Can't afford a Rollei

Dali said:

Why this fixation on Tessar? Are the other optical formulas not able to give a picture? I had by the past a Ricohflex (triplet lens) giving very nice results save the light coating... Same thing with an Ikoflex... The most important with these cameras is to make sure they are fine tune and that what you see is what you get (i.e., both viewing and taking lenses are matching). This is a prerequisite for fully using lens capabilities.

Take care.

Click to expand...

Dude, what's that attitude with replying other member's Q? If you don't understand the Q then you don't need to reply. Save some bandwidth there :munch:

Dude (to be at your level of courtesy), could you please remind us the original questiom? Ah yes, "I love the look of the tessa pics I've seen and would love to emulate the result". Wanna elaborate on "the look of the tessa pics" or am I too idiot for your Highness?

Now you're speaking courtesy eh?

Dali said:

Are the other optical formulas not able to give a picture?

Click to expand...

What's your point in asking that kind of question? Are you trying to say OP is an idiot? It is clear that he loves Tessar regardless what's the reason. Now if you don't know what's the reason go ask him in a polite manner. And if you hate Tessar and love your ricohflex you don't need to reply.
Tsk...tsk...tsk some people are really grumpy here. I don't know if their cat stole the camera.

AgX said:

I beg your pardon! The Xenar is most known in the Tessar-type version.

Click to expand...

I am getting confused, AgX. When I refer to a Xenar in this context, I am referring to the lens installed on Rolleiflexes and Rolleicords. To the best of my knowledge, these were ALL 75mm, f/3.5, 4-element "ZTessar-type' lenses. Did a different style of Xenar get used on Rollei cameras?

And did the label 'Xenar' mean different things at different times or on different cameras? I know that lenses called Xenar were used on some Kodak Retinas, for example. And that there are large-format Xenar lenses. Are some of these Xenars a differnt configuration that isn't "Tessar-type"?

Kodak had a variety of lenses called 'Ektar' but this didn't mean a specific optical design. Is Xenar used in this manner? Or did the optical design get changed by Schneider after Rollei wasn't using them? Or, maybe yet, there ARE Rolleiflexes or 'Cords with a newer Xenar design?

Not trying to be confrontational, trying to learn. Your response is tantalizing but confusing. Thanks.

It seems that in the mid-50's all Xenars slower than f3 were of the Tessar type and the ones faster than f3 of the 5-lens type (with an additional meniscus between the two front lenses).

Dan Daniel said:

I am getting confused, AgX. When I refer to a Xenar in this context, I am referring to the lens installed on Rolleiflexes and Rolleicords. To the best of my knowledge, these were ALL 75mm, f/3.5, 4-element "ZTessar-type' lenses. Did a different style of Xenar get used on Rollei cameras?

Click to expand...

Yes, all Xenars for the Rollei TLR's were of the four element design. 3,5/75 (and a few 4,5/75 for the late Rolleicord II).

AgX said:

It seems that in the mid-50's all Xenars slower than f3 were of the Tessar type and the ones faster than f3 of the 5-lens type (with an additional meniscus between the two front lenses).

Click to expand...

Not really, Schneider also made four element f:2,9 and f:2,8 Xenars during the same period, so it's confusing. The five element Xenar was made in 50 and 75mm focal lenghts and the production started in 1935/36. I'm not sure if they still made them in the 1950's? The 2,8/50 Retina-Xenar from the 50's has four elements.

I was surprised when I found that the 2,8/50 Xenon on my pre-war Retina has the five element Xenar design. Even though it's uncoated it's much sharper at larger apertures than the coated post-war four element 2,8 Xenar.

The five element 2,8 Xenar and 2,0 Xenon:



The Patent:

http://www.google.com/patents/US2105799?printsec=drawing&hl=sv#v=onepage&q&f=false

jp498 said:

Triplets are great for people pictures; sometimes a little softish on the edges. I have a yashica-C TLR with triplet and I like it, but it's not as good at 16x20 sized landscapes as the rollei tessar, still far from lomo.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't generalize so much...
While it's absolutely true that cheap triplets, specifically built as low cost alternatives, don't stand big enlargments as much as a Planar or Xenotar (and also the best Tessars), there are very good triplets which are very desiderable lenses even by today's standards.
Of course none of them was ever fitted to a Rolleiflex, but i have read of other alternatives in this thread, so i guess that i'm not going totally off topic.
There are medium format folding or reflex cameras with very good triplets, like a Meyer Trioplan, and with some luck you could even find one with the best of the breed, a coated TTH Cooke lens.
A nice Rolleflex with Planar would come cheaper though, as i jave just seen a coated f/2.8 5" Cooke triplet being sold for about 1400 USD on Ebay!
The fact that some of those lenses are still used to shoot 35mm footage for big budget movies speaks volumes about their quality...

I love some triplets for their flexibility (optical "signature" wide open is different from when the lens is stopped down).
Whatever... optical quality has more to do with tight mechanical tolerances, the use of computers to optimize old projects, and the introduction of better coatings, than with the type of optical layout.



Sent from my Android tablet

MFstooges said:

Now you're speaking courtesy eh?



What's your point in asking that kind of question? Are you trying to say OP is an idiot? It is clear that he loves Tessar regardless what's the reason. Now if you don't know what's the reason go ask him in a polite manner. And if you hate Tessar and love your ricohflex you don't need to reply.
Tsk...tsk...tsk some people are really grumpy here. I don't know if their cat stole the camera.

Click to expand...

Are you a forum moderator? No, so what is your point and what is your contribution to the post? Saving some bandwidth applies to others, not you?

cyberjunkie said:

I wouldn't generalize so much...
I love some triplets for their flexibility (optical "signature" wide open is different from when the lens is stopped down).
Whatever... optical quality has more to do with tight mechanical tolerances, the use of computers to optimize old projects, and the introduction of better coatings, than with the type of optical layout.



Sent from my Android tablet

Click to expand...

Quite right but don't say it too loud... People prefers "high-end" cameras, let's keep it that way...

Dali said:

Are you a forum moderator? No, so what is your point and what is your contribution to the post? Saving some bandwidth applies to others, not you?

Click to expand...

Nope, he's not, but I am. How bout you guys both knock it off, no further comment needed. Thanks.

cyberjunkie said:

very good triplets, like a Meyer Trioplan, and with some luck you could even find one with the best of the breed, a coated TTH Cooke lens.

Click to expand...

The Meyer Trioplan is awesome. I have two for LF. Very smooth and I don't care if it's not the sharpest lens ever as I only enlarge 2-4x on 4x5 film. It's just real nice and my first choice of lens for 210mm range. (Second is my fuji tessar) I've got a plasmat nikkor I should sell because it doesn't get used like the Trioplan and Tessar.

Yashica Mat's are great.