Any opinion on this rolleiflex lens.

campy51 · Nov 26, 2020

This is the taking lens on a 2.8C with what the seller is saying has balsm separation and a air bubble. I thought the Xenotar lens didn't have cemented cells or am I wrong. Do you think it's actually Planar cells that were put in to replace bad Xenotar cells?

Ian Grant · Nov 26, 2020

Xenotars have cemented cells like the Planar. Unless it's dirt cheap I'd avoid it, although it's unlikely to make a difference to image quality unless it gets a lot worse.

Ian

Dan Fromm · Nov 26, 2020

campy51 said:
I thought the Xenotar lens didn't have cemented cells or am I wrong. Do you think it's actually Planar cells that were put in to replace bad Xenotar cells?

Wrong. Xenotars of that vintage -- 1953 -- have 5 elements in 4 groups, the second and third elements are cemented. The air bubble is irrelevant, the separation is a problem. If the price is low enough, taking the lens apart and recementing may be a good option. Otherwise, run away.

NB23 · Nov 26, 2020

Do you have a schematic you can show us? As far as I can remember, the xenotar doesn’t have the front group cemented and the decementing really plagues the planars. This is my general rule for the F line. Even the tele-rollei planars, they almost all suffer decementing.

I can’t say it’s a planar cell but this, to me, looks like lenses 1 and 2 decementing... I am not an expert but just an amateur so take what I say lightly.

Dan Fromm said:
Wrong. Xenotars of that vintage -- 1953 -- have 5 elements in 4 groups, the second and third elements are cemented. The air bubble is irrelevant, the separation is a problem. If the price is low enough, taking the lens apart and recementing may be a good option. Otherwise, run away.

Dan Fromm · Nov 26, 2020

NB23 said:
Do you have a schematic you can show us?

https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/02160/02160.pdf

NB23 · Nov 26, 2020

I’m looking at Large Format lenses?

Dan Fromm said:
https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/02160/02160.pdf

campy51 · Nov 26, 2020

I actually have a 2.8E with a Planar that has slight separation and it hasn't been a problem but mine is more of a discoloration.

NB23 · Nov 26, 2020

campy51 said:
I actually have a 2.8E with a Planar that has slight separation and it hasn't been a problem but mine is more of a discoloration.

yes, my 2.8e had a severe case of coloration which I got reglued. But since then, I have acquired a 2.8E2 Xenotar in order to get away from planars in general. Xenotar’s construction seem much more friendly to me, with the smaller rear cells being glued, which are protected by the film chamber as well, instead of the large front... and I love the rendering from my xenotars 3.5f and 2.8f.

Dan Fromm · Nov 26, 2020

NB23 said:
I’m looking at Large Format lenses?

The 80/2.8 and 100/2.8 are medium format lenses for nominal 6x6 and 6x9 respectively. The 150/2.8 whose cross-section is figured is indeed an LF lens. All three are to the same prescription.

btaylor · Nov 26, 2020

Yea, looks like separation starting. As stated above the bubble should have no effect on images, and isn’t that unusual in old lenses. The separation shouldn’t affect image making, but it will have a BIG effect on resale value. I bought a
2.8E with 2-3mm of separation for a good price and it takes wonderful pictures. I have moved on to a 3.5F and haven’t been able to unload the 2.8 for what I paid for it. I haven’t found anyone who would perform the re-cement work that I really don’t want to take on myself.

outwest · Nov 27, 2020

I got a 2.8C with a lens like that, or even a little worse, for $85. Takes killer sharp pictures. Just stop down a bit.

Neil Poulsen · Dec 3, 2020

I had a Rollieflex with the same lens, f2.8 Xenotar. It's very sharp.

Afterall, Rollie put it on their camera; I wouldn't worry about it.

Any opinion on this rolleiflex lens.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency