Suppose if you are Zeiss Ikon, and Rollei orders up a bunch of lenses for their cameras are you going to ship the best performers over to the competition, or are they going into your own cameras? I think that is why the Xenars are more consistent than the Tessars and have such a loyal following, Schneider never made a TLR I have a super Ikonta with a 2.8 Tessar and have worked on many and they have all been very good even at 5.6. I have a theory about this lens (and other Zeiss products on Rollei cameras). The last one of these I CLA'ed was so soft wide open it would make Mister Ed, look like Claudia Schiffer however it was just fine at f:8 and above. In real term these differences will not show up until 24x30 enlargements are made, and are of no practical concern this also holds true for the age old debate of whether the Zeiss lens is better or the Schneider, they will look the same until you project them on a slide screen 5 foot square, then the Planar is just slightly better at the edges.Īs for the earily models, only the A is to be avoided. I have always figured it was easier to make a small lens perfect than a large one. My test results show that the 3.5, and 2.8 planars/xenotars are of identical resolution at stops above f:4, below at 3.5, and wide open for the 2.8, the 3.5 if sharper by a few lines per MM at the edges.
Oh, and 2.8's aren't bad! They are/were considered the pinnacle of the lens design of the period.
Remember, mould between groups of lenses is possible. Otherwise a small amount of mould is usually clean-able and the lens is able to become again - optically very good. If the mould is real bad, the stains might not be able to be gotten off. That includes the shutter (slow speeds) and/or lens - especially lens!Ĭhances are you will likely need to do the right thing and CLA whichever camera you get, depending on the thorough-ness of the CLA it could cost you, up to, several times the original amount of what you spent on the camera. The biggest question you should be asking yourself is not what version of camera but where can I get the best condition camera can I get whether it be 2.8F or lowly cord. Xenars can be shockingly good stopped down to middle apertures. The 2.8s are significantly heavier than 3.5s and a Cord Va weighs less than a Nikon F - without a lens. However, if you use a tripod then anything in the above catagory (in good cond) including 'Cords or Automats. Even a good cond' 3.5 will be fine for this purpose. Are you hand-holding? If so, a 2.8 might be the way to go. Any Rolleiflex which has been treated well, with regular service and no abuse should suit you needs. This is almost a non-question because of the age of the cameras you are looking at buying. Hi, I've owned both types (several 2.8 Planars) in every formulation except the 3.5 Xenotar or a 3.5 Tessar.
0 kommentar(er)
