Are These Photos Normal For a Rolleilflex T?

[Steve M.]

I got my negs developed from a Rolleiflex T and am mystified by the images. It has the reformulated Tessar, but these shots look like no Tessar lens I ever saw. Is the T version really that different? I have a much older T and the photos from it, while nice, didn't look like these. These look like they came from a Xenotar or something.

A couple of caveats are in order. I used a yellow filter w/ the Tri-X and that resulted in obviously too contrasty shots w/ this lens. Next roll will be w/o the filter. Second, the camera had some light leaks and one of the photos shows a bit of that. Turns out the little chrome feet were loose on the bottom of the camera.

Does anyone else think these look odd for a Tessar lens? These scans are from an aging Epson 2450 flatbed w/ almost no sharpening applied.

 

[keeds]

I think if you use it wide open you will notice some difference, but stopped down you will struggle to notice one. Thats why the Rolleicord Vb is such a great camera, very nearly as good a lens as on the Rolleiflex's but much lighter...

 

[ray*j*gun]

Using a yellow filter in bright sun will produce a very snappy image.....I avoid filters in such bright scenes unless I want the images to look like police photos.

I think the Lotus shot is quit good.

 

[ZeissFan]

Post-war Rolleiflexes came with either the Zeiss Tessar or the Schneider Xenar, which is the same lens as the Rolleicord. As keeds said, shooting wide open will result in a visually different photo.

I noticed you got some flare in the last photo. Looks like a reflection from the rear surface of the filter, perhaps.

 

[chubasco]

Stunning results, Steve!

 

[Mablo]

Great sharp photos. Exactly from like my 'Cord with a Xenar lens. Xenar is sharp like Tessar but a bit more contrasty perhaps.

 

[payasam]

"Does anyone else think these look odd for a Tessar lens?"

Fine pictures. Let's not forget that the Tessar made much of the history of photography.

 

[marduk]

I am amazed by how sharp my Roleifllex T is. I also have a 3.5E Planar and I would be pressed to tell the difference stopped down.

 

[Steve M.]

Thanks for the feedback guys. I guess it's normal for a Rolleiflex T Tessar. These shots look nothing like the shots from the older Tessars I had on the Zeiss 531, nor do they look like the shots from a coated Super Ikonta IV I recently sold. They also don't look anything like the shots I made from an MX EVS Rolleiflex. Apparently the reformulation they did on the T Tessars results in a heck of a sharp lens w/ a lot of contrast. I was wondering if this camera was a fluke.
I know the Tessar is a fabled lens, in it's own right, but these just look like odd shots to have come from a Tessar. All the ones I've owned had plenty of edge sharpness, but didn't have the Hi Def look of these, for lack of a better term, even w/ yellow filters. I could post photos I made the same day w/ my 533/16's Tessar lens w/ a yellow filter and you would never see the Tessar resemblance between it and the T lens.

I think that is filter flare Zeissfan. I've gotten this even using Leica filters, so it's hard to always avoid in this bright New Mexico sun.

You'd be surprised at how light the T is keeds. It's well over a 1/2 pound less than the 3.5F.

 

[andredossantos]

Great sharp photos. Exactly from like my 'Cord with a Xenar lens. Xenar is sharp like Tessar but a bit more contrasty perhaps.

Yup, I concur! I've been told time and time again that the Xenars and Tessars are exactly the same design. I have a MX-EVS with a Xenar and a 2.8E and while the Planar is sharper you really have to be inspecting closely when both are stopped down. The Xenar is a heck of a lens: razor sharp and just the perfect amount of contrast.