Graflex Planar VS. Hasselblad Planar

[darinwc]

Right now I holding a gorgeous Zeiss Planar 80mm f2.8 with a chrome filter ring, possibly from a Graflex XL or industrial application.
The shutter it is in has no mounting threads nor aperture. So I will have to keep my eyes open for a proper #1 shutter to make a permanent home for it.

But it got me thinking.. it appears multicoated with purple and orange reflections, but it is not labeled T or T*.
Also the rear element is larger than the front, and the Hasselblad 80mm planar appears to have a rear that is the same size or smaller than the head. (I dont have a hassy to compare)

So does anyone know for sure what the differences between the Hassy Planar and the Graflex Planar are?
Does the hassy need to be retrofocus to clear the mirror?
Do they have the same design?
Is the graflex version T coated?

Dan? Maybe you can chime in here.

 

[darinwc]

Some info: The Planar on the graflex is a 5-element lens according to the catalog.
The zeiss catalog lists the hasselblad planar as a 7-element lens, though I have read comments stating that the older planars were 6-element.

The graflex planar is listed as covering 6x9, but it is noted that the nominal format is 6x7 (2 1/4 x 2 3/4 actually).

Interestingly, the rodenstock heligon 80mm f2.8 is listed as a 6-element lens with a 40.5 filter thread. (the planar has a 49mm thread)
Both are in a #1 shutter.

 

[Xmas]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-Gauss_lens

Planar is a Madison Avenue word.

 

[gone]

There's some interesting info here. I was surprised to read that the Heliar lens (my favorite lens in all of photography) was based on the Cooke Triplet. The size of the elements actually has nothing to do w/ the design of the lens, or it's coverage.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/883719

 

[Dan Fromm]

Read this: http://www.arnecroell.com/zeissoberkochen.pdf Hasselblad 80/2.8 Planars made before roughly 1971 are identical to the 80/2.8 Planar for the Graflex XL. Later Hasselblad 80/2.8s aren't. Recent Hasselblad 80/2.8s are even more different. Just use your lens and be happy.

 

[GarageBoy]

Zeiss always marked their T* lenses, even the 135 3.5 Planar for the Japanese Domestic Market. T* is a greenish coating. I don't think they are the same as the Hasselblad version (Zeiss made many 80 2.8 Planars- the Rolleiflex 2.8 TLR lens, the Hasselblad version, the view camera version, etc.) and IIRC, the Graflex version sits pretty close to the film plane in the Graflex XL version

 

[Dan Fromm]

IIRC, the Graflex version sits pretty close to the film plane in the Graflex XL version

I'm not sure of that. I got one as a set of cells ex-Graflex XL and put it in a #1. Just mounted it on a Century Graphic. Its a longer lens than, say, an 80/6.3 WF Ektar but has more-or-less the right flange-to-film distance for an 80 mm lens.

 

[GarageBoy]

Pretty sure the Hasselblad one places it further away

 

[Dan Fromm]

Pretty sure the Hasselblad one places it further away

Have you measured both?

 

[Ian Grant]

Pretty sure the Hasselblad one places it further away

Logic says it would need to be, to accommodate the SLR's mirror. The Graflex & Hasselblad Planars would be like the Leica (Leitz) M series Summicon and the R series Summicron, slightly retro focus for the SLRs.

The hypothetical question that then arises is whether the 80mm Planar for the Graflex actually a better performer compared to the similar era Hasselblad Planar.

Ian

 

[Dan Fromm]

There were several 80/2.8 Planars for Hasselblads. Specs and MTF curves can be accessed from here: http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWLds.aspx All have 74.9 mm flange-to-film distance, very slightly shorter back focus. Depending on vintage, they have six or seven elements in five groups.

I've measured my 80/2.8 ex-XL Planar's back focus, it is no more than 65 mm. I've counted reflections, five elements in four groups.

Conclusion? H'blad 80/2.8 <> XL 80/2.8 Planar, XL 80/2.8 Planar = Rolleiflex 80/2.8 Planar.