incomplete, depiction of Rollei lens performance in this thread. There are many people who silently read these threads to learn about digital MF, and a thread like this would mislead them into thinking that the Rollei lenses are somehow superior, and due to their bokeh, and in studio conditions. This is simply not true.

BTW, I happen to also like and use Rollei lenses, as I do the Hasselblad lenses. Like any tool, it is up to the photographer to make the best use of them.
Certainly true that all systems have some winners and actually a great lens for one purpose such as portraits doesn't make it great for everything else. That said I found for example that over all the leica lenses were much better than my canons and I think the same thing could be said for Rollei as a whole. If you had to pick one lens system for medium format what would it be?

I've read time and time again that people consider the Rollei 6000 lenses to be of the best and I have no arguments with that. Of course they don't exactly win on price. However, these are some of the finest optics I have used. I used to think my rodagon 90mm apo, leica 35-70mm elmarit and leica 100 apo were the lenses to beat, but honestly I feel from evaluating my own images that literally 11 of my 12 rollei lenses are at that level or better. I am just so impressed with these optics. No doubt I would be impressed with some of the Hassie optics, the RZ stuff or others too but 11 of 12? That's a pretty nice hit rate don't you think?

But as you have pointed out, its the photographers skill that matters not the gear. :) I do credit my Rollei lenses for something though - this year I took 1st place in the Prix de Photography Paris (PX3) in the fine art category using my rollei while only got 3rd the previous year with my leica r8/DMR. Who knows maybe they are all that or maybe I was just happier using them?
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
Certainly true that all systems have some winners and actually a great lens for one purpose such as portraits doesn't make it great for everything else. That said I found for example that over all the leica lenses were much better than my canons and I think the same thing could be said for Rollei as a whole. If you had to pick one lens system for medium format what would it be?

I've read time and time again that people consider the Rollei 6000 lenses to be of the best and I have no arguments with that. Of course they don't exactly win on price. However, these are some of the finest optics I have used. I used to think my rodagon 90mm apo, leica 35-70mm elmarit and leica 100 apo were the lenses to beat, but honestly I feel from evaluating my own images that literally 11 of my 12 rollei lenses are at that level or better. I am just so impressed with these optics. No doubt I would be impressed with some of the Hassie optics, the RZ stuff or others too but 11 of 12? That's a pretty nice hit rate don't you think?

But as you have pointed out, its the photographers skill that matters not the gear. :) I do credit my Rollei lenses for something though - this year I took 1st place in the Prix de Photography Paris (PX3) in the fine art category using my rollei while only got 3rd the previous year with my leica r8/DMR. Who knows maybe they are all that or maybe I was just happier using them?


If I had to pick one lens system, it'd be the one I DID pick.

Of the 200 series lenses, my hit rate is 100%. :thumbs:

I don't need 11 lenses, just those ones.

This discussion started out informative, and has gotten ridiculous IMO.

Sorry, but imperical superority arguements concerning subjective things like this are what make it ridiculous.

-Hope you are kidding about winning something because of the lenses used :wtf:

Using this logic, the Mamiya RZ system is the top dog ... 15+ winners ... because Annie Leibowitz is a lot more famous than you or I are, and she used Mamiya MF for a great deal of her work.

See how ridiculous that sounds. The camera didn't make her famous, she made the camera famous.
 

EH21

Member
I see now what happens when I post late at night... jeeze, sorry if I came across as a braggart. The intention was to show my enthusiasm for the Rollei optics which I think are awesome as is the platform. I don't intend to keep all of my lenses but wanted to shoot with them all and see which ones were best suited for the kinds of stuff I shoot. Right now I do feel like a lens pig, but I knew the used prices on the rollei stuff would go up once the Hy6 had been delivered in significant quantities.

But Marc I know you have several camera systems just as I do. And you've sold many more in the last year right here. Come on, you didn't just pick one, and I'll bet you have way more lenses than I do.

Yeah I've heard the RZ optics are gentle on skin so prob its a better camera for what AL does. But maybe she has more than one too?
 

David K

Workshop Member
My friend David at Dale Labs once told me a story of a renowned photographer who only had one lens for his camera, the idea being to master that combination as opposed to spreading yourself too thinly with a lot of lenses. I'm pretty sure he was hinting that I tended towards an excess of lenses. I told him the idea of one lens per camera sounded like a good idea but I couldn't afford the other dozen or so cameras I'd need to buy :)
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Everyone works differently. Some people really work better by using one or two lenses and one camera. Others find inspiration in using a bunch of different formats and equipment. The most important thing to be aware of is what works for you, and how to be mindful of what helps your photography and what hinders it. Others' experience can help guide you, but ultimately, what works for you is what you decide works for you, not what someone else says.
 

mark1958

Member
One thing I prefer about the Hassy H system is there are less lenses to choose from :). I know i can use a C to H adapter but the only lens I would really love to have is the 40mm IF. However, the cost is prohibitive for what I would gain. Nonetheless, I am learning different things to try with the lenses I have. For example, I have found that the 210mm HC with an extension tube is sometimes better than using a macro. Here is an example I took as an example yesterday. Sharpening was turned to zero in Phocus and other than a very slight curves, I did nothing else to this. This is not a direct comparison but I would be curious what people think of this bokeh. The shot was taken at f6.8.

