Equvelent of Rollei Planar TLR lens

[d_land]

<p>Hello,<br>

I am searching high and low for a lens that will give me a similar or same qualities at the Rollei TLR. I have been using the 2.8 Planar F camera but am willing to diversify to Xenotar I guess.<br>

I am looking for this lens in another housing - ie. Bayonet or screw fit to work with other cameras, I am willing to use adapters ect, so the question is not really about what will fit with what, but about finding the right glass in the first place, and I think the glass I am looking for is possibly from the 1960s. What do you think?<br>

Does anybody have any ideas - directions I have been going down are -<br /> <br /> Chrome Hasselblad 2.8/80<br /> Hasselblad CF 2.8/80<br /> Pentacon 6 lenses<br /> Modern ZF lens (I know 35mm image circle so should be this forum, but still)<br>

If anyone is looking into similar stuff please reply, I am very interested as I am sure there must be others on similar quests.<br>

many thanks<br>

D</p>

<p> </p>

[d_purdy]

<p>It is a little difficult for me to completely understand your need or what sort of camera/format you are hoping to use. But my own personal opinion of the image quality of lenses is that European lenses have a different feel than Japanese lenses or American lenses. It is pretty subjective I guess and relative to what you shoot and what film you use and how you process it but to me in my system I find that Japanese lenses give image quality that looks somehow more technically correct or modern and Schneider or Zeiss or Leitz lenses have a different sort of atmospheric feel to them. I prefer to use the European lenses.<br>

I use both Xenotar and Planar TLR Rolleis though my Planar is HFT coated on a 2.8FX. The Xenotar is a late 2.8F. The difference in image quality is so slight that I am never sure if there is a difference. I have done a lot of side by side comparative tests for tonality and sharpness and they pretty much match except for user fault. So I think you could put the Schneider lenses into your search.<br>

I think there are several camera systems that use Schneider lenses and you can find Xenotars in large or medium format.<br>

I hope that is of some help.<br>

Dennis</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>80mm lenses for medium format SLRs (Hasselblad, et. al.) are invariably retrofocus design. The same nominal lens for a TLR are simpler, and possibly have better resolution and contrast. A Xenotar for a Rollei TLR is the Schneider equivalent of the Zeiss Planar.</p>

<p>The Xenotar design was used for large format lenses in the late 50's and 60's, but seems to have disappeared. There was a time when large aperture 4x5 cameras, notably Linhof, were offered as a last-ditch effort to stay in the news business. The Planar is a variation of a Gaussian Doublet design, which is still in common use for LF lenses between 90 and 200 mm or so, with moderate image circle requirements.</p>

[d_land]

<p>Thanks Dennis, thats exactly the kind of information I am looking for.<br>

I need to look more at the European lenses. I am starting with the Hasselblad 80 Planar CF 2.8 because it is easy to find, but when I have used them before I have found them not quite the same as the Rollei, I read somewhere that they have a different no. of lens elements. I find them slightly harsher and not sharp in the same way that the Rollie lens is.<br>

On the subject of film I have enjoyed using a variety of color and black and white neg, I like velvia but and happy using others. I am hopping to start using the new lens digital, in some way or another - with a digital back or an adapter onto a 35mm dslr (just using the center of the lens), or even for movies, which I do as well.<br>

I realiese the question is fluffy, but then so is the subject in some sences is as you say very subjective. At the end of the day there seems to be a few of us that are very happy using the Rollie TLR, mainly becuase the images we can make with them have look that we enjoy working with. So I am trying to go digital and achieve a similar look.<br>

The modern 35mm Zeiss lenses dont seem to be the right look either. Perhapse what I am looking for is impossible, but I would like to try putting the same design lens as the TLR Planar lens on to digital and see what was possible.<br>

I will look for some Schneider lenses.<br>

thanks again<br>

Dani</p>

<p> </p>

[d_land]

<p>Thanks Edward,<br>

That great - I have to look for a large format lens, hopfully at least moderatly fast that uses the Gaussian Doublet design. There is this one on Ebay- http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=180347457059<br>

<br /> Do you think it is a similar simple design to the Rollei TLR?<br>

thanks again<br /> Dani</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>Dani, you don't mention specifically what camera (dslr?) you're trying to adapt the lenses for but a lot of photographers, who also love Zeiss, are adapting the old Contax lenses to their dslrs with excellent results.</p>

 

[ulrik]

<p>The very early 2,8/80mm Planar for Hasselblad 500C made from 1956 to 1961 is a 6-element design in comparison to all later 7-element versions. Maybe this is what you are looking for.<br>

Ulrik</p>

[d_land]

<p>I am really interested here in learning a more about the lens I prefer to use, and if there is anything around very similar, off the body of the of the TLR.<br>

I will will have a look into the contax fit lenses that you suggest.<br>

To answer your question properly - at the moment it is the D90, because it does 24fps movies, which I am also interested in, last week it was a D200, I didnt want to say earlier because I am very flexible at this point, I am willing to build a system around a lens.<br>

In the long term I am thinking sensors will become bigger - I saw an unbelievably low priced phase one back P30 on on gumtree the other day, but I am not sure, probably some kind of hoax. And then along with every one else I am interested in the new red cameras, the 645 one is too expensive for me but maybe occasional hire. If it means going back to using medium or large format for the time being I don't mind too much.<br>

The information that you have given me already has got me a long way and was much more than I could find through my internet searches. I had an idea that the design is simple and effective one from a particular era, and in my case uncoated - but that does not make a huge difference. But I was not sure how it related to the other Planar designs, and this has helped.<br>

Any other thought gratfullty recieved.</p>

 

[d_land]

<p>It sounds like its a five elemnt lens - http://www.photo.net/equipment/rollei/tlr</p>

[tom_cheshire]

<p>The Xenotar and Planar are similar but diffent designs. Maybe you can buy an 80mm f2.8 Planar in a shutter like they used to make in the '60s for the mini press camera and have what you want with that. </p>

<p>I suggest, if you want that "look", that you consider Rodenstock lenses. </p>

[d_land]

<p>Great, thanks.<br>

I have just been to meet with an optics person who suggests I find out what the perspcription is for the lens, there might be a possibility of making one. But the housing could be problematic.</p>

[richard_oleson]

<p>If I recall correctly, I think the 2.8 Planar in the Rollei and that in the Hasselblad are two different formulas. I was under the impression that the Rollei Planar and Xenotar were essentially the same formula, which in turn was based on the Zeiss Biometar (which turned up in the Rollei 2.8B and the Pentacon Six).... all 5-element lenses.</p>

[jeff_drew4]

<p>Have you visited the Zeiss site and posed this question to their support department? It is possible they may have some suggestions and could furnish some design information.</p>

[geoffrey goldberg]

<p>A different approach: if its the Rollie TLR you like, try the Rollei family in their later cameras: look at the 6003/8 series, with both Zeiss and Schneider lenses - my favorite is the 60 mm Schneider, which has a wonderful look, similar to the TLR (to my eye). <br>

The digital side (yes, I know this is out there, but so is the post) is the dp20 back on Rollei cameras. This may be closer to the original idea of TLR lens quality digitally than trying to find a TLR type design lense for a Nikon. <br>

The other place to look is the Leica M8 - which has remarkable "film-like" qualities. The lenses are easily changed - it can use the Voigtlander lenses which are cheap, and a pretty close match to older Leica properties. Some of the newer Leica lenses are a bit too crisp. <br>

You are ignoring the sensor in your equation, and that's why I'd look at both the Leica and the Rollei digital answers. Even a Hassy 500 with an Imacon back. The first two were clearly developed with an aesthetic on how the final image would look and feel, which is consistent with the goal you may be looking for.<br>

Of course, fitting a Zeiss lens (Contax 645, anyone?) on a dslr, or a back on a Contax body with Zeiss lenses (!) may get you there as well. Look at the package as a whole. </p>

[robert_marvin]

<p>My favorite, and most-used camera is a Rolleiflex 2.8E (Xenotar). The P-6 mount 80 mm Biometar that I use on my Arax 60 is quite similar in performance and IMO every bit as good.</p>

[tom_cheshire]

<p>Pardon me for having a lapse of memory but, today, I remembered the perfect camera for you. It is the Graflex XL. It came with the f2.8 Planar and various other lenses. It uses interchangeable film backs for any format from 6x6 to 6x9. It is a very professionally built camera. The lens should match what you want because it was made in that time zone. I had one. Sold it. Somehow forgot about it until today. Now am wondering if I was crazy or something selling that camera. </p>

