Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,716   Posts: 1,514,773   Online: 830
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Peak District, Derbyshire, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    259
    Sorry I meant Xenar, I got Xenotar stuck in my head after reading a previous post.

    Steve
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/steve_barnett/

    book
    wood, water, rock,
    landscape photographs in and around the Peak District National Park, UK.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    262
    I too have found the Xenar and Tessar on older models more to my liking. There is a belief that when production of the 2.8 lens version of the Rolleiflex shifted to Singapore (the 2.8 Planar then being the only model left in production) there was a noticeable quality drop. I don't know if there is truth in this, perhaps others have more information.

  3. #13
    Slixtiesix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    697
    Images
    21
    As far as I know the Planar for the classic Rollei was never made in Singapur, though some lenses for other Rolleis were.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    262
    Quote Originally Posted by Slixtiesix View Post
    As far as I know the Planar for the classic Rollei was never made in Singapur, though some lenses for other Rolleis were.

    It could be the Planar lens was still sourced from Germany, but I believe the assembly of the camera shifted to Singapore. Perhaps the quality control was not quite the same.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Boone, North Carolina, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    166
    The common opinion back in the day, was that the Planar was sharper, but the Xenotar was chrisper.

    But, my experience was you had to be nitpicking to notice. I did prefer the Xenotar based on a sample of one that I owned.

  6. #16
    agfarapid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New England
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    179
    Images
    8
    Gee wiz, with all this talk about Tessars, Planars and Xenars, the Mamiya TLR's aren't getting any love at all! I have a Hasey, an RB67 and a Fuji with a 75mm 3.5 and they all have their good points. Here's a photo taken with the Mamiya C33 and a somewhat mottled 65mm 3.5. This scan probably doesn't show it, but the color and detail is incredible. I've taken identical photos with the Hasey Planar and the Mamiya 80mm 2.8 and the contrast and sharpness is identical until you get to extreme blowups where the slight edge goes to the Hasselblad. In practical terms, when I want to shoot 6x6 I much more enjoy shooting with the Mamiya C33 over the Hasselblad. It's just more fun to work with.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Bus Card Brooklyn Bridge West  Tower.jpg 
Views:	24 
Size:	304.8 KB 
ID:	53239

  7. #17
    JPD
    JPD is offline
    JPD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Northern Sweden
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    754
    Quote Originally Posted by rolleiman View Post
    It could be the Planar lens was still sourced from Germany, but I believe the assembly of the camera shifted to Singapore. Perhaps the quality control was not quite the same.
    No, the Rollei TLR:s were all made and assembled in Braunschweig, Germany. The Planar was made by Carl Zeiss in Germany.

    I've had a 2.8E and a 2.8F with Planars, and they were both excellent and sharp, but they did produce little less contrast than the 3.5 Planar and Tessar. The reason is perhaps the larger lens surfaces that allows for more light reflecting and scattering inside the lens system.

    Although I like the Planars, they can feel too modern and clinical with their "perfect" corner to corner sharpness sometimes, and the Tessar/Xenar and Triotar have more personality.
    J. Patric Dahlén

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    1,307
    My Rollei 2.8C's Xenotar is a splendid lens. So is the Planar 80mm 2.8CT* lens on my Hasselblad. The coating on the 1953 Rollei tends to show a little more flare than the Planar in extreme conditions. They do have distinct "personalities." The Hassy lens is lower in contrast, but that's okay by me, I often shoot in contrasty situations, and the modern coatings and lower contrast help the lens deliver a smoother look than the Rollei, which can be bitingly sharp.

    As to a Rollei TLR vs. total-system SLR Hasselblad, I wouldn't own the Hasselblad if the Rollei gave me the flexibility I want. There's a lot to be said for interchangeable lenses and film backs. I feel lucky to have both cameras at my disposal, and a choice to fit my mood and needs as the opportunities to make pictures present themselves. I owned the Rollei first and used it for nearly 30 years before I had the opportunity and cash to buy a nice, lightly-used Hasselblad kit.

    Peter Gomena

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin