Which Rollei to keep and with what accessories? Xenotar, Tessar, Planar

[kmallick]

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I am curious if the design of the Xenotar lens changed from early to later versions of Rolleiflex 2.8F.

 

[raid]

Keep the Xenotar -- really no practical difference between it and the Planar. You'll likely get the best value from selling the Planar. That's a very nice Tessar (Automat) setup too -- consider keeping it, since you will get somewhat different results from the Tessar (still excellent).

If you must part out the various pieces, you'll get a lot of interest here (including from me). But definitely keep the hood, and if you shoot portraits at all, the Rolleinar 1 is really useful.

I also kept a very nice (late) Tessar model TLR on top of the 2.8D Planar for a different look. Of course, the 3.5F has a very nice lens that may be the "best" Rolleiflex TLR lens around.

 

[isoterica]

Are you preferential to the Xenotar because you like it or because you think you will get more money selling the others? Keep the one you enjoy using. Also, you are not obligated to supply every accessory to the point of depriving your own needs. Keep the hood for sure.. and consensus says the rolleinar for portraits. A few color filters aren't going to earn you a lot more so pick the most useful. Your buyers can always look for them on ebay. Keh just sold a large group of them.

 

[siracusa]

Keep the Xenotar -- really no practical difference between it and the Planar. You'll likely get the best value from selling the Planar. That's a very nice Tessar (Automat) setup too -- consider keeping it, since you will get somewhat different results from the Tessar (still excellent).

If you must part out the various pieces, you'll get a lot of interest here (including from me). But definitely keep the hood, and if you shoot portraits at all, the Rolleinar 1 is really useful.

+1 on holding onto the Automat as well. They don't really fetch huge sums on the used market anyway, so for what it adds in producing different results (and okay, we know it's not the sharpest lens unless stopped down but the Tessar has great charm), I'd be tempted to hang onto it if I were in the fortunate position to be deciding which ones to sell/keep. Having said that, my only Rolleiflex is an Automat, so if I'd had the benefits of using a Planar or Xenotar I might feel differently about the charms of the Tessar.

 

[PMCC]

The searches I've done to try and compare the rendering of the Planar vs the Xenotar have only shown me that using the Planar will make bicycles appear in your photos.

The infamous "bicycle bokeh" was known to plague early Planars. It was fixed by advanced coatings developed in the FSU ("disappearing Politburo member bokeh").

 

[fates]

You'll definitely get more for the Planar 2.8C as the first run of Cs was, according to the information I've seen, comprised of all Xenotars. The 2.8 Xenotar is a fantastic lens (I have one) but most people seem to want the Planar. The only real advantage I see in the Zeiss as far as the earlier ones are concerned, is that so many Xenotars have less than perfect front coatings. If you have one in good order, it's unlikely to suffer much in the future if, after all these years since manufacture, it hasn't yet. On the other hand, a difference between 2.8 Xenotars and Planars is that the Xenotar front cell is a single piece of glass. The 2.8 Planar is a cemented pair and occasionally they can separate (but not as frequently as the Sonnars fitted to the Teles, purely from on the basis of my own observations).

In a nutshell there's no real difference in performance betwen the two lens types other, I suspect, than individual sample variation. If you're a user keep the Xenotar and sell the Planar. If you're a collector, vice-versa.

Of course as Peter says, the correct answer, really, is to keep all of them and use them more, instead. But in your shoes, if I really had to let one go, I think I'd quit the Planar and keep the Xenotar and Tessar, simply because you'll get more for the Planar 2.8 if that's a major consideration. And although the Planar and Xenotar are really too close to call, the Tessar is a different design and may appeal for certain uses (portraiture for instance?).
Regards,
Brett

Great info, thanks Brett. I feel like the Xenotar's viewfinder is brighter and there is a much more 3D effect in the viewfinder as well. Maybe that's why I'm drawn to it. I think I'm resolved to unload both the Planar and the Tessar now, the poll suggests otherwise but the responses here seem to lean into my thinking...

 

[PMCC]

Polls are not all that. You're The Decider. But for knowledgeable input about Rolleis, you can't go far wrong with anything Brett says.

P.S. Not sure that there's any correlation between 3D effect in the VF and what you get on film.

 

[fates]

Are you preferential to the Xenotar because you like it or because you think you will get more money selling the others? Keep the one you enjoy using. Also, you are not obligated to supply every accessory to the point of depriving your own needs. Keep the hood for sure.. and consensus says the rolleinar for portraits. A few color filters aren't going to earn you a lot more so pick the most useful. Your buyers can always look for them on ebay. Keh just sold a large group of them.

Mostly I think it is the look of the viewfinder on the Xenotar that is pushing me in that direction. The rendering might be a little sharper on the Planar tho. The Xenotar just seems to have a more pronounced 3D effect. Yeah, part of my thinking is that by supplying nearly every accessory a new user would pay a premium to get into a new camera, or at least make my offering the most attractive on the block. I've decided to experiment with an open auction on the Tessar.

Man I hope I'm right. Otherwise it's just throwing the baby out with the bathwater... but then I don't have to spend the time squeezing every last penny out from multiple sales.

 

[fates]

P.S. Not sure that there's any correlation between 3D effect in the VF and what you get on film.

Not that I've seen on film, no. But man it is a great when you are framing.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Not that I've seen on film, no. But man it is a great when you are framing.

The strange thing about this is that both the Planar and Xenotar versions of the 2.8C use the same viewing lens, don't they?? Or are they different? The name is the same, but maybe they were sourced to match the taking lens.

(I know that Rollei matched the focal lengths of the viewing and taking lenses so that they would track together throughout the focusing range. Anyone know if Zeiss or Schneider provided matched sets, or did Rollei match lenses in-house?)

I see what looks like a Rolleigrid fesnel screen in your Planar pile. Maybe the screens and/or mirrors are different on your two cameras.

Still, I know what you mean. My 2.8C has a Maxwell screen and it makes using it a joy. It helps that the resulting images have a great optical quality, of course....

 

[Vics]

Both 2.8 lens are stand up quality, the Planar is the newer of the 2.8's I would keep that one. I have a 3.5F with a Planar lens, great camera. Also have a 3.5 Tessar, hard pressed to see the difference in photos. The 3.5 you have is much lighter to carry, and how often will you need the extra stop. If you are looking to recoup the most money now sell the 2.8's and keep the Tessar 3.5 with hood, and filters.

I'd agree with the last sentence. You can't get as much for the Tessar. Better to keep it as a shooter. However, you should remember that there's only a half-stop difference between 3.5 and 2.8, but the 2.8 is an 80mm lens, while the 3.5 is 75mm. That 5mm difference makes quite a bit of difference when shooting portraits and buildings. Think about that.

 

[fates]

Good point Vics, 5mm on 120 makes a bit of a difference for sure.

I just wanted to thank everyone again, I've decided to keep the Xenotar with a hood and a few color filters. I've had more than enough accessories to create two great kits for the other cameras. The 3.5 Tessar auction ends in a few short hours, and I will probably list the Planar Kit here on RFF after the holidays.

 

[redisburning]

I'd keep the tessar and sell the 2.8s, personally.

but my opinions on OoF and transition to OoF run counter to most people.

 

[Sanders McNew]

The Triotar.

 

[raid]

I have an old Rollei with a Triotar, but it needs repair.

 

[Richard G]

Those two pictures put the prices up already I reckon. I am not looking any longer.

 

[Rob-F]

While the Zeiss Planar enjoys a certain mystique in the public mind, those who have used both say the Xenotar, Schneider's answer to the Planar, is every bit as good. Some say it's better.

As to f/2.8 vs. F/3.5, I feel that the F/2.8 is a bit front-heavy. That's fine if you need the speed. If you don't, the f/3.5 has the better balance.

 

[peter_n]

While the Zeiss Planar enjoys a certain mystique in the public mind...

I think that's so for those on this side of the pond. Less so for those over there.

 

[KoNickon]

This poll might have been more interesting as a general matter (not necessarily as to the question raised by the original poster) if the poll had included the 3.5 Xenotar and 3.5 Planar as options. I bet a lot of people agree with me that Rolleiflexes equipped with either of those two lenses (i.e. the Bay II Rolleis) are the best overall combination of performance, price and size/weight.

 

[raid]

It is important to check out whether the mirror in the Rollei is correctly aligned. This is more important than any differences between a Xenotar and a Planar version.
I once lost several rolls to such a mirror move inside the Rollei. The VF showed everything sharp, while the image on the negative was very soft. Mark Hama repaired the TLR for me.