How can be TLRs lenses so small compared to MF SLRs? What's

Optics mumbo jumbo.

It's funny because the two lenses you posted for comparison have about the same-sized front elements and the actual optics have more or less the same dimensions.
The only difference is the metal housing on the SLR - it has to contain a helicoid to change focus and the aperture with a stop-down mechanism with some sort of lever to connect with the body - and a solid lens mount to hold it all in place.
The rolleiflex's entire front side moves back and forth and the aperture lever sticks out directly from the mechanism. Also, longer flange distances force more complex optical designs.

File: IMGP1744.jpg (239KB, 1600x1280px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1600x1280px

>>3134628
Why would the flange distance be so different if both have mirrors? couldn't they made the hasselblad smaller and without a magazine? Look at the size of a pentacom 6.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1600
Image Height	1280

File: TLR-diagram.jpg (32KB, 600x849px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 600x849px

>>3134694
With a TLR there is no mirror behind the objective (the lens that takes the picture).
There is a mirror behind the viewfinder lens, but this lens can be a simpler design and the mirror doesn't move to it can stick inside a bit.

Also conveniently there is room behind the mirror for film.

>couldn't they made the hasselblad smaller and without a magazine?

You can take it off and shoot individual Polaroids instead.
But who would want to do that just to save space?

File: Rolleiflex-SLX-TLR-300x244.jpg (27KB, 300x244px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 300x244px

was going to say something on OPs post but these guys got it
>>3134628
>>3134698


>>3134694
>couldn't they made the hasselblad smaller and without a magazine?

that would pretty much be the Rollei SLX

>>3134598
no mirror. same as why rangefinder's also have much smaller lenses. in general the lens quality is also higher, as the lens is closer to the film plane and therefore needs less correction.

>>3135066
>no mirror. same as why rangefinder's also have much smaller lenses. in general the lens quality is also higher, as the lens is closer to the film plane and therefore needs less correction.


Both of those cameras have mirrors dumbass. Even the TLR has one, just directly above where it would be in an SLR. The flange distance is the same if it did have a mirror.
>>3134694

Look at the Hasselblad SWC

>>3135066
The lens quality on a TLR pales in comparison to SLR lenses in general.

>>3134598
It's more that they HAVE to be so small, since you have a fixed distance between your lenses which you want to keeps as small as possible.

File: eb6.jpg (42KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 604x453px

>>3135432
TLRs often kill SLRs in IQ

>>3137075
which slr's?

If it's a rolleiflex planar vs a hasselblad planar, I'd probably wager they're extremely similar in performance (assuming same generation), and any noticable difference might be attributed to the shutter slap of an slr (preventable with mirror lock up) or film flatness (there are slr's with vacuum backs).

>>3134598
The tlr lens is really no smaller or marginally smaller. The extra size of the hasselblad lens is to accommodate a reasonable size focus ring (ie if you look at a zeiss zf vs cine compact prime cine lens, the cine lens has a larger more more finely graduated focus distance markings) and helicoid which the rolleiflex doesn't need to deal with due to bellows focusing, as well as an extended section and corresponding baffling in front of the outermost element, likely to space the controls farther apart in order to improve ergonomics, this baffling also helps with reducing flare even without the hood (earlier uncoated rolleiflex planars and xenotars were quite infamous for flare, which was in part due to this particular design element).

Bellows focusing saves on having a helicoid in every lens, as well as being a fairly light and inexpensive option for long focus draw, which as a side benefit allows a degree of macro shooting with shorter lenses. It's also easier to implement a tilt shift functionality with bellows less expensively than a complex mechanical solution with a helicoid a la the SL66 and GX680. It can also be used to fold then lens in closer than infinity as a way of making the camera compact (Mamiya 6 (internally), Fuji GF670).

The whole point of a tlr is to not have a flipping mirror....

>>3137123
I have a Hasselblad and a Rollei but have also played with friends MF cameras, swapped to shoot with for the day ore weekend ect.

TLRs have a few advantages over SLRs like the Hasselblad, Bronica, or Pentax, and usually 1 very big disadvantage.
First, because the Mamiya is the only interchangeable lens TLR I know of, TLRs can be designed 100% around the lens, everything is optimal. SLR lenses tend to be designed around the mount and mirrorbox.
The Mamiya c220 c330 is interesting because it has interchangeable lenses, but it doesn't seem to suffer from that flexibility other than it is xbox huge
Second, the TLR focus mechanism allows for better lens alignment than a helicoid & bayonet mount.
Though when it comes to SLRs the Rollei sl66 & RB/RZ67 have excellent focus mechanisms

Some of the higher end Yashika TLRs had fantastic lenses and some of the cheaper ones had shit lenses.

So really it's kinda case by case, and can't go by SLR vs TLR.

I'm getting a Mimaya RB67 Pro S soon and I'm pretty pumped. Bought a 50 mm lens, but feel like that's too specialized. Is it worth getting a 90/higher for more general use?