Rolleiflex Tessar vs Planar

[M. Lointain]

I don't know how much Rolleicords are going for these days but you may also want to look at the Zeiss Ikoflex with a Tessar lens.

I have owned 2.8 and 3.5 Rolleis, both Planar and Xenotar. They are good lenses no doubt. These days I find something attractive about the Ikoflex I have. Nice and simple and light. The Opton Tessar is more than good enough.

You can talk about the qualities of the lenses ad nauseum but if you go out and take a good image no one will care what you used. That may not be a popular thing to say on a photo forum but it is the truth.

 

[Rolleijoe]

I have both

And honestly, for some things, find the Tessar has a more pleasant look to it, than the Planar.

Rarely do I ever shoot anything wide open, or above f/5.6 for that matter. Mostly between f/8 and
f/22.

 

[subsole]

Take a look here: http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html

 

[Dan Daniel]

Take a look here: http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html

It'd be great to see something similar done that includes a Tessar. There are always those who prefer one to the other, claim they are the same, prefer one's bokeh over another etc. A real-world methodical Tessar vs. Planar (vs. Tessar-Tmodel version?) would give people a nice set of actual images to look at.

 

[subsole]

It'd be great to see something similar done that includes a Tessar. There are always those who prefer one to the other, claim they are the same, prefer one's bokeh over another etc. A real-world methodical Tessar vs. Planar (vs. Tessar-Tmodel version?) would give people a nice set of actual images to look at.

The Xenar is Schneider's version of the Tessar.It should be quite similar.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

It'd be great to see something similar done that includes a Tessar. There are always those who prefer one to the other, claim they are the same, prefer one's bokeh over another etc. A real-world methodical Tessar vs. Planar (vs. Tessar-Tmodel version?) would give people a nice set of actual images to look at.

I've mentioned this elsewhere, but there is a story/legend that the Tessars used in the T Rolleis had a lanthanum element to improve corrections. I do know that that Tessar is a wonderfully nice lens, one of the sharpest lenses of any type I've ever used. I currently have a Standard, with an uncoated Tessar.
Another point worth making is that it is essential to be sure your Rollei is properly aligned.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I have both. I have never looked at a negative from one
and wished I'd shot it with the other. I'm usually shooting
around f/4 or f/5.6. But my eyes are bad so don't listen
to me.

 

[mikebarger]

I should have my Rolleiflex 3.5 back from Fleanor in three or four weeks, can't wait. I bought it at an estate auction and sent it straight off to Harry.

Mike

 

[stormy_weather]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a Tessar Rolleiflex, or a Rolleicord with a Schneider Xenar (there are no Tessars in Rolleicord cameras!). I would advise against a Zeiss Triotar and I would certainly go for a coated variant.

If used wide open, a Planar is sharper in the corners but that's about all the difference. Actually, I would consider the differences between the cameras that use the different lenses more important than the lens. Alll in all, a well maintained MX-EVS (with a bright screen) may provide much more photographic fun than a worn out 2,8 F...


Regards,

Sven

 

[Dan Daniel]

(there are no Tessars in Rolleicord cameras!).

Actually, at the end of the Rolleicord production, a set of a hundred or two was made for the British RAF that had Tessars installed. I think that they were for use by the RAF, not for sale to servicemen. But they pop up on the market every now and then. Well, anyway, if you do see a Rolleicord with a Tessar, don't immediately dismiss it as a fraud.

And if I get bored one day, I will put a 3.5 Xenotar or Planar in a Rolleicord body. Everything will fit and everything will work as the shutter and aperture mechanisms are tied to the shutter, not the lens elements. The viewing lens won't swap, but I bet it can be close enough. Then when I get bored using it, I'll put it up on Ebay and watch people have fits......

 

[stormy_weather]

Actually, at the end of the Rolleicord production, a set of a hundred or two was made for the British RAF that had Tessars installed. I think that they were for use by the RAF, not for sale to servicemen. But they pop up on the market every now and then. Well, anyway, if you do see a Rolleicord with a Tessar, don't immediately dismiss it as a fraud.

And if I get bored one day, I will put a 3.5 Xenotar or Planar in a Rolleicord body. Everything will fit and everything will work as the shutter and aperture mechanisms are tied to the shutter, not the lens elements. The viewing lens won't swap, but I bet it can be close enough. Then when I get bored using it, I'll put it up on Ebay and watch people have fits......

Thanks ... learn something every day...

