Xenar versus Tessar?

ic-racer · Jan 27, 2012

mudman said:
Yup, I know that. Guess main reason I ask if there's any difference between two is for value pricewise and quality. I don't think there will be a difference in quality, but I'm curious. The reason I ask is that it was advertised as a Tessar Rollei. It's not, it's a Xenar.

You already know the value of it, didn't you just buy it? Quality of the lens will be less than a non-fungus lens. What model Rolleiflex is it? Lens elements are easily interchanged by unscrewing.

Richard S. (rich815) · Jan 27, 2012

When it comes to older and particularly "user" grade Rolleiflexes, the overall condition of the camera and the lenses have a FAR more impact on results than the comparison of the different types of lenses. Many of these older/user cameras have front standards a little out of whack, or backs that do not close as tightly as they should, or focusing screens that are not altogether flat or straight, etc. that can make one lens seem to perform better than another. I have a feeling a large majority of these "I had this one and that one and that one was better..." comparisons are more the individual cameras than the actual indication of which lens is better.

John Austin · Jan 27, 2012

Now that is sorted . . .

mudman said:
Well I got good news from my repairman. The camera only needs a little tlc to get running and it's not fungus! Should be shooting in 2 weeks.

Good, now that is sorted stop worrying and make pictures, which is what we should be about here - I shall take my own point and load our new-you-beaut-ute for pix tomorrow and Monday - I will even mount a 10x8" camera on the top!

mudman · Jan 27, 2012

jba - plan to. Only reason why I asked is that it was advertised as a tessar, not xenar and I wanted to know if there was a price difference between the two. Proof is in the pudding, and I'll definitely get to test it out and see how it does next to its younger, tessar mounted brother.

Mark Crabtree · Jan 27, 2012

rich815 said:
When it comes to older and particularly "user" grade Rolleiflexes, the overall condition of the camera and the lenses have a FAR more impact on results than the comparison of the different types of lenses. Many of these older/user cameras have front standards a little out of whack, or backs that do not close as tightly as they should, or focusing screens that are not altogether flat or straight, etc. that can make one lens seem to perform better than another. I have a feeling a large majority of these "I had this one and that one and that one was better..." comparisons are more the individual cameras than the actual indication of which lens is better.

That is a valuable point that really deserves more emphasis. I mentioned earlier that I tested a lot of these lenses over the past year. That was largely to check focus (and camera function). In the process I got to see a lot of side by side comparisions at proper focus (and used up a fair bit of film). More than half of the Rolleis I checked needed at least slight adjustment (which was done).

I'd also add that nearly all of the old Tessars and Xenars I saw had at least slight haze on the surfaces in the air space between the first two elements (which I cleaned).

Because of all that (and more), casual observations about lens performance seem very unreliable to me.

mudman · Jan 27, 2012

One last thing. When I told my repairman that the cameras was rated Ugly by KEH, his simple reply? "KEH should know better, there's no such thing as an ugly Rolleilfex."

JPD · Jan 28, 2012

Vanishing Point Ent. said:
The way it was explained to me when I owned a Rolleiflex 2.8 F Planar, was like this.

Lens Name---------------------# of lens elements

Schneider Xenar---------------3 elements,
Zeiss Tessar-------------------4 elements, a symmetrical lens design,
Schneider Xenotar-------------5 elements,
Zeiss Planar--------------------6 elements.

None of these are T*, or HFT coated.

No, it's this way:

Zeiss Triotar --- 3 elements
Zeiss Tessar --- 4 elements
Zeiss Planar 2.8 --- 5 elements
Zeiss Planar 3.5 before ca 1960 --- 5 elements*
Zeiss Planar 3.5 after ca 1960 --- 6 elements*

Schneider Xenar --- 4 elements
Schneider Xenotar 2.8 --- 5 elements
Schneider Xenotar 3.5 before ca 1960 --- 5 elements*
Schneider Xenotar 3.5 after ca 1960 --- 6 elements*

*6 element lenses were used on the Rolleiflex 3.5 E3 and 3.5 F from the third model. The six element Planar and Xenotar aren't said to be better than the earlier five element versions, but the changed were made to make the production of the lenses cheaper. Not sure why, but it may have been that the grinding and polishing of some of the lens surfaces took longer time for the five element constructions.

JPD · Jan 28, 2012

Ian Grant said:
The Schneider Xenar has never been 3 elements their triplet was the Trinar, the Zeiss Jena version was the Triotar and was fitted to early Rolei's.

You mean Radionar. Trinar was a triplet from Rodenstock.

Ian Grant · Jan 28, 2012

JPD said:
You mean Radionar. Trinar was a triplet from Rodenstock.

My mistake I have two Trinars one on a Rodenstock camera.

Ian

BobD · Jan 28, 2012

From wikipedia

The Tessar design patent was held by Zeiss for two decades, and licensed to Ross (optics) in the United Kingdom, Bausch & Lomb in the United States and to Krauss in France. Only licensed manufacturers were allowed to use the brand name "Tessar". However, Tessar-type lenses were widely made by many manufacturers under different trade names. The Minoxar 35/2.8 lens on the Minox M.D.C and GT-E is the fastest and widest Tessar type lens achieved so far by using lanthanum glass elements. The picture quality was outstanding.[2] Other Tessar-type lenses include the Schneider Xenar, Agfa Solinar, Rodenstock Ysar, Kodak Ektar, Yashica Yashinon 80mm (twin-lens-reflex design), and Minolta Rokkor 75mm (twin-lens-reflex design).

FYI -
Kodak Ektars are not all Tessar type designs.

See:
Dead Link Removed

And, not all 4 element lenses are really Tessar designs either (not that anyone here said they were):
Dead Link Removed

Richard S. (rich815) · Jan 29, 2012

JPD said:
You mean Radionar. Trinar was a triplet from Rodenstock.

Wow, I did not know Radionars were triplets. This is one of the sharpest images I've ever shot. Color me a triplet fan now:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38698047@N00/5763228802

John Austin · Jan 29, 2012

I personally feel this thread has gone on too long - Any further posts should be from people who can identify which images are made through these two lenses from 20x16" prints

I know I could not tell the difference from good prints

JPD · Jan 29, 2012

rich815 said:
Wow, I did not know Radionars were triplets. This is one of the sharpest images I've ever shot. Color me a triplet fan now:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38698047@N00/5763228802

Very sharp indeed! Schneider Radionar, Zeiss Triotar and Meyer Trioplan are very good three element lenses, and there's no need to stay away from them if you don't need perfect sharpness in the outermost corners. You used a Radionar for 6x9 on your 6x6 camera, so you only used the center, and you can see how good three element lenses can be.

BobD · Jan 30, 2012

I had a Meyer Trioplan of around 100mm that I found for cheap. I took a few shots with it but didn't look at them and I sold the lens thinking it couldn't be very good with only 3 elements. Then, later I saw the photos and wished I'd kept it. It's a very nice, sharp lens with wonderful color rendition.

Xenar versus Tessar?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency