Xenotar or Planar?

[kelly_flanigan1]

"eagle eye lens" almost a <b>century</b> ago

[jim_mcbride]

I've really enjoyed this thread. I've been photographing for over 50 years and (lucky for

me) I've never been without a Rolleiflex. My first one was equipped with a f2.8 Xenotar and

I traded it for a MF SLR. What a mistake! I've never owned a Rollei with a lens as sharp as

that original Xenotar. In later years, I've owned other 'flexes with Planars and Tessars. The

Planars have always disappointed me. Surprisingly, I have one old Automat with an

exceptionally sharp (but not too contrasty) f3.5 Tessar. As long as I stop down to about f8

I get excellent pictures with that Tessar. One can always put a little more zip into the

contrast in the darkroom, but a soft picture will always be a soft picture.

[donald_brewster]

Pick the one in the best condition and don't look back. I prefer the Xenotar (partly because usually cheaper), and I prefer the 3.5 to the 2.8 (better balance). But it all comes down to condition when you are dealing with 50 year old cameras.

[Rob F.]

Donald: Interesting and helpful comment. Can you explain what you meant by better balance? Are you talking about optical properties? Or the physical balance of the camera?

[mark_erickson]

Physical balance. I have a 3.5E and a 2.8E. Both cameras take exceptionally sharp pictures, but the 2.8E is significantly more front-heavy in my hands. I prefer to carry the 3.5E.

[charles_watson1]

A very late answer, but I would say that if you want a 2.8 lens that is closest to the Xenar, get a 2.8 Tessar.