planar and xenotar

[floren_pge]

Hullo,

 

I've already decided I will purchase a Rollei 2.8F tlr, but I can't

decide between the Planar and Xenotar. I don't care about the lens

per se. A German lens is a German lens to me. I want to know if the

camera build changed when Rollei switched lenses (i.e. did they

change shutters, or film counter, or...). I know some people don't

like the GX build when compared to the F.

 

So does anyone know if the camera stayed the same when Rollei

switched from the Planar to the Xenotar? Is the quality the same

between models (Type 1, 2, 3, and 4)? Did Rollei switch to Pepsi when

they should have kept the Coke?

 

Imagine if Rollei used a Rodenstock lens for the 2.8F. Chaos ensues!

 

Cheerio

[donald_brewster]

Check out the following thread:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004RBc

 

Three is no difference in the build quality based on whether the lens used was a Planar or a Xenotar, and there is practically no difference between Type 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the F model. Rollei used both lenses (almost interchangeably it seems) on nearly all of its various models and types. I think the price of the Xenotar was slightly cheaper -- $10 or so. The F model is a fabulous camera. I wouldn't worry about the Planar/Xenotar debate -- these are largely collector issues. Pick the best one you can afford. Condition is everything in picking out one of these cameras. Try to visit a shop with an inventory of these fine cameras, to get a feel for them (I happen to like the balance of the 3.5's better and the look of the Xenotar over Planar -- and I'd be just as happy with a Planar). Have it sent away for a CLA, if it hasn't had one recently. Don't plan on relying on the meter -- if it even has one. Again, condition, condition, condition. All other issues are secondary IMHO. Good luck.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The Rollieflex first came out with the Xenotar; then the Planar lenses was used as a second source. The Xenotar was the first lens designed by a computer for the Rollei; it still took several years. The Xenotar 80mm F2.8 for the Rollie was introduced in 1953; in the C model; later the Zeiss Planar model was introduced. The introduction is documented in Popular Photography; in a 1953 issue I have at home. The first decent F2.8 lens was the Xenotar; it replaced the earlier weaker designs of the Zeiss Jena Biometar ; and Zeiss Tessar in F2.8 versions; in the "B" model Rolleiflex; "A" respectively.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Both the Schneider and Zeiss lenses were used for many decades in the Rollei models of TLRs.

[dale_dickerson2]

The 2.8C Xenotar is a great lens. The large number of blades plus an outstanding design gives a lovely bokeh. Very fine tlr lens and I recommend it.

[greg bates]

I have both the Zeiss and Schneider version TLRs. There are no differences in build quality, however, as mentioned above, I have noticed the nice Bokeh of the Schneider. The 2.8s are nice, but I have really enjoyed my 3.5 Xenotar E2. It is a little lighter and doesn't seem to have as bad curvature of field.

[todd frederick]

I was much happier with the Xenotar...no special reason: just seemed sharper and less prone to flair.

 

I once had an awesome Rollei D with a 2.8 Planar and it was a "flare factory" even with a fine lens hood. That was never a problem with the Xenotar.

 

My opinion based on experience.

[douglas_green1]

The short answer is that the Zeiss Planar lenses are worth slightly more in the used market, due to name-brand recognition, but they aren't any better than the Schneider Xenotar lenses. When buying an older Rollei like this, far and away the most important thing is the condition of the specific examples you are considering, rather than the model # or the lens variant, although there is a clear pecking order of lenses in the Rolleiflex Heirarchy:

 

1) F2.8 Zeiss Planar: most valuable and most sought after overall

 

1a) F2.8 Schneider Xenotar: As good as the Zeiss, but sells cheaper

 

1b) F3.5 Zeiss Planar: Sharpest of all, but cheaper due to speed

 

1c) F3.5 Schneider Xenotar: Same comparison vs. Zeiss as the f2.8s

 

 

a quality gap, most noteable at fast apertures and then

 

5) f3.5 Schneider Xenar - still darn fine at f8 and f11

 

another quality gap, IMHO, a BIG ONE, and then

 

6) f3.5 Zeiss Tessar: probably BY FAR the most variable in quality

 

IMHO, the Zeiss Tessars were all over the map. In fact, I feel that the Rokkor and Yashinon Tessar-copies are somewhat superior to the Tessars, except for the rare best examples of the Tessars.

[terrestrikon]

I'm not an expert but I believe that certain experts hold the following in terms of comparative Rollei lens sharpness:

 

1) 3.5 Xenotar

2) 3.5 Planar

3) 2.8 Xenotar

4) 2.8 Planar

 

I've got a 3.5F Xenotar and consider it a superb lens, better in many ways, for example, than a Zeiss 2.8/80 CFE.

 

What I would like to know is how these older lenses compare to the current Schneider Xenotar for Rollei SLRs?

[douglas_green1]

George, I wouldn't disagree with your ranking at all - My ranking was based on desireability as manifested by Market Value. Although, I'd say that the general consensus is that the Planar and Xenotar lenses are equal in sharpness, with the f3.5 models edging the f2.8 versions. If anything, the Xenotars are might be generally perceived to have better control of flare and possibly superior bokeh, but sharpness is a wash.

[nick roberts]

I've got 3.5F Xenotar and Planar, and 2.8E and F Xenotars, and a 'Cord V with a Xenar, and a T with a Tessar, and would agree totally with George's ranking. The 3.5F Xenotar is my favourite camera (and that's saying something given how many cameras I've got!).

BUT there are differences that make each version worth investigating. For example, the Xenotar is a touch warmer, and a touch lower in contrast - which works brilliantly with Velvia, IMO. On the other hand, that slight extra contrast of the Planar works well with B&W, and gives a very German look to the negs. The Tessar is a lovely portrait lens wide open precisely because of the softer image, and the Xenar can bring similar qualities to colour work.

But the differences for the F are subtle between Xenotar and Planar: the differences between 3.5 and 2.8 are greater, although still not massive.

[pensacolaphoto]

I agree with you that for all practical purposes, the Xenar lens and the Planar lens results in virtually identical results. It may be advantageous to shop for a clean TLR with the Xenar lens to get a break in the price.