What are the chance of replacing the lenses on a 3.5B from Tessar to Xenotar or Planar and readjusting focus?
Replacing lenses on Rolleiflex 3.5
-
A
- Thread starter campy51
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Minolta XG-1
- Started by Rick A
-
For Sale 5x7 Lisco Regal II Sheet Film Holders - $75 Each
- Started by berarthbun
-
For Sale Nicca Type 5 (m3 loading barnack!) and Nicca type 33 with nicca 50mm 2.8
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
Found 4x5 sheet film boxes (US-Texas)
- Started by Franswa
-
For Sale NIKON F100
- Started by Acere
Forum statistics
Why would you want to do that? The difference between the Tessar and Xenotar/Planar isn't that big, and they use different bayonets and you would probably need to replace the shutter as well. Also, the focal lenght can vary between 73-78 mm and the taking and viewing lenses have been matched at the factory.
I didn't realize the shutter would be that different. I happen to like the Xenotar for their sharpness and contrast.
I don't think that the shutters are different. Both (Tessar/planotar) use Synchro-Compur #00.
You'd need to check if the Planotar front group will fit in the lens shroud for the Tessar. They will be close- the Bay II size was marketing BS, not structural need, and the bigger diameter is made from a dress ring in the shroud- but small variations were a constant for Rollei so confirm. Viewing lens will need to be replaced with one from the same Planotar camera for focal length issue as JPD says. Then there will probably be some playing with the shimming of the lens board to get proper focus range.
The big question- why? The early Es were almost the same as the MX-EVS.
The real thing you should work on is getting a Xenotar into an Autocord body!!!!
You'd need to check if the Planotar front group will fit in the lens shroud for the Tessar. They will be close- the Bay II size was marketing BS, not structural need, and the bigger diameter is made from a dress ring in the shroud- but small variations were a constant for Rollei so confirm. Viewing lens will need to be replaced with one from the same Planotar camera for focal length issue as JPD says. Then there will probably be some playing with the shimming of the lens board to get proper focus range.
The big question- why? The early Es were almost the same as the MX-EVS.
The real thing you should work on is getting a Xenotar into an Autocord body!!!!
I have an autocord, is that possible? Although I think the Autocord lens is much better than a Tessar.
But still, it isn't a Xenotar.
Sure, possible. Shutter is the same threading and lens distance. Not sure about fitting in the lens opening on the bayonet. And the Autocord has a 3.2 viewing lens, not 2.8, so best would be to knock off the existing mount and move the Rollei viewing lens mount over... a light tight box with a lens on one end and an imaging device like film on the other end- all the rest is just machining.
What is wrong with the camera body attached to your Xenotar that you want to replace the camera body? Maybe it can be fixed?
Are you sure they didn't go with a larger bayonet to avoid mechanical vignetting, like when using stacked accessories like a Rolleinar plus filter?
No, but the Planar has a more curved front element than the Tessar, so the angle of incidence is different and the Planar will need more clearance in front of it. Compare the 2,8 Tessar (Bay II) and Planar (Bay III). But the Franke & Heidecke engineers bullshitting us for the sake of marketing is probably the better explanation.
I think I will drop this idea and look for a 3.5E. Thanks everyone
I am not an optics engineer, but I would not be so cynical about this. The Planar design, I gather, was a more complicated set of lenses with more elements and more air/glass surfaces. To make such a lens, the engineers had to fit more stuff inside the lens barrel. I imagine that production constraints drove a lot of the decisions about barrel diameters, which in turn probably drove bayonet mount diameters.
I recall discussions about the 3.5-series compared to the 2.8-series. The Rolleiflex body was designed around a 3.5 lens. To get down to f/2.8, the designers had to increase the barrel dimension to the maximum degree possible, and it shows in how the lens mounts bump into each other on the 2.8Es.
I doubt vignetting had any role to play in this. I stack attachments on my Tessars and never experience any vignetting.
Barrel diameter of a 3.5 Planar on a 3.5E- 30.5mm
Barrel diameter of a 3.5 Xenar on an MX-EVS- 30.6mm
Xenar 3.5 on a Rolleicord V- 30.4mm
Planar on 3.5F- 30.4mm
This is why I say that barrel diameter did not drive the need for Bay II.
A lot of the weird wide curved front elements we see on lenses are from dealing with the mirror box of a 35mm or 120 SLR, retrofocus and such terms come to mind but aren't understood well by me.
Get a Mamiya C330 and then you can swap lenses to your heart's content. 
I get it. But one assumes that the barrel diameter is only one constraint. Maybe the more intricate lens structure required a thicker barrel structure to hold the elements in place. Maybe the weight considerations required a stronger structure to hold the elements in place. I can imagine that the engineers had their reasons for the change, even if it was simply to improve the camera design after decades of using the old Bay I architecture.
I saw one Ikoflex IIa late model with Xenotar, that I would like to have myself.
Don't forget the linkages from dials to shutter (and in Rolleiflexes also diaphragm I think).
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |