Xenar or Tessar F3.5 on a Rolleiflex TLR

i already have a xenar F3.5 on my Rolleicord Vb,and i'm

looking for a second Rollei TLR to purchase,and wanted to know if

there's a big diff bet these two lenses,, and in what way ??

 

i can't afford an F2.8 Rolleiflex, so please help me make up

my mind,just saw one in very good condition today with a Tessar lens.

(so clean). i'd like to load one with B&W and the other with color

film. gotta be able to decide b4 i leave for shanghai on the 14th of

this month July 2003. TIA,, please help.....pc

The Xenar and Tessar lenses are the same formula; some people give the Tessar a slight edge, but I'd put them about equal. They're not up to the standard of the Xenotar and Planar in the later models, but quite good lenses. Many of the Rolleiflexes with Tessar lenses were prewar Automats with uncoated lenses, which will be less satisfying especially for color work (these also lacked a flash terminal); if this camera has a coated lens and a flash-synchronized shutter, I'd go for it.

 

rick :)=

Not sure about on a Rollei, but my limited experiences of a Tessar on a Contaflex and a Xenar on a Retina make them quite different. The Tessar seemed to have an almost infinite range of greys, high levels of detail both in shadow and highlight, whereas the Xenar seems to have rather higher contrast. All the detail is still there with the Xenar, but not so easy to print.

 

Yes, I know there are a multitude of other reasons why contrast etc can vary, including film type, developer used etc, but all other things being as equal as they can be in a home darkroom these are my findings.

 

I can't say one lens is "better" than the other, just different ... as always, your mileage may vary ;-)

P.S.

 

If I was making your choice, based on my experience, I'd put b&w behind the Tessar and colour film behind the Xenar.

There have been practically infinite discussions on this very topic, including recently, on the medium format forum. If you need something to do while pondering a new purchase you might wander over there.

As more people recognize the name Tessar, it has commanded a premium in the US. As mentioned, their construction and performance is almost identical with possible sample-to-sample variation. Keep your eye out for f/3.5 Xenotars or Planars as they ought not to be much more costly than the Tessars or Xenars.

Personally, I quite prefer the Xenar. But then, I'm on record in the thread cited above as being a Rollei Tessar-basher.

My take is there is a bigger variation between old Rollei serial number 1234 and serial 5678...; then the Xenar and Tessar issue. This is like debating whether a ford or mercury version of a 289 V8 from 1965 is better; without knowing the history; mileage; or abuse each engine has seen.............We had a customer bring in negatives from a new Ebay purchase; a mid 1960's Rollei; with a 80mm F2.8 Planar..................The negatives were in the league of my Kodak duoflex 620 tlr; the lens standard/viewing were not parallel to the film plane....The customer bought the camera; for the lure of the super Planar; and got all wound up on this point; and lost all regard for worrying if the damn camera was aligned.....In the 1960's; people said the Xenars were more contrasty; the Tessars slighly more ulitmate top resolution........<BR><BR>Another evil mix is that one vendor might have had better coatings ; that stood the test of time; thus ; with time the contrast on one brand would be better...<BR><BR>Also; if one brand has alot higher production ; their will be alot more followers.......

ok guys ,,first of all ,many thanks for your help. went to the little cam shop (same shop i bought my EOS 5 from,last yr) and checked out that particular Rolleiflex with the Tessar 3.5 again,

 

it;s in perfect shape. CLAd 5 mos ago.put shutter in B,opened the back,looked thru the taking lens,Perfect!not a scratch,new very bright and clear WLF,self timer working,smooth film adv lever,it's just like brand new . better than mint cond.comes with aluminum looking lens caps.

 

he wants US$430. for it. but,, he has kept a perfect functioning and cosmetically beautiful,Rolleiflex 2.8F w/ Planar 80mm F2.8, i did the same checking of lenses ,WLF, and every moving part

 

my findings, fantastic! tho almost twice as heavy as the 3.5 Tessar. no flaws at all. he wants US$780. for this one. no accessories either,except for lens covers (caps) i think this one has a baynt 111 mount for lens hood and filters, right??

 

so , right now i'm sitting in from of my 3 yr old laptop, thinking very hard , if i should sell my EOS 3,so maybe i could get the 2.8 F instead.(i can see my wife checkin me out too) she knew i went to the cam shop this aft.

 

oh BTW, the screen on the 3.5 is a lot brighter i think it's a maxwell.the screen on the 2.8 is not bad,but the maxwell is definitely easier to focus.

 

sorry abt the long post, just wanted to share how i feel,and maybe some of you could give me some advice,that might help me in deciding which i could keep for generations to come,pass it on to my children and granchildren, when i go..i'm still keeping my Rolleicord Vb tho. thank you all for your insight and ideas that you shared.....pc

They both will be great to pass along. But only YOU can decide if the 2.8F is worth the extra funds. BTW, The Maxwell screen is a HUGE advantage in real use, and it adds well over $100 to the value of the camera that has it.

Paul:

 

Here is a link to a photo of mine made with a Rolleicord V using a Xenar lens. Even with contemporary color film, this lens gives superb results -- excellent color rendition and sharpness. Can't comment about the Tessar since I have never used one. Kind regards, m

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1207955

I have both, the Xenar on a Cord Vb, the Tessar on an MX-EVS, and also a Xenotar on an E Rolleiflex. All are coated lenses. I shoot b&w exclusively. I stop down to f8 or smaller most of the time for good depth of field, sometimes wider for portraits to eliminate background. The sharpness and tonal rendition of the prints, never more than 8X8 inches, is superb. Use a tripod, a lens hood, and be careful processing.

 

 

Jim Ebbatson