In regards to what Marc Williams has echoed, the 100mm 2.2 HC is clearly a great lens for OOF background. I did some direct comparisons with Cannon's best 85mm 1.2. I prefered the 100mm HC bokeh. Not to say the canon was bad -- but different. Of course no intent to go into the MF vs 35mm debate.. It was just something I tried in the past. Anyway, Marc mentioned the 150mm and I just wanted to show the 210mm and the use of 3 different extension tubes allows you to get as close as you need. In the enclosed shot I had the 13 and 26mm extension tubes attached.

PS i realize the subject of the other shots in this thread are much more pleasing in terms of people... :)
 
Last edited:

BradleyGibson

New member
David Klepacki:
"However, this thread started as how wonderful the Rollei lenses are in a studio environment."

After reading this, it puts your other comments into context. Perhaps I should have been clearer, but my purpose was to illustrate Rollei lens bokeh (period), without regard to inside of or outside of the studio.

I am a nature photographer, and all my professional work is done out of doors, where the "control" of lighting is largely impossible or at least impractical. The images are being posted to show how the respective imaging systems 1) render a pinpoint light source and 2) render other non-specular out-of-focus scene details. Pinpoint light source rendering is an issue one WILL deal with in nature photography, and the "Chrysler logos" as Marc so aptly put it were a Big Deal. These can also illustrate how 2) is being rendered.

I do know how to eliminate the problem with the Hasselblad Zeiss lenses, but doing so forces other tradeoffs (namely in depth-of-field or resolution, depending on the remedy) that I am not always willing to make. Further, eliminating the issue wasn't the point of the test--revealing it was.

Knowing the Rollei lenses do not typically force one to make this tradeoff may be valuable information to some (and irrelevant to others), but in either case, this is the purpose of this posting.

"My only objection is to the inaccurate, or at least incomplete, depiction of Rollei lens performance in this thread."

I've re-read my postings and I find nothing inaccurate about how I've depicted Rollei lens performance. Nor am I worried about other readers mistaking a bokeh discussion for a "complete" depiction of Rollei lens performance. I don't know where this comment is coming from.

Stuart, Eric (EH21), Marc (fotografz):

Really well stated, guys. Couldn't have said so better myself!

One particular comment (Marc):

"One thing I DO look for in portrait type work is how the near OOF areas of the main subject are rendered. In Bradley's posted example above, the Bokeh in the background is the least important to my eye, and the distorted rendering of the right eye and cheek of the key subject would be undesirable to me ... strictly my opinion, I'd delete this shot, not publish it as an example of great OOF areas."

I think this calls up a good point. None of the shots posted are being shown to highlight artistic merit, they are purely a discussion of bokeh (and perhaps specular flare). Despite the fact that the image has flaws (particularly in the too-shallow depth of field, as you point out) I feel it stands just fine as an example of great bokeh, where bokeh is defined as "the quality of rendering of out of focus areas."

-Brad
 
Last edited:

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Ok, this is sort of off topic, but I developed my first shots from the Rollei 110/2 today. It seems to be just as great as the 200 series version...here's a quick sample:

Hipster Love...notice the WNYC public radio tote-bag. This was taken in Williamsburg, down the street from me. Hipster central:



I shot that at f/2 because the Park Nazi's said that I could not use a tripod.

This one is not that great, but it is what passes for "the beach" here. One thing I noticed was that I focused on that group of people in the far left, middle distance. The girl's face is very clear and sharp, even at the edge and f/2. Pretty impressive, especially since this is full frame 6x6.
 

David K

Workshop Member
Here is an example I took as an example yesterday. Sharpening was turned to zero in Phocus and other than a very slight curves, I did nothing else to this. This is not a direct comparison but I would be curious what people think of this bokeh.
Mark, I don't find the bokeh of the posted shot particularly pleasing. It just seems a bit harsh to me. Maybe there's just too much OOF area relative to the sharp foreground subject (which looks superb). I like my bokeh more like that shown in the attached shot of my daughter (which I've posted before). Obviously, what's in the OOF background area affects the look significantly. I've found these kinds of leaves pleasing to my eye and frequently set up my shot to use them. Perhaps some will find the darker areas in this example distracting but they don't bother me.
 
Top