Rollei TLR: Tessar/Xenar vs. Planar/Xenotar
peters
I read an article recently where the author stated that the Tessar or
Xenar used on the Rollei TLR was superior to Planars or Xenotars.
IF (!) YOU HAVE USED BOTH, I would appreciate hearing YOUR
opinion...did you find this to be true? If you'd prefer to E-Mail me
direct rather than post a response, I would post the results or
interesting comments.
--bob
Tim Takahashi
In article <4md09o$2...@emerald.oz.net>, peters <to...@oz.net> wrote:
>I read an article recently where the author stated that the Tessar or
>Xenar used on the Rollei TLR was superior to Planars or Xenotars.
>
>IF (!) YOU HAVE USED BOTH, I would appreciate hearing YOUR
>opinion...did you find this to be true?
I have owned two Rollei TLRs in recent years... one is my departed
(stolen) 3.5F Planar (75mm/5-element Planar) the other is a rattier
MX-II w/ 75mm Zeiss-Opton Tessar. I've also used a olleicord Va
with a 75mm 3.5 Xenar.
All are relatively good optically, though in the final print
my 4x5 Speed Graphic/Ektar performs better for sharpness.
The 3.5F Planar (and 2.8 Planar) offers minimal usefulness
over the 3.5 Tessar due to film flatness concerns. Critical
sharpness is not possible at infinity at f/3.5. Given
the difference in price between a late 2.8 and early 3.5,
go for an early 3.5 and an enlarger. You'll be better off.
-tim
David Josephson
>I read an article recently where the author stated that the Tessar or
>Xenar used on the Rollei TLR was superior to Planars or Xenotars.
>IF (!) YOU HAVE USED BOTH, I would appreciate hearing YOUR
>opinion...did you find this to be true? If you'd prefer to E-Mail me
>direct rather than post a response, I would post the results or
>interesting comments.
In my experience (3.5 Tessar in a Rollei T, and 2.8 Xenotar in an E,
also 3.5 Solinar in a Super Speedex which is a Tessar formula and
Planar in Hasselblads) they are of equivalent sharpness in the center of
the frame, if the lens was stopped down to 5.6 or smaller. Wide open the
Planar and Xenotar are much sharper. Nearer to the edges (within
1 or 2 cm of the edge) the Tessar starts to become quite unsharp; not
a focus shift but aberration. By f/11 and certainly by f/16 the images
show no difference that I can see. The quality of coating and condition
of the lens has a lot to do with contrast; the Tessar may be a little
more contrasty (less flare) than the Planar.
--
David Josephson / Josephson Engineering / San Jose CA / da...@josephson.com
Gordon Root
peters (to...@oz.net) wrote:
: I read an article recently where the author stated that the Tessar or
: Xenar used on the Rollei TLR was superior to Planars or Xenotars.
: IF (!) YOU HAVE USED BOTH, I would appreciate hearing YOUR
: opinion...did you find this to be true? If you'd prefer to E-Mail me
: direct rather than post a response, I would post the results or
: interesting comments.
: --bob
Bob- I had a xenar years ago and thought the contrast ( not sharpness) was
a little soft but could have had to do with the film/dev. combination at
that time. When I got my Rollie T with 3.5 tessar some years ago it forced
me to get a better enlarger lens. It is very sharp and contrasty and all
the way across the field. The newer designs of the Planar and the Xenotar
are supposed to be better. I have tried them and have not seen it over the
Tessar. They are all good. Just put the best glass avail. on your
enlarger. I would favor Schneider and Rodenstock.
Luck- Gordon
JJMcF
I've tried both but can't give definitive answer. I think tessar is
sharper and contrastier than xenar, but so much depends on condition of
these old cameras that the comparison is probably invalid. I've just
traded in my Rollei Automat 4's on the MX-EVS version (back to the
future!) and I will keep up the comparison. Incidentally, most of the
postwar Rolleicords use the Xenar and good ones provide shots
indistinguishable from Rolleiflexes.
John Hicks
to...@oz.net (peters) wrote:
>I read an article recently where the author stated that the Tessar or
>Xenar used on the Rollei TLR was superior to Planars or Xenotars.
I'd say without qualification that the author was blind and/or full
of it.
John's Camera Shop
David Josephson
>to...@oz.net (peters) wrote:
>>I read an article recently where the author stated that the Tessar or
>>Xenar used on the Rollei TLR was superior to Planars or Xenotars.
