Such an amazing comparison! The Rollei QBM versions are significantly cheaper, and provide the same look. They do seem a bit cooler, but that can be solved with a quick white balance adjustment. Thanks for for taking the time to do this!

Awesome comparison, been searching for this comparison between the two cousins. Wish someone would do a similar comparison between the Rollei and Leica's. Thanks for doing this.

@glebmazur9892

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you! Glad you found this test useful, feel free to ask any details. There are bunch of tests CZ C/Y vs Leica R so you can see the difference in look.

@glebmazur9892

Жыл бұрын

Hey, man! Did you already see this? kzread.info/dash/bejne/fqmpq7qfhs2xZqg.html What lenses you ended up to get?

Thank God they are not as popular(Xcept the Distagon 35/1.4 & Planar 85/1.4 $$$$), I’ve been able to form a set cheaper than I ever thought possible, and they pair breathtakingly awesome on Sony NEX 7 and A7, which both bodies were had at an amazing discount!!! When I’m not using medium format, these are my go-to lenses. And one day I will have the twins, Lol! …and maybe a Zony Planar 32/1.8 for Autofocus;]

@glebmazur9892

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, you are right! I’ve tried 35 1.4 and its beast!!! ABSOLUTELY WORTH) Razor sharp from wide open, great bokeh and out of focus rendering, 0 aberrations from wide open...

模特好评。测试很详细。感谢

Very useful vide! @Gleb Mazur, How different do you think the 85 QBM is from the C/Y? Is it worth having both owning the QBM? Thaks!

@glebmazur9892

2 жыл бұрын

Rollei is great for faces, heard from some photographers that rolleis are more “3d”. Rollei HFT version is quite same coating as C/Y, non HFT is great for contrast situations to reveal more shadows. I don’t think it’s worth to have both. Hope my answer helps.

Nice comparison, which would you recommend for video? On a BMPCC 6k.

@glebmazur9892

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you! Personally I didn’t find huge differences in image quality, contax looks warmer and less sharp but I believe if you find good copy it won’t be noticeable. Best option is that you can afford and adapt. I also found a problem achieving infinity on EF mount on 25/35/50 mm rollei lenses (leitax adapters that deliver infinity cost 66€ each) - you can try to look on already EF adapted set or get modern classic zeiss ZF/ZE lenses.

Сингапурский Planar сильно отличается от японского Rollei MC по изображению? Или они сопоставимы?

@glebmazur9892

3 жыл бұрын

Я помню сингапуский роллей и немецкий, других не знаю) Отличий по изображению нет.

Do you know any good QBM to EF Adapters by any chance? Been searching for a while and can't seem to find any good ones

@glebmazur9892

2 жыл бұрын

Leitax is great choice but it’s not cheap. I used to have some cheap chinese adapters 11-20$ from AliExpress (all of my lenses adapted on a budget). There are some issues with them but those who service rolleis and knows how they work can fix cheap adapters issues. Hope you got my point.

@jodeljodler797

2 жыл бұрын

@@glebmazur9892 Thank you very much for your answer! By Leitax you mean the one, where I have to remove the screws on the lens first to put it on, right? I guess I'll go with that one then 😊. Thanks again for the answer and the great video. It really made up my mind to purchase that lens

@glebmazur9892

2 жыл бұрын

@@jodeljodler797 this fast amateur video doesn’t show how great are these lenses, you won’t regret. Just get clean copies (or dirt for super cheap). For mounting any ef adapter you should unscrew pins, place new ring right and screw back. Visit leitax web page for more info about their adapters!

Please could you focus on these beautiful blue eyes ?

35 mm 2.4 flektogon is far better th distagon

@glebmazur9892

Жыл бұрын

I don’t think it’s really “far” in terms of one story where you use different lenses for different shots. Yes, if we will compare image face to face - no doubts, in storytelling it doesn’t matter. Consistency of lens set is far better and rollei is not bad in that.

Rollei QBM's look great. wonder why they are not as popular as contax.

@glebmazur9892

3 жыл бұрын

I agree! Maybe because of focal flange issue on EF and smaller focal line. + they’re made in less quantity.

@eaty1232

3 жыл бұрын

@@glebmazur9892 What are you thoughts on the mechanical quality of C/Y vs QBMs. Is there a difference there?

@glebmazur9892

3 жыл бұрын

@@eaty1232 hard to say, need to see both systems from inside. I guess later japan contax lenses made not as good as german QBM’s. Didn’t use Contaxes enough to say.

@Audrey-fu7bi

3 жыл бұрын

What changes now is all the appropriate adapters making these usable on mirrorless cameras, and my God are they spectacular! Not only that, Dr. Glatzel himself engineered the Planar 50 1.8 and 1.4(same as all modern Planars for Nikon, Canon, and the Contax version(the optical design of the Planar is exact). So you’ll also own a piece of Zeiss History, Plus a true “Made in West Germany” Planar(much cheaper than modern era Planars made in Japan(which are too optically spectacular), but no better than ones a fraction of the price with an adapter. Also, the Rollei HFT and even the Multi-coating used preHFT are incredible for Glare and Color Saturation.

@glebmazur9892

3 жыл бұрын

@@Audrey-fu7bi i want to try nikkors AI 20 2.8, 35 1.4, 50 1.2 and 85 1.4 - much lower prices compared to zeiss. They all (like contaxes) performs great from f2.

I've got a Planar HFT ... it is a poor lens and low quality.

Die Alte kommt ziemlich gelangweilt rüber - kein Wunder bei solch langweiligem Shooting.