Godfrey
somewhat colored
Hi Godfrey -
The three-element Yashica lens was the Yashikor. I never heard that the last of the Yashica-Mats got the lesser lens. That would be something to watch for.
Regarding the Planar and Xenotar lenses compared to the Tessars, I believe Modern Photography did a comparison test of the Rolleiflex Tessar vs the new Planar and Xenotar, finding that the main difference was at wide apertures. At smaller apertures, they found the difference to be negligible. I'm guessing your experience isn't consistent with that.
- Murray
Yes, Yashikor ... and the last of the Yashicamat 124G were fitted with them. I know this for sure because I ordered one for a friend and tested it against my earlier 'Mat 124G, and it was really rather poor on performance—only sharp at about f/8-f/11, and even then poor on edges and corners. It was so disappointing that I sent it back, sold my 124G to my friend, because I'd picked up a very nice '52 Rolleiflex MX at about that time.
And the Modern Photography test on Rolleiflex Planar/Xenotar vs Tessar/Xenar matched my experience: the five (six?) element lenses gave much more even illumination across the field at the larger apertures, making f/3.5 to f/5.6 much more useful. At f/8-f/16, the Tessar/Xenar were almost the same. Of course, the Planar/Xenotar f/2.8 models gave another increment of lens performance too, at the expense of much more weight and the propensity of the front standard to need adjustment more frequently.
I switched to Hasselblad in the early '00s, sold off all my Rolleiflexes (I had three at that point), but honestly I miss the TLRs, particularly the '52 Rolleiflex MX. It is a very well balanced camera, lighter (sans meter) and handier than the later models. The Hassies, however, hit a different standard of performance, albeit they're better suited to being tripod use vs "handy walkabout" cameras.
G