Sinar Hy6 - List of all lenses fitting the camera

[Thierry Hagenauer]

For your information:

Here a list with a total of 46 different lenses, from Schneider or Zeiss, all fitting the Sinar hy6 camera.

- Some are still available (marked "X"), some are discontinued (marked "O" = available only as second-hand), and some are in preparation (marked "P").

- PQS means min. shutter speed at a 1/1000 and PQ means min. shutter speed at 1/500.

- Important precision: the AFD 35mm Zeiss Flektogon, and the AFD 120 Macro are not yet in this list, not because they are not planed, BUT because there is no firm release date (planed end of 2nd Q 2008), in opposition to the AFD 50mm, AFD 150mm and AFD 60-140mm which will be available any time from now.

Best regards,
Thierry

Zeiss F-Distagon (Fisheye) PQ 3.5/30 mm (X)
Schneider Super-Angulon PQ 3.5/40 mm (X)
Zeiss Distagon PQ 4.0/40 mm (O)
Zeiss Distagon FLE PQ 4.0/40 mm (O)
Schneider Super-Angulon PQS 2.8/50 mm (O)
Schneider AF-Super-Angulon PQS 2.8/50 mm (X)
Schneider AFD-Super-Angulon PQS 2.8/50 mm (P)
Zeiss Distagon PQ 4.0/50 mm (O)
Zeiss Distagon EL PQ 4.0/50 mm (O)
Zeiss Distagon FLE PQ 4.0/50 mm (O)
Schneider PCS-Super-Angulon (Shift) PQ 4.5/55 mm (O)
Zeiss Distagon PQ 3.5/60 mm (O)
Schneider Xenotar PQ 2.0/80 mm (O)
Zeiss Planar PQ 2.8/80 mm (O)
Zeiss Planar EL PQ 2.8/80 mm (O)
Zeiss Planar PQS 2.8/80 mm (O)
Schneider Xenotar PQS 2.8/80 mm (X)
Schneider AF-Xenotar PQS 2.8/80 mm (X)
Schneider AFD-Xenotar PQS 2.8/80 mm (X)
Schneider Apo Symmar Macro PQS 4.0/90 mm (X)
Zeiss Planar PQ 2.0/110 mm (X)
Zeiss Makro-Planar PQ 4.0/120 mm (O)
Zeiss Makro-Planar PQS 4.0/120 mm (X)
Zeiss Sonnar PQ 4.0/150 mm (O)
Zeiss Sonnar EL PQ 4.0/150 mm (O)
Zeiss Sonar PQS 4.0/150 mm (X)
Schneider AF-Tele Xenar PQS 4.0/150 mm (X)
Schneider AFD-Tele Xenar PQS 4.0/150 mm (P)
Schneider Apo-Symmar Macro PQ 4.6/150 mm (O)
Schneider Tele-Xenar PQ 2.8/180 mm (O)
Schneider AF-Tele-Xenar PQ 2.8/180 mm (X)
Schneider AFD-Tele-Xenar PQ 2.8/180 mm (X)
Zeiss Sonnar PQ 5.6/250 mm (O)
Zeiss Sonnar EL PQ 5.6/250 mm (O)
Zeiss Sonnar PQS 5.6/250 mm (X)
Schneider Apo-Tele-Xenar PQ 4.0/300 mm (X) incl. lens hood
Zeiss Tele-Tessar PQ 5.6/350 mm (O) incl. lens hood
Zeiss Tele-Tessar PQS 5.6/350 mm (O) incl. lens hood
Zeiss Tele-Tessar EL PQ 8.0/500 mm (O) incl. lens hood
Zeiss Tele-Tessar PQ 8.0/500 mm (O) incl. lens hood
Zeiss Tele-Apo-Tessar PQS 8.0/500 mm (O) incl. lens hood
Zeiss Tele-Tessar PQ 8.0/1000 mm (O) incl. lens hood
Schneider AF-Variogon PQS 4.6/60-140 mm (X) incl. lens hood
Schneider AFD-Variogon PQS 4.6/60-140 mm (P) incl. lens hood
Schneider Variogon PQ 4.5/75-150 mm (O) incl. lens hood
Schneider Variogon PQ 5.6/140-280 mm (X) incl. lens hood

 

[Asher Kelman]

Thierry,

This is really superb! Don't send them to me in one box otherwise I'll not be able to get it through my front door.