[dougmiles]

<p>The Rollei's 80mm f/2.8 planar was made available in Leica thread mount a few years ago, paired with a Cosina-made Rollei branded body. But this mount cannot be adapted to a dSLR and focus to infinity. You might also look at Zeiss's recent series of SLR lenses in mounts for Nikon, Pentax, Sony, and perhaps soon Canon too.</p>

[d_land]

<p>Wow, It loks like it you people have got closer and closer and then found the awnsers. <br>

Tom - is this the Graflex XL lens? - http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=180347457059<br>

I know it is 100mm version, but could it be quite similar, or is the 100mm for a wider image circle just a completely different design? Which lens where you using your graflex.</p>

[d_land]

<p>Doug - is this the the cosina camera the 35RF ? with the 50mm Planar ?</p>

[d_land]

<p>I think it might be worth while summarising what people kindly have come up with in a list - <br /> Ziess Biometar (rollei 2.8 B and Pentacon 6 mounts)<br /> Graflex XL mount Planar<br /> Large format lenses - 90mm-200mm from the 50s and 60s<br /> Haaselblad 2,8/80mm Planar for Hasselblad 500C made from 1956 to 1961<br /> Rodenstock Lenses<br /> 60 mm Schneider from the Rollei 6003/8 series<br>

Contax 645 Zeiss lenses<br>

Curently produced lenses - Zeiss ZF series - Which I have looked at and, although amazing, dont quite hit the spot I am looking for.<br>

I have tried to put the lenses roughly in order based on what everyone has written, with the closest one at the top. I might have made some mistakes, but it gives me a good start to work from. </p>

<p> </p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>In Rollei TLR's there has already been over 1/2 century's worth of discussion of Xenotars versus Planars. It is like Ford versus Chevy; Canon verus Nikon.<br>

The TLR Xenotar came out in the Rollie TLR about 1953; it was one of the first designs computed with a computer in Switzerland; ie an electronic computer; when a computer was also math calc persons job title. The Xenotar 80mm F2.8 was in the 2.8C model; see Pop Photo page 24 of May 1953. The Planar 80mm F2.8 for the Rollei TLR came out later; ie the "second source" lens. Dr Rudolph at Carl Zeiss designed the Planar in 1896; it is an ancient design; and an ancient Zeiss trademark. The Tessar had more contrast than a Planar ; this issue "went away" around WW2 when lens coatings came out. That is why the Planar type lens design was NOT used much before lenses were coated; say pre WW2; too many uncoated air to glass interfaces for an uncoated lens.</p>

<p>Finding an "equalivalent" LOOK of a lens is filed with emotions; a coated World war 2 Medalist 100mm F3.5 Ektar has a great look; its the lens that soem folks Jerry-Rigged to the early focal plane shuttered Hassleblads too; then Kodak made Ektars for the 1000F and 1600F Blad.<br>

In 75mm F3.5 Rollei TLR Planars; I believe there were two variants in design. Today many TLR's are not aligned; Goober Hackers mix up the matched sets of viewing and taking lenses; often a TLR is created to llok good for an Ebay sale and focuses great at infinity; but has a focus error close up. All this adds more variablity to talking about Xenotar versus Planar.<br>

Planar is a 105 year old trade name of Zeiss; it has been used with many different focal lengths; many different actual designs; from Large Format; TLR's; 35mm cameras; 6x6 slrs etc</p>

[tom_cheshire]

<p>My camera had the 80mm Planar like the Rollei. Here is a link to an XL site that tells more including the lenses. </p>

<p><a href="http://graflex.org/articles/XL.html">http://graflex.org/articles/XL.html</a> </p>

[dougmiles]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5100423">>d land</a> , Apr 23, 2009; 04:56 a.m.<br>

>Doug - is this the the cosina camera the 35RF ? with the 50mm Planar ?</p>

<p>Hi-- Actually it came with a version of the 40mm f/2.8 Sonnar from the Rollei pocket camera, and the TLR-sourced 80mm Planar was offered as a longer lens. The camera was named 35RF or something similar and was basically a Voigtlander Bessa R2 with different framelines, different finish, under the Rollei name.</p>