6x6 TLR sharpest lens?

[JohnArs]

I have the old Rolleiflex from about 1950 with the 3,5 Tessar it is sharp quite sharp at f 8-16 the Rolleiflex GX from 1991 with the Planar is sharper in the f2,8-8 region and from f 8 up I can not see a difference in my opinion!
Good luck, Armin

 

[eddym]

But TLRs aren't portable. And if you're going to shoot handheld tremor will beat any increase in sharpness you might gain by going to a better(?) lens.

I disagree strongly. TLR's, especially Rolleis, are very portable. I've used one for street shooting for 30 years. No, it's not as portable as a Leica, but for a medium format camera, it's quite easy to carry and shoot. And without a moving mirror to induce vibration, handheld shots can be quite sharp.

 

[walter23]

I find my lubitel 166B sharper than sharp enough. old WWII rolleiflex automat iii is even better.

 

[Steve Smith]

I disagree strongly. TLR's, especially Rolleis, are very portable. I've used one for street shooting for 30 years. No, it's not as portable as a Leica, but for a medium format camera, it's quite easy to carry and shoot. And without a moving mirror to induce vibration, handheld shots can be quite sharp.

I agree with your disagreement (!!). My Rolleicord is my favourite carrying around camera. I usually don't bother with a bag for it and just carry it, a few rolls of film, a meter and sometimes a few filters.


Steve.

 

[Uhner]

I only have experience of Rollei TLR’s; more specifically a bastard 2.8 E2 body fitted with a 2.8 F Planar from the mid sixties, an early fifties Automat with Tessar optics and a pre-war Rolleicord with a Triotar lens. They are all good cameras and I find them quite portable and easy to use hand held. Hardly surprisingly I rate the Planar as the sharpest of the three and quite usable wide open. Coupled with a sharp film and developer combination (e.g. EFKE R 25 and Beutler) it’s able to produce results sharp enough to make your teeth tingle… However, my main reason for liking this lens, and the Tessar, is its tonality.

Anyway, as stated before on this thread, later models are usually sharper but it all comes down to the condition of the camera.

 

[Mike Kovacs]

I owned and shot Rolleis from a 1930 Original on up to the later model Planars/Xenotars. IMO, there are no bad Rolleiflexes, just degrees of excellence. If I could only have one and I was on a limited budget, the 2.8C, D and E are an excellent value and Planar/Xenotar doesn't matter.

Given my Rolleiflex 2.8E Xenotar is one of my most used cameras, I would say its the ideal carry camera for medium format. Its bigger than a folder but the results are so much better its rarely worth shooting anything else.

 

[fhovie]

Voigtlander Bessa 66 is really portable - hip pocket portable and has sharp glass. Although single coated. You will also have to be good at ranging in metric. I also like the Agfa Isolette III. Very sharp, only slightly larger and has a rangefinder (uncoupled). It is a great pocket 6x6. In fact, a late (50s) high quality folder will often make it difficult to justify the size and weight of a TLR or an SLR for many kinds of image capture. Ahhhh but forget wide open - they are Tessars and at f3.5 - you better stay at f4 or above except for maybe the Certo 6 which has a f2.8 lens on a folder. Rare but it has a great reputation.

Thanks.

Okay, please let me rephrase my question. I'd like to add a TLR for better portability at times. Out of those TLRs out there, which are considered having extremely sharp lenses, including wide open?

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Voigtlander Bessa 66 is really portable - hip pocket portable and has sharp glass. Although single coated. You will also have to be good at ranging in metric. I also like the Agfa Isolette III. Very sharp, only slightly larger and has a rangefinder (uncoupled). It is a great pocket 6x6. In fact, a late (50s) high quality folder will often make it difficult to justify the size and weight of a TLR or an SLR for many kinds of image capture. Ahhhh but forget wide open - they are Tessars and at f3.5 - you better stay at f4 or above except for maybe the Certo 6 which has a f2.8 lens on a folder. Rare but it has a great reputation.

I too adore 6x6 folders but they do not at all compete with Rolleiflexes in sharpness and resolution of detail. They fall short for many reasons. Part has to do with lens design -- most focus with moving front elements, so you lose some precision there. Another is that the orientation of the lens to the focal plane is less precise, because the lens is set on moving arms in the folding mechanism. Still another is build quality -- while good on some folders, none approaches the precision found in the Rolleiflex bodies and lenses.

Folders are fun, but they do not come close to the visual acuity of the Rolleiflex. And since the OP asked which TLR provides the sharpest lens, there is no reason to throw folders into the discussion.

Among TLRs, Rolleiflexes offer state-of-the-art lenses, and they are the smallest, lightest, and best-built among the TLRs. Among Rolleiflexes, the differences among lenses are more imagined than substantial. Planars and Xenotars are identical. So are Xenars and Tessars. The latter show some minute loss of clarity at the extreme corners at wide apertures. If you plan to be shooting wider than f/4 all the time, it might be worth opting for the Planar/Xenotar models over the Tessar/Xenar models. But user error will affect image quality far more than the lens on the camera.

Go for a Rolleiflex in good condition at a price you can afford and don't sweat the name on the lens bezel.

RFXB

 

[Black Dog]

Thanks. Mamyas are fairly bulky and heavy (as far as I remember) – no much improved portability over Bronica SQ-AI.

'tis true-though they are compared to LF.RFs are probably best for lightweight.

 

[Mike Kovacs]

Look in old photos and see how many professionals shot with medium format folders. Speed Graphics and Rolleiflexes dominated for some 30 years.

 

[Joshua_G]

Thank you all who replied.

But TLRs aren't portable.

I used TLRs before, though many years ago … I believe it will give me better portability over the Bronica.

You might want to look here http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html

Thanks, very useful info.

My consideration right now is should I overhaul my old Rolleiflex with 75/3.5 Zeiss-Opton Tessar, or get an f/3.5 Planar, or f/2.8.

Your thoughts?

 

[Mike Kovacs]

I'll play the devils advocate to your two part question.

YES and YES

 

[Joshua_G]

 

[Rolleijoe]

Thanks.

Okay, please let me rephrase my question. I'd like to add a TLR for better portability at times. Out of those TLRs out there, which are considered having extremely sharp lenses, including wide open?

Rolleiflex Planar (either 3.5E or 2.8 depending on your budget). I use the 3.5E as my main camera, with a Rolleiflex Tessar as backup.

The Rolleiflex with Xenotar lenses are almost a tie with the Planar. But remember the Xenotar is not to be confused with the Xenar.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rolleijoe/

Take a look for yourself. In the San Antonio section is a portrait of my wife which was shot wide open.

 

[Dave Wooten]

I think my old Rollei has an optar or opton lens, I ll dig it out and check. I have always been happy with the results, have nt used it for color however.

 

[Rolleijoe]

I think my old Rollei has an optar or opton lens, I ll dig it out and check. I have always been happy with the results, have nt used it for color however.

The Optars were 1st generation lenses. I used to have an older Rollei from the '30s that had one. It definitely wasn't made for color film, and worked best with older technology films such as Efke 25.

I imagine the Adox Ortho25 or Rollei Ortho25 should work well with that lens.

 

[Dave Wooten]

Thanks Joe, I ll dig it out and load it up, have nt used it since the 70's down on Maxwell Street in Chicago, it functions quite well, the camera was used when I got it, my first "big format" it was that and my new Pentax 50 1.4, which also is still operable.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Which 6x6 TLR have the sharpest lens?

Would it have noticeable benefit over Bronica 80/2.8 PS lens?

.

In my experience, a Rolleiflex with either a Zeiss Planar or a Schneider Xenotar - I own and use both and they are critically sharp.

I have no experience with the Bronica lenses - but I would expect them to produce results similar to those produced by the Rollei Planars and Xenotars.

My Medium Format Fujinon and Mamiya Lenses produce results that are fully equivalent to those produced by my Rollei Planars and Xenotars.

Incidentally, I took one of my favorite 4x5 color transparencies with an uncoated Zeiss Jena Tessar - sharp, with great color and saturation, (I did use a lens shade).

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Rolleiflex Planar (either 3.5E or 2.8 depending on your budget). I use the 3.5E as my main camera, with a Rolleiflex Tessar as backup.

The Rolleiflex with Xenotar lenses are almost a tie with the Planar. But remember the Xenotar is not to be confused with the Xenar.

I've shot all the Rolleiflex lenses. I defy anyone to distinguish a difference among images created with Planars and Xenotars. In fact, I doubt that any user would ever be able to see any difference in real-world performance between either of those lenses and the Tessars and Xenars.

Fretting about which Rolleiflex lens to prefer substitutes fetish for common sense.

RFXB

 

[BrianShaw]

TLRs are portable. As Dan suggests, much of the lens sharpness may be lost handheld depending on the situation.

For many years I shot Rollei TLR on a monpod and was quite portable and sharp.

 

[jeanba3000]

Hi everyone

One important thing about sharpness in TLR is the state of the front lens panel and the back. Any shock on them might produce a deformation that makes the lenses not parallel, not aligned, not perpendicular to the film plane, ruining the sharpness because the upper lens won't focus as the lower lens does or the film plane is slightly twisted.

All my Rolleiflex cameras (2.8F, Wide and Tele) have been controlled after purchase and produce pretty sharp images, even handheld, but I think the maximum sharpness is reached on a tripod at the best aperture of the lens.

 

[Anscojohn]

Sharpest TLR

Which 6x6 TLR have the sharpest lens?

My ranking would be 3.5 Planar on the Rollei; followed by 3.5 Xenotar; 2.8 Planar; 2.8 Xenotar, fwiw.

Differences would be miniscule.
John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

 

[Wilcoxson David L.]

I vote for Rollei



FWIW, I have a Rolleiflex 2.8C with the Xenotar lens. I LOVE this camera. I usually use a tripod and cable release like my 4X5 and the images are tack sharp. I really don't know how MF could get any better. Attached is an image taken with it using Kodak Portra 160NC. I used a tripod, cable release and lens shade. I hope this helps.

 

[dpurdy]

Yep those are sharp all right. Just think if you had shot them with a planar you might actually be able to crawl in that airplane.

I have personally done manic testing with several Rolleis including 2.8E2 Xenotar, 3.5F Xenotar, 3.5 F Planar, 2.8 whiteface Planar, 2.8F white face Xenotar ( I currently have), 2.8FX Planar (I currently have) and 2.8F 60s Planar(my friend has)

I have had most of these cameras at the same time and did side by side testing on the same films and on the same tripod at the same subjects and the tests always come out the same. Sharpness identical. Contrast: Xenotar slightly more but virtually identical, flare: Planar slightly more but virtually identical.

I have also done side by side testing in studio with flash of a portrait subject using the White face Xenotar and a Rollei T and you could not tell the slightest difference.

All the lenses I have tested where in perfect condition.

Still it is all a matter of opinion and the opinions are generally laced with some sort of personal fondness for one or the other lens for truly unexplainable reasons.

Dennis

 

[Dan Fromm]

The Optars were 1st generation lenses. I used to have an older Rollei from the '30s that had one. It definitely wasn't made for color film, and worked best with older technology films such as Efke 25.

I imagine the Adox Ortho25 or Rollei Ortho25 should work well with that lens.

Interesting.

Optar is a Graflex trade name, AFAIK all of the lenses that bore it were tessar types. Most made by Wollensak, late ones by Rodenstock. Note that Tele Optars are not tessars.

Opton is a Zeiss Oberkochen trade name, was used in the early '50s while Zeiss Oberkochen and Zeiss Jena were in litigation over rights to the name Carl Zeiss. AFAIK, Optons on Rolleis were all tessars, but I could be mistaken.

If a Rollei from the late '30s has an Opton lens, the lens is a replacement for the lens that the camera was shipped with.