> I'd say without qualification that the author was blind and/or full
>of it.
Maybe he had some really bent Planars? A clean Tessar will beat a
Planar with a thumbprint on it any day.
Gary J Toop
Gordon Root (glr...@freenet.columbus.oh.us) wrote:
: Bob- I had a xenar years ago and thought the contrast ( not sharpness) was
: a little soft but could have had to do with the film/dev. combination at
: that time. When I got my Rollie T with 3.5 tessar some years ago it forced
: me to get a better enlarger lens. It is very sharp and contrasty and all
: the way across the field. The newer designs of the Planar and the Xenotar
: are supposed to be better. I have tried them and have not seen it over the
: Tessar. They are all good. Just put the best glass avail. on your
: enlarger. I would favor Schneider and Rodenstock.
: Luck- Gordon
I used to have a Rolleiflex with Tessar and now own an F with a
Xenotar and my impression has been that the Xenotar is the sharper lens
at wide apertures. The postings on this topic made me curious to have
another look at the things that I shot with the Tessar and compare them
to my Xenotar shots, so I got out as many pictures as I could find and
the Xenotar certainly does seem to be the sharper lens at wide
apertures. It seems to me to have better contrast wide open and to have
better centre and edge sharpness. When you stop both lenses down to
between f4.5 and f8 or maybe even f9 or so, the Tessar gets much better
by comparison, with much nicer constrast - to my eye, better than the
Xenotar although I think that this is very much a subjective judgement -
similar centre sharpness, but not as good corner sharpness.
Interestingly, this difference seems to become more pronounced when
shooting close up: the Xenotar is more clearly better than the Tessar up
close than at distances greater than, say, 3 metres.
A few other comments are probably in order. I prefer the
contrast of the Tessar to that of the Xenotar, but I have heard that the
Planar has a similar degree and kind of contrast to the Tessar, so there
might even more incentive to buy the Planar over the Tessar than the
Xenotar, although the difference in contrast seems to be more a matter of
taste.
Also, it could be that the Ts had a recomputed Tessar and new
coatings and that these were better than the earlier ones: the later
Zeiss Tessars for their Contaflex 35mm SLRs were supposed to be fantastic
lenses and definitely better than the earlier 35mm Tessars.
Finally, Tim suggests that the Rolleis might not be able to take
advantage of the Planar's increased sharpness due to film flatness
problems. My experience suggests that there is nevertheless a difference
and it is important to keep in mind that if you by a later F - type 3 or
4, or a later E2 - you can buy a glass plate to hold the negative flat:
this is supposed to result in amazingly sharp negatives. Also, if one is
shooting up close, the difference in sharpness seems to be more pronounce
so the kind of subject one is shooting will make a difference: if you
are shooting landscapes at f11 and f16 from a tripod, you might well find
the Tessar is fine. If you are shooting portraits by window light at
f5.6, you will probably prefer a Planar or Xenotar.
Hope this helps!
Gary Toop
Richard Knoppow
>Gordon Root (glr...@freenet.columbus.oh.us) wrote:
Does anyone have both Xenar and Tessar equipped Rolleis of similar
vintage? How do they compare?
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
have...@pi.net
In article <4md09o$2...@emerald.oz.net>, <to...@oz.net> writes:
> Path:
news.pi.net!surfnet.nl!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.c
om!in1.uu.net!news.oz.net!news
> From: to...@oz.net (peters)
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
> Subject: Rollei TLR: Tessar/Xenar vs. Planar/Xenotar
> Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 13:08:13 GMT
> Organization: Sense Networking Seattle (www.oz.net)
> Lines: 9
> Message-ID: <4md09o$2...@emerald.oz.net>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: torx.oz.net
> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
>
> I read an article recently where the author stated that the Tessar or
> Xenar used on the Rollei TLR was superior to Planars or Xenotars.
>
> IF (!) YOU HAVE USED BOTH, I would appreciate hearing YOUR
> opinion...did you find this to be true? If you'd prefer to E-Mail me
> direct rather than post a response, I would post the results or
> interesting comments.
> --bob
>
> Bob,
Reading your question: The Tessar and Xenar-lenses are both used on the
lower-budget-cameras as Rolleiflex-T and Rolleicord. Nevertheless Rolleis
standards for objective-quality are high and surely both lenses match these
standards. The Xenotar (Schneider) and the Planar (Zeiss) are 'more better'
lenses as those mentioned before.