Asher

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

ROFLMAO... well, that should do!

I wonder, there must be people around who used a great deal of those lenses, and who are able to put them in order of "best of breed".

Thanks Thierry!

 

[Thierry Hagenauer]

Asher,

don't worry, we have sent them separately and in single shipments: you should have got them all in 2 months time!



Best,
Thierry

 

[Asher Kelman]

Thierry, you are so considerate! Thanks for having the Swiss care to pack each precious lens individually and not just throw it in a box like some mail-order suppliers do! I like single shipments. One gets more joy from more presents.

The two months delay? Actually, that's great, because we have to renovate the loading dock and prepare the concierge and engineering. We'll have to move the Zeiss optical bench to make room for the new lenses! Lots of bubble wrap please! I'll use that it for packing up other gear for sale on eBay!

Asher

 

[Markus Glück]

Hi,

to complete the list:

There used to be a

Schneider Curtagon 1:3,5 60mm HFT PQ (O)
Schneider Tele-Xenar 1:4 150mm HFT PQ (O)



For anyone researching for used lenses, German eBay is a good source of goofrom time to time.

Best regards,
Markus

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

So, if you would choose three categories and would have to put 2 lenses as the best of breed in each, landscape, architecture, portrait, which would it be?

 

[Eric Hiss]

Georg,

That's a hard one to answer! I'm sure you'll get a lot of different responses to this one. I'm busy building up my collection now. So far all the lenses I have tried have been fantastic. I thought the 110mm f/2.0 was a wonderful portrait lens, but guess what? The 180mm f/2.8 is too! So is the 80 f/2.0! ......

Eric

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Hi Eric,

I am just having a wild guess here, please keep in mind that I am not shooting with MF yet, hence have no experience with the available lenses.

From what I know concerning DSLR's, and the build quality, there appears to be huge differences within a line of production. We all heard about the issues concering Sigma's, but I think it is fair to say it affects all of the manufacturers, some more, some less, and comes back to quality management and other issues.

However, if I look at lenses like the Olympus Zuiko Digital 7-14mm f4, which truly is an outstanding piece of glas for a wideangle, I know that this is not a mass product and special care is given to it's production.

Hence, I assume, less MF lenses are build than DSLR lenses. Probably all the Schneiders/Zeiss/Rodenstock have a generally better build quality and Image Quality (MTF?) throughout.

Could that be the case?

P.S.
Found the answer in another thread on OPF. Imagecircle, tighter production process etc pp.

LOL, I liked Thierry's statement "garbage in-garbage out", while in a completly different world, this was the reason I chose a less well specifiedf camera 3 years ago with the Olympus E1, simply because of the quality of Zuiko Digital optics.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

LOL, I liked Thierry's statement "garbage in-garbage out", ...

Well, GIGO still rules the game! Especially with digital, it's unforgiving, because of the high MTF near the limiting resolution. Film, while capable of a higher resolution, has a gradually declining MTF towards its limiting resolution. Digital sensor arrays on the other hand show a more abrupt decline in apparent resolution. Very good lenses will utilize the sensor array's capabilities right up to its limits. Lesser lenses immediately degrade visual system performance.

Bart

 

[Markus Glück]

So, if you would choose three categories and would have to put 2 lenses as the best of breed in each, landscape, architecture, portrait, which would it be?

I very much like the 2.8/180. It's a tank (about 2kg) but the built quality is great. The focusing it a real joy and easy, exactly the right amount of dampening, like it is using some oil fluid.
The shallow DoF is great. Lens is very sharp and the bokeh is gorgeous. but a big lens shade (not the original) is a must with the big front lens!

my other favorite is the 3,5/40. tiny lens with great angle and incredible sharpness.

CU
Markus

P.S.: I just ordered a used 4/300 APO so I'm psyched how this one will perform.

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Welcome and thank you for your opinion Markus!

Would you mind to post a picture from each lense you use/will use to display the qualities you like the best?

....Just thinking, would be a nice thing if each lense mentioned could be referenced with a set of representative pictures in deed....

What do you folks think?

 

[Asher Kelman]

Markus,

Good report on the lenses. What camera are you using the lenses with?

Asher

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

....I thought he uses the Hy6....

 

[Markus Glück]

Hi,

I use these lenses with a 6008AF film only. But I really like the upgrade option to HY6/AFI.

The APO-Xenar 300 arrived, I got it in mint condition for 1500EUR. Just a few test shots yet, but seems to be on par with the others I mentioned. I found one down turn yet, the built in shade is not usable with a polarizer.

40mm:

180mm:

180mm + longar:

When I have time, I will upload a few specific shots to show the characteristics of the lenses though.

Markus

 

[Eric Hiss]

Here's a couple shots

The 180mm is a great lens - very suitable for landscapes or portraits. Here's an outake from a model shoot that I did with the 180 recently:

The 110mm f/2.0 is also a wonderful lens... probably at its best for portraits but also good for quite a few things.

Note: I know the last image is not focused on the eye but the model liked this one. This example was posted to show the character of the lens only as I am very enthusiastic about the Rollei/Schneider optics. I do not post my best work here as I save that for commercial purposes.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Reminder on observing beautiful color images on any monitor on in our solar system!

These are superb images! Thanks Markus and Eric!

Let's just have a breather to consider how we view this work!

Given the high quality of these files and the care in delivering them, we should not be casual in how we receive them! Even if one is not using a top of the line display, one can approach perfection.

The screeen, whatever it is should be profiled so the colors can be remapped and make the image appear as intended, (given the inadequacy of every monitor on the planet to display all colors we can see and which our cameras can detect).

So we all have profiled our monitors, right? We have checked out our ability to discern subtle blacks, greys and highlights? Of course! When did you last do it? the bad news is that all monitors drift with age. So redo it at least every 3 months! For serious work check and see how much drift you are getting after it warms up, the next day and a week before assuming your color is reliable.

Just for those who are using a Macbook Pro, an iMac or any other non-professional image editing screen, remember to adjust the angle of the screen! This can alter the contrast and make a perfect image appear posterized. So to really enjoy each picture, try adjusting that angle!

Lastly, don't wear a bright colored shirt when enjoying one of these images. Work in neutral light (5000 degrees Kelvin is a reasonable choice) and inexpensive reasonable bulbs can be obtained at Home Depot and other stores.

 

[BradleyGibson]

Markus, Eric,

Lovely work, guys. I appreciate the larger image sizes you've posted as well, as it makes it that much easier to see the quality of the lens' rendering.

Thank you for taking the time to share.

-Brad

 

[Eric Hiss]

Here's a shot with the AF 80mm f/2.8

I think one of the best Rollei lenses is the AF 80mm f/2.8 but it often goes without mention as it is a kit lens. It has a symmetrical lens element design so is equally good at macro work as well as distance. It works very well with extension tubes and the shot below was taken with a 9mm extension fitted. People are always raving about the 90mm apo macro lens for the Rollei system (*which is quite good*) but honestly this 80mm kicks out almost the same performance and it doesn't have a mile of lens body sticking out past the front element so if you really wanted to do 1::1 you could actually have room to light the subjects.

 

[Eric Hiss]

90mm Makro

Now that I've mentioned the 90mm macro here's a shot taken with it at a nearby park to San Francisco.

This shot was hand held at something like 1/125 but yet the detail available is just scary. I'm quite confident that most of the Rollei lenses are quite capable of out resolving any digital back currently available. Each leaf on this tree is clearly shown with tonal range and sharp edges and that's only with my P20. I wish I could remember what aperture I used, but its either f/4 or f/5.6 @ ISO 100

 

[Asher Kelman]

Eric,

The first image of the shell would make Weston sit up in his grave! Thev rendering of the milky-pearl shell is so real and it's like I could just take it in my hand!

