rolleiflex 2.8 Xenotar and planar lens, which more easy to has lens separation?

[hui_g]

I am going to buying a rolleiflex 2.8. I know both xenotar and

planar perform equally well. But I want to know which is more easily

to has lens separaion. In my person experience in second hand camera

shop, I see several planar with lens separation. I want to buy a

rolleiflex with a lens which can last longer. Anyone know the answer?

[bob_the_builder1]

There is no difference between the two as regards chances of future separation.

[andy m.]

There isn't a simple answer to this, ASAIK and I would say that it is highly unusual to see a number of Rolleis together in a shop, all with separation. I have seen the odd one or two, here and there of course.

 

Looks like you should opt for a Xenotar. BTW, separation can be fixed.

 

If you want a Rolleiflex with a lens that will 'last longer' maybe go for one of the modern 2.8s.

[hui_g]

http://foto.no/rolleiflex/Rollei-9.html

 

I look for the structure of the 2 lens and just guess xenotar has less chance to get lens separation because the cemented surface is flat while for planar is curve surface.

[cpj]

Both lenses are well made and high quality. Separation is very unusual and generally is

related to the conditions under which the camera has been kept or stored. If it is in a high

humidity area with the sun heating and cooling the camera rapidly (such as leaving it for a

year in the back window of a car in a tropical area) you increase the chances of separation no

matter what make the lens. Separation is a condition unique to the individual camera and its

history of care, not the manufacturer of the lens.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Hackers love to seperate and mix up both Xenotars and Planars, to create that perfect "Ebay special". It is wise to see if you are really buying a correct complete TLR that focuses well at all distances. <BR><BR>The trend in creating "lookers" is risky. Folks align the screen and taking lens for infinity, and let the close focus go where it wants to. TLR's are made with a matched set of focal lengths. The current "collector" trend/fetish/obsessive complusive insane worrys with looks over function has created alot of bastard TLR's that have focus problems.<BR><BR>Hackers usually dont understand how a TLR is made, and just roll the dice and create a better looking camera. These may focus great, average or real poor at close distances, after infinity is aligned. The lay weak public naively thinks this weird "roll the dice mulligan lens swapping" is fixable with a CLA. I have seen this trend increase alot more since Ebay, where folks key in on looks, cool photos. <BR><BR>I neighbor paid almost a grand for a 2.8F with planar that is like a Hasselblad at infinity, and like my Kodak Duafkex II at close distances. He used it awhile and had good results at F11, then when on a trip and got some ill images close up at the faster fstops. He spent another 200 one a CLA, which still didnt fix the close focus problem. I went thru and found the camera has a mixed set of taking and viewing lenses, and thus a bastard Ebay special, designed to catch the lay publics cash. A beat up 3 element ancient yashica TLR gives a sharper image at 1 meter, than the 1200 dollar Planar of my neighbors.<BR><BR>In the old days one usually ran a couple rolls of film thru a used camera, to check framing, film transport, focus issues, flash sync, etc.

[kelly_flanigan1]

There is nothing really "wrong" about swaping out parts to create a newer better car, camera, tool. Just be aware that some parts are fitted, select fit, shimmed, and others are not.

[forum_shopper]

Your sympathy for those who don't live and breathe old cameras is really touching. Is this the same "lay weak public" that gets duped into believing that they might benefit from installing a Maxwell screen that didn't even exist back in the good old days?

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here I have "fixed" several miss focusing TLR's with bright designer screens that were shimmed wrong. Often folks loose the shims, and the lay public gets a brighter screen that focuses wrong. In a few cases hacker folks readadjust focus with the lenses, and further their confusion. Having worked on TLR's since the 1960's, and worked my way thru college with a TLR and stock screen, I feel there is abit of a kickback factor in the hawking of bright screens. Most all TLR shots were takien without thse bright screens, many even sports shots, when the TLR was "the" sports camera. <BR><BR<>Today alot of old frumpy collectors cannot even get correct focus in daylight with static objects, due to the bastard mixedup TLR abortions they bought from Ebay. <BR><BR>In a past thread, on chap asked if it is possible to shoot a portrait with a TLR. Maybe the same chaps can as if corn can be grown in Iowa, would it be possible for a taxi to work in NYC. Maybe future photo.net folks will say it is impossible to develop ones one film at home. Photo.net its loons, folks who ignore past history and have a truncated mindset of how tools can be used.

[bob_the_builder1]

I don't understand the griping about the fresnel screens for TLRs, ground glass screens just

do not provide the edge illumination needed to properly see what is there without moving

your eye over the screen. With a fresnel everything is clearly visible. Bright screens do make a

difference and they do make it easier to focus.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Bob; fresnel screens are decades old. Many came stock with TLR's when they were new. One of the first ones was with the Kodak TLR in the 1950's. Today there is abit of the peanut gallery that preaches one must use one of the two aftermarket bright screens to use a TLR, and that it is impossible to not use a TLR without them. This is total bulldung. Maybe newbies and greenhorns today require them, but many of us used the stock screens for many decades, before these bright aftermarket screens were marketed. Folks also used manual focus, non power steering cars, slide rules, developed film themselves too. Long ago when bright screens came out, at a repair shop I worked at we were told to never tell a customer that his mirror had cigarette crud, and raw dirt on the mirror when adding a brighter screen. ALL the brightness HAS to be credited to the new screen, to help justify the purchase. Most all the TLR photos ever shot in the world have been done with stock screens. Fresnel screens are not new, I had one with my Exakta VX in the 1950's, and have one on my 4x5 speed graphic.

[bob_the_builder1]

Kelly, I think you are overstating things. I have not read anywhere that it is impossible to use

a TLR without a fresnel screen. All I see is lots and lots of folks saying that they improve

visibility and focus. What is wrong with that?

[forum_shopper]

I think anyone who wants to use a medium format camera when everyone and his brother has gone digital--and comes to a Medium Format Forum for guidance--deserves to find a welcoming environment and not to be implicitly lumped as part of the lay weak public, the peanut gallery . . . a greenhorn. Here I (what's up with that construction, by the way?) have an opinion that the old prospectors ought to be a little more welcoming to the greenhorns, unless we'd rather have this be an old prospectors club. Here I used to find lots of nuggets with my gold pan--why do you greenhorns think you need to use that sluice box?

[d_purdy]

Regarding lens separation, I believe that the front element on the Planar is

cemented while the front element on the Xenotar is not. so I guess that might

make the Xenotar less likely to seperate.

 

Regarding the never ending argument about the bright screens. I have both.

A 3.5 F with the original screen and a 2.8F with the Maxwell. I prefer the

Maxwell because it is brighter and more stuff seems in focus. However the

original screen has a very nice feel about it and it snaps into focus better. The

Maxwell has the advantage in that the etched lines sort of vibrate when in

focus which is very helpful. The original screen would be no cause for

concern and works well, but the Maxwell is easier to see and looks more like

the image I will get on film.

[douglas_green1]

The fact is, WITHOUT a brighter focusing screen, most TLRs were relegated to the closet to collect dust, having been rendered obsolete by newer cameras having better, brighter viewing systems. By upgrading the viewing screen to more modern, and dare I say BETTER technology, that same old, formerly obsolete TLR can now be brought up to current standards of useability, and revived into a superbly useful tool having ergonomics as good as the best CURRENT film cameras. Absent a bright viewfinder, this is not so. With an upgraded screen, it is.

 

Nobody ever said that you couldn't use a TLR the way it was originally designed, and still take excellent pictures with it. But the fact is, absent a viewfinder that is as bright as current cameras, the TLR had been passed by and replaced with more modern gear. By adding a modern screen, that same TLR can get itself right back into the fast lane and be a tool that is as good as newer gear. That's all, no more, no less. Sorry if that's not retro enough for you, Kelly.

[bob_the_builder1]

Douglas, has it occurred to you that ground glass screens are better than fresnel screens for

certain applications, such as macro photography? Whilst I prefer a fresnel screen for general

photography, a ground glass is much better for macro. Having said that the ground glass is

perfectly usable for general photography also.

[randall cherry]

"I went thru and found the camera has a mixed set of taking and viewing lenses . . ."

 

Kelly, I buy Rolleiflexes on Ebay regularly, and I am interested in learning how one can tell when lenses have been swapped?

 

Thanks!

 

--Randall

[douglas_green1]

Bob, has it occurred to you that SLRs are MUCH better than TLRs for Macro photography? The applications for which I use a TLR are those where the ability to compose and shoot rapidly are imperative - such as street candids, and action portraiture. A bright, easy to focus rapidly viewfinder is imperative for those applications. Macro is the LAST thing I would ever try with a TLR when I have other types of equipment.

[bob_the_builder1]

Douglas, yes some SLRs are better than TLRs for macro. That wasnt the point. The point was

that fresnel screens are not ideal in all circumstances and that ground glass screens are

perfectly usable, despite their being brighter options around. I actually find the foucussing a

bit more precise with a ground glass screen on account of its finer grain, that the fresnel

screen which can break up under a loupe, especially when doing close up work with

Rolleinars.

[douglas_green1]

Bob, I agree that a bright fresnel screen like a Maxwell screen is not better than a plain groundglass in every application. They are better, however, in just about every application for which I would ever choose to use a TLR, though.

[bob_the_builder1]

Douglas, it all depends on whether you consider brighter = better. Obviously it is a

subjective thing. However, that is different from saying the original screen is unusable.

[douglas_green1]

Bob, I consider easier to focus better. And the Maxwell screen is MUCH easier to focus rapidly and accurately than the original groundglass in EVERY situation in which I have ever used a TLR.

[bob_the_builder1]

Douglas, but you stated as fact that without a brighter focusing screen, most TLRs were

relegated to the closet to collect dust. That clearly is very far from the truth.

[douglas_green1]

Not ALL TLRs, just the overwhelmingly vast majority of them were relegated to the closet. And that is a fact.

[john_philllips]

Re: original question on separation...separation usually gives some hint at the edges so shop carefully. There are plenty of R'flexes of both lens types that are nearing 55 years old that show no signs of separation and likely won't for years to come if properly taken care of and kept out of high heat situations. You are over anticipating a problem that will likely not occur if you purchase wisely. And if two years down the road KAZAAAAAM!, you have seperation, well that's why God made Focal Point.com