Xenar versus Tessar?

[Mark Crabtree]

Are you sure that 3.5F isn't a Xenotar?

I think the Xenar and Tessar are both great lenses. I shot quick tests (mostly to verify focus accuracy) with quite a few over the past year. All were good. Some were slightly better than others. No two performed exactly alike. None were as good as a Planar or Xenotar (particularly at larger apertures).

The Tessar on the Rolleiflex T does seem to be noticeably better than the older lenses (though prone to separation in the rear cell).

[dpurdy]

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).

[ntenny]

I think you better pump a roll of fine grain film through it. I have a 3.5 F model Xenar that's everybit as good as the 80mm Planar on my 'Blad.

Whoa, even wide open and in the corners? That's a pretty strong endorsement and not one I think I've heard before. Maybe if "good" is judged more in terms of character than technical qualities---there are some people who find Planars to look clinical, I guess.

-NT

[tony lockerbie]

Agree with Andy38, my experience is the same. The later Tessar is a real cracker and is every bit as good as my 3.5 Planar at middling apertures. The Xenar is still damn good on either the T models or the 'Cords, you wouldn't be dissapointed with either.

[mudman]

Thanks. I'm looking forward to getting it in running shape. I have a later MX-EVS Flex as well. I like that this earlier model has way more aperture blades. I'm looking forward to the OOF areas.

[Vanishing Point Ent.]

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.

[Dr.Pain-MD]

The way it was explained to me when I owned a Rolleiflex 2.8 F Planar, was like this.

The way you had it explained to you was wrong. The amount of elements in the Tessar and Xenar is the same. The amount of elements in the Xenotar and Planar is also the same.

[Jerevan]

The only three-element lenses in the Rollei TLR line-up is the Triotar. Sometimes disparaged but it really has its uses, giving a different look.

[Ian Grant]

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.

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.

The Tessar has neveer been a symmetrical design, and while the Xenar was Schneider's copy of it so four elements in 3 groups (2 singles and a double) they did also make a faster f2.8 5 element version the S-Xenar in the 1930's.

Xenar versus Tessar

By 1945 there was a shortage of specialist optical glasses used for making lenses in Germany particularly the Russian sector and there were quality issues with lenses supplied by CZJ to Rollei. This culminated in Rollei using Opton Tessar's from the new West German Zeiss company some of these may well ahve been still made in Jena but had to pass tighter quality controls.

So I wouldn't be concerned your camera has a Xenar

I use a 1950's CZJ T coated f4.5 150mm Tessar and stopped down it's an excellent lens equally as good as the 1960's f4.7 150mm Xenar I used to have or the f5.6 150mm Xenar I use now which came from the last batch produced just over 10 years ago.

The only comment I would make is that some early coated lens tend to have a very cold bluish look which makes no differance for B&W but causes a slight color cast with transparency films and requires a warm up filter.

Ian

[jochen]

Hello,
both the 1:3,5/75 mm Xenotar and Planar originally had 5 lenses. During the production run of the 3,5 F and with the growing use of colour films it became difficult for Zeiss and Schneider to fulfil the high quality standards of Rollei. So Zeiss changed I think in 1960 or 1961 the Planar from 5 to 6 lenses without official publicity. Schneider did the same with the Xenotar. All 1:2,8/80 mm Planars and Xenotars always had 5 lenses. The 1:3,5/75 mm Tessar of the Rolleiflex T was an improved and recomputed version of the original Tessar. Compared to the Planar and Xenotar the Tessar/Xenar has a certain residual amount of curvature of field, they need f/8 to f/11 for best sharpness until the corners. Stopped down it will be difficult to see a difference to a Planar/Xenotar. Cameras with Schneider lenses were offered a little bit cheaper and they had not the "reputation" and "glory" of the famous name Zeiss but inofficially there was the rumour that they were at least equivalent if not a little bit better than the Zeiss lenses. Even today we have to pay more for a Rolleiflex with a Zeiss lens than for one with a Schneider lens.