The tree below may need to be seen larger to do it justice but as is it is impressive. Is there moss on the ground as well as grass?

Asher

 

[Thierry Hagenauer]

Eric and Markus,

these are all superb images which do really highlight the quality of these lenses: wonderful and many thanks.

Thierry

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I think one of the best Rollei lenses is the AF 80mm f/2.8 but it often goes without mention as it is a kit lens. It has a symmetrical lens element design so is equally good at macro work as well as distance. It works very well with extension tubes and the shot below was taken with a 9mm extension fitted.

Beautiful image, well done. I also like the choice of background. I can only imaging how it looks when printed large, impressive.

Bart

 

[Eric Hiss]

AFD

Yes all these lenses are extraordinary. I'll try and post some more shots here to this thread. Maybe we can make it the goto thread for example pics of the lenses for this system. The thing is all of these lenses that I've tested have just been awesome. I feel spoiled. And if as Thierry has written, the newer AFD versions of these optics are even better because of tighter manufacturing tolerances they must be really amazing. I would love to test them out side by side.

 

[Eric Hiss]

tree image

Asher,
I'll post a crop of the tree image when I have time to make some crops. I've just been exporting small jpegs from lightroom for these samples but lightroom does not render fine detail well compared to C1 (at least for the phase backs). Anyone that tells you that Lightroom is the same is C1 or other proprietary software is wrong - or they don't have lenses this sharp, because the difference in micro detail is just plainly obvious.
Eric

 

[nicolas claris]

Anyone that tells you that Lightroom is the same is C1 or other proprietary software is wrong - or they don't have lenses this sharp, because the difference in micro detail is just plainly obvious.

Agreed 100% !

 

[Eric Hiss]

100% crop of the trees image

Hi Asher,
Here's a crop from the trees image taken from the center. Remember this was a hand held shot somewhere around 1/125 or 1/160 (really wish the EXIF was stored....) at ISO 100. To get an idea of what you are seeing check out the trail marker with orange and white triangles and then find it in the whole image a page or so back in this thread. You are looking at a 16megapix file from a P20 - imagine what you would see with a 33M, 39M or higher pixel count back.

100% crop

 

[Markus Glück]

Looks good, would be interesting to see the same pic with a 39MP back. I like the details in the trees, but I dislike the blotchiness grass, but thats digital. Shouldn't matter when printed.

CU
Markus

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I like the details in the trees, but I dislike the blotchiness grass, but thats digital.

That's not digital, necessarily. It's more the combined result of defocus / optical effects / Anti-aliasing filter (if any) / postprocessing. There are some choices to be made there.

Bart

 

[BradleyGibson]

Asher,
Anyone that tells you that Lightroom is the same is C1 or other proprietary software is wrong - or they don't have lenses this sharp, because the difference in micro detail is just plainly obvious.
Eric

Agreed 100% !

With respect, I will have to disagree with the two of you on this one. As of version Adobe Camera Raw 4.3 (LR 1.3) I am no longer able to produce distinguishable results from C1 and LR/PS. For the record, I am using Zeiss CFE glass on a 39Mpxl back. I am able to get top-notch results much more quickly from C1 (and that is no small benefit), but if you are familiar with the myriad of controls that ACR offers, either product will render equivalent detail from Phase One backs, at least.

Two culprits of lost micro-detail are often ACR's Luminance and Color Detail sliders. By default, these are usually set too high, and cause smearing of fine detail like new growth in tree bark, fine hairs on leaves, etc. Setting them to lower values avoids loss of micro-detail in the original file.

It's also important no to confuse sharpening (acutance) with actual detail or resolution. ACR's sharpening tools are not intended (rightly or wrongly) to perform what Bruce Fraser has termed "creative sharpening" (what we all think of as traditional sharpening), but rather to perform a weak optimization of the raw, digitized image content. They won't default to giving you a visually pleasing sharpened image ready for screen display which can be annoying. These low-intensity sharpening settings often cause confusion as well.

So workflow-wise, I have no quibbles--with C1, it may be *easier* to get the ideal image, but either product is capable of delivering the best quality your back can deliver.

Best regards,
Brad