Rollei 2.8E vs 3.5F flare?

[JW PHOTO]

I've been thinking of selling off a few of my extra Rollei TLR cameras and decided to do an informal test to see which ones might be worth hanging onto. You know, one that might have a special or certain trait that the others don't??? I decided to start with my two favorites first. The old, non-metered, 2.8E looks as if it were recently recovered from the bottom of a landfill after years of being buried there. The 3.5F is in great shape and even it's meter is still dead-on. The Planar on the 3.5F is the last design and is in near perfect condition. The 2.8 Xenotar on the E has excellent glass except for a bad case of "Schneideritis". For the "INFORMAL" test I took the pair to Lake Michigan for some sunset shots and beach scenes. This is a good test for any lens. I had both cameras loaded with Ilford PanF+ and mounted on a dual-camera bar, which was then placed on a heavy Bogen tripod with the biggest Kirk ball head you can get. I used two cable releases to get my shots as close to the same time as possible. After developing the film in Xtol replenished developer and proper drying I was in for a surprise. On three frames I shot directly into the sun with the reflection coming right across the water. Very bright reflections I must say and the sun is actually included into the upper 1/4 of the frame itself. A sin I know, but I wanted to see if there was a difference in flare control per lens since I know the Zeiss and Schneider coatings are very different. Now, for the surprise................! I laid the strips on my light table and looked at them with my Rodagon loupe. What I saw was that the contrast looked almost exactly the same across all shots, but there was one main difference. On the shots with the sun in the frame the 3.5 Planar showed a second sun just a small distance away from the real sun. I assume this is an internal reflection off a glass element. Now, for the beat-up old Schneider Xenotar with "schneideritis". Absolutely no second sun in the frame at all. If you were to ask me which film came out of which camera without me knowing? I would have guessed exactly the opposite of the results of this informal test. Oh, these shots were all at f11 also. When I get back home I will scanned the images for a closer look. I'm a little puzzled, but still very happy with the results. This might also be good news for folks who refuse to buy a lens with "Scneideritis". I had always heard that it didn't alter image quality, but never knew for sure. Now I know! John W

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The biggest cause of flare in the lens of my Rolleis has been the absence of a lens hood. THAT makes all the difference in the world. The next cause is coating damage - I have one 2.8E with coating (but not glass) damage, and it flares like a beast in night shots where light sources in the frame are unavoidable. It does better with the hood, but it is still obvious. The 2.8E with perfect coatings will flare with light sources in the scene, but does better across the board hood or not. It is best with a lens hood, so I make sure I always have one on the camera.

 

[JW PHOTO]

The biggest cause of flare in the lens of my Rolleis has been the absence of a lens hood. THAT makes all the difference in the world. The next cause is coating damage - I have one 2.8E with coating (but not glass) damage, and it flares like a beast in night shots where light sources in the frame are unavoidable. It does better with the hood, but it is still obvious. The 2.8E with perfect coatings will flare with light sources in the scene, but does better across the board hood or not. It is best with a lens hood, so I make sure I always have one on the camera.

I should have stated that both cameras were wearing their proper Rollei hoods (with no filters). I don't think the hoods would have made any difference in this case since the sun was included in the frame. Shooting directly into the sun should render the hood useless. I'm going to investigate further on this one as I have a few more Rollei TLR's with the 3.5 Planar to test. I still would have thought the 3.5F Planar would have out-performed the 2.8E's Xenotar, but I guess that just goes to show how much I know. John W

 

[jspillane]

Interesting. It's always hard to tell if there is a reason to search out the Xenotars vs. the Planars (I have mostly owned Xenotars due to the lower cost). I've found people tend to defend whichever one they have...

Do you have a 2.8 Planar to test as well? Wondering if it has anything to do with the 2.8 vs 3.5 lens instead of the manufacture (although I would have guessed that the 3.5 lens would have the advantage).

I've generally been impressed with how well my 2.8D Xenotar (with fairly bad coating damage!) handles flare. Never done anything scientific with it other than compare it to a Hasselblad 2.8 Planar (Hasselblad comes out on top for me, but I think because I find it easier to get perfect focus with- didn't test for flare).

 

[JW PHOTO]

Interesting. It's always hard to tell if there is a reason to search out the Xenotars vs. the Planars (I have mostly owned Xenotars due to the lower cost). I've found people tend to defend whichever one they have...

Do you have a 2.8 Planar to test as well? Wondering if it has anything to do with the 2.8 vs 3.5 lens instead of the manufacture (although I would have guessed that the 3.5 lens would have the advantage).

I've generally been impressed with how well my 2.8D Xenotar (with fairly bad coating damage!) handles flare. Never done anything scientific with it other than compare it to a Hasselblad 2.8 Planar (Hasselblad comes out on top for me, but I think because I find it easier to get perfect focus with- didn't test for flare).

Like you the only 2.8 Planar I have is the one for my Hasselblad. Like the Rollei 2.8 Xenotar it is exceptional. I was told many years ago by a Rollei expert that the Zeiss coatings were much softer than the Schneider coatings and that no matter what anybody tried to tell me Schneider lenses were as good or better. I didn't believe him then, but I do now. When I return home I'll be looking into testing four other 3.5 Planar lenses against the 2.8 Xenotar. That should give me a good idea as to which one holds up better in high flare scenes. John W

 

[twoeyeandy]

Are the element groupings different in each lens? And I read somewhere that the Xenator has more aperture blades? Could be wrong, has been known!

 

[Xmas]

Are the element groupings different in each lens? And I read somewhere that the Xenator has more aperture blades? Could be wrong, has been known!

Before you use a lens you don't need to clean it instead look for any trace of internal mist, with a LED flash light in darkroom, any mist is worse than a finger print, paradox are difficult to accept.

Zeiss held the Ge patent for hard coating it was taken as a war reparation by the US.

It was superseded by later techniques, but a trace of mist compromises.

 

[dpurdy]

I don't know the flare tendency differences between a 2.8 80mm or 3.5 75mm lens but I have done quite a lot of testing for the differences between the 2.8 Xenotar and 2.8 Planar.... and currently I own pristine examples of both.

At one point I had only owned the Xenotars and my camera was a 2.8E2. I made the decision to "upgrade" to a 2.8F with the Planar. The first thing I noticed was I was getting flare with the Planar. I communicated with lots of Rollei owners in online forums and email user groups and everyone told me I must have a problem with my camera because Planars don't have a flare problem. I could detect a very slight coating inconsistency on the front element of the lens so I bit the bullet and sent the camera to John Van Stelten to be re polished and re coated. It came back perfectly clear and bright with perfect coating but on my first test I found that the flare tendency hadn't changed. I got enough flare from it that it made it impossible to shoot with a Rolleinar in a back lit situation. I then decided to sell it and buy a pristine 2.8F with the Xenotar. It tested out much better for flare control. Sharpness was identical.

A few years later I managed to buy a brand new 2.8FX with the HFT coatings on the Planar. I did the flare comparison tests again and found that the HFT coatings made the Planar a little bit better than the Xenotar with flare. I still own both cameras.

So in my mind from my tests regarding flare control I find the single coated Xenotar a bit better than the old single coated Planar and the HFT coated Planar a bit better than the single coated Xenotar.

I think though that in normal use with a lens shade it would generally be very difficult to see the difference between any of the lenses.

 

[JW PHOTO]

I don't know the flare tendency differences between a 2.8 80mm or 3.5 75mm lens but I have done quite a lot of testing for the differences between the 2.8 Xenotar and 2.8 Planar.... and currently I own pristine examples of both.

At one point I had only owned the Xenotars and my camera was a 2.8E2. I made the decision to "upgrade" to a 2.8F with the Planar. The first thing I noticed was I was getting flare with the Planar. I communicated with lots of Rollei owners in online forums and email user groups and everyone told me I must have a problem with my camera because Planars don't have a flare problem. I could detect a very slight coating inconsistency on the front element of the lens so I bit the bullet and sent the camera to John Van Stelten to be re polished and re coated. It came back perfectly clear and bright with perfect coating but on my first test I found that the flare tendency hadn't changed. I got enough flare from it that it made it impossible to shoot with a Rolleinar in a back lit situation. I then decided to sell it and buy a pristine 2.8F with the Xenotar. It tested out much better for flare control. Sharpness was identical.

A few years later I managed to buy a brand new 2.8FX with the HFT coatings on the Planar. I did the flare comparison tests again and found that the HFT coatings made the Planar a little bit better than the Xenotar with flare. I still own both cameras.

So in my mind from my tests regarding flare control I find the single coated Xenotar a bit better than the old single coated Planar and the HFT coated Planar a bit better than the single coated Xenotar.

I think though that in normal use with a lens shade it would generally be very difficult to see the difference between any of the lenses.

Well, I guess my results are much like you experienced. I actually think they are both great lenses for most every average scene, but for bright, reflective scenes I'll now stick with the old beat up 2.8 Xenotar. I also found no sharpness problem with either lens and from looking at them on the light table I'd say it was a draw as to sharpness. I'd love to have a little extra cash to try out one of those fancy new late Rollei's, but I'll just have to hobble along with my old Rollei's for now. The new Rollei lenses must be in a world of their own 'cause the old ones are about as good as it can get. I can't wait to get home and work with those negatives just to see exactly what's going on. When I do some more testing I will include shots taken into the sun with apertures from f2.8 on instead of just shooting at f8-f11. John W

 

[Brett Rogers]

Pretty amusing read considering the premium US buyers, in particular, seem to place on the Planar lens examples.
One other little piece of trivia is that the 2.8 Planars have a cemented doublet front cell. Although problems aren't as endemic as with the 135mm Sonnars used on the Tele Rolleiflex, it is still not unknown for the occasional 80mm Planar to have separation problems. Something the Xenotars can never suffer from at the front because they have a single glass. I wonder if we will see prices favouring examples fitted with the Xenotar now, in future? I doubt it. The perception is that the Planar is a better lens despite no objective evidence to this effect. Yes I have two x Xenotar Rolleiflexes but try to be objective. If either one had been fitted with a Planar when it had presented itself, I still would have bought it for the same price.

 

[Brett Rogers]

Are the element groupings different in each lens? And I read somewhere that the Xenator has more aperture blades? Could be wrong, has been known!

The 2.8C model was the first to introduce the Schneider, and then the Zeiss 80mm lenses. It also has a shutter of the Compur Rapid type with the booster spring and old scale shutter speeds which are variable across part of the range. The older shutter has ten aperture blades. This is the case regardless of whether a camera is fitted with a Xenotar or Planar lens. If you think about it this also makes sense. Either lens could be fitted to the threads in the shutter. The aperture blades form a part of the shutter, not of the lens.

 

[jspillane]

I wonder if we will see prices favouring examples fitted with the Xenotar now, in future? I doubt it.

I think the truth of the matter is that Zeiss successfully positioned their brand as "the best" lens manufacture, true or not. The fact that the highest end modern SLR and cinema lenses are still made by Zeiss gives them a kind of cache that other manufactures just can't compete with (except Leica, maybe).

 

[JW PHOTO]

Brett,
Thanks for the information. Funny, I'm on my way to 70 years of age and I've been playing around and dealing in cameras for a long, long time. Still, there's always still something to learn. When it comes to Rollei's and their variations that's especially true. Maybe that's what makes Rolleiflex cameras so interesting to many of us. That passion by us for getting every last drop of technical information about a great product and how and why a company got that said product to be an ikon status goes on. You'll also hear many stories about this, that or the other when it comes to Rolleiflex's. Some true, some not so true. Plus, the only information from the company was leaked out and not put out by the factory itself Makes for a great story, which also make the story part true, part fiction. I remember trying to find out every last bit of information about the difference between the 5 element Planar and the 6 element Planar. I finally ran into an old gentleman at a camera show I was doing in Indianapolis that I really felt knew his stuff when it came to Rollei's. He had a table with probably 12 to 15 Rolleiflex cameras on it and all kinds of filters, hoods and accessories. Seeing that he only had Rolleiflex's and me being curious lead to me plopped on a chair next to him behind the table. Well, the questions started flying and the first one was about the 5 and 6 element Planar. He said that the sixth element was merely a UV/skylight filter added. He might have been wrong, but he also might have been right since I never heard for sure from the company. He also said that the actual coating on the Schneider lenses was harder than the Zeiss coating. He said you'll see more Planar and Tessar lenses with pitted looking coating or coating blemishes that look like they were in a light sandstorm. He could be wrong, but he could be right. I actually believe he might just be right. Still, either the Xenotar or the Planar are first rate. As for Zeiss setting themselves up as the company to lead in the optics field? Yup, I agree since very early on they made the best optics for microscopes and hospitals and colleges gobbled them up. Why? Because there was none better. I have a friend that still looks for the very old Zeiss microscopes. I don't know how much of the above is true, but it does make for a good story. John W

 

[JPD]

Well, the questions started flying and the first one was about the 5 and 6 element Planar. He said that the sixth element was merely a UV/skylight filter added. He might have been wrong, but he also might have been right since I never heard for sure from the company.

He was wrong. This is was Zeiss said to me:

Dear Patric,

Thank you for your inquiry to Carl Zeiss.
Well, the reason for the change of the lens design was an improve of the lens performance (less vignetting, more consistent performance across the image field) as well as an easier production. The splitting of the second lens element into two cemented elements with a plain surface in between is easier in production than the meniscus element.

Hoping to be of service to you we kindly ask you to contact us again should you need further assistance.

Sincerely,
Bertram Hoenlinger​

 

[JW PHOTO]

He was wrong. This is was Zeiss said to me:

Dear Patric,

Thank you for your inquiry to Carl Zeiss.
Well, the reason for the change of the lens design was an improve of the lens performance (less vignetting, more consistent performance across the image field) as well as an easier production. The splitting of the second lens element into two cemented elements with a plain surface in between is easier in production than the meniscus element.

Hoping to be of service to you we kindly ask you to contact us again should you need further assistance.

Sincerely,
Bertram Hoenlinger​

Like I said, you learn something new everyday! Nice to have the story straight from the horses mouth. Thanks, John W.