Novar vs Planar Part 2

<p>A while back I posted some comparison shots between my Super Ikonta III w/ Novar, and a Rolleiflex E w/ Planar. Unfortunately, they weren't direct comparisons. Since then I've developed a couple of rolls that had two direct comparisons photos on them. The film was Tri-X, the Novar shots were developed in Acufine, and the Planar in D76. This was unintentional, as I had forgotten that I had the Rolleiflex roll when I decided to try the Acufine on the Super Ikonta. The Novar isn't as sharp as the Planar at wide apertures (like the shot of the bench), but it has great bokeh. The Planar is sharper on the bench shot, but exhibits bokeh that isn't quite as nice. On the scooter shots I stopped down a bit more, and if I had stood in the same place for the two shots I don't think I could have picked one from the other.</p>

<p>The Rolleiflex excels at close up photos, as seen in the last shot.</p>

<p>The Super Ikonta positives are it's a small, compact folder that can be folded up and slipped into a pocket or sidebag nicely, and is nearly as sharp as the Planar stopped down. The downside of the Ikonta is that the framing isn't nearly as accurate. The Rolleiflex positives are precise framing and sharper photos at wide apertures, especially on close ups. The downside is it cost me many times more than the folder, and is quite heavy. Also, as seen on the bench shot, even w/ the parallax correction I somehow got the camera much too low. I find it more natural to hold the Super Ikonta up to my eye to shoot, rather than having to look down into the Rolleiflex to focus.</p><div></div>

<p>Planar bench shot</p><div></div>

<p>Novar Scooter shot</p><div></div>

<p>Planar Scooter Shot</p><div></div>

<p>Planar Vase</p><div></div>

<p>I'm losing it. I meant to say that I had earlier posted a comparison between a Rolleicord w/ Xenar and the Ikonta w/ Novar. l</p>

<p>The Novar does surprisingly well, but the Planar is also clearly the better lens, eh?</p>

<p>We've talked about it many times, but the old "cheap" - what we'd call a kit lens today - triplets and such were "adequate" and then some.</p>

<p>I think the Planar is the "better" lens, but certainly not the better value. We're taking about a comparison between a lowest of the line triplet on an old folder (cost-$120), and comparing it to a top of the line lens on a Rolleiflex TLR (cost-$650). The scooter shots weren't photoshopped to make the Novar look better either. Both scooter shots from both cameras were intentionally given exactly the same minimal post processing. True, the Planar is sharper corner to corner wide open, there's no denying that. But how often does anyone need that on a medium format camera? If you need that, or if you really need accurate framing, then the 'flex is better than the Ikonta. To me, the Novar does a nice job w/ the scooter as it manages to get the bike sharp, yet gives an out of focus look to the background that I like. The Planar at the same aperture gives a sharp scooter w/ a little more contrast, but the background is a little too in focus for my tastes. Unfortunately, since I used 2 different developers the results are skewed, but not by so much that I wouldn't call it more of a tie than anything else. On a print made by an experienced printer, both would work equally well.</p>

<p>Of course, you could always get a $70 Ikoflex TLR and get the excellent IQ of the Novar AND the accurate framing of a TLR. My Ikoflex's Novar is quite a bit sharper than the folder's Novar wide open because it's a unit focusing lens, but it can't equal the Planar wide open, it just beats the Ikonta wide open. Put all three cameras at f8 or more and you would be very hard pressed to tell which came from which, except that I think that the Ikoflex Novar is sharper than both the Planar and the folder's Novar. This is based on looking at actual photographs that I took, not MTF graphs or LPM measurements.</p>