madeleineostoja
Member
Before I start, I know the Tessar/Xenar vs Planar/Xenotar thing has been talked about ad nauseam, and the consensus is always that the Planar design lenses are considerably sharper in the corners until about f/11 where things even out and the Tessar is pretty much indistinguishable from the planar.
The thing is, if I wanted ultimate sharpness and a clean, perfectly corrected image I’d pick up my Fuji X-T2 and shoot digital. What nobody seems to talk about is lens character. I’ve heard the planar has more micro contrast and “3D pop”, but the Tessar renders smoother tones, especially in b&w. So, let’s get vague and subjective! Anyone who’s shot with both, which do you prefer and why? Is the extra contrast/pop of the planar easily mimicable with curves in post? Is either one better for colour film?
The thing is, if I wanted ultimate sharpness and a clean, perfectly corrected image I’d pick up my Fuji X-T2 and shoot digital. What nobody seems to talk about is lens character. I’ve heard the planar has more micro contrast and “3D pop”, but the Tessar renders smoother tones, especially in b&w. So, let’s get vague and subjective! Anyone who’s shot with both, which do you prefer and why? Is the extra contrast/pop of the planar easily mimicable with curves in post? Is either one better for colour film?
madeleineostoja
Member
Personal context: I have a Rolleicord IV with very slight lens haze, and it gives me excellent results in anything but very bright direct light. I have the potential opportunity to buy a mint Rolleiflex MX-EVS that’s just been CLAd by one of the best Rollei technicians there is, but I’m wondering if I should save up and hold out for a 3.5E/F.
I’ve tried to buy a 3.5 planar twice on a budget, both went back to the seller or got resold because of lens issues (intense scratching on one that led to crazy flaring, separation on the other that I didn’t even bother running film through). I just feel like if I get the MX-EVS I’ll always wonder “what if” about a planar version
I’ve tried to buy a 3.5 planar twice on a budget, both went back to the seller or got resold because of lens issues (intense scratching on one that led to crazy flaring, separation on the other that I didn’t even bother running film through). I just feel like if I get the MX-EVS I’ll always wonder “what if” about a planar version
bluesun267
Well-known
Well yes, it's entirely possible to talk about lens character. It is the first and last thing I consider when I think of the lenses/cameras I've liked, loved, felt indifferent about, or plain not got along with.
Having used quite a few Rolleis over the years here's a few things that come to mind:
Planar 75mm f3.5 (3.5E and F): Capable of startling sharpness but usually restrained in overall presentation. Can be delicate, refined, and a little touchy about the sky, especially with color film.
Xenotar 75 (3.5E): The Planar's somewhat more down-to-earth brother. Equally capable, but paints in broader strokes. Usually humble. Doesn't worry about the sky.
Tessar (MX-EVS): Perhaps my example suffered from a split personality. One minute it was a primadonna, the next, a workhorse that begged to be abused.
Xenar (Rolleicord II, III): Plain Jane, girl (or boy) next door type. Simply follows orders, never more and never less.
Triotar (Rolleicord I and II): I had a torrid affair with this exotic, 3-element beauty. I went native in other words. Our romance burned brightly for a time and fizzled just as quickly. I guess there was a language barrier that couldn't be overcome.
Having used quite a few Rolleis over the years here's a few things that come to mind:
Planar 75mm f3.5 (3.5E and F): Capable of startling sharpness but usually restrained in overall presentation. Can be delicate, refined, and a little touchy about the sky, especially with color film.
Xenotar 75 (3.5E): The Planar's somewhat more down-to-earth brother. Equally capable, but paints in broader strokes. Usually humble. Doesn't worry about the sky.
Tessar (MX-EVS): Perhaps my example suffered from a split personality. One minute it was a primadonna, the next, a workhorse that begged to be abused.
Xenar (Rolleicord II, III): Plain Jane, girl (or boy) next door type. Simply follows orders, never more and never less.
Triotar (Rolleicord I and II): I had a torrid affair with this exotic, 3-element beauty. I went native in other words. Our romance burned brightly for a time and fizzled just as quickly. I guess there was a language barrier that couldn't be overcome.