What on earth could the RAF having planned to do with 200 Rolleicords (with Tessars!) in the late seventies...

Regards,

Sven

 

[dpurdy]

I wouldn't mind seeing a link to that RAF/Rolleicord info. Are you sure you are not mixing that up with the story of the Rollei T which was re released for British military with a Xenar instead of the previous Tessar. I have looked everywhere I can with google and find no such mention of the Rolleicord being used by the RAF. There is history of famous photographer Don McCullin buying a Rolleicord while in the RAF.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I know where ther's a Rollei Standard with a trashed lens. If I ever find a 75mm non-WA Dagor, I'm going to buy the Standard and fit the Dagor to it, just to amuse myself.

 

[Dan Daniel]

I wouldn't mind seeing a link to that RAF/Rolleicord info. Are you sure you are not mixing that up with the story of the Rollei T which was re released for British military with a Xenar instead of the previous Tessar. I have looked everywhere I can with google and find no such mention of the Rolleicord being used by the RAF. There is history of famous photographer Don McCullin buying a Rolleicord while in the RAF.

I think that you are right and that I confused the Rollei T/Xenar change for my mythical 'Cord/Tessar change. Thanks for the correction and for stopping more misinformation spreading around the internet! I can't go back and edit or delete my post. Anyone know if I can contact a moderator and get it deleted?

Unless someone knows otherwise, to be clear, my post concerning Rolleicords made with Tessar lenses for the RAF is not true. Sorry for the falsehood, all.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Dan- you can just click the little triangle in the lower-left of the post and report it to the Moderators. They'll be happy to work with you to either delete or correct the post.

 

[craigs66]

Yes, there is a difference.

I own a Rolleicord with a Tessar 3,5/75 and a flex 3,5F with a Planar 3,5/75.

For critical work (brickwork that reaches to the corners) you need to stop down the Tessar to f/8. Half a stop wider open, f/6.7 may be accceptable, but you see a difference.

The Planar can be used at every case at f/5.6 and may be at f/4.7, that is "one stop faster" for the same image quality. Wide open the Planar is slightly soft in the corners but quite sharp in the center. The Tessar is soft even in the center at f/3.4 and f/4. May be used for portrait work, but not for landscape or architecture.

Hi, would you use the tessar stopped down to f16 and over for landscape possibly?

 

[JensH]

Hi,

my vote to the 4.5 Tessars of the early Rolleiflexes.
It has some kind of relaxed clearity the 3.8 or 3.5 variants can't give...

Never tried a 3.5T, but several 3.5s on Automats and cameras with coated postwar optics, and the Planar of a 3.5F. All with clear glas. Indeed the Planar is nice from f/5.6 on, but I like the 4.5 Tessar better... f/6.3 to 11 is the sweet spot here. Even with a Proxar 1.

Best
Jens

 

[JPD]

Hi, would you use the tessar stopped down to f16 and over for landscape possibly?

Yes, if you need the depth of field you can stop the Tessar down to f/16 or f/22. You would have to compare large prints taken at f/11 and f/16 or f/22 carefully to notice any decrease in sharpness due to diffraction.

 

[Axelwik]

For the kind of shooting I do with the Rolleiflex, the look I get from the Tessar wins. If I want a more clinical bitingly sharp image I grab the Hasselblad with the lenses I have for it.

 

[Helge]

For the kind of shooting I do with the Rolleiflex, the look I get from the Tessar wins. If I want a more clinical bitingly sharp image I grab the Hasselblad with the lenses I have for it.

Thing is a Rolleiflex with Planar has the potential to be better than a Hasselblad with “the same” lens.

 

[GregY]

Huge fan of the Tessar character. This 22"x22" print wide open on Ilford Pan F in Pyrocat HD

 

[Dan Daniel]

Dang, those are some nice colors you got from that Pan F!

Huge fan of the Tessar character. This 22"x22" print wide open on Ilford Pan F in Pyrocat HD

 

[GregY]

Dang, those are some nice colors you got from that Pan F!

. Print on Foma Variant FB

 

[Axelwik]

Thing is a Rolleiflex with Planar has the potential to be better than a Hasselblad with “the same” lens.

What makes you believe that?

 

[Helge]

What makes you believe that?

Well, for starters lens and body are married to each other. Taking lens and lens to film plane distance were calibrated carefully at the factory.

No unnecessary mechanical movement either. Only the snick of the shutter.

No film back cassette that can have film plane alignment problems.