Rolleiflex Xenotar Lens Question...

[celerystalksme]

Hello,

 

I'm interested in getting a Rolleiflex. I've sorta decided that I

want a Xenotar lens because I have heard that it is nearly as sharp

as the Planar (if not just as sharp), and that it is contrastier than

the Planar.

 

I recently read a website that said the Xenotar changed from a 5-

element to a 6-element somewhere along the line. If so, how do the 5-

element and 6-element compare? Is one sharper/softer than the other?

Does one offer better/worse contrast than the other? Is one

better/worse when shooting wide-open than the other?

 

Also...when did the Xenotar lens change?

 

Thanks!

[andy m.]

ASAIK, it never did. Did for the Planar 3.5 though.

 

There's little point in worrying too much about differences between Planar Xenotars and less still trying to differentiate between 5 and 6 element Planars. Condition of lens and adjustment/condition of the camera is likely to be of far more importance- these cameras can be quite old.

 

Any of the above lenses in good order is an amazing optic with performance to match any photographer.

 

A

[christopher perez]

The Xenotar did not change. Only the Planar did. And Zeiss did it to lower production costs, not to improve performance. Something about flatter curved surfaces being easier to grind and cement than steeply curved surfaces.

 

Look for the best condition camera/optics you can. Open the camera back, set the aperture wide open, open the shutter on "B", and look through the taking lens toward bright light. Inspect for fungus, scratches (sometimes called "cleaning marks"), element separation, coating uneveness.

 

For what its worth, I have c.1956 Planar and Xenotar that are incredible performers and can't be bettered by moving to a later manufacturing date. So shop condition, not model or lens manufacturer.

[geoff_mcauliffe]

There is a great deal of myth associated with Planars and Xenotars, espcially Planars. Much of this myth is propagated be people who are expert at propagating myth and not much else. As the previous poster suggested, find a camera with the taking lens in the best possible condition and enjoy it. I have never met anyone who was dissapointed with the performance of a Rolleiflex TLR, and that includes models with Xenars and Tessars. Don't forget that the shutter will probably need a CLA, these cameras are 40 years old.

[frank_a._bridges]

I own a Xenar, a Xenotar, a Planar , and a Tessar. The is no difference in the contrast because they are all CLEAN.

 

As the above poster said, i have never been disappointed in any of them.

[celerystalksme]

Okay...I have another question...

 

How does the optical quality of an Autocord compare to the Rolleiflex? Some claim that the Autocord's lens is just as good as a planar or xenotar. Is that just Minolta fanatacism?

 

I actually have a Minolta Autocord...which I like...but I sorta want a Rolleiflex cuz my Autocord has some big time cleaning marks and I also want the brighter f2.8 lens on some Rolleiflexes...

[andy m.]

I have previously owned a six element Planar 3.5 F and currently own a Minolta Autocord and a 3.5 Rolleiflex Automat.

 

I find the Rollei Automat easier to focus than the Minolta- the screen does not appear as bright on the Rollei, but the 2.8 viewing lens seems to give better focus differentiation than the 3.2 of the Minolta. Neither is as easy to focus as the later (F) Rolleis

 

The Automat is better-made than the Minolta Autocord IMO. Optically, the Minolta is very good indeed, and none of these cameras will stand out as inferior when stopped down.

 

The Tessar lenses on both of my cameras are quite sharp fully open too. I read a lot about softness in the corners- well yes maybe, but I have never really even noticed this.

 

This "softness" also didn't trouble the likes or Robert Doisneau, Bill Brandt, Lee Miller etc. If Tessars were good enough for them, I reckon that they are more than good enough for any of us ;-)

 

If I had to choose one of my Tessar cameras, I would choose the Rolleiflex Automat.

[siu_fai_au1]

Accoording to Prochnow, JSK also changed their 3.5 Xenotar from 5 to 6 elements right

after CZ did. The Rollei Report 2 actually include the drawing of the four different lens

design. He didn't gave any lens serials for the JSK, only for CZ (>2.723.002).

 

If you need an estimation, '61 should be about right.

 

Best regards,

 

Siu Fai

[celerystalksme]

so there ARE two different xenotar lenses?

 

i have another question...is there a site telling the differences between cameras? like 3.5F type 1/2/3/4/5...what the heck are the differences? and the 2.8F type 1/2/3/4...what are the differences?

 

thanks!

[siu_fai_au1]

There is no internet site that describe those difference in detail. In short, the type1 3.5F has the complex shutter with EV coupling, type 2 has complex shutter but no EV coupling, type 3 and on has simpler shutter. During the rest of the production, there were some smaller modification like 12/24 switch, plan parrallel glas option, meter and feet distance scale and finally the lattest are the White Face (script: Rollei-Werke Franke & Heidecke 3,5F #serial#).

 

About all type 3 has six element lenses.

 

Siu Fai

[nick roberts]

I have both 5 and 6 element 3.5 Xenotars. In my case, the 6 element lens is clearly better, although that may just be sample variation. It is also better than my (6 element) 3.5 Planar - and also, IMVHO, better than both my 2.8 Planar and Xenotars. FWIW. But again, I suspect the differences have more to do with sample variation than any absolute differences.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The Xenotar came out in the Rolleiflex 50 years ago. A bit later the Planar came out as the second source lens in the Rolleiflex. Condition of the camera; and its alignment matter <b>worlds more</b> than any Xenotar and Planar suble difference. Alot of crap today is floating around in each type; missmatched lens sets; missaligned warped junk. A Duoflex can be better that either type; if they are screwed up with a mixed set of viewing and taking lenses. A neighbor bought a nice looking Planar F2.8 model; that has a miss matched lens set. At infinity; both match. When closeup; the missmatch is horrible. Here is a paper weight that costs 1/2 a grand; that cannot be fixed. Worry about getting a bastard missmatch of parts; that look good; and dont track when focusing. This Xenotar versus Planar debate is now almost 1/2 century old now.

[celerystalksme]

Kelly,

 

Now you have me freaking out that my purchased is doomed to be a failure! I won't have an opportunity to examine the camera in person...cuz I'll be getting it from the internet (probably eBay). So I'm gonna have to trust the seller when they say "everything seems to work" and proclaim it is in "mint" condition.

 

Are there a lot of missaligned, mismatched, bastardized Rolleiflexes out there that can't take a good picture if lives depended on it?

[andy m.]

J, there's plenty of good, honest Rolleiflexes out there.

 

As with any used camera, you need to be able to run a film through it to check focus etc. I would never buy any Rollei sight unseen without a trustworthy return policy (at least enough time for you to get a film developed). If in any doubt at all, send it back.

 

Test focus at close range with the aperture fully open and then go for some longer shots at infinity. This won?t tell, you everything, but if you have a good example, you should be impressed by the picture quality.

 

The problem is that they are old cameras (even the last "whiteface" version), and because they are such great picture takers, people tend to use them to take photos - which cam cause damage and wear.

 

Even those that have been used hard might have been unused for the last twenty years and at least need a service. Also, Rolleis, despite being very well built, don't seem to be as hardy as Leica M cameras of similar vintage (for example)- and then lack of replacement lenses is a further big concern.

 

If you get a nice Rollei it will still probably need a service. I wouldn?t use any older secondhand camera for serious work without a full service.

 

So, to conclude, run a film make sure you have a return policy. I would have at least four problem cameras on my hands if I hadn't- none of which had mismatched lenses, but all of which had obviously had hard lives, been dropped, crushed, had the coating rubbed of the taking lens etc. Each time I had to cover postage in both directions.