Rollei 2.8GX Lens

[NortheastPhotographic]

I feel like I never get a straight answer on the question of the lens on the Rollei 2.8GX. I know they updated the coatings, but is it also an updated design? I adore the 2.8 Planar in my E, but it's quite obviously a 1950s design when it comes to flare, softness wide open. My dream would be a TLR with a lens that is as good as the Xenotar for the 600x system. Or is what I'm looking for just a Mamiya 6?

 

[mshchem]

I have a couple Mamiya 6mf bodies and lenses. Outstanding. But if I could only have one, well two, Fuji GW and GSW 690 III.

 

[JPD]

I have never read or heard that the Planar design was updated. The GX was released only a few years after the F was discontinued, and the GX had the same five element Planar, with better multicoating.

 

[dpurdy]

I obsessed for years about the difference between the Xenotar and Planar and the only difference I could plainly see was flare control. In all the 2.8 Rolleis I tried out the Planar always had more flare. The Planar always had a flare problem from it's design and they didn't use it until coatings were invented. Otherwise I could find no difference in the sharpness or the look of the image. So I settled on a late version 2.8F with the Xenotar. When later I was able to afford an FX with the HFT coated Planar, and I still have both, I found the flare problem was gone and the two lenses showed no difference. I can shoot identical scenes or subjects with both cameras and can not tell which is which.

 

[loccdor]

The Fuji medium formats have very modern rendering lenses. The GW690 comes from the 70s but at a glance pictures taken with it can be mistaken for digital, if taken on film stocks that don't impart tons of character. Their coatings were very advanced for the time.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I know they updated the coatings, but is it also an updated design?

From all the available information, including the MTF's that can be found, probably not significantly updated design-wise. However, improving the coatings and generally cleaning up flare will have a significant impact on aspects of how you might perceive sharpness.

I could be wrong, but I recall that the one significant revision was somewhere round about the D/E era, which if I were to buy a 2.8 Rolleiflex might sway me towards a C, but that's a different story (as is the 35/3.5 Planar for the 50's Contax RF). The 90s Mamiya lenses are very perfect in comparison, but seem to lack some of the imperfect magic of some Planar derivatives.

 

[etn]

The flare of the Rolleiflex 2.8 GX/FX lens is very controlled. The lens is as good as it gets (as a matter of fact I find it even better than my Hasselblad 80mm). Don't worry, you will not be disappointed by this lens.
Let me check through my old pics whether I can find 1-2 examples of flare (or lack thereof) for you.

 

[skahde]

I had the opportunity to shoot with the GX along with the late White Face Planar 2,8f I owned at the time and there was little between them except even higher clarity, color-saturation and backlight-resistance of the GX. Both lenses were so good it doesn't really make sense to think twice about them as is the case with many Medium-Format lenses. Understand their characteristics, use them accordingly, put a smile on your face and enjoy the pictures!