Novar vs Triotar vs Planar

<p>One of the best ways to drive yourself around the bend is to start comparing cameras and lenses, but if you can hang in there, sometimes you get surprising results. I have this Ikoflex TLR w/ a Novar lens that I bought recently as an upgrade to my beater camera, but it had a light leak that needed tracking down. My Rolleicord w/ Triotar had a shutter that was bouncing badly at 1/300, so I took Paul Ebel's advice and bought another old one w/ a Compur Rapid shutter that ran to 1/500, as he figured it wouldn't have this issue, and would be the cheapest way to fix the problem. I then switched my Triotar taking lens into the camera w/ the better shutter and headed out today w/ both cameras. This is Tri-X in D76, and both cameras had yellow filters.</p>

<p>The first shots featuring the chair turned out way different. At first I thought I had really missed focus w/ the Rolleicord, but not so. I had purposely focused on just the front edge of the chair w/ both cameras, and both were shot at f4. While the Ikoflex got everything in focus, the Rolleicord got ONLY the closest front edge of the chair in focus. The photo also exhibits something I often get on old Rolleicords, a side edge that isn't quite flat. Probably a pressure plate issue, but it's not a big deal, and isn't on all the shots. The second comparison photos of the little tub are taken at the same apertures, and I like the Rolleicord better than the Ikoflex. So, depending on what sort of shot you want, each camera has it's own looks.</p>

<p>I then got this crazy idea to compare the Rolleicord's shot of the light fixture w/ one I had made some time ago w/ a Rolleiflex E w/ a 3.5 Planar lens. I had been regretting selling that camera, and was considering buying another one. Not anymore. The Triotar did a wonderful job, and compares very favorably w/ the Planar. I like the way it images better actually, as it has a more vintage look and is plenty sharp. Both were shot on different days, so the light was different, but it's close enough to get a comparison. All the shots were given the same workflow from my Epson 2450 scanner, and minor sharpening and basic levels were very minimal. The Rolleiflex w/ Planar will not be needed, although I did like the way the camera handled. I knew that the Triotar was a good lens, but this really surprised me. </p>

<p>I </p><div></div>

<p>Rolleicord w/ Triotar Chair</p><div></div>

<p>Ikoflex Tub Shot</p><div></div>

<p>Rolleicord Tub Shot</p><div></div>

<p>Rolleiflex w/ 3.5 Planar Light Fixture Shot</p><div></div>

<p>Rolleicord w/ Triotar Light Fixture Shot</p><div></div>

<p>Here's two more from the Triotar. I must have gotten the focus dialed in a little better w/ this camera when I swapped lenses and adjusted the taking lens and viewing lens, because it images better than it did in the other camera. What a wacky lens. Very vintage results, and very sharp too. I'm getting a little flare on the last shot, so a better hood is in order.</p><div></div>

<p>Food For Thought</p>

<p>Food For Thought</p><div></div>

<p>Nice work. Thanks for sharing. It is odd the depth of field difference between the two lenses. It is also odd the fall off on the edge of the Cord. Not sure I understand how the light is blocked from the edge to cause that darkness. It is what it is I guess.<br>

Dennis</p>

<p>I think the film is pulling away from the film gates on the 'cord. Maybe the film wasn't loaded totally straight on the spool initially, or it's just the weakening of the pressure plate springs over the decades. The next time I shoot it I'll try putting some little cut pieces of Styrofoam peanuts behind the plate to keep the film flatter, hopefully, and take more time loading the film.</p>

<p>The test showed me it's time to sell both of the Ikoflex cameras. I love the IQ on some shots, but not on others, and the Rolleicord consistently gives better photos, especially at infinity. The 'cord is lighter and more fun to shoot too. I have a really good shot on the roll from the Ikoflex that could have been nicer if I had used a better camera to begin with.</p>

<p>Steve, I have owned three Ikoflex cameras and while they seem to be built well I never liked the mechanics of the cameras compared to say a Rollei Automat or even a Rolleicord. Two of the Ikoflex cameras had Novar lenses and one had a Tessar. I have a 11x14 color family portrait hanging on my wall that was taken with my "then prized" Ikoflex 1C. I stopped the Novar lens down to f8, used a tripod and cable release and the outer edges and corners are still soft. I sold the camera more than 20 yrs ago and wish I would have had that lens and camera focus checked out. Truth is the other Ikoflex with Novar wasn't much better. My folding Nettar's Novar is much, much better. The Ikoflex with the Tessar was very good, but not great for a Tessar of that vintage. Since then I've shied away from them, but if one were given to me I'd take it. JohnW</p>

<p>I know that the Planar is lovely, Novar is good stopped down, never used Triotar. You seem to have some wonderful pictures and perhaps I ought to look out for one.</p>

<p>A lot of Ikoflex cameras suffered from poor focus adjustment right from the factory (Zeiss quality you said?). That is why results are inconsistent from one camera to the other. It is a good thing to get this point checked while a CLA as results can improve dramatically once correctly tuned.</p>

At one time the older Rolleicord with the three element Triotar lens was regarded as a poor relation of the Rollei family. Not any more: people have discovered that the lens, with various apertures employed, can give a certain look to portraits that’s difficult to achieve except with specific lenses. The Leitz Thambar 90mm f2.2 with the centre-spot filter comes to mind and, in more recent years, Nikon produced a medium telephoto SLR lens with a defocus adjustment ring - hideously expensive and difficult to obtain as not that many made. But search the classic camera dealers websites or the ‘bay and you’ll find early ‘cords, prior to the 111 with the Triotar lens. It’s very much a matter of trial and error as the amount of softness is varied by the aperture.