I used a Tessar on my T and the results are very good in B&W and good in
color. The higher leveled Xenotar, used in a Rolleiflex 2.8C, was a very
nice lens with outstanding qualities. So is the Planar.
In the world of users there are no differences found between the Zeiss and
the Schneider; the collectors prefer the Zeiss - so the price of a Rollei
with a Planar-lens is higher but sometimes I like the Schneider more because
off the softer image.
Conclusion: if you can choose take a Xenotar of Planar or use the cheaper
Tessar for B&W-photos.
Hans van Dorssen
Rollei Club Netherlands
po box 276
NL-2170 AG SASSENHEIM
Marc James Small
In article <4md09o$2...@emerald.oz.net>, to...@oz.net says...
>
>I read an article recently where the author stated that the Tessar or
>Xenar used on the Rollei TLR was superior to Planars or Xenotars.
>
This is absurd. The Tessar is a fine performer -- the classic
four-element, three-group design which still dominates the lesser-priced
photographic world. But the Planar is probably the epic high-quality lens
design, and its reworking in the early 1950's by Sauer was extremely
successful. The Xenotar is a similar lens and one which enjoys its own
virtues and fans.
The Tessar is no mean performer, but hardly on par with the Planar.
--
msm...@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315
Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!
Marc James Small
In article <4mfli5$k...@acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
glr...@freenet.columbus.oh.us says...
>
The newer designs of the Planar and the Xenotar
>are supposed to be better.
Actually, Paul Rudolph designed the Planar while at Zeiss in 1895; it was
reworked as a coated lens by Dr Hans Sauer at Zeiss in 1952 or so.
The original Planar design was a symmetrical six-element design which,
before coatings, was extremely prone to flare. Rudolph then designed the
four-element Tessar in 1902 as a compromise: lower quality, but less
flare. The 20-year patent on the Planar expired in 1914 and that on the
Tessar in 1922. Thus, both designs have been copied by many other
companies, but only the JSK Xenotar is a well-known Planar clone. The
Tessar, however, went on to live as the Leitz Elmar, the Voigtlander
Skopar, the Schacht Travenar ... the count is endless.
The Tessar, thus, is a newer design than the Planar.
Tim Takahashi
Marc James Small <msm...@roanoke.infi.net> wrote:
>In article <4md09o$2...@emerald.oz.net>, to...@oz.net says...
>>I read an article recently where the author stated that the Tessar or
>>Xenar used on the Rollei TLR was superior to Planars or Xenotars.
I can understand why (read on)
>This is absurd. The Tessar is a fine performer -- the classic
>four-element..... but the Planar is probably the epic high-quality lens.
>The Tessar is no mean performer, but hardly on par with the Planar.
Why?
The Planar is more complex, with a larger front element and more
elements making it more suspect to flare than the Tessar. The
f/2.8 Planar, while pricey, when NEW was considered by many
to be inferior to the f/3.5 Planar (just as many f/1.4 prime
lenses are inferior to f/1.8 versions today).
In MY experience, the f/3.5 Planar (or Tessar) is unusable
for critically sharp images made at infinity when wide open.
(that being far more likely due to film flatness issues
than due to lens-to-lens differences in performance)
In other words, the faster lenses are mostly useful for
candid/people work in marginal light.
-tim
Tim Takahashi
> The newer designs of the Planar and the Xenotar
>>are supposed to be better.
>Actually, Paul Rudolph designed the Planar while at Zeiss in 1895; it was
>reworked as a coated lens by Dr Hans Sauer at Zeiss in 1952 or so.
uh.....
>The original Planar design was a symmetrical six-element design which,
>before coatings, was extremely prone to flare.
Um... the pre-1965 Zeiss "Planars" used in Rolleiflexes are
5-element, 4-group UNSYMMETRICAL lenses. For all practical
purposes, only the name is the same between the Rudolph Planar
of 1895 and the Sauer Planar of 1952.
I suggest that you look at Kingslake's monograph :
both the Xenotar and the Planar (post-war) are under
5-Element Gauss Lenses. The Medalist Ektar (100/3.5)
which I use on my baby Speed-Graphic is also a 5-elemnt
4-group UNSYMMETRICAL lens, but it is of the Heliar
configuration.... not the same as a Xenotar.
And yes, the later Rolleiflexes had 6-element Planars
vs. 5-element Xenotars.
-tim
Richard Knoppow
msm...@roanoke.infi.net (Marc James Small) wrote:
>In article <4mfli5$k...@acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
>glr...@freenet.columbus.oh.us says...
>>
> The newer designs of the Planar and the Xenotar
>>are supposed to be better.
>Actually, Paul Rudolph designed the Planar while at Zeiss in 1895; it was
>reworked as a coated lens by Dr Hans Sauer at Zeiss in 1952 or so.
>The original Planar design was a symmetrical six-element design which,
>before coatings, was extremely prone to flare. Rudolph then designed the
>four-element Tessar in 1902 as a compromise: lower quality, but less
>flare. The 20-year patent on the Planar expired in 1914 and that on the
>Tessar in 1922. Thus, both designs have been copied by many other
>companies, but only the JSK Xenotar is a well-known Planar clone. The
>Tessar, however, went on to live as the Leitz Elmar, the Voigtlander
>Skopar, the Schacht Travenar ... the count is endless.
>The Tessar, thus, is a newer design than the Planar.
>>
>--
>msm...@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315
>Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!
The Xenotar and Rollei version of the Plannar are related to the Wray
Unitlite designed by Wynne and are derivatives of the Planner with
fewer elements. The Zeiss Orthometar is similar. Zeiss uses "Plannar"
as a trade name just as Kodak used "Ektar" and lenses bearing these
names may be of various designs.
Those interested in the development of lenses should see:
_A History of the Photographic Lens_ by Rudolph Kingslake; Acedemic
Press, 1989. ISBN 0-12-408640-3
Stan Yoder
Excerpts from netnews.rec.photo.equipment.medium-format: 12-May-96 Re:
Rollei TLR: Tessar/Xen.. by Tim Taka...@isaac.me.r
> vs. 5-element Xenotars.
"element" was really only a (fixed, builtin) filter to correct a bluish
cast on color film. At least this is what Ian Parker (certified Brit
Rollei fanatic) says in his history of Rollei. I realize he is not
absolutely dependable in his info, and he surely could have used a
critical editor for all his books! Contradictions abound.
Stan Yoder
Media Technology Consultant
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh
Marc James Small
In article <4n5jq9$n...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, dick...@ix.netcom.com
says...
>
>
>The Xenotar and Rollei version of the Plannar are related to the Wray
>Unitlite designed by Wynne and are derivatives of the Planner with
>fewer elements. The Zeiss Orthometar is similar. Zeiss uses "Plannar"
>as a trade name just as Kodak used "Ektar" and lenses bearing these
>names may be of various designs.
> Those interested in the development of lenses should see:
> _A History of the Photographic Lens_ by Rudolph Kingslake; Acedemic
>Press, 1989. ISBN 0-12-408640-3
Please note that the Zeiss lens is a PLANAR with a single "n".
I am aware of Kingslake's comments. On this bare point, he overstates
his case a bit. Dr Sauer, the redesigner of the Planar in the early
1950's, was emphatic that he was reworking Rudolph's original design
though, since he ended up with only five elements, the design was no
longer assymetric. Carl Zeiss Jena, interestingly, did the same work at
the same time to produce their Biometar design: obviously, some work had
been done before the Zeiss concern bifurcated.
In any event, the Planar in its present form is a truly epic design of
great capabilities.
Marc
Rick Dickulous
to...@oz.net (peters) wrote:
>I read an article recently where the author stated that the Tessar or
>Xenar used on the Rollei TLR was superior to Planars or Xenotars.
I am the new and very happy owner of a Rollei T with a tessar lens. A
so called "economy" model that some would pity me for owning. The
first shot I took with it was in medium sunlight from the side with
the lens wide open and the shutter at it's highest speed of 1/500. It
was a long architectural shot focussed out to infinity. This should
have given me minimum depth of feild, corner blurring, lens flare, and
many other problems, none of which are evident in the print.
I think my particular Rollei has been fitted with the
"cantcomplainarr." A lens that is better than my ability to criticize.
I think all this talk about the "better" and "worse" lenses is like
audiophiles bragging about their amplifier's distortion levels below
005%. Since no human can detect distortion below about .1% it's all
academic. My lens is more than good enough for me, that's what counts.
As for the rest of my "economy" Rollei, the focusing screen can be
replaced in seconds, the Bay 1 mount will accept a wide variety of
filters and polarizers, and I'm told I can even get wide angle and
telephoto lenses made for the Yashica that will fit just fine. I can't
complain.
- Rick Dickulous -