Bingley
Mentor
I would not hesitate to the get the Automat MX EVS. I have one, and the Tessar lens is really really sharp. And if the camera has been serviced by a good tech, you won’t regret it. I feel no need to spend money on a 3.5 planar (and I doubt I’d notice the difference in optical quality anyway). At some point, I might get another Rolleiflex, but only to get a 2.8 lens.
Bingley
Mentor
Two recent photos from my Automat MX EVS Tessar:
Frenchmans Creek by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
Morning, Pillar Point by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
Frenchmans Creek by Steve Macfarlane, on FlickrMorning, Pillar Point by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
Deardorff38
Mentor
I've owned and used both a Rolleiflex 2.8F & 3.5F and got predictably good results with them. After a long a long time of not owning a TLR i got a bargain Rolleiflex T ...& i have to say the Tessar characteristics grabbed me in a way the Planars didn't. Very smooth. One of my favourite lenses. (Overhaul & Maxwell screen by Harry Fleenor = a keeper. The print is 20"x 20")
madeleineostoja
Member
Thank you for the input!!
Bingley the colours in that second shot are beautiful, and Deardorff LOVE the tonality in that B&W print.
I think I’ve been worried about the colour rendition with the older Tessars too, but I guess other than coatings they should mostly render the same?
Bingley the colours in that second shot are beautiful, and Deardorff LOVE the tonality in that B&W print.
I think I’ve been worried about the colour rendition with the older Tessars too, but I guess other than coatings they should mostly render the same?
CMur12
Well-known
I shoot color slides and I've been very pleased with the color rendition of the Tessar in my Rolleiflex T. I've also been very pleased with the color from the Tessar-type lenses in my Minolta Autocord and Yashica Mat EM.
All of these cameras have single-coated lenses.
(Actually, I'm not sure if Minolta had started their "Achromatic" two-layer coating when my Autocord was made in 1966 (one of the very last), but I think I got similar results from earlier Autocords that I have had in the past.)
I don't think there is anything about the Tessar lens formula that makes it in any way deficient in its color rendition.
- Murray
All of these cameras have single-coated lenses.
(Actually, I'm not sure if Minolta had started their "Achromatic" two-layer coating when my Autocord was made in 1966 (one of the very last), but I think I got similar results from earlier Autocords that I have had in the past.)
I don't think there is anything about the Tessar lens formula that makes it in any way deficient in its color rendition.
- Murray
madeleineostoja
Member
That's encouraging!
As an aside I'm flabbergasted by the price of the Rolleiflex T these days, at least on eBay they're about the same as a clean 3.5E or F
As an aside I'm flabbergasted by the price of the Rolleiflex T these days, at least on eBay they're about the same as a clean 3.5E or F
Deardorff38
Mentor
Madeleineostoja. Thank you. Yes the prices are very high. I paid under $300 for mine in 2013....Clean but it was supposed to have a lens separation...& it didn't. It's travelled thousands of miles with me.
DwF
Well-known
These samples could advance or deteriorate the discussion but just getting up and rolling with a Rolleicord Vb f3.5 Xenar and I am enjoying the camera. I sold a 2.8E2 Planar w meter years back because it felt bulky to carry.
I made some beautiful prints with that camera but rarely carried it. I think this lighter camera will suffice and I like the glass. I have also shot it stopped down with beautiful results from close in to infinity.
David
I made some beautiful prints with that camera but rarely carried it. I think this lighter camera will suffice and I like the glass. I have also shot it stopped down with beautiful results from close in to infinity.
David
Deardorff38
Mentor
Rolleiflex T, Tessar (f8 @ infinity) 16"x20" print
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Frenchmans Creek by Steve Macfarlane, on FlickrMorning, Pillar Point by Steve Macfarlane, on FlickrI dunno about the first one. It seems over-sharpened to me, sharper in the picture than things look in real life. I see little dots, like in a pointillist painting. The second one, although remarkably "clear" also has a sharper than reality; but in this case, I like it. Unlike the first one, it doesn't seem to have been diddled with; it just is surprisingly sharp. Am I wrong to thing the first one was doctored a bit?