Xenar versus Tessar?

[Mudman]

So I took a gamble. I bought a 1945 Rolleiflex Automat Model 3 (k4b2) in ugly condition from KEH. It was only $39, so I threw it in with some filters I was purchasing. They advertised it as having the tessar taking lens. It should up today. Doesn't work like they said, but other than that it's in very decent cosmetic shape - a little wear to the paint and leather here and there, but the mirrors are in excellent shape, focusing is smooth (but the front standard does show a bit of chrome around the outside edge all the way retracted on one corner), the focusing screen is crisp. The taking lens may have fungus 🙁 I'll be dropping it off at my repairman tomorrow to get his verdict on getting it running.
My one little complaint (very minor) is that it is not a Tessar. It's a Xenar. On the positive side the taking lens is coated (viewing lens looks uncoated). I know they're both a tessar design, but is that something I should even give a hoot about? In working condition, is their a difference in price between the Tessar and Xenar? I know there was when they were sold new back in the day.
The nice thing is I have 2 weeks to have it looked at, and during that time I can return to KEH no questions asked.

 

[rover]

Please make sure you give us a good description per your repair guy, and maybe pictures (please :angel🙂 of a KEH Ugly Rolleiflex.

 

[Mudman]

If the lens didn't have fungus or whatever is in there, I'd rate this camera what you'd normally see in their Bargain condition. I've seen Rollei's in way worse shape. Paint wear is minimal, there's a little scuffing to the leather in a few places but not bad. Viewing lens looks great. Taking lens may have a few light scratches on the rear element (how does that even happen in a rollei???) and it looks like fungus. I'm hoping I'm wrong and it's just some gunk built up. I'm not seeing the spidery lines I associate with fungus. The shutter actually works at various speeds, but the cocking mechanism is faulty at the moment. Aperture control works (looks like a 7-9 blade aperture too, should make for great OOF highlights. My later MX-EVS is only 5). Someone lightly engraved their name on the front standard (very very lightly. It may even buff out if I wanted to give it a try).

All in all, it's in much better shape than I was expecting, especially cosmetically. I think even in non working order, this would probably sell for double or triple on ebay.

 

[rover]

I think I hear a collective "Hmmmmmm...." as we all casually cruise over to KEH with "maybe" thoughts in our minds.

 

[Mudman]

Well it's like this. Based off the condition of this camera, I'd go for any of the Inoperative Bargain cameras if I was in the market for a Rollei. I think it's probably a fantastic bargain if you know a good repairman. Specifically the one that just has the speeds off.

 

[Dan Daniel]

I've had a couple of Xenar Rolleis- one 'Flex and one 'Cord- and both lenses were very good. The Rolleicord version I regret selling so quickly. The tests shots had some great qualities and I should have held on to it for a bit and done more shooting to see what was going on.

I think that camera condition is the big determiner of image quality, and then there will be sample variation among the same lens designs. I had a Tessar on a Rolleiflex from the same era that was a so-so lens all in all. Go figure.

One thing I *have* noticed is more scratches on Xenar lenses than on Tessar lenses. Not sure if the coatings are that different, or if the Xenars just attracted more hack users?

 

[Joe Vitessa]

I love the Xenar on my Rolleicord III. I wouldn't worry about the Xenar vs. Tessar thing as far as image quality. If your repair guy can't remove the fungus, however, I might send it back.

 

[oftheherd]

Do I disremember? I thought the Xenar was considered superior to the 'straight' tessar. Or am I thinking of Xenon?

 

[Gumby]

You are thinking of hte Xenon.

 

[Rdtaylor_sea]

My two cents about buying from KEH...

I decided to take a risk and purchased an "UG" Rolleiflex 3.5E with a Xenotar from KEH last summer. It showed up two days later and, with respect to the leather cover, the "UG" rating was dead-on. In terms of the transport, it was obvious that it hadn't been used for a long time but it wasn't too bad. Shutters speeds were pretty much accurate and the glass, with the exception of a few small water spots on the taking lens that can only be seen with a very bright light and do not affect IQ at all, was pristine. I spent so little on the thing (less than $200) that, after using it a bit, I sent it off to Harry Fleenor for a full CLA and ordered a new set of leather from Cameraleather.com.

I now have a pristine (well, there are a couple of scratches in the paint) 3.5E that has been fully Fleenored that I spent a total of approximately $650 on. KEH rates entirely on cosmetics. With its return policy, it's worth taking a gamble on UG gear at KEH. Mine certainly paid off.

 

[peter_n]

My one little complaint (very minor) is that it is not a Tessar. It's a Xenar.

It shouldn't make any difference, as noted by Dan above condition is the main determinant. Xenar is from Schneider and Tessar from Zeiss and Rollei were very finicky about their glass so it really just depends on the condition of the copy you get.

 

[oftheherd]

You are thinking of hte Xenon.

Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking of one of my Weltas. You are right. I haven't used that in a while and got the different lenses mixed up in my mind.

 

[raid]

Mudman: I once did a similar buy of a very old Rollei. Eddy Smolov was unable to repair it. It is now a nice paperweight. I may have paid as little as you have. I was after the old lens, hoping to get another Rollei that differed from the ones with Planar lenses.

 

[Mudman]

Well I got good news from my repairman. The camera only needs a little tlc to get running and it's not fungus! Should be shooting in 2 weeks.

 

[Tessar.]

Regarding Keh ratings, I would take the gamble, I've only had one bad experience out of at least ten good with the "ugly" description, the best being a Wetzler 8 element 35 summicron for $400 with one mark in the glass behind the rear element. The rest of the lens was excellent.

I'd be a bit more careful with inop rating. I just bought a GA645i in inop EX+ condition and it has a non working flash board (unobtainable as it's a common fault) and worn out transport motor. You win some and lose some...

 

[peter_n]

Well I got good news from my repairman. The camera only needs a little tlc to get running and it's not fungus! Should be shooting in 2 weeks.

Looks like you won the gamble! 🙂

 

[Mudman]

Yep. Total investment will be about $109-120 given shipping and gas to go down and pick it up from my repair guy. Not bad. If I don't like it resale should be decent.

 

[nikon_sam]

I think I hear a collective "Hmmmmmm...." as we all casually cruise over to KEH with "maybe" thoughts in our minds.

Oh, so true...!!!😉